…and this is a 
For the wishy-washy, the apologists, the appeasers...rejoice!
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 23, 2006 1:01 PM, by PZ Myers
Wired has the perfect article for you: it's called the Battle of the New Atheism, and it's message is that the New Atheists (Dawkins, Harris, Dennett) are, well, right, but they're also obnoxious and unsettling and foolish, and gosh, but youth pastors are cool and nifty and caring.
Where does this leave us, we who have been called upon to join this uncompromising war against faith? What shall we do, we potential enlistees? Myself, I've decided to refuse the call. The irony of the New Atheism — this prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism — is too much for me.
The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.
Ah, yes. The classic response of the comfortable: both sides are bad, both are threatening my cozy life, so I'll just damn them both and ignore them, hoping they'll go away…and heck, misrepresenting the upstarts is always good. Actually, what these New Atheists are saying is that sure, we could be wrong, but the other side is almost certainly wrong. What we have to offer is uncertainty and a demand for some degree of rigor; it's the theists who are arrogant in their certainty, who are willing to believe in the ridiculous, who reject the author's "bedrock faith" that there's a chance they could be wrong. The real irony is that he doesn't recognize that his last sentence is a good summary of the principles of this "New Atheism," and that it is directly contrary to the philosophy of the New Religion he finds so unthreatening.
The article is a perfect example of the tepid atheism that closes its eyes to the world, that advocates the kind of bland semi-solipsism that reassures itself that everyone else thinks in the same happily reasonable way, so we don't need to exert ourselves to confront the opposition. It's an attitude that will be popular, unfortunately.
Comments
In the first place, fuck tepid atheism. It is clear that appeasement is exactly the wrong tactic to use on theocrats, who best understand firmness and conviction and ardor.
But in the second place, we atheists really should try to come up with some stuff to say to people like the clerk in Dennett's book, whose life had no real adventure or purpose or transcendant value to it, except through his faith. His church made him feel part of something special, a cosmic struggle between titanic forces, a key player in a role of historical importance. OK, that's pure dulusion. But do we have to damn this poor bastard to life as mere Wal-Mart clerk? I say no, but we have to work at this part.
We have Camus with "The Myth of Sisyphus," the hero who is happy because he defies all convention and continues his task with irony and humor and rebellion. There's atheist Joss Whedon's heroes, especially Captain Mel of Firefly/Serenity, a disillusioned atheist who makes himself a family and does brave deeds of goodness just out of cussed determination, and makes himself part of something important and bigger than himself (same with the Angel character in the eponymous series). There is Lyra in atheist Phil Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy, on a courageous quest filled with adventure and meaning. There's the fuck-you rebellion of atheist Greg Graffin's songs with the punk band, Bad Religion.
Didn't mean to go off on a rant there. It's just..as much as we much come up against theism in all its guises, for it is all deluded and harmful to humanity, ultimately, it is not enough to leave people, then, with nothing. We atheists must start looking for and actively promoting the adventure, the values, the wonder...all that is good in clear-minded, open-eyed living. To date we have been better at hurling stones through the stained glass rather than erecting something more attractive to take its place.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 23, 2006 1:24 PM
Fuck tepid atheism indeed; my own take on it is a little different from Greg's -- I have a sense that at least some atheists are atheists out of anger. They're mad because their idea of what god should do or be doesn't match a reality they encountered, and so decided to go the "fuck god" route out of a sense of vengeance or rebellion.
I wonder how valid that is, and if it is valid, how many people are hearing the angry atheists instead of those of us who simply think the idea of a god is twaddle and don't get very upset about it -- until superstition begins interfering with rationality. (Particularly when that superstition takes the form of legislation attempting to abrogate the rights of others, or attempting to define something that really can't be easily defined.)
I'm still surprised when I come across individuals who wonder where atheists get their sense of right and wrong from; or who wonder where atheists get their sense of purpose from -- these folks seem to believe that without a god, life is meaningless.
Wrong, of course. It's liberated, but it's also frightening, because ultimately that makes us each responsible, fully, for our own actions. There is no devil to blame; there is no god to thank.
The question might be what scares religious people more when they consider atheism? Is it the idea that there is no god -- or that they can't blame their bad deeds on some dark Other, that they are wholly responsible for the bad stuff that runs through their minds, that the things they do undo others arose in their own minds?
Posted by: Warren | October 23, 2006 1:38 PM
Fanatics come in many forms, theists, fundies, politicos and atheists.
By any standard, you all act lick pricks.
Posted by: Ricards | October 23, 2006 1:40 PM
I'm afraid your comments above illustrate the original author's point - fundamentalist atheists can be just as arrogant and judgemental as fundamentalist theists.
I did not interpret the author's rejection of the New Atheist movement as a slide back to the comfortable mediocraty... rather, I interpret it as a refusal to be an evangelist of the absolutes professed by either side. While atheists always talk about the slight chance that they may be wrong, the millitant way that they often argue their beliefs reveals the lie.
I consider myself an agnostic - I don't know what's out there, and as that's the case I'm certainly not going to force others to believe in anything (or nothing). I will do what I can to limit the harm caused by politicized religion, and promote scientific thought and ideals... but evangelism can only be driven by absolute certainty, and I can't be a part of it.
Posted by: Lothaire | October 23, 2006 1:41 PM
"We hear leaves rustle and we imagine that some airy being flutters up there; we see a corpse and continue to fear the judgment and influence of the person it once was."
WE don't do any such thing, you doofus!
Someone get the doofus stamp, yea the big red one, and stamp that fellow's forehead.
Cuckoo, cuckoo!
Posted by: George | October 23, 2006 1:41 PM
I think that the majority of theists have never seriously considered the question of why they think God exists - they just do, they always have, and so has their family. I think insulting the average religious person is a wrong way to go about fighting fundamentalism (i.e. calling your grandmother an idiot is most likely a bad way to go).
I don't think we should take a 'middle ground' stance about it either though. We should fight the extremists and let education weed out the rest of religiosity over time (unfortunately, perhaps a looooong time). I think many people of little faith or agnosticism may get offended by the outright accusation that every believer is a moron.
On the otherhand, I agree that if I HAD to side with one camp, it would be the atheists...
Posted by: carlman23 | October 23, 2006 1:49 PM
Although I tend to agree with Dawkins across the board, I find myself taking the tact that this author prescribes in dealing with believers out of discomfort with the sort of conflict that will result. That makes me a wimp, I know, but many of them are waiting in such breathless/thoughtless anticipation of the opportunity to be a martyr or victim that they become rabid quite easily. You see, it makes them holier. I think they see themselves standing at the pearly gates saying, "You remember that time I had your back?"
Posted by: TomMil | October 23, 2006 1:50 PM
I think, to be fair, sometimes some atheists will perhaps go too far- I have a friend who blames religon for all problems, which is perhaps too broad a brush to tar it with.
I dunno, I very much believe that I am right to be an atheist, but I don't fee a duty to convert others that some do. I actually date a christian, so maybe I'm a tiny bit biased here, but there do exist christians who feel the presence of god but do not feel the need to follow the bible (or holy text of your choice)... well... religiously.
Posted by: mister k | October 23, 2006 1:50 PM
I hope that I am not personally arrogant--I don't believe very many who know me well would say that I am. But I am an elitist. Absolutely, one hundred percent. The elitism is not for myself, however, but for a method...the method that assumes as little as possible, asks questions (the root of "arrogant," by the way, means something like "to question for oneself"), and accepts knowledge, provisionally, only on the base of merit. This elite METHOD is far less arrogant than is a the "method" of assuming an answer and then brooking no questions. I will not apologize for that sort of elitism.
As to judgmental, hell yes. Very. Not because I have a superior intellect--no one's more familiar with my bad memory, my ticks and flaws, than I am. But because I ascribe to a method that has proved without doubt to be the best of human inventions. Again, it is that combination of scientific inquiry, critical thinking, rational thought, and logical reasoning. It is assuming little and questioning much rather than assuming much and questioning little. I can take precisely no credit for this method, having bumbled onto it, who knows how, long after great humans had developed it. But I will not feel abashed in saying clearly that I am an elitists, a highly judgmental elitist, as a result of a successful and satisfying commitment to these principles of thought.
Perhaps it would seem more diplomatic to use a phrase like "exercising judgment" rather than "being judgmental," but I think most of the naysayers would read it the same anyway, and there's no feeling quite like embracing an intended insult as a badge of honor.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 23, 2006 1:55 PM
"[T]he difficulty of selling your ideas among those to whom you so openly condescend."
Beautiful phrase, no wonder it got PZ's goat.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | October 23, 2006 2:04 PM
PZ -- you point out the advantage inherent in religion.
Science follows the evidence to figure out what is the truth. Religion can change and adapt "the truth" to whatever is most appealing.
Posted by: Sonja | October 23, 2006 2:10 PM
hm, sounds like Wired hasn't changed since I stopped reading it in the late 1990s. Sad, but not really surprising.
Posted by: llewelly | October 23, 2006 2:10 PM
Here's what gets my goat: that the author of this article uses the confidence and strength of advocates for atheism as a weakness...as if what would make our position better is if we were uncertain and weak and hesitant.
Seriously. That's bullshit.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 23, 2006 2:14 PM
But in the second place, we atheists really should try to come up with some stuff to say to people like the clerk in Dennett's book, whose life had no real adventure or purpose or transcendant value to it, except through his faith. His church made him feel part of something special, a cosmic struggle between titanic forces, a key player in a role of historical importance.
There's a lot of things to be part of and join in that are real. Go rafting or hiking with some friends. Take a trip to the Grand Canyon, The Painted Destert, Yosemite, Yellowstone, or any of the other beautiful national parks that we have. Raise some pets, kids, or both.
If you want fanstasy in book format there's plenty of that out there for you. I advise people to look into the works of Terry Goodkind, Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, and Frank Herbert. If you want fantasy that includes you as some sort of central cog in a life or death struggle play D&D, World of Warcraft, Oblivion, NWN II, Dark Messiah, or something like that. It's just as much fantasy but with better special effects.
If people aren't willing to accept atheism without being bribed then I don't want them on my side of the fence.
Posted by: commissarjs | October 23, 2006 2:16 PM
I doubt if atheism or even mere indifference to religion will ever be a majority position but the infidel counter-offensive of Dawkins and others does seem to be having an effect. Even though there is hugely more pro-religious propaganda than anti-religious propaganda, the visible presence of an opposition makes it more likely that individuals will be willing to question cultural orthodoxy and voice their doubts. Which is probably why we're hearing such anguished cries about the stridency of the atheists, not because it is ineffectual, but because it works.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | October 23, 2006 2:17 PM
There's that sloppy thinking again. Absolutes are not only ubiquitous, they're inevitable. They also tend to be uncomfortable, so people like to delude themselves into a comfortable state of "wishy-washy"ness where words are just empty symbols and every position is compatible with every other.
(Much as I'm sure you hate to admit it, most of you people agree with Rand on most of her principles. Accept it and move on.)
Posted by: Caledonian | October 23, 2006 2:20 PM
Well, that's quite a lot of it right there. Every girl I've dated was (at least nominally) Christian. It's not that I was looking for such girlfriends, and I certainly wouldn't date anyone who was fanatical about religion (or even tended to bring it up much in conversation, as such people tend to be tedious and not fun to be around), but (particularly in the US Midwest where I grew up) it is practically inevitable to date Christians unless you date people at the Campus Atheist League or something. But, while I know people who date people based on their political or religious views, I sure as hell don't.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | October 23, 2006 2:21 PM
What Jim Harrison said. (It's a point that Larry Moran has also made forcefully around here.) This is what many "tepid atheist" types just don't get. In my opinion one of the main reasons why, in countries more civilized than the US, religion (together with its apologists and ministers) doesn't get the automatic deference it receives in the US, is precisely the existence of many such voices in those countries over the last 200 years or so.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 23, 2006 2:25 PM
...
...
Ahem. Again I say: There is no such thing as a "fundamentalist atheist." Since there is no atheist Bible, nobody has strayed from its original message, and there is no original text to fundamentalize back to.
However, there are LOUD atheists. And that can be good or bad, depending on the message.
Regarding the LOUD atheists, I think anyone who's even the slightest bit aware of the issue of religion has to have noticed that the Christians in the U.S. (and Muslims elsewhere) are eating us alive right now. Personal freedoms, personal safety, is vanishing faster than coral reefs.
I think it's stupid in the extreme to sit back and hope for the best.
If ever there was a time to be LOUD, it's now.
...
...
Warren said:
There is a very small subset of people who CALL themselves atheists who are really not. They actually believe in their god; they just happen to hate him -- for the death of their mom, or for not delivering some promised better world, or whatever.
I guess they're welcome to call themselves anything they want. But by any stretch of the definition, I don't think any careful thinker could really consider them atheists.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 23, 2006 2:26 PM
The core of religious belief is that non-believers are bad. Modern, liberal versions of religion go so far as rejecting their own content outright and only retaining this core. There are versions that try to go by the names "atheism" and "agnosticism" and such that retain this core while going so far as to reject even the symbolism of religious belief. I think we need to recognise that our real enemy is bigotry and that this bigotry is espoused in its purest (although not most heinous) form not by fundamentalists but by liberal believers and the sort of self-hating "atheists" who write stories such as the above.
Such religious bigotry is bigotry no less than racism and sexism. The confusion comes from the fact that racism and sexism track physical features, even though they are essentialist, while this religious bigotry does not. (Although, that said, racism often tracks physical features very weakly if at all.) A further confusion is created because many people are convinced that religious bigotry only occurs between religions or against them. In fact, all religious bigotry is against non-believers; attacks on other religions are considered attacks on non-believers, regardless of whether they follow other religious practises or have none at all.
The discrimination involved is obvious. Almost all supposedly positive statements of religion and spirituality are clear cases on discrimination against non-believers. The idea that one needs something "more to life" and the implication that non-believers lack this essentialist something is a product of simple bigotry. The simplistic, bigoted characterisation of atheists as materialistic, nihilist, immoral, shrill, angry, oppressive, etc, is the characterisation against which almost all affirmative statements of modern religious belief are made. This applies to New Age spirituality and Western Buddhism as much as it does Christian Fundamentalism.
This sort of atheism isn't "tepid" in that it doesn't confront the opposition, it is the opposition.
Greg, not all religion has a Grand Narrative. Plenty of people seem to find meaning in religious beliefs that are arguably more nihilistic than a naturalistic outlook. I don't personally know what it's like to go from religious belief to atheism, but I can imagine the simpler things in life taking on greater value, rather than less, when they don't have to vie with Cosmic Purpose.
Posted by: poke | October 23, 2006 2:26 PM
Hey, I have a great idea for us "Brights": let's tell everybody else how friggin' stupid they are!
Worked like a charm in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | October 23, 2006 2:29 PM
If most theists were willing to admit that their personal beliefs in deity were just that - their BELIEFs, founded in faith rather than reason, which could be in error - it seems that it would make sense to criticize these beliefs in more respectful and restrained ways than those demonstrated by the "New Atheists." The believers would be less deluded and dangerous and more worthy of respect.
Most of the theists that I encounter don't seem to have any such modesty or uncertainty about their beliefs, though. They are right because they are right and that's that. I had a conversation with a megachurch-attending sister that literally ended up with this astounding conclusion after I showed her the error in all the other reasons she expressed that I'm certain to end up in hell unless I become her particular type of Christian. Actually, the conversation didn't quite conclude that way; she went on to proclaim that she would pray for me. I'm sure that I will be eternally grateful. I should probably return the favor and make supplications to the FSM on her behalf, but I don't have the time.
I hope that the New Atheists continue to shout the errors in theistic thinking to the rooftops. This will make absolutely no difference to the beliefs of those theists who are irrational, but maybe it will catch the attention of at least some rational theists and jar them into reconsidering their beliefs - or at least into recognizing that irrational beliefs and policies founded on such should not be foist upon everyone else.
Posted by: wm | October 23, 2006 2:31 PM
I wonder if exaggerating and carping on the views of people like Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris in order to portray them as atheist boogey-men won't end up actually shifting the social acceptance of atheism to the positive side. They want to rant and rave at the "close-minded bigotry" of some of those atheists, the ones who go too far. So they do.
Which, of course, leaves the ones who don't go as far. Who now, perforce, seem better by comparison. Who are, of course, the majority of atheists. Not the wacky extremists like Dawkins and Dennett and Harris.
Possible, perhaps. I don't like it, but the rants could end up having a curious positive effect.
Posted by: Sastra | October 23, 2006 2:36 PM
...
...
As to loudness, I want atheists to be loud and proud, following the models of the gay rights and civil rights movements, at least until a majority of Americans recognize that it's NOT OKAY in public to denigrate atheists, atheist beliefs, or atheist rights (and until laws are passed guaranteeing it).
Right now, over large swaths of the U.S. -- have you listened to Christian radio lately? -- "atheist" is the hate-speech equivalent of "faggot" or "nigger."
And my sense is that it's getting WORSE.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 23, 2006 2:36 PM
As a "Bright", am I supposed to react to all forms of God-belief the same way I do to young-earth creationism?
Posted by: Stephen Erickson | October 23, 2006 2:37 PM
I find evangelizing for any belief, be it god, gods, atheism or something else, to be offensive. An evangelist of any stripe assumes that he/she knows the TRUTH and feels compelled to convert every one else to that truth. The premise is that any belief that doesn't conform to that of the evangelist is contemptible and wrong. Such a view contains the seeds that could easily destroy the pluralism that distinguishes countries like the US from others. And should we lose that pluralism, we lose the country. Which explains why I so strongly object to Bush and company.
I've been an atheist since my teens (more than half a century ago) but I don't hold my belief as the only truth. It's true for me, but may not be for others. Can I prove that it's absolutely true? No. But that doesn't make it any less true for me. Proving or disproving the supernatural is simply impossible. I'm tolerant of others whose beliefs differ, but the minute those others seek to evangelize me or impose their views on me, I bristle like a porcupine. Such bristling is often seen as hostility. It's not. It's simply my demand for respect for my views. In other words, tolerance. That's a word and an idea that all too few worshipers of god(s)--and a few zealous atheists as well--omit from their lexicon.
Posted by: Keanus | October 23, 2006 2:37 PM
Perhaps we are arguing the wrong argument, so far on my journey through life, I have found the oppositions to be not the theists and atheists, but the decent and the indecent.
Posted by: Bro. Bartlbey | October 23, 2006 2:45 PM
I don't see what's wrong with being angry at human stupidity. Going with the flow does not work for me.
This has come up before, but people are going to be a lot angrier in a forum like this than they will be in person.
If my Mom says something nutty, I'm going to be nice. She's my Mom. If she were to publish a nutty religious diatribe, on the other hand, she should expect to be criticized. That's because she's choosing to enter the public sphere and engaging the public in debate.
I don't know of any forums for wishy-washy atheists out there but maybe the writer should start one if he feels so strongly that "new" atheists are doing something wrong. I doubt very much he cares enough about atheism to make the effort.
Posted by: George | October 23, 2006 2:49 PM
You guys make me feel exactly the way I felt in the run up to the Iraq war: I'm supposedly a pussy because I don't think the war is a great idea. Okay. I can survive being called a pussy.
I just think its one thing to be vicious against terrorists and even dictators without taking on a full on enterprise against all religion that looks to have more potential downsides than upsides. But more than tactical concerns, my biggest concern is simply about being sloppy and wrong. I don't really care even if being extremist really is a good tactical move. I'm not an extremist.
I think you are going to find this problem in general. Atheists are not a very good or unified team. That's because not believing in gods doesn't necessarily make us have anything in common. Also, the very fact that we generally aren't sheep generally means that we are all going to have our own agendas, concerns, and niggling doubts and questions about any enterprise.
Put simply, if you think you are going to go to war with atheists as your army qua atheism, I don't think you are going to find a very coherent or reliable movement behind you. If you want to fight something, or even be fired up and extreme about something, I still suggest that it be a broader value or principle that more than just atheists can get behind.
Posted by: plunge | October 23, 2006 2:49 PM
Adopting an attitude of uncertainty about first causes can hardly be called a comfortable position in a society which demands certainty of one kind or another.
Posted by: Joel Sax | October 23, 2006 2:51 PM
Very well said, PZ.
Posted by: Troutnut | October 23, 2006 2:57 PM
I wonder if exaggerating and carping on the views of people like Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris in order to portray them as atheist boogey-men won't end up actually shifting the social acceptance of atheism to the positive side
Exactly, not to worry. As of the last few weeks, there have been an increase in attacks from UD and other sites. That's cuz they're worried. Dawkin's book is climbing in popularity, and they're helping by giving it more exposure. If things climax by halloween, they'll start calling him satan (he has the eyebrows for it).
Posted by: jeffw | October 23, 2006 3:00 PM
I find evangelizing for any belief, be it that HIV causes AIDS, magical elephants cause AIDS, HIV doesn't exist or something else, to be offensive. An evangelist of any stripe assumes that he/she knows the TRUTH and feels compelled to convert every one else to that truth. The premise is that any belief that doesn't conform to that of the evangelist is contemptible and wrong. Such a view contains the seeds that could easily destroy the pluralism that distinguishes countries like the US from others. And should we lose that pluralism, we lose the country. Which explains why I so strongly object to Deusburg and company.
The above should clearly indicate why this line of thinking is wrong. There are facts, we argue based on facts. This sort of wishy-washy, anti-intellectual relavism is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 23, 2006 3:10 PM
Wars? Armies?
Are you just projecting?
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 23, 2006 3:10 PM
Like Keanus I've been an atheist for decades. When, years ago, I first came across Harris, Dawkins, and Dennet my reaction was "Cool, my beliefs are actually getting some air-time." A couple of years ago or whenever it was that PZ started this blog and I stumbled across it, I had a similar reaction. But in the last six months, PZ has started to sound like an evangelical to me -- complete with the persecution complex: "Oh, we poor atheists are getting dis'd left and right."
I've never felt persecuted for my atheism, nor have I ever felt the need to poke religious people in the eye. Why bother? It is a failure of compassion that causes the ills in the world, not a failure of reason. Being a loud mouth about atheism is addressing the wrong problem.
Posted by: AndyS | October 23, 2006 3:11 PM
Lothaire's comment is typical of agnostics in that it sets up a false dichotomy. This is easy to latch onto because of the relativistic training we all receive, but fundamentalist theists and "fundamentalist" atheists are very different animals. One is rational, the other irrational.
While atheists always talk about the slight chance that they may be wrong, the millitant way that they often argue their beliefs reveals the lie.
The "slight chance" aspect come from the fact that a lot of these people are scientists and so are being very careful and exact in the way they explain their beliefs. To a thinking atheist (I would probably venture to say a thinking person), the probability of god in any traditional sense approaches zero. We're as sure as are sure in the theory of gravity, and feel completely comfortable basing life decisions on that relative certainty.
Posted by: jeffk | October 23, 2006 3:14 PM
Caledonian,
If you are referring to Ayn Rand, please go find a better thinker/writer. I tired of her while still in high school -- which is about the level of her ideas. If you mean someone else, who might that be?
Posted by: AndyS | October 23, 2006 3:15 PM
"New Atheism"? More like Straw Atheism. It's exactly as PZ said. What these "fundamentalist atheists" stand for is actually taking a stand, nothing more or less. If some people find that threatening, they should hear what the other guys think! Even the most quiet and unassuming of apologetic Christians believes that I am going to spend eternity tortured in a lake of fire. This is a moderate position?
Fuck it all. This backlash against "New Atheism" is precisely the brand of stupidity that drives the rightward center-shifting that has infected the United States and sent the train of Democracy flying off its rails.
If apologists are feeling threatened, it's because their faith rests on a bunch of silly superstitions and specious logic. If they actually had a firm faith, what would they care if Richard Dawkins or whoever else thinks they're a bit silly?
I haven't listened to the Dawkins vs. Quinn thing linked earlier, but I think the exerpts demonstrate exactly how hateful, rabid, and threatening Dawkins is not.
OH, FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST, HE'S NOT ACCEPTING OUR UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS THAT WE GOT FROM A REALLY OLD BOOK!@#$!@ WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM, RICHARD DAWKINS??!??!?
Posted by: Joshua | October 23, 2006 3:17 PM
To quote Robert Redford in The Sting, "He cheats. But he's better at it than you."
The contrast between the hip fundie ministers and the dour Dawkins merely points out that most deeply held positions are ultimately non-logical.
This probably is why so many Brights are cursing the darkness.
Posted by: frank schmidt | October 23, 2006 3:18 PM
Poke:
There is a tremendous amount of that, yes. It also hurts. If you've seen the movie Cast Away, you might recall Hanks's character's response to Wilson bobbing off to sea.
Losing religious faith is a little like that; at first there's an intensely painful period of separation, until you realize that what you've lost is basically an imaginary friend -- and that the imaginary friend is really an aspect of your own personality.
So, perversely, for me at least the gradual change to atheism was healing rather than pathological.
Another element of wholeness arose when I didn't have to keep making excuses to myself in my own mind for hanging on to a patently absurd belief (such as in resurrection or virgin conception) while at the same time seeing the undeniable evidence against such possibilities play out in reality all around me, every day. The intellectual discord was difficult to live with, and the worst times came when I was just certain that I was trying to lie to myself.
Once I began accepting, for instance, the Genesis simply couldn't be literally true, well, that was the fabled thin end of the wedge that so many goddish fear. Eliminate creation or special creation, and the whole damn cookie eventually crumbles. It has to.
On a slightly different tangent, I think some posters' sense that the perceived stridency of atheists is merely perceived is probably correct.
That is, when we say something that is simply true, such as that it's absurd to suggest a Jew will go to hell, we're perceived as being strident only by those who believe, sincerely, that Jews go to hell; when we say it's absurd to suggest eating a magic cracker will guarantee you everlasting life, we're perceived as being strident only by those who eat magic crackers.
Well, fuck those people.
And yes, I'll cop to elitism as well, for more or less the same reasons Greg enumerated.
Bottom line, as I see it: Atheism is much more likely to be correct than, say, Catholicism, and it's not elitist to say so, nor is it strident, nor is it an attempt to "convert" anyone. It's a fact, that's all; and those who argue against such a statement are arguing not against atheism, but against (what appears to be) reality.
Posted by: Warren | October 23, 2006 3:18 PM
This thread has a very strong 'herding cats' feel to it.
Posted by: llewelly | October 23, 2006 3:19 PM
But in the last six months, PZ has started to sound like an evangelical to me -- complete with the persecution complex: "Oh, we poor atheists are getting dis'd left and right."
The frustration doesn't come from persecution. It comes from the fact that many self-loathing atheists feel the need to walk on eggshells around theists. Thus they consider the more strident, consistent defenders of rationalism to be just as much, if not more, a part the problem than the fundies. To paraphrase the late Senator Barry Goldwater: Extremism in defense of reason is not a vice, and moderation in the pursuit of sanity is not a virtue. If attacking beliefs that are pervasive despite being improbable in the extreme (like God, virgin births, prophets riding up into heaven on winged horses) then get out of the hot iron and brand me and extremist.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 23, 2006 3:24 PM
What we have to offer is uncertainty and a demand for some degree of rigor; it's the theists who are arrogant in their certainty
Horsefeathers. Third-grade playground "you hit me first" mentality.
YOu have no uncertainty. You know that your world-view is correct. Stop posturing as one who is "open-minded."
Posted by: hoody | October 23, 2006 3:26 PM
It seems that even among those who call themselves 'atheists' there are denominational differences, a sort of secular sectarianism at work.
For the record, as a believer I'm not the least bit threatened by atheism and the caricature of Dawkins's views which the author calls 'The New Atheism', if not a straw man, is certainly based upon the perception of Dawkins, Harris, et. al. rather that what the latter are actually saying.
I'd write more about how this thread reminds me of a religious schism, but frankly I have to get back to enabling the Taliban. Amused....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | October 23, 2006 3:31 PM
As Warren says,
So why go all gah-gah over it? Some of you guys act like you are surrounded by fundamentist Christians who are doing their best "Come to Jesus" chant. That's not my experience. Sorry. I don't want see the world through lense of Fox "News" and don't believe that Pat Robertson represents the typical religious believer.
Posted by: AndyS | October 23, 2006 3:33 PM
Horsefeathers. Third-grade playground "you hit me first" mentality.
YOu have no uncertainty. You know that your world-view is correct. Stop posturing as one who is "open-minded."
I prefer the more American slang-term: Bullshit.
Open-minded means being willing to consider a viewpoint and then judge it on it's merits. We have judged theism, and found it to not only wholly lacking in, but utterly contrary to rationality, logic and empirical evidence.
Being open-minded is fine, but it's not a virtue to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 23, 2006 3:33 PM
I'll buy this the second I see a theist revise their position to incorporate evidence contarry to their beliefs. Until then, there's really only one system that retains an "open mind" as a matter of process.
Posted by: BMurray | October 23, 2006 3:34 PM
Posted by: quork | October 23, 2006 3:35 PM
For the record, as a believer I'm not the least bit threatened by atheism and the caricature of Dawkins's views which the author calls 'The New Atheism', if not a straw man, is certainly based upon the perception of Dawkins, Harris, et. al. rather that what the latter are actually saying.
We might be more inclined to take these sorts of comments seriously if you would actually articulate what qualifies your beliefs as being more rational than those of Pat Robertson. If they're not any more rational, they're also not any more plausible.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 23, 2006 3:37 PM
A relative tells a racist joke. You're sitting at the table. You hear him.
You say nothing. Don't laugh, don't tell him you don't approve.
He may or may not count you as an ally, assume you agree. Probably depends on how bright he is, what your expression is, what your relationship is, whether you've said anything on such subjects previously.
I'd suggest I'd want to say something, regardless, there. Better to risk making a scene than leave that ambiguous. If you *don't* want ugly attitudes like that spreading, that's your opportunity to try to prevent it. Make it clear: it ain't all right with you.
That goes doubly if there's a six year old sitting next to you. For them, I'd want to make it clear: not everyone thinks this is all right. This isn't a given. This isn't just how the world is. You can't assume everyone says these things, so don't go assuming repeating that joke is a particularly good idea, either.
The trouble with a 'tepid atheist' who says nothing when religious nonsense is espoused is similar. It risks letting people just assume everyone thinks this way. Particularly for the impressionable, who may well see a lot of that, depending on the culture that surrounds them. You do them far more service by being visible, by saying: 'well, listen, I don't believe that', even if it does risk causing a scene. Even if does feel a little like 'evangelism'.
As to being 'shrill': that's what they're going to call you when you call bullshit bullshit. It doesn't matter how politely you say it. Religion is transparently nonsensical superstition protected by a tradition of reverence; say anything halfway honest and unequivocal about it, you'll get called 'shrill'; it doesn't matter how reasonable is your argument, or pleasant your tone.
And that's because however nicely you say it, you probably do sound shrill by contrast. The folk so complaining are used to their dear old legends being treated with reverential kid gloves. That's a major part of the system that keeps them alive. The only way anyone can maintain the suspension of disbelief that keeps bizarre fictions like the resurrection alive is to speak of them only in hushed tones, as though they are somehow great mysteries, great profundities.
Say 'that makes very little sense'. Say it kindly. Say that there was an old mythical tradition of birth-death-rebirth gods, almost certainly long, long divorced from any remote relationship with any actual historical spark for the story centuries before Christ. Say it with footnotes. Say it in a scholarly article, point out the parallels with Osiris. Talk about the lack of evidence honestly, openly, with an open mind to hear any actually relevant objections that might come up...
They'll still call you shrill. That's what they do. You're 'extreme' because you're pointing out an absurdity. It *is* absurd; that's not your fault; you can hardly open up the subject without that becoming rapidly apparent to all concerned. Even those who believe you're right will call you shrill, because this is ground into the culture: you don't say honest, blunt things about such subjects. It's just not done. The tradition of reverence sunk in centuries ago; it won't let go easily.
So I at once find nothing outrageous about Dawkins, nor anything surprising about critiques like the one linked. Man's just saying something rather obvious, really no more bluntly than seems reasonable to me. He's been doing it so long he's repeating himself, now, but that probably can't be much helped either. Sad fact is, there's really not that much more to say about it. Not that much that's interesting, anyway. Only reason he's gotta keep saying it in new and ever so slightly different ways is the one above: it's important to stay visible, you have to keep telling it like it is. Just to make it clear: yes, there are answers to all these transparently silly old arguments. Yes, there are people who don't buy a word of the silly old stories. No, we haven't died out, gone away, or retreated. No, we're not backing down. No, we're not shutting up about it, either.
But sure they're gonna call him shrill. He's a basically calm, sensible guy, just saying again what still sadly needs to be said, and he's still gonna be called shrill.
And so are you if you say the same. Pretty much however you say it.
So I say don't let it bother you.
Whatever they call you, just call bullshit bullshit.
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 23, 2006 3:39 PM
Posted by: quork | October 23, 2006 3:40 PM
Scott,
I was wondering what you would have to say. And I agree: this does feel like a religious schism with the militant atheists who feel the need to trumpet their position breaking off from -- for want of a better term -- the quite atheists who go about their lives looking a bit askance at their louder brothern.
Posted by: AndyS | October 23, 2006 3:41 PM
I wonder how much this debate is a function of the simple fact that it's easier to be perceived as 'nice' if one speaks from a moderate position than if one comes from an extreme end of the spectrum. I say this as an atheist who thinks belief in religion in our society is inexcusably stupid. This attitude has exposed me to considerable marital discord, so the subject is no longer mentioned, let alone discussed, at home.
My wife has taken offence at my denigration of religious belief; she has taken it as a personal insult. In this respect, she saw me as not being 'nice'. Of course, I don't see myself as not being 'nice'; rather I see myself as simply stating the obvious. What I was trying to do was intended to be helpful, by exposing the stupidity of religious belief.
Does a desire to be perceived as 'nice' inform the stance taken by Terry Eagleton and other apologists?
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 23, 2006 3:45 PM
I guess that as science encroaches on mysticism and as it delivers the goods, one has no choice but to accept an erosion of ones superstitions in order to avoid chanting at the fax machine. As we progress, deities become smaller and smaller. Already devout theists argue about just how small they can make their god and still keep it relevant. Some are mighty small indeed.
So to this degree -- the degree to which a theist must acknowledge a fact because it is useful as well as demontsrated -- some religions do indeed appear to be open minded. The body of work by which these facts are made sense of in terms of the books that underly religion is known as "theology". It grows in inverse proportion to the size of the god that can exist under the weight of evidence.
Posted by: BMurray | October 23, 2006 3:49 PM
My view:
We need different approaches. Richard Dawkins' approach is vocal an unapologetic towards even the moderate religionists. Ultimately it's a matter of the eroding and potentially dangerous thing called faith vs. reason and science.
I think it's precisely the fact that Dawkin's is UNAPOLOGETIC that riles some people up. So instead of considering the viewpoint of Dawkins', some people just have this "we don't WANT you to burst people's bubbles!" attitude towards him.
OTOH, we need moderate and theistic evolutionists etc. as well, because they cause some people to rethink their fundamentalist position, and become more "reason-driven", maybe ultimately even abandoning faith altohether.
Posted by: Y.B | October 23, 2006 3:50 PM
And they rejoiced.
Posted by: Numad | October 23, 2006 3:52 PM
I tend to agree that Dawkins should not argue from theology but for slightly different reasons than his critic asserts.
Theology is essentially science fiction. You take as axiomatic a document that desceribes a supernatural entity and then develope a story that, in light of what we know about the world, is logically consistent. Obviously as we come to know more about the world, this story must become more and more convoluted. Certainly by now it is very difficult indeed to follow and newcomers are bound to misstep.
However, as the very definition of theology involves as axiomatic a position that an atheist by definition disagrees with, arguing theological points is nonsensical. It would be like arguing against a mathematics that derives from an axiom that 2+2=5 -- no matter how huge the logical work is that is based on the axiom, the axiom itself renders discussion about its relationship to the real world impossible.
Stepping into that mudfight is a mistake. Yes, to argue theology you need a very deep and long-studied understanding of it and to that extent Dawknins was in error. To deny the axiom, however, you need nothing in particular except the observation that the reality of our world does fine without the axiom and, as an added bonus, a huge body of dense reasoning (that becomes more dense with every new discovery) can be discarded as purposeless.
Posted by: BMurray | October 23, 2006 4:13 PM
"Are you just projecting?"
No, it's an extended metaphor.
Posted by: plunge | October 23, 2006 4:21 PM
woosh....blew my hair back. lot of people with strong opinions and low levels of tolerance.
ok scientists, consider this: my lab partner in grad school used to muse; "ya know, basically there's physics, and then, there's stamp collecting."
according to him, what most of us do is less than rigorous...
guess my phd in synthetic organic chemistry has more in common with theology...
Posted by: steve | October 23, 2006 4:23 PM
I was wondering what you would have to say. And I agree: this does feel like a religious schism with the militant atheists who feel the need to trumpet their position breaking off from -- for want of a better term -- the quite[sic] atheists who go about their lives looking a bit askance at their louder brothern.
Andy, the bigger question is, as raised by AJ Milne above:
do you look askance or say anything to your louder bretheren who openly talk about their extreme religious beliefs without being asked?
Does Scott?
I bet not.
this is where the "taliban enabling" comment comes from.
It's only extreme for effect, but essentially correct in usage.
If you don't vocally denounce the extremism of some of your fellow xians, then you enable them.
simple.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 23, 2006 4:23 PM
When the author of this article one day finds that his rights have been abrogated by the Believers, what's he going to say, "wait...I forgot to tell you that the premise of your belief system is completely without foundation"? Shucks, too late.
Posted by: Richard | October 23, 2006 4:29 PM
ok scientists, consider this: my lab partner in grad school used to muse; "ya know, basically there's physics, and then, there's stamp collecting."
Your lab partner was a dumbass, at least in this regard. Just because there is a spectrum of mathematical and scientific rigor in the sciences doesn't mean that everything beyond particle physics is stamp collecting. And besides, computer science is waaaaayyy better. NARF!
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 23, 2006 4:29 PM
My experience is most people don't have a problem with atheists, not even the Dawkins, Harris, Dennett type. The only fight out there is between the rabid Christian fundamentalist and the rabid atheists. Lots of evangelicals are not interested in changing science education. Lots of rabid atheists realize the futility of agruing with rabid fundies.
What we atheists don't have -- and personally I don't see it as a lack -- is a coherrent take on morality. Simply concluding there is no reason to believe in the supernatural has nothing to do with any positive statement about ethics. So we don't have an "agenda" or any way of building a movement. There are no atheist leaders trying to build a coalition. That's just fine. Who cares if you're an atheist. Get over it. If it floats your boat to call, for example, typical Presbyterians stupid -- even while they are lined up with you on every significant issue -- well, you're just a jerk, a righteous jerk, but a jerk nevertheless.
Posted by: AndyS | October 23, 2006 4:32 PM
My experience is most people don't have a problem with atheists, not even the Dawkins, Harris, Dennett type. The only fight out there is between the rabid Christian fundamentalist and the rabid atheists. Lots of evangelicals are not interested in changing science education. Lots of rabid atheists realize the futility of agruing with rabid fundies.
This is the exact sort of head-in-the-sand attitude that Sam Harris constantly rails against, and you prove his point about moderates in spades. Fundamentalism is not a fringe phenomenon among Christians in America, unless the ~44% of Americans who literally believe that the eschatological events of Revelation is going to occurr with their lifetime, that creationism should taught exclusively in public schools, that God literally promised the land of Israel to the Jews, etc. are somehow still on the "fringe" despite being so pervasive (and well organized).
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | October 23, 2006 4:40 PM
My experience is most people don't have a problem with atheists, not even the Dawkins, Harris, Dennett type.
that's certainly NOT been my experience.
I suppose it depends on the crowds you hang with, but in general, in non academic circles, I find most to think that challenging someone's openly stated superstitions (whether it be religion or some kind of homeopathy), to be considered "shrill".
I think AJ hit the nail right on the head.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 23, 2006 4:42 PM
Scott, sorry, but you ARE enabling the Taliban. Your superstitions are just as valid as theirs (by which I mean Not At All), and for every one person who still hangs desperately on for the sake of the warm fuzzies, there is at least one other who sees this desperate grasp and, without comment from you indicating otherwise, silently assumes you're grasping at something substantial rather than mere memories of family togetherness. This is how religion propagates, and the 'warm fuzzies' people ARE a part of this process.
Posted by: Stogoe | October 23, 2006 4:50 PM
AndyS, you wrote, "Who cares if you're an atheist. Get over it. If it floats your boat to call, for example, typical Presbyterians stupid -- even while they are lined up with you on every significant issue -- well, you're just a jerk, a righteous jerk, but a jerk nevertheless".
A creationist, (Prof Andy McIntosh, of 'Truth in Science') wrote me, "If any philosophy is true on origins it clearly cannot be a private matter, since it affects us all".
I replied, "Your interpretation of 'revealed' texts is, for you believers, the TRUTH. Given the opportunity, those with the 'duty' of making the interpretations, would inflict their 'TRUTHS' on humanity. We would then have a situation where all the evils of the past can be revisited upon us, and maybe some new ones. The way would be open to torture and exec