…and this is a 
Infidels
Category: Carnivals • Godlessness
Posted on: September 3, 2006 8:02 PM, by PZ Myers
There are plenty of outspoken atheists in the United States—read the latest Carnival of the Godless #48 for a small sampling—but you can still find many mainstream journalists writing about them as if they were peculiar aliens living under a log with other unsavory and oddly constructed organisms. Today, it's Newsweek that exclaims in surprise that there are godless people among us.
It's not a very deep or thoughtful article, and what I found most noticeable about it is the obliviousness of the author. Here's how it starts:
Americans answered the atrocities of September 11, overwhelmingly, with faith. Attacked in the name of God, they turned to God for comfort; in the week after the attacks, nearly 70 percent said they were praying more than usual. Confronted by a hatred that seemed inexplicable, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson proclaimed that God was mad at America because it harbored feminists, gays and civil libertarians.
From there, it goes on to note that there are these unbelievers, Dawkins and Dennett and Harris, who are writing about the dangers of religious fanaticism, and this is "not a message most Americans wanted to hear," as if the strange thing is that rational people find no comfort in that invisible impotent phantasm, God, but it's perfectly reasonable for people to hear voices telling them to blow themselves up, or to talk to oneself in hopes that a holy ghost will materialize to smite one's foes. Answering atrocities with faith is like answering them with denial or wishing for leprechauns—it's ineffectual and pointless. But no, the weird thing is that these atheists are publishing popular books and making a case for skeptical, rational inquiry. O Heresy!
This particular passage was singled out for criticism by Afarensis, and I can see why. It's a twisted lump of illogic in the center of the article.
But Dawkins, brilliant as he is, overlooks something any storefront Baptist preacher might have told him. "If there is no God, why be good?" he asks rhetorically, and responds: "Do you really mean the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward? That's not morality, that's just sucking up." That's clever. But millions of Christians and Muslims believe that it was precisely God who turned them away from a life of immorality. Dawkins, of course, thinks they are deluding themselves. He is correct that the social utility of religion doesn't prove anything about the existence of God. But for all his erudition, he seems not to have spent much time among ordinary Christians, who could have told him what God has meant to them.
What is the author thinking here? Dawkins raises an objection to the idea that religion is a force for morality, and his reply is 1) the argument from popularity, that since millions believe, there must be something to it, and 2) the erroneous idea that beliefs about belief are a data point in favor of its efficacy. Millions of people believe that wearing a copper bracelet cures arthritis, that burying a statue of St Joseph in your yard will help sell your house, and that aliens have abducted human beings—not only does this stuff fail to prove anything about the existence of magic copper, helpful saints, or aliens with an anal fetish, but it also says that human belief is a fickle and silly thing that seems to have little bearing on what's actually true. I'm sure Dawkins has spent time among ordinary Christians, and has heard them earnestly declare how important God is to them, but so what? Ordinary Aztecs, animists from the Congo, and teenybopper fans of David Cassidy have all gushed over the central importance of their idols to their lives, and it doesn't impress most of us at all. Maybe we should add Argumentum ad Fanboi to the lexicon of logical fallacies.
It is not just extremists who earn the wrath of Dawkins and Harris. Their books are attacks on religious "moderates" as well--indeed, the very idea of moderation. The West is not at war with "terrorism," Harris asserts in "The End of Faith"; it is at war with Islam, a religion whose holy book, "on almost every page ... prepares the ground for religious conflict." Christian fundamentalists, he says, have a better handle on the problem than moderates: "They know what it's like to really believe that their holy book is the word of God, and there's a paradise you can get to if you die in the right circumstances. They're not left wondering what is the 'real' cause of terrorism." As for the Bible, Harris, like the fundamentalists, prefers a literal reading. He quotes at length the passages in the Old and New Testaments dealing with how to treat slaves. Why, he asks, would anyone take moral instruction from a book that calls for stoning your children to death for disrespect, or for heresy, or for violating the Sabbath? Obviously our culture no longer believes in that, he adds, so why not agree that science has made it equally unnecessary to invoke God to explain the Sun, or the weather, or your own existence?
I can't say that I'm particularly fond of critics who don't understand what they are criticizing. No, the books he's talking about aren't attacks on religious moderates, or on the idea of moderation: they are attacks on foolish ideas. If I say 2 + 2 = 4, and the raving lunatic in the corner says 2 + 2 = 6, the "moderate" does not get points for suggesting that we split the difference and agree that 2 + 2 = 5. When the premise you are working from is false, it doesn't matter how polite you are, or how fair you are about giving each side a turn to speak.
It's the same story with Harris's approach to the Bible. Are you going to claim it's the sacred, inspired word of God, or are you going to say it's the theological maunderings of a lot of old priests? One thing that doesn't make any sense at all is to claim that you are going to pick and choose which bits are the True Words of God, and ignore the ones that you think are out of date or wrong. That's Harris's point: once you start seeing the objectionable and the lunatic in the holy words, there's no reason to stop, no reason not to reject the divinity and treat the whole thing as a wholly human production.
Ah, but lazy thinkers always stoop to portraying atheists as the equivalent of fundamentalists, out to purge anyone who has impure thoughts.
Even agnostic moderates get raked over--like the late Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionary biologist who attempted to broker a truce between science and religion in his controversial 1999 book "Rocks of Ages." Gould proposed that science and religion retreat to separate realms, the former concerned with empirical questions about the way the universe works, while the latter pursues ultimate meaning and ethical precepts. But, Dawkins asks, unless the Bible is right in its historical and metaphysical claims, why should we grant it authority in the moral realm? And can science really abjure any interest in the claims of religion? Did Jesus come back from the dead, or didn't he? If so, how did God make it happen? Collins says he is satisfied with the answer that the Resurrection is a miracle, permanently beyond our understanding. That Collins can hold that belief, while simultaneously working at the very frontiers of science as the head of the Human Genome Project, is what amazes Harris.
Notice that Dawkins raises those awkward, difficult questions, and the reviewer…glides over them, unperturbed, and simply utters the new iconic name among theists, St Francis of Collins. Well, it's nice that Collins is satisfied by the word "miracle," but it's really no answer, and it says more about the shallowness of Collins' thinking than it does in actually addressing any of those questions. I can tell we're going to hear much, much more about Collins from now on—he's the all-purpose answer to any criticism of religion from a scientist. He's a wonderful 2 + 2 = 5er.
The Newsweek article concludes by simultaneously belittling the importance of those inconsequential atheists, and raising the worry that their continued vocal insistence on existing is going to get people hurt.
Believers can take comfort in the fact that atheism barely amounts to a "movement." American Atheists, which fights in the courts and legislatures for the rights of nonbelievers, has about 2,500 members and a budget of less than $1 million.
Oh, and the Armenian Apostolic Church only has about 200,000 members in the US, so we can all take comfort in the fact that there are hardly any Christians here.
Cute trick. Take a group that has no central organization at all, pick one associated organization, and pretend that that subset is the whole. Ignore the fact that the nonreligious are the second largest belief category in the US and the secularists are the fastest growing segment of the population.
On the science Web site Edge.org, the astronomer Carolyn Porco offers the subversive suggestion that science itself should attempt to supplant God in Western culture, by providing the benefits and comforts people find in religion: community, ceremony and a sense of awe. "Imagine congregations raising their voices in tribute to gravity, the force that binds us all to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, and the Sun to the Milky Way," she writes. Porco, who is deeply involved in the Cassini mission to Saturn, finds spiritual fulfillment in exploring the cosmos. But will that work for the rest of the world--for "the people who want to know that they're going to live forever and meet Mom and Dad in heaven? We can't offer that."
Here's the important point, though, the thing that all the bland and thoughtless guzzlers of religious myths don't want to think about: when people want to know about an afterlife, religion can't answer it, either. They don't know! They're good at covering up their ignorance with a smooth patter of dogma and doctrine, but don't confuse "spiritual fulfillment" with "hearing what you want to hear." That's all religion has to offer. If science has any handicap as a substitute for faith, it's that scientists are more reluctant to lie than are priests.
If you want grand and tangible ideas and objects to venerate, though, the scientists have a lock. We offer the entire universe and all space and time as the center of our beliefs. The priests? A rather dull book or two, and the tepid products of some uninformed imaginations.
If Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are right, the five-century-long competition between science and religion is sharpening. People are choosing sides. And when that happens, people get hurt.
And of course, no one had been hurt in the millennia that religion held unchallenged sway; religion would never be divisive, and until science came along and made people uncomfortable with their myths and superstitions, everyone was happy and got along peacefully and sang hymns as the manna fell from heaven.
Yes, let us choose sides. I'm on the side of enlightenment and knowledge and critical thinking and the rejection of dogma. Which side are you going to be on?
(crossposted to The American Street)
Comments
Atheism had me at the first two hellos in Genesis.
Posted by: Retired Catholic | September 3, 2006 8:24 PM
'Believers can take comfort in the fact that atheism barely amounts to a "movement."'
Ofcourse it doesn't... A movement often wants to covert others, grow bigger, instate new rules and new dogmas. One of the basic things about Atheïsm is that we don't do those things. We don't need to convence people to ensure ourselves we are "right"..
The artice acts as though Atheïsm is a religion that competes with Christianity, which is just plain silly.
Posted by: Dutch Vigilante | September 3, 2006 8:29 PM
Actually, if you see Dawkins's movie, he spends quite a bit of time with fundamentalists from all faiths.
They don't at all look convincing, only scary.
Of note to Newsweek.
Also, Harris quote in an interview a minister, reading his book to his audience, but offering no rebuttal at all. In his opinion, it seems, Harris is so obviously wrong that he doesn't even need to bother with a response.
The style of Newsweek.
Posted by: mndarwinist | September 3, 2006 8:32 PM
"Imagine congregations raising their voices in tribute to gravity, the force that binds us all to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, and the Sun to the Milky Way,"
Wow, I hadn't heard that before. While I see the appeal behind the idea of supplanting dangerous emic and community experiences with benign ones, I can't help but think that engineered rituals worshipping gravity will fizzle and leave everyone involved feeling a little silly.
To be fair, I have been wrong about this sort of thing before, and that usually happen when I give people too much credit. I still really can't imagine the Reformed Church of the Singularity attracting too many congregants.
Posted by: fishbane | September 3, 2006 8:49 PM
Come all you good people,
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how empiric methods
Have come in here to dwell.
CHORUS:
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
My dady was a chemist,
And I'm a chemist's son,
And I'll stick with science
'Til every battle's won.
They say in Kansas Country
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a science man
Or a thug for ____ (damnit, i need a religious leader that rhymes with 'there')
Oh people can you stand it?
Oh tell me how you can?
Will you be a fundie dupe
Or will you be a man?
Don't follow the clerics,
Don't listen to their lies.
Our culture hasn't got a chance
Unless we hypothesize.
Posted by: matt | September 3, 2006 8:55 PM
If the author of the Newsweek article thinks that atheists are so inconsequential, why spend so much time trying to refute them? It looks like a bad case of insecurity to me.
Posted by: Brian Axsmith | September 3, 2006 8:58 PM
Ugh, don't get me started on Newsweek.
Posted by: j | September 3, 2006 8:59 PM
Mr. Myers,
Thank you for being "on the side of enlightenment and knowledge and critical thinking and the rejection of dogma". I can't claim to be a "2+2=5er" but I see no conflict between the practicality of the scientific method and the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. I choose faith AND reason.
I expect that you are right if you think that the psuedo-science attacks on 'Darwin' are an attempt to mask the lust for more and still more corporate power and irresponsibility. There is a very real effort underway to hijack a 'great world religion' and, of course, it's about greed and power.
Though you may be an unbeliever, I hope you will not be offended if I recognize you as a prophet of God. We need you desperately. I cannot send an offering to you but I will send up my prayers to Heaven for even more strength and wisdom for you. Please, keep up the good work.
Posted by: Tom | September 3, 2006 9:01 PM
Excellent, matt!
Posted by: Doodle Bean | September 3, 2006 9:21 PM
er, that was weird.
Posted by: kansas_lib | September 3, 2006 9:22 PM
Thank you for being "on the side of enlightenment and knowledge and critical thinking and the rejection of dogma". I can't claim to be a "2+2=5er" but I see no conflict between the practicality of the scientific method and the meaning of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. I choose faith AND reason.
Tom: Thank you for being sane. I don't mean to condescend, so please don't take it that way - I hate that I have to even say this, but the current polarity is stark. As an atheist who doesn't have an axe or a grinder, I don't at all mind religious people. As you state, our common enemy is people who want to dictate morality, stifle science when it doesn't support certain conclusions, and control politics.
If I have one suggestion, it would be that laying labels like "prophet of God" on others who do not share your faith may not be welcome. You're completely free to pray for others, but consider how you'd feel if someone of a different faith labeled you "Harbinger of Ba'al". I know you think you're paying a compliment, and I don't speak for our host, but it wouldn't sit well with me, even though I know you mean well.
A big aspect of tolerance for disagreement is at least a bit of understanding how others think, reason and feel about the world. Everyone has a lens through which the view things; empathy is understanding how they refract. (And reporting is telling the truth as you see it, but that's a different discussion.)
Posted by: fishbane | September 3, 2006 9:22 PM
Tom,
I appreciate your views and share some of them but the above sentence is simply absurd. It is not at all reasonable to this of the latter as a 'reasoned' belief. You can have an irrational faith in it and I would support you but we must be sure not to delude ourselves into thinking this a belief based on reason.
Posted by: Uber | September 3, 2006 9:24 PM
PZ Myers, a prophet? That's almost as bad as when a group of Chinese wanted to deify Bertrand Russell!
Posted by: Keith Douglas | September 3, 2006 9:25 PM
Wow, nearly 30 minutes have gone by and no one has attacked Tom for expressing his belief in God. Are the Pharangulians going soft or have they accepted the recent kindler, gentler admonitions of the Chief Pharangulian?
Posted by: AndyS | September 3, 2006 9:28 PM
PZ writes:
Two points:
1. The article writer cedes Dawkin's point that Christians' belief has no bearing on the existence/non-existence of God.
2. PZ lists three provably wrong irrational beliefs while ignoring the fundamental connectedness of someone's behavior and their beliefs. If someone honestly says that their belief in God turned them from their path of wickedness, that is a true statement. It may be that their belief in God is simply delusion, but that does not rob it of its efficacy. Nor does it negate the "social utility" of that religious conversion.
Posted by: Chasm | September 3, 2006 9:33 PM
"In the science Web site Edge.org, the astronomer Carolyn Porco offers the subversive suggestion that science itself should attempt to supplant God in Western culture."
In much of "Western culture" outside America, this isn't a "subversive suggestion" at all. It's what most people take for granted. The Enlightenment happened over 200 years ago, you know.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 3, 2006 9:48 PM
Ah, the "eat my cake and have it too" school of delusion.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 3, 2006 9:56 PM
Oh, need I mention that I consider Newsweek to be a current-events-pimped Woman's Day?
Everyone, let's all write our personal "Day in the Life of a Friendly Neighborhood Atheist" stories and send them off for publication in the "My Turn" column, and see what doesn't happen.
Posted by: Kristine | September 3, 2006 9:59 PM
Not necessarily. It follows only that they believe it to be a true statement, not that the statement itself is true.
How... curious... that you seem unable to notice even the most blatant flaws in your reasoning when you've reached a conclusion you find palatable.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 3, 2006 10:02 PM
Chasm writes, "If someone honestly says that their belief in God turned them from their path of wickedness, that is a true statement."
Perhaps. It's certainly as plausible as any other self-related explanation of personal change.
"It may be that their belief in God is simply delusion, but that does not rob it of its efficacy."
If the reason they offer for their belief is its efficacy, that in itself is proof that their belief is irrational.
Posted by: Russell | September 3, 2006 10:08 PM
Dutch Vigilante has it right. Atheists are by definition not organized.; they have no dogma to create or defend. They don't proselyltize; each person makes their own decisions. They especially value individuality and the primacy of the mind. Getting any three to agree is harder than getting two cats to march in lockstep. Adler's comment (Adler's the Newsweek author) on American Atheists' membership only numbering 2500 should conclude with amazement that one could get that many to organize in one group and agree on goal. Anyone who's every attended a meeting of Atheists knows that by comparison a meeting of all the Democratic Party factions would look like a love fest.
Posted by: Keanus | September 3, 2006 10:09 PM
"If someone honestly says that their belief in God turned them from their path of wickedness, that is a true statement. It may be that their belief in God is simply delusion, but that does not rob it of its efficacy. Nor does it negate the "social utility" of that religious conversion."
What someone is saying in this case is that their belief in God turned them from their path of wickedness; but they honestly believe that GOD actually did the turning, when in fact they did their own turning. Yes, religion did have some value in these instances but they want us to believe that this constitutes belief in God.
For example Cris Carter attributed his success with the Vikings to God; he had been using drugs and doing other bad things with the Eagles but the fact that the Eagles put him on waivers because of his behavior and it was causing problems in his career. He came to the Vikings, started acting like he believed in God and did some great things in his career and his charity work. But we have no way of knowing that it was God working through him, as he claims, or if it was him doing it all himself and giving the credit to a higher power.
I suspect it was Cris doing all the work, but needing a belief in a higher power to explain his sudden turnaround. It gave him the answer he was looking for, not necessarily the truth.
Atheists only ask for extraordinary proof of an extraordinary claim; and so far all proofs extended for the existence of God have fallen far short. The problem that atheists have with religious scientists is trying to figure out why a scientist can demand statistical verification of phenomena in their professional careers and avocations, and in an area so central to our nature, our "spirituality" (for lack of a better word) let shoddy proofs stand.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | September 3, 2006 10:10 PM
I am sorely tempted to make a side-ways remark about the "challenge" of critiquing a "Newsweek" reporter's reason, but on second thought I realised that since THIS is the sort of C- thinking that is popular reading, sometimes it is necessary or desired.
I know of Dawkins, Dennett and Gould, but which Harris? I didn't pick this up on first reading -- possibly because my 4-yr-old is underfoot and the missus is calling us to supper.
Best wishes, Tom! Continue to grapple!
Posted by: wrymouth | September 3, 2006 10:20 PM
fishbane writes:
"A big aspect of tolerance for disagreement is at least a bit of understanding how others think, reason and feel about the world. Everyone has a lens through which the view things; empathy is understanding how they refract. (And reporting is telling the truth as you see it, but that's a different discussion.)"
Point well taken, fishbane, but thank you for your graciousness. I am but an egg (not even yet a pharyngula). To me, PZ is providing a much needed light into a very dim place. My hope is to encourage him and others to continue. At this time, encouragement and prayer is all I can offer.
Posted by: Tom | September 3, 2006 10:37 PM
"If science has any handicap as a substitute for faith, it's that scientists are more reluctant to lie than are priests."
OK, that line's a classic!
Oh, and AndyS: We're not beating on Tom because he wasn't obnoxious. That simple. Calling PZ, an avowed atheist, a "Prophet of God", is perhaps awkward in a "fanboy" sort of way, but it's clearly not an insult, and I'm certain PZ himself can recognize that. This idea of taking offense even at a compliment, because it's not phrased according to your religion... well, that's a religious thing, and not even universal among religions.
Of course, "I see no conflict..." bit is like waving a red flag, so we see Uber trying to swat at the flag without being too hostile about it. ;-)
Posted by: David Harmon | September 3, 2006 10:50 PM
Excellent, matt!
Thanks. Next up is a new rendition of Joe Hill's classic "The Preacher and the Slave"
Posted by: matt | September 3, 2006 11:03 PM
Matt,
"They say in Kansas Country
No neutrals there do dwell.
You'll either be a science man
Or a thug for Jerry Falwell."
Posted by: Foobarski | September 3, 2006 11:16 PM
Point well taken, fishbane, but thank you for your graciousness. I am but an egg (not even yet a pharyngula). To me, PZ is providing a much needed light into a very dim place. My hope is to encourage him and others to continue. At this time, encouragement and prayer is all I can offer.
I'm simply glad we had a nice dialogue wherein disagreement was possible, and it came to an amicable end. That's really rare these days. I welcome those who have beliefs to join with me (or, me with them) when we campaign for sensible democracy, science based research, or policy driven not from a book, but from reason. For that matter, I love it when people disagree with me and use reason to do so. It makes me stronger, or, rarely, convinces me I was wrong. But that's even better, from a philosophical payload perspective.
Again, thanks, Tom, you remind me that not everyone who practices religion strongly is as vicious as some of the beasts that use the same mantle to preach genocide, etc.
Posted by: fishbane | September 3, 2006 11:20 PM
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night!
Posted by: Ken Cope | September 3, 2006 11:21 PM
Well I think that humans basically are irrational beings.
That's why we have invented religion as an explanation and social system, which is basically is and many MANY people still favours the inprovable explanations over the provable because they are easier to comprehend and can give answers however unsatisfactory on closer inspections where the realm of the provable gives up.
And that bleeds over into faith in the domain of explanations that can be proven in false and incorrect explanations.
Posted by: Bo Dixen Pedersen | September 3, 2006 11:22 PM
Barbara Ehrenreich had something similar to this in a column a few years back about the Church of Secular Humanism ("then we all join hands and chant the Periodic Table"), but she meant it as a joke.
Posted by: Seth Gordon | September 3, 2006 11:35 PM
Changing the whole thing... just because it was fun...
"They say in Kansas Country
No neutrals there do dwell.
You'll either run to reason
Or run away from Hell."
(speedwell the apostate)
Posted by: speedwell | September 3, 2006 11:44 PM
From Caledonian
I admit that I have not studied philosophy, but, if I cannot make a true statement about my behavior being based on my beliefs/thought processes, then any concept I have of "self" pretty much has to go out the window, doesn't it?
"I did not grab that cookie because I believe that I did not need the extra calories." My thought processes were exactly along that line-- how is that not a true statement? Please note that if I were starving, my *belief* that I do not need the extra calories would be completely erroneous, and yet the statement I made would still be true (at least in my delusional little world that I find palatable.)
PZ put out three examples where peoples' beliefs have no functional bearing on what actually happens. (Well, there's probably placebo effect for the copper bracelets.) The example he was trying to refute is not so straightforward. Beliefs (rational and irrational) affect behavior. Christianity can affect people positively (Cris Carter in Mike's comment), or negatively (in the case of, say, most christians discussed by PZ).
Posted by: Chasm | September 3, 2006 11:51 PM
My favorite headline on the subject...
"Wartorn Middle East Seeks Solace in Religion" - The Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/51849
Posted by: Robert Bate | September 3, 2006 11:54 PM
Unfortunately, real science doesn't come neatly packaged into catechisms and invocations.... Then too, science doesn't need to be worshipped! A deep understanding of nature can indeed bring reverence, but nature is not moved thereby, only ourselves. Likewise, science itself may be respected or not, but that doesn't change its principles.
Posted by: David Harmon | September 4, 2006 12:00 AM
Before I choose sides, I'm going to start by defining "God". One CAN believe in a god AND be rational, scientific, logical, etc - deism Science by definition, only studies the physical world, so if God is defined as being somehow "above or beyond" the physical world, and separate from it, beyond scientific analysis, there's no logical contradiction, and the neverending, intellectual science/religion dichotomy is irrelevant. But that kind of deistic deity is surely not a feature of the "side" PZ is arguing against. Religion often ignores the "keep off the scientific grass" signs
Remember the philosophical question about red? "How can I be sure MY idea of red is the same as THEIRS?" It's probably the same for god or gods. Pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, monotheism, deism, agnosticism, it's just whatever you were raised on, whatever psychologically attracts you. Opinions, interpretations. Some have what it takes to persist, others die out. So many little so-called truths, but no one big "Truth".
Something else: atheism only exists because THEISTS did first. Without theistic beliefs, there would be surely nothing to argue against so explicitly. (e.g. Notice there are no "a-leprachaunists"...) People wouldn't NEED to organise themselves into dynamic groups based on non-belief of something, unless the believers strongly outnumbered the non-believers.
Posted by: Pete K | September 4, 2006 12:27 AM
Something else: atheism only exists because THEISTS did first. Without theistic beliefs, there would be surely nothing to argue against so explicitly.
Was this intended as a defense of theism?
Posted by: junk science | September 4, 2006 12:47 AM
Screed of the proselytizing Atheist
Arise, fellow atheists! The time has come to throw down the works of the god-fearing! Let the wails of the ununbelievers ring out across the land as a warning to all those who would fail to doubt the power of the almighty! The great purge is at hand. Come, brothers in science, sisters in reason, let your rallying cry of "flagella evolved!" echo in the mountains and in the plains, let it bring dismay to your enemies so that their hearts quail at the sound! Then, when the last vestige of godlessnesslessness has been vanquished, then at last we shall have peace (well, at least until we have to take care of those bloody agnostics).
Until atheists start speaking like this, I doubt very much if Newsweek's Mr. Adler need fear that people will get "hurt" (unless he's talking about their feelings). In fact, if anyone does get "hurt", I rather strongly suspect it will be the atheists. Therefore Mr. Adler may put his mind at ease.
Nathan
Posted by: Nsherrard | September 4, 2006 12:53 AM
AndyS wrote:
No. Tom just doesn't think as highly of himself as you do, and didn't leap in here with a condescending and patronizing tone. That counts for a lot with me.
Posted by: Dustin | September 4, 2006 12:55 AM
("then we all join hands and chant the Periodic Table")
What Tom Lehrer gave us isn't exactly a chant:
There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium,
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium
And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium,
And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium,
Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium
And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium
And gold, protactinium and indium and gallium
And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium...
Posted by: bad Jim | September 4, 2006 12:56 AM
Well the pope is at it again, Herr Professor-Turned-Pope will be leading a Seminar on Evolution. Apparently the pope can't quite reconcile "faith and reason." The attitudes expressed by the protagonists quoted in this NY Times article are a mirror image of those expressed in the Newsweek commentary. In particular the pope, when still a cardinal, is quoted as saying:
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution," he said. "Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
To show the vacuousness of this sentiment just remove the subject "God" and repeat the quote as follows
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution," "Each of us is the result of a thought. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
As an atheist and humanist I can accept the above formulation. Evolution, in and of itself is casual and meaningless. But I am more than its product. I was the result a thought (that of my parents), I was loved (by my family) and I feel necessary as I contribute to the best of my ability to my communiuty. There are evolutionarily contingent reasons for all of the above, but they only explain why we think, love and create not the thought, love or creation per se. In addition, most of our social problems are due to the lack of thought (unwanted children), the lack of love (child abuse) and the lack of commitment to one's community (despair and alienation, the result of the two deficiencies mentioned above). God does not enter into the equation.
Posted by: DAE | September 4, 2006 1:33 AM
Opps The link to the NY Times article on the pope and evolution is here.
Posted by: DAE | September 4, 2006 1:47 AM
Yeah, and I have a hard time thinking that a child is born into the Darfur region to die of disease or starvation or violence before his third birthday out of God's divine plan. That isn't love, and it isn't necessary.
Sometimes I wonder whether it's even worth asking if God exists since, if he does, it's pretty clear that he's a thoughtless immoral ass who isn't worth our time anyway. And before someone asks me, yes, I would say that to his face.
Posted by: Dustin | September 4, 2006 2:07 AM
PZ, I think that very first quote from the Newsweek article was kind of broken. Let me try to repair it:
There, all better.
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | September 4, 2006 2:10 AM
Dustin, I think as far as most theists are concerned, you just did. :)
As for myself, I'm inclined to think that it's hard to know what I'd say in the face of such power as the average deity is supposed to possess without actually being faced with that deity. I look at the wingnuts screaming about the "cowardice" of those two Fox journalists who proclaimed their allegiance to Islam under threat of death, and much as I can spin stories about what I would've done to avoid having to belie my own convictions, well, would I actually have done any of that? What pressures were they faced with that I haven't imagined? I really have no way of knowing. So, much as I hope I'd do the courageous thing in such a situation, I can't claim to know whether my hope is grounded in reality.
Fortunately, I'm probably even less likely to be faced with a need to challenge a deity to its face than with a need to challenge Islamic militants. So it seems unlikely that this is actually worth me worrying about. :)
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | September 4, 2006 2:20 AM
Tom:
If would be so kind as to help me understand what you mean by this. You consider something true if:
a) When there is not enough reason, I add a little faith
b) If I don't have enough faith, I add a little reason
c) Render unto Reason what is reasonable, and ONLY when there is no scientific theory I switch to faith, e.g. Why does gravity exist?
d) None of the above (please explain)
Posted by: 601 | September 4, 2006 2:27 AM
Just as an aside I found this quote on a myspace website(embarrassed as I am that I was curious enough to see what the fuss is about):
Interesting isn't it?
Posted by: GH | September 4, 2006 2:39 AM
Great fun, Matt! My suggestion for the blank:
"They say in Kansas Country
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a science man
Or give yourself to prayer."
Posted by: Thinker | September 4, 2006 3:47 AM
Remember the philosophical question about red? "How can I be sure MY idea of red is the same as THEIRS?"
We commonly agree to assign the arbitrary label "red" to a certain set of wavelengths. Those who do not agree have a "disorder", either of (physical) perception or of mind, because "red" is a convention. Words are of no use whatsoever unless we agree on their meaning.
Posted by: Graculus | September 4, 2006 4:09 AM
...
...
I always hate that "I'll pray for you" thingie. More than half the time, it's a passive-aggressive assault. Kind of a "I just know you're going to burn in hell, but I'll condescend to intercede for you anyway."
As to the ending of that article:
Am I the only one who hears the none-too-subtle threat in that?
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | September 4, 2006 4:34 AM
I consider this posting the best fisking by anyone on any topic I have read all year. I'm happy now.
Posted by: John | September 4, 2006 4:58 AM
Mike Haubrich wrote:
I finally figured out that the vikings and eagles were sports teams of some kind. I was very confused by this sentence for a while.
Posted by: Mike | September 4, 2006 5:18 AM
"We offer the entire universe and all space and time as the center of our beliefs. The priests? A rather dull book or two, and the tepid products of some uninformed imaginations."
Yes, that is a nice perspective.
Actually it's more exciting than that. As it stands today, multiverses are the simplest explanations in a number of theories in science and philosophy, and at least the level 1 and 2 of Tegmarks multiverse cathegories seems best supported theories by observations. The religious perspective seems rather narrow and dull in comparison.
BTW, using some informed imagination instead; level 1 universes - infinite copies of me and my closest, possibly including an infinite subset who will live forever by some fortuitous mechanism or invention. Level 2 universes - infinite copies of me and my closest, reoccuring forever. Religious thinkers will have to come up with new tricks if they want to trump the sweet hand of science as it is today.
matt:
"They say in Kansas Country
There are no neutrals there.
You'll either be a science man
Or a thug for ____ (damnit, i need a religious leader that rhymes with 'there')"
Or a thug for a whore.
Since whores also offers love for a living. (No offence meant to whores - I'm sure they do the best they can in a difficult situation.)
Pete:
I'm sure you can call deism or fideism many things, but not rational.
Deism is usually supported by cosmological or teleological arguments that have their own problems. But even a rarefied deism is not rational.
First, it has no rational motivation. It is equivalent to an adhoc. But adhocs are usually motivated by observation, or they are part of a theory that lends the motivation. Circumstances may motivate unsupported adhocs, but there is no such forcing here.
Second, it isn't rational. It is a dualism, things that science has been debunking since its inception. Naturalism is 'common descent with modification' of theories, dualisms doesn't 'spontaneously occur'. Call it materialism if you will, monism of matter or nature, but that is what is observed. One universe, one fundamental structure connected by universal concepts in theories. Deism is also not parsimonious, so absent supporting observations it fundamentally isn't compatible with science method.
"How can I be sure MY idea of red is the same as THEIRS?"
Subjective experience is a representation of the mind. Representations are different for different minds, but for most human minds probably not too different at any level. Most of us are running See (TM) in Windows of our eyes (TM) on Neuronium processors (TM). :-) As Graculus comment, in this case there is a robust objective outside referent.
But experience has nothing to do with fundamental descriptions of religions and atheism. Atheism is qualitatively different, like bald is not a hair color.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | September 4, 2006 5:32 AM
"Representations are different for different minds, but for most human minds probably not too different at any level."
Hum. I probably need to qualify that. These representations as such are analogous. But of course individually implemented in different individuals.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | September 4, 2006 5:46 AM
"I always hate that "I'll pray for you" thingie. More than half the time, it's a passive-aggressive assault."
Hank, I think the proper response should be "If you'll pray for me, I'll think for you." Kinda sums up the subjects of faith vs. reason.
Posted by: Magnus | September 4, 2006 6:07 AM
I can translate most people's use of the word "faith." It's a sort of shorthand for someting that flutters between "fear" and "sloth."
Any real religion would acknowledge both as part of our humanity, while working to overcome their animalizing (in the human sense of the word) effects.
Oh, and the guy who wrote the articla was REALLY a doody-brained idiot of an asshole. I stopped bothering after the first except. Groucho Marx would have dealt with him appropiately, you can bet.
Posted by: goddogtired | September 4, 2006 6:07 AM
Wll crtnly wldn't wnt t lv n cntry rn by fndmntlsts.
r Lnnsts.
nd sr s hll nt by PZ MYRS.
Posted by: Emanuel Goldstein | September 4, 2006 6:53 AM
Well, the Unitarian Universalist hymnal doesn't have any songs under "gravity", but it does have three hymns listed under "evolution" - at first I thought that could make PZ happy, but two of them seem teleologist and the other's frankly deist. :( Oh well. #14's pleasantly atheist, and starts off praising sun, stars, and moonlight, but never explicitly gets to gravity.
The readings do a bit better: 5 on "evolution", mostly not too theist. I almost like the call-and-response
"Blessed be you, mighty matter, irresistible march of evolution, reailty ever new-born;
You who, by constantly shattering our mental categories, force us to go ever further and further in our pursuit of truth."
I can't find a copy of the newly-published supplement to the hymnal, but I think they spent their energy on multi-cultural, not science, there. So my current candidates for gravity hymns would have to be limited to:
*) Astrocapella - a capella group founded by NASA astrophysicists
*) filk sings at a science-fiction convention
Posted by: Tom H. | September 4, 2006 7:38 AM
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 4, 2006 10:58 AM
Dichosa
Posted by: dichosa | September 4, 2006 11:05 AM
Unfortunately, "irresistible march" stinks of teleology. And let's not get started on "blessed"...
GH: How do you decide who is genuinely seeing something no one else can see, and who has a delusion no one else has?
Posted by: Chris | September 4, 2006 11:42 AM
Thanks, Bo Dixen Pedersen, even though the rest of your post didn't make much sense gramatically.
So, is it irrational to claim that, since evidence abounds that human beings aren't rational, ergo we should be attempting to rationalize our irrationality into some kind of open-minded format that doesn't interfere with advancing the overall rational faculty and knowledge base of our species?
As an aside, my mother prays for me constantly. It used to drive me nuts, until I just accepted that this was her irrational way of trying to come to grips with the bewildering informational deluge that is conscious human existence. Now, even though I'm not religious, I remind her to pray for me whenever I'm going through some kind of challenge in my life. I see this as the equivalent of speaking Portuguese to someone from Portugal - easier than trying to converse with them in, for example, Swahili.
This method of keeping the peace will probably continue to work right up until she realizes I'm going to raise her grandchildren to be Secular Humanists...
Posted by: Lukku Cairi | September 4, 2006 12:03 PM
Correct med if I'm wrong, but I thought Y was considered a consonant in the english alphabeth. Might explain why PZ included the letter.
Posted by: Magnus | September 4, 2006 12:04 PM
It's purely pragmatic. Deleting "y" in addition to "aeiou" seems to make it much, much harder to decipher. The idea is to leave enough of the comment intact that anyone who really wants to can figure out the gist of it, but to still discourage people from bothering to reply to it.
Posted by: PZ Myers![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 4, 2006 12:10 PM
Rational people in America clearly have their work cut out for them. Not only does the mainstream press unapologetically -- and worse, unthinkingly -- toe the logically bereft "atheists-are-in-the-minority-so-the-problem-is-theirs" line, but people can look at fuckery like this and claim with a straight face that watching some poor kid say, also with a straight face, he was saved by Jesus at age five is uplifting, reasonable, and most of all, right.
Religion is nothing more than a communicable mental disorder with varying levels of penetrance (Tom has only mild symptoms and is very high-fucntioning, while fundagelicals are in the grip of fulminant disease).
Posted by: kemibe | September 4, 2006 12:36 PM
(damnit, i need a religious leader that rhymes with 'there')
Pope Ratzing-ere
ok it's a stretch
Posted by: voodoo-1 | September 4, 2006 12:49 PM
A E I O U, and sometimes Y.
Posted by: quork | September 4, 2006 1:08 PM
"How can I be sure MY idea of red is the same as THEIRS?"
Ooh, did this guy pick the wrong example! This is a classic case where the common experience yields a solidly consistent result, which is normally taken as representing objective reality.
Given an something with a given primary or secondary color, you can go down the street, and the overwhelming majority of English-speakers will give exactly the same answer for the color. Tertiary colors will get you a consistent set of responses, whose "usual referents" will cluster tightly around the sample color. (Similarly, non-English speakers will give consistent results in their own language.)
Likewise, if you bring out two objects of different colors, these same people will be equally consistent in being able to distingush them. If the colors are similar, the consistency will be in the percentage who lump them together. In this case, even the language hardly matters.
And most interesting of all are the exceptions! Notably, some 7% of American males will be specifically unable, or less able, to distinguish among colors ranging between red and green. For any given individual, the degree of disability will be measurable and consistent, and among individuals, the measurements will neatly cluster into a small handful of subtypes and scales.
But the thing is, in no case does our society allow a color-blind person to assert their reduced experience of colors as equally authoritative to a normal person's view. When my Dad couldn't make out the color of a traffic light or naval buoy, he would ask a companion, sometimes one brought along for the purpose. He might gripe about America signing onto the red/green buoy standard (red/black was much easier for him) but he didn't even mumble about his vision being "just as good in it's own way" -- because he knew that neither law, nor cross traffic, would care about "validating his personal experiences".
Posted by: David Harmon | September 4, 2006 1:24 PM
I don't really get bothered when people offer to pray for me. When I was in the hospital, I was surprised to find out that a group of my Christian friends had organized a prayer session to pray for me. Another time, when some other shit was happening, a Christian friend prayed for me every day. And yes, I have had Christians pray for my salvation. In my personal experience, those who pray for others actually care about them but feel helpless to change the situation. So they appeal to a higher power. While I cannot function this way, I can understand why others might want to.
Posted by: j | September 4, 2006 1:28 PM
The whole article smacks of good ol' kneejerk anti-intellectualism and condescension--the journalist writes as if he can hardly believe that *anyone* would *ever* contemplate, of all things--gasp! shock! quel horreur!--atheism. His contempt is palpable. Would that his contempt be saved for the pedophile priests and faith healer scam artists, but no, heap it on the person who thoughtfully says, "Er, one minute, please..."