…and this is a 
Defending Melinda Barton
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: April 24, 2006 7:16 AM, by PZ Myers
The editor of the Raw Story has stuck a little preamble on Melinda Barton's piece…the one I criticized yesterday. It makes it worse.
Editor's note: If you've arrived here, it wasn't through the RAW STORY main site, but rather one of several blogs that have latched onto this piece as an example of "religious intolerance." I would ask readers directed by these blogs to take careful note of how many times Ms. Barton announces that she is not talking about all atheists, as her critics have claimed.
When I read this piece, I knew that some people would infer ideas from it that simply weren't in the text. That this has happened does not surprise me; that the perpetrators seem to claim they are authorities in the field of logic, while arguing against an obvious straw man, does. I take particular exception with those posts that have changed her wording in the few quotes they provide. Whether this was intentional or simply lazy, I cannot say. I am not a mind-reader, though some of her critics seem to believe they are (apparently, she hates Jews and homosexuals--though she is a Jewish lesbian!) However they came to these misrepresentations, they are nonetheless irresponsible.
Shame on you for reading her article without going through the main page!
I think the reprehensible thing here, though, is that rather than admitting that Barton's article was a piece of crap, they attack her critics. And attack them rather dishonestly. I noted that Barton claimed her article was not about all atheists; however, she also redefined secularism to only include atheists, and made a series of invented assertions about atheists that she was not able to support—a series of contrived claims that I say effectively meant that her diatribe was against no one at all, but the odious straw man she was shredding was boldly labeled "ATHEIST".
All of my quotes from the Barton article were accurate and unmodified. I've seen the ones where the authors have pulled the "ATHEIST" label off of her tattered scarecrow and replaced it with "JEW" or "GAY"; this is a common rhetorical technique that is used to illustrate that when you remove the kneejerk contempt that the label elicits, the dependency of the argument on bigotry becomes more apparent. I'm surprised that the editor is unfamiliar with the idea, or that he doesn't realize that it is most effective when the targeted group is one with which the author is sympathetic.
I've received a request from the editors to clarify that this piece was Melinda Barton's, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial staff at the Raw Story. I'd believe that more if it hadn't been recently modified by the editors to include an accusation that the people criticizing the article are illogical and irresponsible liars.
Comments
I'm torn between sympathy towards the author for taking an incredible pummeling, and joy due to the fact that she totally deserves it.
Also, since the article itself contains a big strawman, I'm reminded of some analogy about not throwing black kettles at glass houses, or something.
Posted by: Christopher | April 24, 2006 7:27 AM
Mel's comment on your previous thread says it the best:
"You know who I can't stand? Those stuck-up atheists. They totally think they're better than everyone else. Ohmigod, you're an atheist? I was so totally not talking about you! I meant, like, those totally extreme atheists!"
Posted by: coturnix | April 24, 2006 7:32 AM
I too am surprised that they don't seem to have thoughtfully read through the criticisms. Instead they suggest that the critics are being intellectually dishonest when the opposite is true for the vast majority of the comments including your smackdown PZ. I am embarrassed for Raw Story and for Melinda Barton. Religious people should not try to make rational arguments to support their faith. Rational arguments all lead back to atheism.
Posted by: Raindog | April 24, 2006 7:51 AM
One time someone was ranting about Jews and "Clinton's Jew Lawyers" I just sat there until he was done. Then I told him I was a jew, English surname (and your nephew) to the contrary.
After the incredulity wore off, he actually turned beet-red and tried that very lame appology. I told him not to worry about it. I was tired of the whole religious thing and was becoming an athiest. We haven't spoken since.
Posted by: Moses | April 24, 2006 7:58 AM
Paul wrote:
"All of my quotes from the Barton article were accurate and unmodified."
I especially liked this part, since it did apply to me at one time:
"The whackjob is a special sort of atheist, one so absolutely certain of the inerrancy of atheism and so virulently opposed to religion that he will latch on to any and all outrageous claims in defense of the former and against the latter. He will meet any criticism of atheism or positive representation of religion as a horrible attack on his way of life or as support for religious extremism and oppression. Just as the religious extremist holds that his belief in a supreme being alone makes him morally and spiritually superior, the atheist extremist holds that his belief that no such being exists and virulent opposition to the reverse make him intellectually and ethically superior. Finally, he will ignore any and all reason or evidence that refutes his claims."
But I have grown older, wiser and more tolerant over the years.
Those of you who know me and have followed my postings around the web are well aware that I never argue with creationists. I never dispute their belief in the truthfulness of the Bible or their interpretation of their religion. I'm not inclined to regard a person as a fool because I don't understand them or because I don't accept their version of truth.
I hold to the view that we can understand ourselves better by identifying those traits and characteristics in others that most antagonize us. We meet ourselves every day in department stores, at school, in restaurants and in the pages of books (especially history books), magazines and on television. Each stranger that we meet is a reflection of ourselves, a portal to better self-understanding.
Both theists and atheists would be better served by not torturing those with whom they disagree, for certainly it is the tortured who soon enough turn into torturers. How quickly the worm can turn.
But a view that assumes that scientific understanding is the *only* kind of understanding that there is obscures and dilutes our insight and our harmony with the world. Science is a tool of the western mind, not all of mankind.
Now I certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist, nor can I prove that he does. But I am sure of the fact that the *impression* of God (the archetype?) exists in *every* person. Whether God actually exists is mostly irrelevant. What is important is that large numbers of people believe it.
I also believe that there is a huge advantage available to those who can locate this power, whatever its source, in their own individual self and use it for their benefit. Why should I deprive those who may have found this transforming energy in religion? What purpose does it serve me or them, to ridicule and condemn their beliefs as silly and unscientific as I might think they are?
This doesn't mean, of course, that I will allow others to impose their beliefs on me. The teaching of religion, while acceptable in church schools, is wholly unacceptable in public schools. Likewise, ideologies of any kind, especially those ostensibly validated by the mantle of science, are likewise unacceptable in public education.
However, since religion is obviously an important part of my fellow citizens' lives, I have no fear of sharing with them the joy and pleasure that they get from their mythologies, even though I'm a non-believer. I have no problem with a Christmas tree or a menorah in the town square or Christmas carols in the school concert or a moment of silence in a school day. These things do not threaten me, as they apparently threaten others. There's little enough to feel good about in this uncaring and often cruel world; it seems a bit silly to deny people what comfort they may find, wherever they may find it.
Posted by: charlie wagner | April 24, 2006 8:05 AM
For the umpteenth time, you can be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, Confucian, animist, atheist, agnostic, whatEVER, and still be a secularist when it comes to the relationship between church and state. Barton would have saved herself much angst if she'd realized that in the first place.
(Of course I'm going to tweak her nose a bit by saying that as a very positive atheist myself, I do know that God does not exist and is just a creation of the human imagination. One need not engage in silly arguments about "well, how can you prove that, huh?" when I'm looking at the proof standing right in front of me, buddy... :-)
Posted by: David Wilford | April 24, 2006 8:08 AM
I have a theory that conservative arguments originate from a book of "Mad Libs." The group of people they want to attack are simply inserted in blank spaces so the esay, speach, whatever, can be delivered to the public.
Posted by: dbpitt | April 24, 2006 8:17 AM
The article obviously refers to all the true atheists, not us mere pretenders.
Posted by: eviledv | April 24, 2006 8:25 AM
I went back and read the preamble (and the article). You're right, PZ. Besides, since when did the freedom to express one's opinions preclude other people from criticizing them? The whole thing is very strange.
Posted by: Clare | April 24, 2006 8:35 AM
I find it amazing how many times I see people in science blogs (bloggers and commenters) who think that just because THEY believe in science as their religion that OTHERS see their religion as their science. You all have taken a math course! If -> then statments only work one way. A person is able to believe, on faith, one fact and on intellectual understanding another very contrary fact.
It's alot like when someone treats their other ethnicity coworkers nice even though they a racist prick at home. They aren't a prick at work because they're AT WORK; it's inappropriate.
BTW, some folks have *no* science in their life. Get over THAT, too. Not everyone cares about beautiful things like squid or mylenation or evolution. To be a secratary or assembly line worker, it doesn't matter how we got here any more than it matters to most scientists how the pallets of food get to the grocery store.
PZ, I love ya, but you're guilty of this, too, this "actor-observer bias" effect in science vs. religion.
For the record, my messiah is an atheist. That doesn't mean I can't notice large, gapping wounds in our argument as veiwed by the outside world.
::this comment originally posted, by me, on the northstatescience.blogger.com blog::
Posted by: Mike Fox | April 24, 2006 8:36 AM
Oh, sorry Mr. Charlie Wagner. I was distracted mid-post and didn't see your much more polite post between when I started and stopped typing.
Posted by: Mike Fox | April 24, 2006 8:39 AM
This flap has reaffirmed for me the importance of stating openly that I am an atheist. One problem that became clear from Barton's column is that she had no clue what atheists think or why they think what they think. PZ and others do a great service by publicly going through the arguments for atheism time and again. In the comments section of PZ's earlier post on the column and in the comments section of Barton's post were several people who said something like "Why do you bother even responding to this column?" It's important to respond every time with well- reasoned arguments that will eventually sink in with those who are capable of understanding them. There are many good citizens in our country who are atheists. We have the facts on our side. It's important to make that publicly known.
Posted by: Raindog | April 24, 2006 8:39 AM
Mike Fox, how can you say, "science as their religion"??? That's like saying a polo shirt is my favorite dessert.
Posted by: renato | April 24, 2006 8:49 AM
One problem that became clear from Barton's column is that she had no clue what atheists think or why they think what they think.
Yeah. Thank nobody that she didn't get into that business about how atheists like to rape small boys, because then that would make atheism look really, really bad.
Oh... that's right. It's Catholic priests who do that.
(The BTK killer was a very religious guy and an important guy in his local church....)
Posted by: renato | April 24, 2006 8:53 AM
"I find it amazing how many times I see people in science blogs (bloggers and commenters) who think that just because THEY believe in science as their religion that OTHERS see their religion as their science."
I don't think anyone here sees science as their religion. Is this the huge gaping hole in the argument that you are talking about? Why must people make these false assumptions? Who here has said "Science is my religion." I don't have any religion. As someone brilliantly put it in the earlier thread: If atheism is a religion, then "off" is a television station. It just goes to prove my previous point - that atheists need to be more public about their atheism so that people get exposed over and over to what atheists think and why they think it.
Posted by: Raindog | April 24, 2006 8:55 AM
Taking a step further my comment above re: BTK killer, I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on notorious criminals (meaning, those whose crimes were shocking in their viciousness or victim count, rather than those whose names are well-known) and noted how many were somewhat or devoutly religious, and how many were avowed agnostics or atheists.
BTK was religious. Andrea Yates (the woman who drowned her five children) was VERY religious. David Koresh and his followers were very religious. As are the FLDS polygamists in northwestern Arizona/ southwestern Utah. And of course there are the scores of Catholic priests who raped children and the Church covered up many of their crimes.
That's just off the top of my head. I have a hard time thinking of ANY notorious criminals who were/are avowed atheists.
Posted by: renato | April 24, 2006 9:04 AM
Let me tell you guys what I told the author of this piece: There is no alternative to methodological naturalism, or as it is also known, science.
I'm not a philosopher, so I don't know the history of methodological naturalism, but here's how I approach the issue.
First of all, I assume that things exist. Fairly safe I'd say.
Second, I assume that things can be divided into two categories: Those with distinct characteristics and those without.
What I mean by an object having a distinct characteristic is that we can describe an object as having some attributes, and, therefore, lacking others. In other words, I have the characteristic of having two legs and lack the characteristic of having one leg.
Now, my third assumption is this; Characteristics can be observed. In other words, using certain processes I can determine which characteristics an object has and which it lacks.
To me, these seem like assumptions you simply must make if you want to talk about an external world.
Now, these are the basic assumptions of science. They say nothing about things being natural or supernatural. As a matter of fact, I believe that those two terms are meaningless (Why is, say, String Theory considered natural instead of supernatural?); The only distinction that matters is "observed" or "unobserved".
Or, to put it another way, there is no alternative to methodological naturalism.
Posted by: Christopher | April 24, 2006 9:20 AM
Mr. Renato and Mr. Raindog,
1)You may eat polo shirts. I don't judge, I am just saying what I see. People have science as their religion.
2)Off is not a television station, but it is a mode of television. In place of TV, you have (for the sake of argument) books. In place of religion you have science. Books are your TV and science is your religion. It IS differant, and that is part of what I am trying to point out. Books, proper, and TV, proper, require two very differant angles of approach and (possibly) two very differant goals. Same with science and religion.
I'll be back tonight around 6 or 7 o'clock.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Fox | April 24, 2006 9:43 AM
Off is not a television station, but it is a mode of television.
Dude, you're blowing my mind here. So I'm still watching television when the television is off? Whoa.
Posted by: Max Udargo | April 24, 2006 9:51 AM
Avery Walker, the editor at "the rational alternative" (?) who okayed Melinda Barton's vomitous piece, really screwed the pooch, and now he's smearing his santorum all over the walls at Raw Story while trying to hide the fact of his beastial act.
I think he might have a "thing" for jewish lesbians too. He just can't say "no" to them...
Posted by: Pastor Maker | April 24, 2006 10:01 AM
RE: Mike Fox -
Would you please define what you mean when you say "religion"?
"I am just saying what I see" means absolutely zip when you aren't properly defining your terms.
In the common context, used by those of us who live in the rational world, "religion" is the practice of following a historical dogma or ideology based on supernatural principles; it also usually involves ritual worship of some kind or other.
If you've somehow expanded the definition of religion to suit your statement, then those of us living in the rational world think you're an obtuse nimrod.
If, on the other hand, you've misconstrued the principles of science and are equating them with religious dogma and ritual, then you don't properly understand science, your statement is simply wrong, and you're an ignorant nimrod.
So... which is it?
Posted by: MoeHammered | April 24, 2006 10:16 AM
People have science as their religion.
In what universe?
Posted by: Alon Levy | April 24, 2006 10:29 AM
Umm, do you know that the Powers that be at Raw Story have de-linked Barton's piece of shit from the site? It's no longer available via any means other than the direct address.
Someone at Raw Story is trying to rewrite history.
Posted by: Pastor Maker | April 24, 2006 10:30 AM
Having once been an atheist myself, I'd say it definitely is very much like a religion. You use all the information you have and decide that a creator god is a rediculous concept dreamed up by primitive people who had little reason to know better, stirred on by a few people who considered themselves 'special'. All the conclusions fit together nicely - 'How can god be both all powerful AND loving, when there is so much suffering in the world', 'The concept of god makes
... it easier for weakminded people to accept the fact that when you die its all over for you
... it easier to deal with how unfair life is, how some people get away with x, y and z
... a better foundation for a society where people are good to each other
etc etc - and so of course these drive a conclusion and the conclusion drives further explanations for how religion came about as a product of man. Leading most recently to natural explanations of religion based on evolutionary advantage and the "god gene" etc. Its an ongoing un-moderated theology of sorts - perhaps that should be atheology :-) Its more honest for you (now that you've realised these things) to be honest and stand up for the 'truth'.
But there have been many people, including many intellectual heavyweights, who have reached this conclusion and then changed. And its an almost quantum effect when it happens - so much that seemed a natural conclusion is suddenly seen from a different perspective. Everything makes just as much rational sense as before (whatever ludicrous rubbish the ID croud come about with!), but your conclsion is the opposite. To describe what causes the change is difficult, maybe impossible. Joy Davidman, the author who was an atheist and later married C S Lewis described the way it happened to her;
I don't have any time for Pascals Wager - the opinion I had of it as an atheist has remained. However I do now agree with what he said here;
Posted by: Simon | April 24, 2006 10:37 AM
"My perception of God lasted perhaps half a minute."
Sounds like she stood up too fast.
Posted by: Raindog | April 24, 2006 10:51 AM
There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, God is one sadistic bastard. He must really enjoy sending all those innocent people to hell who had the misfortune to be brought up by their parents believing in the wrong god or whose rationality (which God gave them in the first place) kept them from seeing the truth.
Has it ever occurred to you though that those who desire to see are creating their own light?
Posted by: Bruce | April 24, 2006 10:52 AM
Well, certainly Mike Fox is not *literally* correct (there aren't temples of science where people offer sacrifices to effigies of Dawin and Newton), but there are certainly people who try to create a moral system out of science -- they mistake the "is" of science to for the "ought" of moral teaching -- I'm thinking of E.O. Wilson and his mystical "Biophilia" and "Consilience" -- I suspect that that's what Mike is referring to. On the other hand, while I think Wilson is daft, I don't think his ideas are any *more* daft than those of Christianity.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | April 24, 2006 10:52 AM
Fideism, or the assertion that only faith is required to believe in God, is about the only arrow left in the theist's quiver these days. It's a clever little arrow that talks a lot about its great faith in hitting an imaginary target, but somehow never gets around to actually doing so. As such, it's mostly harmless.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 24, 2006 10:53 AM
Personal revelation is unanswerable, although its similarity to delusion/psychosis may be informative. I would suggest that for the majority of religious practitioners this is not the case. It seems to range from a big social club to an excuse to hide from the "real world" of intelligent social responsibility.
There are always those who feel they have been touched by Jesus, Khrishna or FSM (creamy be his sauce) and all one can do is back off and hope they're not armed.
Posted by: Mike Kelly | April 24, 2006 10:58 AM
I received a pretty strident response from the editor doing exactly the same thing. For "not reflecting" their views, they sure yell about it.
The sad part is the snide "smart adolescent" response...."the perpetrators seem to claim they are authorities in the field of logic"...jeebus, that reminds me of my fellow-nerds in academic decathalon. "You seem to be forgetting the core premise of darlythium crystals" or something...I can imagine the editor snickering uncontrollably at his riposte. Argh.
Well, I guess I don't have to bother reading the Raw Story anymore.
Posted by: garth | April 24, 2006 11:17 AM
Well I was brought up as an atheist (where's the sticking out tongue smiley?).
But more seriously, this being you are talking of is the one (from this side of the quantum bridge) that 'spoke' the universe into existence, where our sun is just a minute spec, even our galaxy could be said to be a minute spec. As a little spec of molecules formed from elements made in that little spec, I'm hardly able to answer on his behalf! But from the new way I understand things, this being is spirit, and at some level so are we. As such some of the things we consider anthropic peculiarities, our own particular forms of sadness, joy, love etc, in some way resemble something of his nature. So he possibly has some right to set some dress code on the invitations to his (very long) party?
Mind you there are plenty of christians I wouldn't want at my party - but who knows - apparently many of those with invitations don't get in. Lots of beggars and tramps that weren't expected I hear...
Posted by: Simon | April 24, 2006 11:18 AM
'Books are your TV and science is your religion.'
Someone who watches no TV is just as likely to invest more time in their career, take up kayaking, cooking, gardening, etc. Volunteer work, college classes, and many other things are also possibilities. If you refer to anyone one of these activities as 'a mode of television', your readers and repliers will focus on the differences between television and each of these varied activities. Furthermore, some will be driven wonder about or comment on the billions of human beings who lived and died without ever seeing a television. People will say to you, 'Max, what mode of television did the Natufians watch?' . It might be a lot of fun to read dozens of comments ribbing you in this fashion, but the point you are trying to communicate will be completely obfuscated.
If you (Max) are trying to talk about some psychological or social role which is filled by television in some and books in others, you need to call it something other than 'a mode of television'. To call it 'a mode of television' is to invite confusion.
In the same vein, if you feel there is some psychological or social role which some fill with science, and some fill with religion, you need assign it some name other than 'religion'. Calling it 'religion' only confuses.
Posted by: llewelly | April 24, 2006 11:22 AM
1)You may eat polo shirts. I don't judge, I am just saying what I see. People have science as their religion.
I say the earth is the center of the universe. How do I know this? Because every day, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Duh. And don't you dare mock me, I am just saying what I see.
/snark
You can call a hat a herpes blister, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Posted by: renato | April 24, 2006 11:35 AM
Ehem ... okay I'm psychotic and delusional ... I do often think the whole worlds effing mad which probably rates high on the DSM-IV scale!
But there's the rub. At the extreme end of it, I'm considered crazy for thinking any kind of supernatural gamete could have been involved in christs conception. Science shows it just doesn't happen, after all. Its just not the way sexual reproduction works and we know (for a large part) how it works. But thats why its called a miracle. I believe I have good reason for believing it, you think I'm a crazy nutter. But as I've already conceded that, I may as well just get back to wearing those jeans on my head with nice eye holes in the crutch... zoopedy doopedy dippy dee .... lala lala lalalala
Posted by: Simon | April 24, 2006 11:37 AM
Chuckie Wagner
I am sure of the fact that the *impression* of God (the archetype?) exists in *every* person. Whether God actually exists is mostly irrelevant. What is important is that large numbers of people believe it.
Translation: I'm a fucking retard and majority rules! DUH!
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 24, 2006 11:48 AM
Ah Simon, it's good to see you found religion. I'm sure it's working well for you.
If you were an atheist and became a believer, my guess is that you're probably doing what's right for you. Most people are not cut out for unbelief. Fortunately, unlike gays or blacks or other demonized minorities, you can choose to join the majority. There's no shame in it, and for you you're trading in one 'special and chosen' group of people for another.
As for Joy Davidman, I don't doubt that she had a personally profound experience. I've had several in my life, including the birth of my daughter and the first time I took psychedelic mushrooms. It would be easy to attribute such experiences to a supernatural force, because they were truly world-bending. If explaining things via magic works for one person better than another, more power to them.
As for atheism being 'like a religion', you'll probably have to fine tune your definition of religion for the crowd here. There are all kinds of religion, not just yours, and the way people experience them vary widely. I am curious as to what you mean, but you may want to put a little more work into it. Perhaps a good place to start is to think upon how a Zen Buddhist experiences religion, and then compare this to how a Southern Baptist experiences it.
Posted by: mafisto | April 24, 2006 11:49 AM
Simon: "I believe I have good reason for believing it, you think I'm a crazy nutter."
Yes. Yes I do.
There was a woman at the bus stop the other day who was convinced that everyone who walked past her was going to kill her. I have to admit, with all that paranoid screaming she was doing, murdering her was more than a passing thought. Self-fulfilling prophecy? Hmm...
Anyway, I'm sure she had a good reason for believing everyone wanted to kill her, but we all thought she was a crazy nutter.
Simon, I think you've expressed yourself clearly:
You used to be an atheist... and now you're crazy.
But the nice policemen won't take you away like they did the lady at the bus stop.
Or will they...?
By all means, get back to wearing jeans on your head.
Get back to the "extreme end of it", with your "supernatural gametes" and other "miracles".
Leave the rational world to those of us that can deal with it like sane, intelligent people.
Bye now. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: MoeHammered | April 24, 2006 11:59 AM
"God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him..."
Hmmm...I guess I'm the exception...
Unlike you, Simon, I was brought up as a Christian, and spent half my life sincerely seeking that revelation. Took a long time to realize I no longer believed.
So I have to ask you; is my inability to perceive the existence of God due to some inadequacy on my part, a flaw in my character perhaps which you do not share, or is God arbitrary about revealing Himself?
Just curious to know what you think...
Sincerely
A Hermit
Posted by: A Hermit | April 24, 2006 11:59 AM
Simon, I have say I'm puzzled by what you've just said about having a good reason for believing in the immaculate conception. It strikes me as a very strange use of the phrase. You concede that we have good reasons to reject it, grounded in everything we know about the physiology of reproduction. But calling it a miracle doesn't make it reasonable to suspend all of that evidence-- it's more like a label announcing that the suspension has been accomplished (for you). We know enough about the sociology of religion to predict that, had you been raised in a different culture, you would have accepted an entirely different list of 'miracles'. (Which, as Hume pointed out, makes the case for miracles even weaker than it is when they are considered one at at time.) But people raised in entirely different cultures wind up agreeing on the biology of reproduction-- the same standards of evidence (replicatability, agreement between independent observers, inductive and explanatory coherence) that ground common sense claims are upgraded and applied successfully in science.
It seems untenable to me for you to claim to have 'reasons' for such an odd and unfounded belief when these reasons apparently depend on a special private experience that you choose to read as evidence for your beliefs. After all, such experiences don't occur in others who don't already belong to your own particular religious community, or haven't been converted by various kinds of persuasive evangelism...and these 'methods' work equally well for conflicting religious traditions.
Posted by: Bryson Brown | April 24, 2006 12:11 PM
I've received a request from the editors to clarify that this piece was Melinda Barton's, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial staff at the Raw Story. I'd believe that more if it hadn't been recently modified by the editors to include an accusation that the people criticizing the article are illogical and irresponsible liars.
Absolutely right, PZ. Raw's handling of the aftermath pisses me off WAY more than their original decision to run the column.
Posted by: Sportin' Life | April 24, 2006 12:28 PM
Its certainly no panacea, I still don't understand the 'comfort blanket' idea of belief.
Its always strange discussing these things on a board where (I assume) the majority are from the US. Things are very polarised there and you are the only country on the planet that has such a millitant, fundamentalist version of christianity as the mainstream. I ended up joining the Catholic Church, which is strange as its the one I disliked the most of a juvenile understanding of history, but its hardy an organisation that fits what you've said there. Sure it supports hetrosexual marriage, and expects priests to be celibate, but doesn't condemn gays as some of the US christains do. They should hold themselves to every line of Leviticus if they are going to treat one statement in the OT as a reason for persecuting people. And as for minorities, the Church has well over a billion members that comprise every culture, race and tribe that exists. In African churches Jesus is often portrayed as black, in South American churches he often looks ... South American. Its something the Church is very comfortable with, as it is with evolution. So it gets a bit strange discussing these things in the oven of US black and white reasoning.
Yes but I've had both kinds of experiences, and I admit magic mushrooms etc can be profound experiences. But with god its not as if you even can say you saw anything significant of him, a mere glimpse of a spec, but its enough to feel confident you know that his reality was far more substantial and real than tables and chairs. And its an ongoing thing, admitedly with dark dry patches, but it becomes more real - a relationship. I know that sounds crazy, I would have laughed at it before, at best. No amount of internal skepticism can get me back to that point where I was just wondering "Actually ... what if ..."
I don't know about Southern Baptists - I don't relate to them and those christian shows they (not even sure if they're "southern baptists") have on some of our Sky channels over here in the UK are enough to turn my stomach sometimes. It may just be a cultural thing though. But perhaps its best I leave them out of this - I'm far from perfect myself.
But to the Zen Buddhist his(her) religion is a method to attain realisation. Buddha himself didn't reply on the question of the existence of god, but anyway, I don't see a reason why anyone who achieves buddhist enlightenment should neccesarily know anyting of god. What they try to attain is perception untainted by the mental labeling of that perception, sounds simple but its consciousness percieving itself directly. In this way you are freed from the false conception of reality we develop as little babies, and as the Oracle of Delphi famously said "know thyself". But that is to know your true nature in terms of the universe, but thats very different from knowing god. But its a religion in the loose way I'm using the term - rather than the strict ontological definition - in that it has a core set of loose ideas based on some central tennants.
As far as Islam goes, its wrong according to archeology, its internally inconsistent, it espouses already ancient ideas and history and changes them to suit itself. It has no desire for criticism or truth. But its still a religion. Even the gnostics that espoused christianity then changed it to suit its greek/egyptian roots, is a religion. It doesn't make sense of any of the written evidence we have from the one or two generations after Jesus death - all of which ONLY see him as the fulfillment of the Judeo tradition.
But the gnostics kind of believe we are all part of god, that god is formed of us, the zen buddhists don't believe in any explicit god, and the muslems do. All are religions because they have a core set of fundamentals. Likewise atheists believe explicitly that there is no creator god, believe that science is the best way to approach understanding anything (expect maybe in some cases humanities and sociology etc), and even that science is reasonably close to understanding the main elements of what we call life in this little corner of the universe. You may disagree with these, and I could spend longer defining it more accurately, but I'm sure you get the gist of the core principles. As with all religions there are different degrees of fundamentalism in atheism. Some completely accept Gould's NOMA and verge on being agnostic, at the other extreme you have scientism where the current empirical scientific understanding has the best answers for all philosophical, ontological and epistemological questions.
My two cents anyway :-)
Posted by: Simon | April 24, 2006 12:48 PM
I think there are reasons in the timing of these things. If I'd stayed as most people I was at college were - a vague kind of agnosticism, rather than becoming an atheist, I don't think I would have come to what I consider a rational understanding of it. My concepts were all tied up to some degree with unconsciously childish conceptions of god (though I'd like to think never as childish as those who take genesis to mean some old man with a grey beard made some mud sculptures etc).
There is what St John of the Cross called "the dark night of the soul", and I suspect that many with an academic bent - considering the amazing sophistication of the broad horizon of science nowdays, find the spiritual dryness of this phase intellectually unsatifying. And so they turn away from god and remain spiritually in the dark night, unaware of how far they've travelled.
But of course I've no idea if thats the case with you. "The Dark Night of the Soul" is well accepted as perhaps one of the best christian books ever written, and yet you hardly ever hear of it. Us christians no longer understand our own religion, and spend to long on pointless arguments against the genuis of Darwin :(
Posted by: Simon | April 24, 2006 1:07 PM
They most definitly condemn gays. And they kinda support heterosexual marriage.
The billion is a vast overstatement, but there are are alot your correct.
Nothing like the pursuit of truth.
Or anyone who wears a pointy hat and remains celibate either.
Actually the Koran is considered more internally consistent than the bible which is one reason you see far fewer sects.
You mean like..........all religions?
You mean like a religion that sends people who have differing opinions to eternal damnation?
Posted by: Uber | April 24, 2006 1:08 PM
You don't have a rational undertanding of it. You have an irrational faith. Which is fine. But you have no more a rational understanding of God than any other human. You have no evidence.
So what is God to you then? What does he look like? What is he doing now?
ahhh but there are always alot of folks like you willing to show the others where they went wrong. Nevermind that we could bring legions to this party to show YOU the error of your ways. And the 'One true Scotsman' fallacy appears again.
Posted by: Uber | April 24, 2006 1:15 PM
It sounds like Davidman had a transcendent/peak type of experience and didn't have the metal/spiritual chops to understand it any more deeply than through the mythology of her tribe, i.e. a personal god.
I remember the first time I had such an experience. The only thing I came away sure of was that all I had been told and believed about the numen, which at the time was orthodox Protestantism, had nothing to do with its reality. Of course, I never use this as an argument against Christianity as I understand that it has little evidential weight outside my own skull. Please give us the same courtesy with respect to your revelation.
PS - I see that you are now criticizing other religions. I'd be careful about this path as your critique of Islam is identical to many peoples view of christianity:
Posted by: David M | April 24, 2006 1:18 PM
I would like to see some good studies done to look for correlations between religious fundamentalism and mental illness. Schizophrenia at least, but also various flavours of bi-polar disorder and sociopathy.
Posted by: bmurray | April 24, 2006 1:29 PM
Melinda Barton just posted this in the comments section of her post
[The follow was not requested by, nor does it, or the original piece, necessarily reflect the views of Raw Story or its editors.]
After the publication of my take on secular extremism on Raw Story, I received quite a lot of vitriol from many atheists who felt I was condemning atheism as a whole. While I feel that I made clear that that was not the case, I must admit that if so many people came away with this conclusion, then obviously the article was not as well prepared or well written as it should have been. This is due, in part, to the fact that I have struggled for quite some time with whether I should write it at all. Also, my use of the word "whackjob" was an intentional although perhaps badly chosen play on the common pairing of that word with the word "religious." I apologize to any who felt that I was adding burdens to an already burdened minority in our country.
I'd also like to take a few moments to clarify some points here. The separation of church and state is and always has been vital to the functioning of liberal democracy. It contains both freedom of and freedom from religion and should continue to do so. I strongly support the right of all peoples to believe or disbelieve whatever they wish within the bounds of respect for human rights. In other words, if it's not hurting anyone, go for it. I would defend to my death (yes, I'm aware it's a cliche) your right to believe or disbelieve and am strongly opposed to prayer in schools, the use of the bible in a courtroom, laws based solely on religious precepts with no accompanying social necessity, the teaching of religious belief in public institutions, etc. Although I disagree with atheist precepts, I have respect for the logic and reasoning upon which it is based. This continues despite my acceptance of faith in my own life.
Finally, I do not believe that anyone should be silenced or purged, only that the progressive movement is not required to grant legitimacy to all leftist beliefs. I also believe that we should criticize ourselves with the same honesty with which we criticize others. I have regularly opposed religious extremism and have held it up to harsh criticism numerous times in my published work. I thought it only honest to take a look at the other side despite the fact that I consider religious extremism to be the greatest threat facing us today. If anyone came away with the impression that I consider secular extremism to be even an iota of the threat that religious extremism is, I apologize. I can only assure you that, I would hope, most of my work is better written and prepared and that I will take greater care in the future.
Shalom Aleichem,
Melinda Barton
Well that's better. The only sticky point was here:
Although I disagree with atheist precepts, I have respect for the logic and reasoning upon which it is based. This continues despite my acceptance of faith in my own life.
Well I just looked up the word precept and it means principle or teaching. So she disagrees with atheist principles and teaching. I don't think atheism really has precepts like religions do. I would say that logic and reason are the principles on which atheism is based. She doesn't respect logic and reasoning enough to let them supplant her faith. That is the case with all religious people and is pretty much where atheists diverge from theists I guess. So she is still a little confused, but seems to feel pretty bad about the shitstorm she whipped up.
Posted by: Raindog | April 24, 2006 1:39 PM
In comments, Melanie's main evidence for the existence of "whackjobs" turns out to be a second-hand anecdote. But then whaddya know, our Resident Loon confesses to having been one:
I'll grant that I may have run across one or two more candidates on a.a over the years.
All of which merely supports my hypothesis that every stereotype has at least one exemplar -- though possibly not much more than that.
Posted by: lt.kizhe | April 24, 2006 1:40 PM
Simon said:
Actually, pick up a good book on early christianity (Bart Erhman has a couple good ones) and you'll find there was actually a lot of diversity in first and second century christian traditions. All four of the canonical gospels have different takes on Jesus and only Matthew really embraces Judism and in fact the epistles of Paul actually reject a lot of the Hebrew traditions.Posted by: JP | April 24, 2006 1:43 PM
I suspect all faith is irrational. But so is atheism. There is no test for God, so there can be no proof of existence or non-existence.
That said, can all you evangelical atheists be a bit more respectful of those of us who do have faith that there is some kind of Power beyond us?
Posted by: P J Evans | April 24, 2006 1:48 PM
If anyone came away with the impression that I consider secular extremism to be even an iota of the threat that religious extremism is, I apologize. I can only assure you that, I would hope, most of my work is better written and prepared and that I will take greater care in the future.
There is no such thing as "secular extremism", given that many Christians do in fact strongly support the principle of church-state separation. It would be nice if Barton would realize that and just stop smearing secularism. IMO, Barton merely comes across as a dumber Amy Sullivan at this point. She tried to pull a cute little 'Sistah Souljah' act in the name of "fairness", but it backfired on her. I have no doubt that Barton will learn to be more polite as a result of this flap, but I doubt she really learned anything else.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 24, 2006 1:58 PM
So what I think we'd all really like to know is if Simon has prune hands, and, if so, do they really affect how he does his "drawrings"?
Posted by: Opiwan![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
April 24, 2006 2:09 PM
As someone else has said, tolerant yes. Respectful, no.
Posted by: BMurray | April 24, 2006 2:11 PM
"I think there are reasons in the timing of these things...' Simon
What kind of reasons would those be? If you and Pascal are right and "...there is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition." where does that leave someone who certainly had a desire to see, and didn't start out with a "contrary disposition" at all, and yet has been denied such revelatory knowledge of the deity? In fact it was the search for a deeper understanding of faith that eventually led me away from faith.
I'm always intrigued when I meet someone whose path took the opposite direction from mine, from unbelief to faith, and who proposes this idea that God can be known if one simply has the desire to know. The idea raises so many questions for me. Was I so inadequate that God decided to hide from me what you say He has revealed to you? Was I wrong to entertain the possibility that what I may once have perceived as revelatory experiences were something else? Would it have been better to have ignored the questions in my mind, denied my intellect and embraced a faith based entirely on feelings? Is your faith today in some way superior to the faith I once had? If not, was God playing games for his own inscrutable reasons by denying me the certainty you seem to possess?
Not that I'm complaining; I'm a lot happier, healthier and, I think, a much better person having shed my faith; nor do I really expect you or anyone else to be able to give me a real answer, but I find these kinds of discussions always seem to come down to this assertion of the revelatory nature of knowledge of God's existence. To date I've never found anyone who could answer me why such revelation should be available to some truthseekers and not to others, like me. Usually it ends with assertions that my faith wasn't "real" in some way.
As for the idea that atheism is like a religion I'll just say that it is in the same way that my hair colour is bald...
I like that one `cause in the same whay I've gone from a ponytail to hairlessness I went from an abundance of faith to atheism. Both happened gradually, finally getting to the point where I had to let go of the last pathetic, straggling remnants and make a clean break. The final cut was quite liberating in both cases...;-)
Posted by: A Hermit | April 24, 2006 2:12 PM
Yes and I used that example because it is just the weirdest thing to admit. And there is also the skeptical theory that it was due to a dodgey translation of Isaiah 7:14. But you know even a baby being born is a pretty amazing thing, we don't call it a miracle because we understand some of it and how the processes came about. However advanced our understanding of the way certain types of genes switch on and define the function the cell will perform etc, there are still some massive questions about say, consciousness, that are a long way from our understanding (eg. Chalmers). There are of course people like the late Crick, or Hameroff, who think there is some potential for a mechanistic explanation of will that allows free will etc etc. But there are some real philosophical problems if you don't already have the empirical epistemological starting point where 'the mind is the brain which is a very complex machine'. But even if we do eventually understand them - we have been studying them. What we have not been doing is studying god scientifically. We simply wouldn't know where to start. These studies on prayers are just rediculous - they treat god as some kind of muppet clicking healing credit buttons every time someone says a prayer for someone.
Or take the start of the universe, if you accept red-shift (which is pretty solid), space and time emerged from a 'minute' point. You can then invent branes and say two collided, but you are coming up with highly speculative theories with no kind of evidence according to any science we know and have tested. With the "fine tuning" issue, the common solution is to invent billions of extra universes. There is no evidence for them whatsoever. Its like coming home and finding someone has broken into your house, and saying "no one would have broken into my house - someone must have swaped mine with someone elses that looks the same." Thats the kind of level of empirical reasoning (though I'm sure you will disagree :-) ).
I'll admit what I'm doing is significantly different from that. But where I am now I believe god exists, and believe he does now and then do things in the universe, even on earth. Yes from personal experience, and sometimes I do feel his presence, as do millions of others that are in all other ways rational and even skeptical types to a large degree. Rationality seems to have a different perspective depending on your starting point. Is it really reasonable that a people who had things like Isaiah 53 in their scriptures, and all kinds of stories of the messiah, would allow people to make up stories that exactly fitted all these old prephesies, without everyone going WTF ? Its simply not credible that the Romans would not have mentioned any controversy like that.
Anyway I'm rambling on - because its part of a bigger story. It was one of the last things I came to believe, and I certainly don't expect any of you to accept I'm being reasonable in accepting it. But I insist that from my perspective it is. There are good reasons why science and religion were seperated around the enlightenment. Scientists (not that they were called that then) had too many times filled a gap in their theories with some version of a concept from the bible. But now that science has become so successfull, the fact that god is explicitly non grata in science is sometimes taken to mean science says there is no god. It doesn't. At best science can be agnostic and say normally conception happens like this, and we have no reason to expect it happened differently in that case. And I say I do have reason, that it was not a normal conception, that it was the incarnation in human form of the same agent through which the universe was created. Obviously to you thats nonsense - because you don't think this creator god exists. But looking hard at the little details does not always let you see the whole picture. A great masterpiece just looks like a splodge of blue and a splodge of green.
Posted by: Simon | April 24, 2006 2:14 PM
No.
Seriously, you support that with a false equivalence. There is a difference between proposing the existence vs. non-existence of god: the former is a demand for belief in an entity without evidence, as you yourself admit; the latter is an expectation that believers will provide some minimal level of support for an idea (especially one as extravagantly absurd as a god!) before we'll bite. One is a reasonable habit that has served us well in the advancement of science and that we routinely use in our daily life, while the other is a looney departure from reasonable expectations.
I'll let you puzzle out which is which.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 24, 2006 2:14 PM
Exactly the weak atheist point. No evidence means irrational faith and certainly the irrationality of religion.
Posted by: GH | April 24, 2006 2:15 PM
I read through all that crap yesterday from your link and the one thing neither the editor nor the writer seem to understand is that, even though they use the caveat that it is not all athiests they are talking about, the article reads nonetheless as an indictment of all athiests. Ms. Barton goes on and on about these "extremist" athiests but can't name a one of them. Who are these "extremists" we should be fearful of? Without actually explaining WHO they are saying the left needs to distance itself from, they leave only the conclusion that they are talking about ANY athiest who apparently has the gall to challenge the religion and its many, many shortcomings.
Posted by: Planet B | April 24, 2006 2:16 PM
"can all you evangelical atheists be a bit more respectful of those of us who do have faith that there is some kind of Power beyond us?" - P J Evans
I do have respect for those with an honest, heartfelt faith; I'm willing to accept that you may have had some revelatory experience which has so far been beyond me (I don't think it's likely, but if that is the basis of your faith I know of no way to refute it), but I'm afraid I don't have much respect for arguments like this one:
"I suspect all faith is irrational. But so is atheism. There is no test for God, so there ca