…and this is a 
No respect for Christianity…so stop demanding it
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: March 14, 2006 6:47 PM, by PZ Myers
Atrios was getting some heat (most of it misplaced) for saying he was sick of the Christian whiners on the Left who make up stories of their martyrdom in the Democratic party—the same nonsense I was snarling about. While Atrios can say he's not hostile to religion—he's just apathetic—I can't, and reading some of the other reactions to the whole business just confirms my contempt.
I like Avedon Carol, but she just doesn't get it. Explaining that the Right has successfully portrayed the Left as "godless" and then talking about how wrong they are because the Left is full of good religious people and that there are atheists on the Right too is simply perpetuating the idea the Right wants spread—that atheists are bad, a taint on the culture, and that a good way to demean a movement is to mention that its got atheists in it. Thanks, but no thanks. Can we instead just try to get across the message that freethinkers are good people we aren't ashamed of for a change?
At least Carol isn't quite as exasperating as this guy:
We're not politicians here, but that's exactly what groups largely led by the religious community do: the Interfaith Alliance, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, etc etc Come on, guys. No one is trying to convert you--we're just asking for the most basic respect. We need to keep this coalition intact...Together, we stand for much: for religious freedom as well as freedom from religion, for our own passionate beliefs but also for tolerance and respect for the beliefs and rights of others.
Yes, yes…we know. Some Christians do good things. So do some atheists. We give people the respect they deserve for the actions they do…so why also demand respect for the absurd granfalloon called Christianity? When this fellow "Faithful Progressive" works for the separation of church and state, or for civil liberties, or to help the poor, I'll give him the thumbs up; but when he pulls this smug act of declaring his piety and expecting respect for his delusions, sorry, pal, but no way. Christianity is a crock.
This raises the larger problem I have with many liberal blogs--many of which seem to forget that politics is about building coalitions, building a team and not just cleverly dissing those who irritate you. No matter how tiresome Atrios may find Steve Waldman or Digby Amy Sullivan (or the Booman Tribune yours truly); no matter how tiresome I might find Duncan's poorly considered sophomoric theology--we are all on the same team, dammmit! Why don't these bloggers who should know better get that?
I like that: "sophomoric theology". Theology is sophomoric, attempts to rationalize the absurd with reality, the glorification of foolish beliefs that will be dignified by pretending they are serious. Nice team-building, too; it's the usual cluelessness of the majority that doesn't realize that their assumptions hold no validity and that they are relying on the mutual gladhanding of their fellows to hold up their illusions.
So, no, the final word is that I will never give his religion a bit of respect. I will tolerate it. I will respect his right to practice his religion. But I will not hesitate to express my scorn every time one of my "allies" in this "coalition" thinks the way to better the country is to promote more belief in false fantasies.
Ophelia links to an excellent summary of the materialist/naturalist/scientist position. That's where I stand, and that is my objective—respect that, Christians.
Comments
Nice post. I was trying to get someone to tell me today why it isn't sufficient that one's good deeds are acknowledged, that their motivation as a Christian has to be acknowledged, too. If we're in agreement politically, why can't the liberal Christians just go with that? Why is it so damn important that we make a big deal of their Christianity?
If the liberal Christians get their feelings hurt over just this point, and think it's as important as everything else that is going on, then I'm going to question their entire point of view. Damn, people, can we just concentrate on politics and quit with all the damn religion already?
Our civil society was painstakingly put together by people who were refugees from centuries of bloodshed over religion. the country was put together this way on purpose. I really rather resent the liberal Christians now taking the same position as the religious right and trying to insert religion into politics, especiall liberal politics.
Posted by: Tena | March 14, 2006 7:09 PM
I hope people realise before responding (if they are theistically inclined) that they should think of the following exchange as being respectful:
Right winger: The demoncrats are a bunch of evil Godless monsters who want to destroy America.
Lefty: Nuh-uh. We've got a large number of Christians in our party too.
Right winger: Nuh-uh.
Lefty: WE DO
Right winger: Nuh-uh
Lefty: WE DO
Right winger: Nuh-uh, you're just a bunch of Atheists.
Lefty: You have atheists too!
Right winger: Nuh-uh
Argument continues until the eventual lack of oxygen to the brain kills one or both individuals.
The concept that you can 'demean' a party by pointing out it has a wider degree of religious beliefs is somewhat stupid. If people want their religion to be respected it would at least be decent to reciprocate that respect.
But whatever.
Posted by: Joseph O'Donnell | March 14, 2006 7:15 PM
I should add to that last statement:
"The concept that you can 'demean' a party by pointing out it has a wider degree of religious beliefs or non-belief is somewhat stupid. If people want their religion to be respected it would at least be decent to reciprocate that respect to others who think differently."
Posted by: Joseph O'Donnell | March 14, 2006 7:25 PM
Let's worry less about respecting people who think differently and more about withholding respect for people who believe stupid things, eh?
Posted by: Caledonian | March 14, 2006 7:49 PM
GREAT post PZ. Very well said.
Posted by: Troutnut | March 14, 2006 7:50 PM
The fundamental disconnect is their failure to differentiate between respecting another person's right to religious belief and respecting the belief itself. No amount of pleading by the Christians is going convince me that Christianity has any merit whatsoever. I am not going to lie just to make them feel better.
Posted by: Todd | March 14, 2006 8:05 PM
Allow me as somewhat down-to-earth Buddhist to throw a bit of water on both your houses...
Look, to me your post is spot on, as is the first comment.
But one thing: a lot of the folks on the right really aren't on the right on everything.
There's evangelicals who voted for Bush, who, with a change of frame would vote against these theocrats. I say do what's necessary to court their votes, as long as it's not bashing anyone, Christian or non.
OTOH, I reserve the right for you and I to ridicule anyone's religion or lack thereof, mine and yours included.
BTW, Liked your Kinkade pick-up.
Posted by: Mumon | March 14, 2006 8:06 PM
I'm with PZ on this stuff. I'm way past sick and fed up with religions. Because they have long demanded that atheists should ask themselves the opposite, I think it is high time for religious people to be fair and ask themselves over and over again, what if we are wrong and there is no God. When they can come up with the answer that they should live caring reasoning and fair lives and abide by representative law, they may just start to get it. As for me, religious freedom is no freedom at all, freedom from all religion, now that's liberty!
Posted by: Aero | March 14, 2006 8:07 PM
Hauptman: If you live by this principle of science, I believe you will end up believing as I and most of the other members of the National Academy of Sciences believe: that there is no God.
Liberal Christians need to start asking themselves, do they believe in the scientific method or do they believe in God. You really can't have it both ways.
Posted by: Bruce | March 14, 2006 8:23 PM
I'd be really happy if the people who called themselves Christians acted as if they believed it. Instead we get vitriol from them and, so very frequently, outright lies (as, for instance, in the Kitzmiller case, where the devout believers were willing to perjure themselves over and over again for the greater glory of God). They want the ten commandments posted in the public square, they just don't want to obey them.
There is a now-unfashionable usage of referring to a kindly man as a "christian gentleman", in recognition of what a Christian should be. When you look today at Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Alan Keyes, Phyllis Schlafly, and their ilk, only one Bible quote suffices: Jesus wept (John 11:35 ). (Actually, though, he's dead. Very sad. Get over it, folks.)
Posted by: Zeno | March 14, 2006 8:32 PM
I think a lot of people on the religious left are surprisingly close to a good strategy, but their religious blinkers lead them astray. The secret is to focus on morality, rather than belief. It is very easy to argue that things like healthcare, a working wage, and responsible custodianship of the environment are the right thing to do, They are moral imperatives for society. In fact, they are so right that the same arguments should work when falling on religious ears (it's God's commandment to love our fellow man) or secular ones (it's the right thing to do to love our fellow man). If people in their confusion think that your argument sounds very similar to statements from the cosmic bearded dude who made some Israelite-Egyptians write on rocks, so be it.
BTW, this is one of Barack Obama's strengths as a speaker, as evidenced by his 2004 convention speech, in that he makes a persuasive and general moral case with very little reference to specific religious points that will divide his audience.
Posted by: jfaberuiuc | March 14, 2006 8:33 PM
Spot on, PZ. I'm tired of the cheap tactics being used on both sides to infer a sort of moral superiority. Fact is, claiming to be a Christian is obviously no talisman against being a liar, thief, murderer or tyrant. I don't care about your self-professed religion. I care about what you DO, and how you carry yourself in your daily life. All I ask is the same sense of respect in turn.
Posted by: mafisto | March 14, 2006 8:53 PM
I will cut the religious left a break when they start putting their money and prestige where their mouth is and start denouncing the immorality of the right wing from the pulpit and on the street corners, when they start taking their tithes away from bishops palaces and cathedrals and start funding missions to bring the Baptists back to Jesus. Until that happens, they have no right to question anybody's influence in the Democratic party.
Posted by: justawriter | March 14, 2006 9:20 PM
Peezy, you don't know what you're up against. I have no love for religion in general or Christianity in particular. But I think the percentage of us who can live in a no guarantees, "shit happens" universe is a minority. Religion is what gets most people through the night and you will fail in any attempt to persuade most people away from it.
Posted by: The Bloody Sergeant | March 14, 2006 9:24 PM
PZ said "the final word is that I will never give his religion a bit of respect. I will tolerate it. I will respect his right to practice his religion. But I will not hesitate to express my scorn every time one of my "allies" in this "coalition" thinks the way to better the country is to promote more belief in false fantasies."
I find this very reasonable. The aspects of religion that are positive and could be respected also exist independantly outside of the religous process. An example is working at a community food shelf or tutoring reading at an elementary school--religion could be a motivator but isn't necessary and having some religous beliefs isn't, as we all know, a guarantee of anything.
Also, reading the blogs, I have never seen a person of religion say "thanks for the respect", most all of the communication is a litany of the ways that individual's beliefs aren't properly appreciated by various people and groups. Some of this may be crankiness although I think the only respect that could be fully accepted is to join them in whatever belief system they have, any sort of mutual respect isn't going to be totally satisfactory.
PZ's approach is honest and may even work better that the current sniping.
Volvox
Volox
Posted by: Volvox | March 14, 2006 9:30 PM
Far as I can tell, it all depends on where your priorities lie. If you want to get the Democratic party elected, undoubtedly the best approach is to ensure to the best of your ability that it's a place where even fundamentalist Christians can feel at home, and not be mocked by their holier-than-thou friends for being tainted with atheism.
If, however, your priority is to promote a freethinking, reality-based culture, just keep on producing absolutely superb rants like this one :)
Posted by: Corkscrew | March 14, 2006 9:43 PM
"Far as I can tell, it all depends on where your priorities lie. If you want to get the Democratic party elected, undoubtedly the best approach is to ensure to the best of your ability that it's a place where even fundamentalist Christians can feel at home, and not be mocked by their holier-than-thou friends for being tainted with atheism."
If the Democratic party ever becomes a place where fundamentalist Christians can feel at home, we're all screwed. You're talking nonsense. There's no reason for the Democrats to move yet further right than the insane levels it has already reached. There's no point having two parties at all if they're going to be ideologically identical, and that would be the outcome of a fundie-friendly Democrats.
Posted by: Samnell | March 14, 2006 10:21 PM
If the Democratic party ever becomes a place where fundamentalist Christians can feel at home, we're all screwed.
Only because you have a personal agenda that extends beyond getting your party into power. I do too. It's a healthy way to live. However, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, it's important to realise that some people really don't have much of an agenda beyond getting their chosen party into power.
I present the hardcore supporters of Tony Blair as exhibit A.
Posted by: Corkscrew | March 14, 2006 10:34 PM
Amazing how someone who has so much education, and claims to know so much, in fact knows so little.
And like much of the rest of the blogosphere, has his little echo chamber to back him up.
Posted by: demoman | March 14, 2006 10:34 PM
PZ sez:
This is a great illustration of how to alienate the religious or even vaguely spiritual people. If you don't respect someone's core beliefs, you obviously don't respect the person in a fundamental way. Do y'all think that by denigrating those who agree with you on policy issues you will make them see the light (or lack of it?)
Look, I agree that we nonbelievers are not respected in this society and a positive, strong assertion of rationalist thinking could do some good. But just as we want to be respected by the religious, so should we show some reciprocal humility and consideration. This golden rule seems like good humanism and good politics...
Posted by: dkon | March 14, 2006 10:35 PM
dkon writes: Do y'all think that by denigrating those who agree with you on policy issues you will make them see the light (or lack of it?)
Are you suggesting that this denigration might be, oh, what's a good word,irrational? Hmm.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | March 14, 2006 10:45 PM
What dkon just said.
"This is a great illustration of how to alienate the religious or even vaguely spiritual people. If you don't respect someone's core beliefs, you obviously don't respect the person in a fundamental way."
Love the idealism. What an amazingly impractical approach to coalition-building.
There's a big difference between "loud and proud" and this religion-bashing. People do not practice their religions, they ARE they religions. You cannot criticize one and claim you aren't criticizing the other. That's exactly the same kind of BS hair-splitting that the fundies practice -- "love the sinner, hate the sin."
Posted by: KenL | March 14, 2006 10:49 PM
dkon, it is not that I give my blood, sweat, toil and tears to help elect christians to office, but I must give them my heart and soul and rub their belly when they are good?
Posted by: justawriter | March 14, 2006 10:56 PM
corkscrew writes: If, however, your priority is to promote a freethinking, reality-based culture, just keep on producing absolutely superb rants like this one :)
I don't see the connection. Are there actual examples of people becoming more freethinking and reality-based after being subjected to such a rant? Let's be empirical about our claims here.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | March 14, 2006 10:59 PM
So people ARE lies, hateful old myths, dogma, and fear?
OK, if you say so...but that makes it even more imperative to oppose religion.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 14, 2006 11:08 PM
I don't even think my opinion on religion is that different from PZ's (I have no use for it), but it gets to me when in the midst of a logical defense of rationalism and science he will sometime just indiscriminantly poke people in the eye. I see no logical argument for dissing private faith, and it's certainly not going to bring any political benefits for the cause.
Posted by: dkon | March 14, 2006 11:44 PM
dkon said:
Maybe you should ask professor Paul Mirecki about "respect".
The people who have hijacked (or should I say parasitised) religion in this
country want *obediance*, not respect, and the rhetorical advantage of
attacking their political opponents and not being criticized in return.
Posted by: Dark Matter | March 14, 2006 11:45 PM
Demoman:
"Amazing how someone who has so much education, and claims to know so much, in fact knows so little."
Amazing how someone who makes such sweeping claims, and in such a smug, patronizing manner, in fact provides so conspicuous a vacuum of evidence or examples to support them.
Demoman:
"And like much of the rest of the blogosphere, has his little echo chamber to back him up."
Granted, I've always hated the times when I've been on forums and found long chains of post after post agreeing almost mechanically with what the initial poster said, with a bit of ego-stroking thrown in (particularly, on both counts, if the initial poster is a moderator). But the comments I've seen here, while they hardly represent a balanced or proportional selection of viewpoints, consistently clarify, add to, and offer counter-arguments on specific points despite general agreement. Most of them also back their counter-arguments up with some sort of example, rhetorical structure, or at least something other than oozing, virulent condescension...
The Bloody Sergeant:
"Peezy, you don't know what you're up against. I have no love for religion in general or Christianity in particular. But I think the percentage of us who can live in a no guarantees, "shit happens" universe is a minority. Religion is what gets most people through the night and you will fail in any attempt to persuade most people away from it."
And which would be more of a "no guarantees, 'shit happens' universe," a naturalistic universe without gods or supernatural influences operating according to discoverable and consistent physical principles, or a universe in which those physical principles can be bent, broken, or outright vaporized at the whim of a deity, at any time, without warning, for mysterious reasons that we're not supposed to question or try to understand (the whole "mysterious ways" thing). The only reason I can see for a person preferring the latter is if one postulates that the deity, despite all obvious indications, A) has our best interests at heart, or B) can at least be persuaded to take them into consideration, or C) will hit them over the head with a really big hammer if they don't (literally or otherwise). In practice, however, all of these possible motives are undermined if one Thinks Things Through enough to recognize the implications of the fact that we have to take other someone else's word for each of them.
Posted by: Alex | March 15, 2006 12:19 AM
It doesn't matter if Christianity is a crock or not, it is beside the point. For Christ sake, how hard is that to figure out.
Posted by: thebewilderness | March 15, 2006 12:47 AM
Believe in whatever gets you through the day - but quit forcing it on eveyone else.
Posted by: donna | March 15, 2006 1:28 AM
Asking questions denotes a lack of Faith.
Posted by: owlbear1 | March 15, 2006 2:32 AM
Here we go again ....
1. No "god" is not detectable
2. All religions are blackmail, and are based on fear and superstition.
3. All religions have been made by men.
4. Prayer has no effect on third parties.
5. All religions kill, or enslave, or torture.
Christianity, islam, marxism... it doesn't matter - they are all "holy causes" and we don't want any of them .....
Posted by: G. Tingey | March 15, 2006 3:15 AM
While Marxism contains dogmatic tendencies even in theory, and is very much dogmatic (as well as violent and self-serving) in practice to the extent we've observed it, it's not a "religion" in the commonly understood sense of the term (nor indeed in any sense, unless one expands the definition of "religion" to include any ideological system or set of beliefs).
Posted by: Alex | March 15, 2006 4:51 AM
Alex, what makes you think that you are dealing with beings who have the time or inclination to Think Things Through? Most of us are just trying to Make It Through. It helps us to believe that there is someone bigger out there who cares about us on some level. Your A), B), and C) provide enough motivation and solace to face life. How important this is to people may be determined by the reaction they have to any threat to it. I wish the human race was courageous and rational, but courage and rationality are not the traits that were selected to survive under the hostile conditions under which we evolved.
Posted by: The Bloody Sergeant | March 15, 2006 5:50 AM
dkon: I see no logical argument for dissing private faith, and it's certainly not going to bring any political benefits for the cause.
KenL: Love the idealism. What an amazingly impractical approach to coalition-building.
Ah, the old "You atheists gotta stop talking, seriously, for the good of the party!" routine.
Posted by: Patrick | March 15, 2006 6:38 AM
PZ: "So people ARE lies, hateful old myths, dogma, and fear? OK, if you say so...but that makes it even more imperative to oppose religion."
No.
People ARE Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. Just the same as they ARE Minnesotans or Michiganders or Southerners or academics or white or Americans.
Religion isn't practice, it's a fundamental part of people's identities. When you say that "religion" is lies, hateful old myths, dogma, and fear, what people hear is:
"PZ just called _ME_ a liar, a hateful person, dogmatic, and fearful."
Again, this is *exactly* the same BS hairsplitting that fundies pull on the gay community: "love the sinner, hate the sinner." Er, no. Homosexuals do not *practice* homosexuality, they *are* homosexual.
When this is how you think about religion, you're not actually being "tolerant". You're simply choosing (for whatever reason) not to thoroughly persecute religious people.
I really can't understand why this is such a tremendous blind spot for you, PZ. But I do understand why some visitors come away convinced that you are a "fundie atheist".
Posted by: KenL | March 15, 2006 6:47 AM
Two points for using the word "granfalloon". (Correctly, of course.)
Posted by: Rick | March 15, 2006 6:49 AM
KenL: When this is how you think about religion, you're not actually being "tolerant".
You mean it's intolerant to think religion is stupid? Does this apply to all stupid things, or just religion? Is it intolerant of astrologers to make fun of astrology? Some people are really into that, you know. They're not just practicing astrology, they ARE astrology.
Posted by: Patrick | March 15, 2006 6:59 AM
Why in the world would we want to practice that kind of "tolerance", anyway?
Posted by: Caledonian | March 15, 2006 7:01 AM
Patrick: "Ah, the old "You atheists gotta stop talking, seriously, for the good of the party!" routine."
How about the old "You blinkered idealists gotta get a clue, seriously. Stop telling going around mortally insulting everyone in the room -- it doesn't matter if you think you're doing it or not, because you ARE you damn fools"
I get that you're a persecuted minority that's tired of being shat on. Join the club. There's PLENTY of us in the (D) party for that reason. I get that you want people to respect your beliefs/weltanschauung. Again, join the club.
Now how about you get over the persecution complex? Cutting on your fellow club members is not going to get them to respect you any faster. Respect can't be *demanded*, not when you're part of a persecuted minority, and particularly not when your concept of self-affirmation includes the denigration of allies. That's just not how the Human Society game works. And frankly, the rest of the coalition gets tired of it.
I mean, you guys DO remember that the (D) coalition isn't The Man, right?
Again, there's a difference between "loud and proud" about yourself and your identity, and being outright insulting of OTHER FOLKS' IDENTITIES. Even accounting for the fact that this is a safe forum for atheists to vent, I simply don't see too many people making the distinction.
Posted by: KenL | March 15, 2006 7:03 AM
The Right-Wing Christians confuse me.
I guess that they want more opportunities to visit the sick and people in prison by screwing up healthcare and putting more people in prison - and more opportunities to feed the hungry by allowing more people to go hungry.
Well, no. But the natural home of Christians is the left, and I really don't understand how they've ended up on the right in the US.
Posted by: Francis | March 15, 2006 7:14 AM
I don't make that distinction because it is a false equation. People are NOT their religion -- this is a lie that religion wants people to believe. It's a very useful strategem to protect themselves from criticism; it takes some really stupid ideas that wilt away into a reeking vapor when inspected objectively, and shelters them by associating them falsely with people.
Transubstantiation, for instance, is a really stupid notion, easily tested and easily shown to be false. Pointing out the obvious, however, is discouraged because people like KenL have absorbed this reactive protective device: an objective, assessable fact about reality is not allowed to be said, because people think this nonsense is part of their identity.
I notice that you're happy to say that "respect can't be *demanded*"...but perhaps you haven't yet noticed that that is exactly what the Christians are doing -- demanding respect for their myths and superstitions. If you look closely, you might notice that that is even the title of the article.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2006 7:18 AM
PZ: "people think this nonsense is part of their identity"
Which makes it true until you convince them otherwise.
Insulting them is a monstrously poor strategy to accomplish that goal.
Posted by: KenL | March 15, 2006 7:21 AM
PZ: tangential side-note. Identity is not essentialist. I do not claim it is.
This is why I used "Minnesotan, white, American, professor" as my parallels to Lutheran/Presbyterian/Baptist/Anglican/etc identities.
Posted by: KenL | March 15, 2006 7:29 AM
PZ is in good company, with his disrespect for Christianity.
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Sarte (advocate of terrorism) or Sanger (advocate of Eugenics) didn't either.
Of course, they were all atheists, and I have no respect for them, either.
Its best to get this out in the open.
Good job letting us know where you stand; I wouldn't want any of you people to actually get political power.
Posted by: Stauffenberg | March 15, 2006 7:42 AM
Going along with their delusions is a monstrously poor strategy for breaking those false beliefs; it's a great way to perpetuate them, though.
Meanwhile, we have representatives of Christianity like Stauffenberg to remind us what it's really about: Christian bigots using their hate to keep people who don't share their superstitions out of political power. It seems their strategy of equating atheists with mass murderers works...yet you choose to harangue me for disrespecting Christianity. Maybe I'm not insulting enough?
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2006 7:57 AM
Wow, it's the old "some atheists are bad people so they're all bad by association" routine. It's really just been a hell of a day for old arguments, isn't it?
Quick, someone bring up the watchmaker argument! We'll have a trifecta!
Posted by: Patrick | March 15, 2006 8:00 AM
Alex,
expanding the term "religion" to denote any ideological system or set of beliefs is a commonly employed tactic among religious believers who spend time debating atheists. common claims go down the lines, "nobody can live without faith", "everybody takes something on faith", and (one i find pitiful yet hilarious) "atheism is a religion too".
which is not to say that they're right in stretching arbitrary words this way. but if and when they do anyway — such as by using communist genocides to show how "atheism kills millions" — it's only fair to use the then-stretched definition(s) to show how they may include, for example, communism as being a religion.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | March 15, 2006 8:03 AM
if and when you're part of an actual persecuted minority, demanding respect will usually be the only way to get it, because persecuted minorities will be disrespected by default otherwise. really, the historical precedents for this should be painfully obvious.
i don't know why this is, but it's likely got something to do with the watchmaker who designed human society. (hey, blame Patrick, he asked...) sadistic old bugger, that watchmaker!
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | March 15, 2006 8:10 AM
Let me see if I understand the situation: A huge, powerful majority is upset that a small, powerless minority is insufficiently deferential.
Does that sound about right?
Posted by: HP | March 15, 2006 8:27 AM
And even more to the point, we have moderate friends like KenL jumping on us when we draw a line with them.
See, KenL, my analogy comparing Stauffenberg to Ann Coulter wasn't so far off, after all, was it? "Stauffenberg" (apparently a.k.a. "Emanuel Goldstein") is trying to send the kind of message I was sensitive to; I read him exactly right. He equates atheists with mass-murderers, terrorists, etc., and his out-there word choices were not just casual use of a loose, weak, metaphorical sense of "fundamentalist."
When you pooh-pooh my word sense disambiguation, in favor of your own, you get it exactly wrong. And when you are "affronted" and dismissive of the form or structure of my argument, you get that wrong too; you evidently do not understand the argument I was actually making.
FWIW, I'm guessing that "Stauffenberg" is the erstwhile faux-Jewish Christian kook "Emanuel Goldstein," who has previously claimed that Hitler was an atheist, in order to get Christianity off the hook for millions of Christians' violence against millions of Jews---and to put atheists on that very hook.
Perhaps it's better to just ignore such paranoid kooks, but if you're not going to, it is good to draw some lines here and there.
And KenL, if you're going to make simplistic "whose side are you on, anyway?" arguments, you might reconsider your own priorities here.
Posted by: Paul W. | March 15, 2006 8:55 AM
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
Minority Report: H.L. Mencken's Notebooks [1956], p.3
Posted by: Patrick | March 15, 2006 9:02 AM
Our #1 troll on the KCFS discussion forums has just brought up this post:
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001479
PZ, lemme know if I'm getting your position wrong. I don't think I am, but I'm defending your comments, and certainly don't want to attribute meanings and/or positions that you don't hold.
FYI
Posted by: Robert Madison | March 15, 2006 9:02 AM
You've pretty much got it right.
I'd add, though, that science does lend itself well to supporting atheism, as long as we're being consistent in our philosophies. There is no particular reason or demand that human beings have to be consistent, though.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 15, 2006 9:14 AM
Sorry, KenL, you're not asking for respect, you are asking for a priori deference. There are a number of very religious people I do respect because they are vocal about why their faith demands they be liberal. There was a priest in North Dakota for example, who went to jail several times because of his peace protests and helping undocumented Salvadoran refugees. But they get my respect because of the way they act, not because they show up in a certain building every Sunday.
Liberal clergy and lay leaders will get my respect when they, like Rev. MLK, start telling right wing preachers they are not living up to the ideals of their faith. I was serious about this country needing missionaries to bring the Baptists back to Jesus. If the religious left wants to be judged on the content of its character, it needs to show some and not just complain that they "don't get no respect."
Posted by: justawriter | March 15, 2006 9:25 AM
PZ: "Going along with their delusions is a monstrously poor strategy for breaking those false beliefs; it's a great way to perpetuate them, though."
--> The response is a false dichotomy? How about we assume we're all rational thinking adults and that we know there are more than just two choices here?
=====
Patrick: "Wow, it's the old 'some atheists are bad people so they're all bad by association' routine. It's really just been a hell of a day for old arguments, isn't it?"
--> It works just as poorly when you substitute other words for "atheist".
=====
Nomen: "if and when you're part of an actual persecuted minority, demanding respect will usually be the only way to get it"
--> You are correct. I was being unclear in my use of "demand". I intended to suggest a pre-emptory claim by force or fiat, not the seeking of what is inherent or due.
My apologies.
=====
PaulW: "When you pooh-pooh my word sense disambiguation, in favor of your own, you get it exactly wrong. And when you are "affronted" and dismissive of the form or structure of my argument, you get that wrong too; you evidently do not understand the argument I was actually making."
--> What a great example of what I'm talking about. I had wished to criticize not Paul W's _argument_, but rather its lousy argumentation. Yet he has continued to believe otherwise. This is of course a great distinction for me to make in a heady intellectual sense, when talking about logical forms and neutral interpretations divorced from human emotion, but for the target of my criticism the two seem inseparable. So far as Paul W is concerned, critiquing the one necessitates critique of the other.
Again, my apologies.
"And KenL, if you're going to make simplistic 'whose side are you on, anyway?' arguments, you might reconsider your own priorities here."
--> You're absolutely right. Since there seems to be a fundamental inability or lack of desire to understand any of the various analogies, metaphors, suggestions, examples, explications, parallels, or otherwise I have put forward, I do seem to be wasting my time. I do sincerely appreciate the opportunity to myself vent in this forum, but I think it's probably best if I go back to being a full-time lurker, and no longer try my hand at commentary.
Posted by: KenL | March 15, 2006 9:28 AM
KenL: It works just as poorly when you substitute other words for "atheist".
Obviously. I'd suspect you were making a point about PZ, but I don't remember him ever saying all Christians were bad because of bad Christians. He's criticized Christianity for that, of course. Oh, right, I forgot! People ARE their religion! Or something! Man, there are a lot of 2000-or-so-year-old people around.
Posted by: Patrick | March 15, 2006 9:57 AM
Actually, Marxism looks quite a bit more like a religion than most ideologies. It fashions the world into a grand struggle. It teaches a moral code relevant to that struggle. It claims that the struggle and the morality are not mere human artifice, but instead result from higher law, the dialectic. It includes an eschaton, where after victory, a utopia is achieved in a remade earth populated by a remade Man.
Marxism doesn't have any personal gods, like Athena or Jesus. But its idea of History and its laws provide a kind of ethereal god, and it includes most of the other elements that make for a good religion. In practice, it had its theologians and schisms and inquisitions and congregations and catechisms and rites.
Posted by: Russell | March 15, 2006 9:59 AM
KenL,
I sincerely thought you misunderstood my argument at the outset. You chose to dismiss it in high-level terms that I did not agree with. I explained it some more, and you dismissed it again, calling me pedantic, etc.
Maybe I'm just stupid, and missing your point, but I honestly don't think you clarified the structure of my argument and showed it to be invalid; I think you thought I was making a simpler argument than I actually was making. And when I attempted to clarify that, you ignored the subtleties, made the same simplistic assertions, repeatedly called me "pedantic," etc.
If you would like to seriously discuss the argument I was actually making, or trying to make, and critique it clearly and carefully, in a friendly way, that's one thing.
But if you condescendingly pooh-pooh every thing I say, and call my explanations "pedantic," with snide comments like "you really love the rhetoric, don't you?"---while repeatedly ignoring what I thought were counterexamples to what seemed to be your simplistic point... well, fuck that.
Why explain myself to an evasive, condescending prick? If I don't explain, you'll just assert again that I'm wrong---wrongly, I think. If I do, you'll misunderstand and/or ignore my main points, make the same assertions, and condescend about my "pedantry" some more. Or so it seems to me.
What's the point? It just seems to me that you're being an evasive prick, presumably unintentionally. Perhaps I'm wrong, and stupidly misunderstanding you, but there it is.
If you like, we could have a serious discussion of word senses and what constitutes a legitimate use of a word in what kind of rhetoric, and what constitutes a valid rebuttal... but I think you'd just dismiss that as pedantic, because you think I'm wrong and it's already settled. Too bad.
Until then, if you just keep asserting that my argument was wrong, I'll just keep asserting that I think you're wrong to say so. Or we can just let it go.
And my point about priorities and knowing who your friends are still stands, even if I'm entirely mistaken about our argument about valid forms of argument. If you're going to quibble with my argument against "Stauffenberg," and casually dis me---rather than helping clarify the right response to such claptrap---I think that says something.
Perhaps I'm stupidly wrong about argument forms, but if you just keep asserting that, disdainfully, you are not practicing what you preach.
Posted by: Paul W. | March 15, 2006 10:12 AM
Unfortunately, PZ, this attitude dooms us to zero political power.
I have friends who read horoscopes. I think they are idiotic to do so. I generally refrain from calling them idiots, though, because they are my friends. I may challenge their beliefs and point out the astronomical fallacies in horoscopes, but I refrain from attacking them directly because they are my friends.
Secularists need friends, too. The secular movement can't succeed without Christians. We need to swallow our contempt a bit if we want to be successful politically. I suspect we can disagree without resorting to outright contempt of religious folks.
Contempt: the feeling that a person or thing is beneath consideration, worthless or deserving scorn.
Posted by: Michael Koppelman | March 15, 2006 10:24 AM
The "its my religion so let me say or do what I want" defense is of course indefensible. If one takes a moment to realize that there is no way to generally determine if someone is sincere and "correct" in such a claim, then one comes quickly to the conclusion that religious components to public arguments are to be avoided.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | March 15, 2006 10:26 AM
That cuts both ways. For example, your previous post asserted that I didn't get that you were criticizing the form of my argument. I did get that, and I responded to it. The analogy to Ann Coulter was meant to address that very point, in a way that I mistakenly thought would be obvious. Perhaps I should have clearly and carefully explained what I thought was the obvious significance of that analogy, but I was a wee bit sick of being dismissed as pedantic. Damned if I do, damned if I don't, because you, seem to have a "fundamental inability or lack of desire" to understand the analogies, explications, etc. that I put forth.
I'm willing to chalk that up to an honest misunderstanding, of the usual sort---what's clear to one person is often not clear to another. Analogies are tricky, and if you misjudge, either way, you are either unclear or unnecessarily pedantic. So it goes.
Posted by: Paul W. | March 15, 2006 10:34 AM
Contempt: the feeling that a person or thing is beneath consideration, worthless or deserving scorn.
Thank you PZ for consistently driving the point that all religions are "deserving [of] scorn".
The sooner we eliminate these delusions from the mass mind, the better.
Posted by: Luis | March 15, 2006 10:51 AM
"Transubstantiation, for instance, is a really stupid notion, easily tested and easily shown to be false."
I'm not sure how you propose to test transubstantiation, as it makes no claims about any physical changes. To use the Catholic terminology, the accidents (physical nature) of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance (spiritual/philosophical nature) changes into the body and blood of Jesus. Any Catholic will tell you that the bread tastes like bread, the wine tastes like wine, but Catholics do not believe that the wine physically becomes Type AB blood and the bread becomes gluteal muscle. So unless you have a test for the spiritual nature of things, I think it will be tough for you to disprove transubstantiation. (Of course, its definitition is meaningless if you do not believe that there is a spiritual nature of things distinct from their physical nature.)
Posted by: Drerio | March 15, 2006 10:53 AM
" . . it gets to me when in the midst of a logical defense of rationalism and science [PZ] will sometime just indiscriminantly poke people in the eye."
But, but, but - that's what makes it so much fun!
"But courage and rationality are not the traits that were selected to survive under the hostile conditions under which we evolved."
Existential courage, at least.
The whole tolerance and religion/people ARE their religion bit: I can't beat Mencken, of course, but look at it like politics. You get people who ARE Democrats or Republicans or etc. Can I not criticize one without criticizing the other? Presumably I can admire/respect/be friends with Republicans without having to change my opinion of Republicanism, although whether I go around expressing it to that person or agree to that ol' social lubricant, Not Mentioning Controversial Topics*, depends on personality and the nature of the relationship.
There is a reason the phrase used is tolerance, rather then "overjoyed open-armed acceptance" or something. When we can count on it, then maybe we can try for more? I think your beliefs are stupid and insane, but I don't have the right to beat you for it" is a big step for mankind . .
I've never understood the "you tiny insignificant minority, your refusal to respect/defer/convert to our ways/beliefs is a enormous and intolerable threat," in any of its versions. You occasionally even get a bit of it with folks' response to vegetarianism. Don't get it. What - cracks in the nature of consensus reality?
Posted by: Dan S. | March 15, 2006 11:18 AM
Stauffenberg scribbled:
Another GOP apparachik bleats the designated talking point
at the designated time.
Go ahead and try to stop the evolution of influenza by bleating a party talking point, Mr. Minitrue PR campaign hack. Try it on one of your "friends" should one be unfortunate enough to come down with it.
Or maybe a televised prayer session with Pat Robertson
will do it-just think of the jump in the polls you'll get
for your lame duck president.
We evolutionists will be around to bury the results.
Posted by: Dark Matter | March 15, 2006 11:23 AM
"To use the Catholic terminology, the accidents (physical nature) of the bread and wine do not change, but the substance (spiritual/philosophical nature) changes into the body and blood of Jesus."
The idea of a "spiritual/philosophical nature" in objects is inherently stupid, testable or not.
Posted by: AC | March 15, 2006 11:50 AM
The biggest threat faced by Christianity is its own internal contradictions. The fact is that traditional Christianity really is threatened by enlightenment values and reason -- and has been for over 200 years. Christianity is in crisis, but it's purely an internal crisis. Secular humanists, atheists, etc. are simply a convenient scapegoat (read: "powerless minority") chosen to bear the weight of Christianity's flaws.
You do have groups like the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, et al, insisting that Christianity must change or die, and they're absolutely right. The current resurgence of anti-intellectual "fundagelicalism" is simply an attempt to avoid change. And it's doomed to fail in the long run.
Unfortunately, we all live in the short run, and an awful lot of ugly shit can happen in the meantime.
Posted by: HP | March 15, 2006 12:10 PM
Only some of what they are spreading is foma, the rest includes plenty of lies, damn lies, and dangerous misapprehensions.
Posted by: melior | March 15, 2006 12:15 PM
One of those trying-to-prove-a-negative things. Hard.
On the other hand, I think it's easier to prove a negative, in the scientific sense of "prove," than people often realize.
For example, consider phlogiston. I'd say it's pretty well proven that phlogiston does not exist. Turns out there's no substance emitted by fir