…and this is a 
Eskow—yet another backlasher
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: January 7, 2007 1:14 PM, by PZ Myers
RJ Eskow has a set of 15 questions he wants us "militant atheists" to answer. Apparently, we've been blaming every problem in the universe on religion and religion alone, and we need to eradicate faith in order to inaugurate our new world order of peace, prosperity, and reason. That isn't really hyperbole: his questions really are exercises in the obvious. Here's one, for instance (no, I'm not going to waste my time with all 15):
Where the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion—as many experts in the field suggest? Or is the truth somewhere in between?
Religion was one factor among many. Was that so hard? All of his questions are along this line—all they do is demand that the answerer recognize nuance and complexity, and Eskow gets to pat himself on the back and act as if he has been shown to be right. But again, this is a fellow ranting against a nonexistent position, trying to tar atheists with the intolerance he is inventing.
I'll make it simple for him. I'm a militant atheist, whatever that means. I do not believe that religion is the root of all evil, and I don't know any atheists who do. If religion vanished overnight, we would still have the same wars, the same petty differences inflated into reasons to destroy those who are different, the same tribalism. We would not usher in an atheist utopia (or as some are fond of whining, dystopia). These problems are built on human follies, of which religion is just one.
My gripe with religion is two-fold.
We have been sold a bill of goods. If the best utilitarian argument for religion is that if we got rid of it, we'd still be fighting, that's awfully tepid support. Religion is supposed to be this force for goodness and unity and morality, remember, but it sure doesn't seem to do anything along those lines. This is the false dichotomy with which we are so familiar in creationist arguments: that apologists for faith can argue that atheism is not an automatic love-and-peace generator (and that atheists agree) does not mean that religion therefore is. You don't get to argue for religion by complaining about atheism, especially when all the evidence indicates that religion is one factor that does contribute to discord. Or would Eskow like to claim that religion played absolutely no role in the Crusades?
My other complaint is that is that the position of the defenders of religion has become inherently cynical and anti-Enlightenment. I do not believe that abandoning superstition is all it takes to make a better world, but sweet jebus, demanding reason and evidence and questioning those glib old dogmas is certainly part of the answer, and I think people are capable of it. This is the start, the foundation, not the complete solution, but people like Eskow demand that we must build on lies, superstition, and naive belief. He pretends that he's demanding rigor, but I think it's clear that religion is a failed paradigm, and making excuses for it is an exercise in futility.
Eskow cloaks all this in a plea that we join forces to fight fundamentalism. I'm all for that, and I think it's a fine idea to oppose the most malignant eruptions of religious thinking. However, I don't think it's enough to fight the nastiest symptoms while pretending the underlying disease is a beautiful thing. Sure, I'll join moderate Christians in arguing against the excess of fundamentalism, but that doesn't mean I have to retire from arguing against the inanity of faith; it's that lack of critical thought at the core of religious belief that allows fundamentalism to flourish. So why is it that the first thing defenders of moderate superstition demand is a suspension of criticism?
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Oh, but the comments to Eskow's post are so amusing. "You're an idiot," "Just trying to read your post was excruciating," "What a bloatedly long post," and so on.
Posted by: j | January 7, 2007 1:27 PM
(in an aggrieved tone, with many sighs):
You know what, PZ? You're right. I'm one of the moderately superstitious myself, I guess. One of the values that I hold is personal liberty of conscience, which (if not derived from religion) is certainly consonant with some formulations of religion.
Personal liberty of conscience tends to promote free speech and definitely seems incompatible with any attempt to suppress dissent, even that dissent which targets cherished notions. At the end of the day, if you value liberty, then you must acknowledge that there are no privileged beliefs.
Many of my moderately superstitious fellows profess the same conviction, but when push comes to shove (as you have said) they demand a suspension of criticism. As Keith Douglas said elsewhere on this blog, this smacks of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 7, 2007 1:31 PM
Amen, PZ.
I especially like your statement that: "However, I don't think it's enough to fight the nastiest symptoms while pretending the underlying disease is a beautiful thing."
Posted by: waldteufel | January 7, 2007 1:55 PM
PZ,
Do you think anything will change for the better, to some degree, when cultivated gullibility and hero worship in society subsides after the fall of religion?
For example, the superstitious horde will no longer exist to lobby congress and elect presidents that refuse to fund stem cell research(no one will think there are voodoo souls out there at conception anymore). That's a big plus, isn't it?
I mean, I agree that utopia will not immediately follow when people back up their ideas with evidence instead of faithing their way through life; there will still be those that are homicidally greedy and just plain crazy, etc.
But aren't there clear and numerous benefits to a much more rational society?
Posted by: secularizer | January 7, 2007 1:57 PM
1. Where the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion - as many experts in the field suggest? Or is the truth somewhere in between?
Wikipedia: The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom, with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Sounds primarily religious to me.
Posted by: George | January 7, 2007 2:06 PM
I believe religion is just a part of human nature. It seems to be human nature to divide people in groups or tribes and religion seems to be one good way to do this. I believe that is why so many religions have very conspicuous symbols they make their follower wear or do, to distinguish them from people who don't belong to that group.
P.Z. is right, if religion ceased to exist we would still have the same wars and problems that we've always had. Maybe people will divide up between sports teams or something.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | January 7, 2007 2:07 PM
Yes, and I thought that's what I said. Eskow thinks it's telling that we can't say that society would be instantly utopian if we got rid of religion, but that's not what anyone has been arguing. Acquiring a rational god-free society is just the start of a difficult process.
Posted by: PZ Myers | January 7, 2007 2:10 PM
I like to point out that even though religion is only one of many primary and proximate causes of just about every war in history and perhaps it cannot be alone be blamed, it's still obvious that religious belief is a fine lubricant for that behavior. Nothing like believing your enemy is going to burn in hell for some trivial reason anyways to make his death in itself trivial. And God does more killing than any human being ever has. Clearly he's not against it!
Posted by: Aerik | January 7, 2007 2:17 PM
2. Historically, has terrorism been driven primarily by religion - or by other forces? (See Robert Pape's work on the subject.)
From Terrorism Reaserch:
Terror in Antiquity: 1st -14th Century AD
The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.
http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php
Looks like early terrorism was driven primarily by religious motives.
Posted by: George | January 7, 2007 2:20 PM
I don't have to answer Eskow's questions. They aren't addressed to far more nuanced, sophisticated form of militant atheism I practice. I think Eskow needs to study far more atheism before he can expect people to take his opinions on it seriously.
Posted by: MarkP | January 7, 2007 2:22 PM
Where reasoned discourse fails and one or more points are held inviolate of mention, then all hopes of rationality are lost.
What I have observed in all my years is that no one wants to leave a thing unlabelled and will label a thing with what they know, rather than create a new one.
I have been called an Atheist (which *is* a belief... the belief that God does *not* exist). I have been called an Agnostic (which is the belief that Gods "Plan" is unknowable, not disbelief in God). I have been called a wishy-washy believer because I refuse to deny or acknowledge the existence of God. (the latter, curiously, seems to excite more wrath from the "True Believers" than Atheism does).
*No* one can either prove or disprove the existence of God. Except God. If He exists. And, given our present state, I doubt he would... if He exists.
So, I live by the Platinum rules: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Don't let others do unto you what you don't want them to. Don't let others do unto others what common sense says you should not.
Posted by: Ryu | January 7, 2007 2:24 PM
Quoth George: "Wikipedia: The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom, with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.
Sounds primarily religious to me."
It helps to delve past the glib summary into the details. Look at that 'originally launched' section again. The Seljuqs were invading the Byzantine Empire, but not because they were Muslims and the Byzantines were Christians. It was a fairly typical case of territorial aggression. (The Seljuqs converted to Islam only after they had conquered the Arabs, then continued on their rampage with very little pause.) The Byzantine emperor and the Pope had been mending political fences for some time, but the historical friction between Constantinople and Rome made it very unlikely that the pontiff could convince other Western political leaders to commit to providing direct military aid, or that if they did, to Constantinople not ending up being their target rather than the beneficiary (as indeed happened in a later crusade). But a crusade to take Jerusalem would help the Byzantines indirectly by engaging the Seljuqs' flank, and could easily be sold on religious grounds.
Religion wasn't a primary cause of the fighting, it just provided a handy bit of leverage to engage popular support for it. As, one might well add, usual ...
Posted by: Scott Simmons | January 7, 2007 2:28 PM
Another irritating statement in Eskow's piece is this:
Followed later by:
Say what? The "stereotyping and mocking of Muslims" he decries is a province of right-wing Christians.
Posted by: dorkafork | January 7, 2007 2:40 PM
@Ryu
*No* one can either prove or disprove the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Except The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You insensitive clod!
Ramen
Posted by: Mondo | January 7, 2007 2:46 PM
The End of Faith is not going to be cataclysmic event and future historians will be identifying trends rather than treaties in order to determine how the transaction will come about.
And there will continue to be wars over economic, territorial and xenphobic human fears. What will end will be phoney justifications for persecution based on "God's Will."
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | January 7, 2007 2:53 PM
Where[sic]the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion--as many experts in the field suggest?
one could just as easily say that much of the structure of organized religion itself stems from the same factors.
the problem still lies with the organized religion itself wrt to the "wars oft cited by militants".
nobody expects the spanish inquisition...
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 7, 2007 2:58 PM
3. Does the historical experience of nontheistic countries challenge the notion that religion is a major factor in causing internal oppression or external military conflict? (Note: I'm not suggesting that nontheistic countries went to war to defend nontheism," as one atheist writer characterized the argument. The question is: Does the absence of religion as a motivator reduce the likelihood of war, as the militants suggest - or not? Suggested countries of study: Cambodia, China/Tibet, USSR.)
The keys to reducing the likelihood of war: commitment to non-violence, aversion to bellicose leaders (the Bushes, Hitlers, and Stalins of the world), and sanctions against aggressive behavior.
From PeacefulSocieties.org:
"... social scientists have convincingly described at least 25 societies around the world in which there is very little internal violence or external warfare."
FACTORS THAT FOSTER PEACEFULNESS
Sociocultural systems. The psychological and social structures, mythologies, beliefs, religious convictions, and worldviews held by the peaceful societies strengthen their daily nonviolent lives. Many of the peaceful societies have social patterns that foster and reinforce nonviolence. For instance, while some of the peaceful societies have political leaders, they tend to not glorify leadership. Not surprisingly, the leaders of peaceful societies (those that have leaders) are generally not as bellicose as some of our contemporary world leaders.
Sanctions. Some peaceful societies maintain their internal nonviolence through effective sanctions against deviant or aggressive behavior. Nonviolent punishments such as ostracism may help enforce social norms in some societies.
Isolation. Some of the peaceful societies are able to maintain their nonviolence because they live in very isolated locations--islands, remote deserts, or dense forests. However, isolation is not the only factor. Many also have strong convictions that peacefulness is something that is very important to them. Some of them feel that nonviolence works, for them: it is a very practical way for them to exist in the world that they experience. Others feel that nonviolence is the way that God ordains them to live. For others, they have always lived that way and their belief system reinforces the ways they feel people should coexist.
Flight and Separation. Some of the peaceful societies maintain their nonviolence by fleeing at the slightest hint of aggressiveness by outsiders. Furthermore, people in many of the societies break apart into new groups whenever internal strife or tensions threaten to disrupt the peacefulness of normal daily life.
http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/facts.html
Posted by: George | January 7, 2007 3:27 PM
He should have let it rest with the line:
"Remember, I'm not making any statements of fact."
Utterly incoherent.
Posted by: Dan McKinley | January 7, 2007 3:27 PM
That was a slick bit of ad hominem at the beginning there, eh? "Before I go on to criticize the atheism typified by Richard Dawkins, let me link to three people who think he's a poopy-head too. After all, you're more likely to agree with my baseless ranting if I prejudice you towards Dawkins."
Dawkins's critics always like to point out that he hasn't studied theology, and thus has no grounds for criticizing religion. Eskow's bio:
How is this guy qualified to defend religion?
Posted by: False Prophet | January 7, 2007 4:34 PM
"I have been called an Atheist (which *is* a belief... the belief that God does *not* exist)."
Nope. I am an atheist, because I am not a theist. I am an atheist because I do not have a belief in a god. Why is that so hard?
Maybe I have a belief that there is NOT a god, or maybe don;t have that belief and instead just think its wildly improbable given what we know, but in either case I am an atheist.
Being an atheist does NOT require belief, it is the absence of belief.
Posted by: craig | January 7, 2007 4:52 PM
I like that 90% of the comments call him on his BS.
But I'd like to answer some of these questions.
1-2: Religion is used as a justification for these atrocious acts. Of course, the people in power don't really believe the religious nonsense they spout. But, the minions that do believe it feel fully justified in killing and dying for their god.
3: Is a poorly worded and ambiguous question. But religion has been used to justify oppression. I'm thinking of pre-enlightenment Europe and most of the history of the USA. Religion has been used to justify slavery and persecution of Jews and Gays.
4: Pointless question. I thought he was trying to challenge militant atheists, not just ask people to do his research for him.
5: No, Judaism and other religions did that long before Islam existed. Hell, my genitals were mutilated by Christians for no good reason.
6: I think elimination of religion would end most genital mutliation, especially, the rampant ritual infant genital mutilation called circumcision, which is unnecessary because of soap.
7: Moderate religion also advocates circumcision. I've heard many "moderate" (at least mainstream) religionists advocate all kinds of horrible things.
9: Both, obviously. Organized religious activity is caused by individual religious belief and vice versa. You can't have much of one without the other.
10: All religious activity is harmful to some degree. I can't think of any beneficial delusions.
11: Eh, maybe. Don't know enough about Buddhism.
12: Of course. If there were no religion to begin with, how could you have fundamentalists?
13: Whether mild or militant, persuasion must be unrelenting, just like the preachers of religion, there must be "preachers" against it. Rational arguments must be constantly made against the delusions of religion. The best way is the way that works in a particular situation.
14: The extremist usually is the one saying what is actually on everyone else's mind. The "moderates" are just the chickenhawks of religion. They want the extremist footsoldier to do their dirtywork.
15: Um, no. If anything more people would go into science and medicine. Less people would be duped by faith healers and religion masquerading as quack science.
I love this piece of stupidity in his "update":
Good god. Your point hinges on the actual existence of "fundamentalist atheists," thus you have no point.
More blind stupidity:
What part of "atheists don't believe in gods because there is no evidence" leads you to say that atheists believe something without evidence? And if that definition of fundamentalist is right, then every religious person is a fundamentalist. How would we do research that would please you? Eliminate religion and see what happens? Sounds good to me.
Posted by: Jake | January 7, 2007 4:55 PM
Oh, a truly idiotic comment:
No deary. People cannot choose their skin color (except Michael Jackson) or their gender (except drag queens) or their sexual orientation (except Exodus graduates), but religion is completely a personal choice, no surgery required. I'll attack any opinion I like, because people CAN help what religion they are, if any.
Posted by: Jake | January 7, 2007 4:57 PM
4. What is the extent of religion's role in creating individual discontent and unhappiness through ostracism, sexual repression, prejudice, etc. in various world cultures? (I suspect it's substantial, but I'd like more data.)
I'd be terribly unhappy if I had to follow this Christian pastor's advice:
"The apostles told us repeatedly that Jesus forbids lust, since sex is for baby-making, not anxiety release," continued Pastor. "We are to 'abstain from fleshly lusts' (1 Peter 2:11) and 'flee also youthful lusts' (2 Timothy 2:22), for lust 'bringeth forth death' (James 1:15). And more to the point for those debauched divorcees, Matthew told us that 'whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart' (Matthew 5:28). This means that masturbation of an erect organ can occur only if the erection is naturally-induced, such as by the morning sun or an overfilled bladder." Pastor Deacon Fred then concluded, "The only way to masturbate without lust is to keep your mind on Christ at all times."
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/masturbation.html
Posted by: George | January 7, 2007 5:07 PM
George, you know about Landover, right? (I assume you're being facetious) Still, look hard enough, and you'll find an actual pastor saying things not too far from that.
Posted by: Carlie | January 7, 2007 5:12 PM
Say what? The "stereotyping and mocking of Muslims" he decries is a province of right-wing Christians.
Not entirely. Sam Harris has an entire chapter in "The End of Faith" called "The Problem with Islam," and plenty of lines like "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death" and "Ask yourself where the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers are."
Still, yes, most Islamophobia is concentrated in the religious right. And it's amusing to see this just after Sam Schulman complained that atheists suck because they don't attack Islam enough:
"Naturally, the atheists focus their peevishness not on Muslim extremists (who advertise their hatred and violent intentions) but on the old-time Christian religion.("Wisdom dwells with prudence," the Good Book teaches.)"
Posted by: Anton Mates | January 7, 2007 5:23 PM
"religion is completely a personal choice... because people CAN help what religion they are, if any"
Well, they can control their behavior. But beliefs? Can any of us atheists really choose to become Christian? Certainly religion is more changeable than race or sexuality, but if someone believes they have a personal relationship with Jesus that's not going to go away at the drop of a hat.
"CAN help", yeah. "completely a personal choice", not quite; that upbringing can matter, and it's not as easy a choice as what to wear.
Posted by: Damien | January 7, 2007 5:23 PM
Yes, curtailing religion is "just the start of a difficult process" (PZM) but of all of the different possibilities, it is probably in the top three in potential effectiveness.
I think it may be possible to treat religion as any sort of recreation, and the arguments about it follow this model. For instance, snow mobiles are a great form of recreation, according to many people (not me, but lots of other people). So let people have them, and make paths for them to use. Within the world of snowmobilers, there seems to be a widely held belief that the rule should simply be: If you have a snow mobile, you can go anywhere with it any time irregardless of the consequences or effects on others." That of course is idiotic, and society rules differently.
Religion often comes with a self-aggrandizing philosophy. It is that part of religion that gives it much of it's strength, as well as much of it's obnoxious flavor, and I think, what many atheists react to. most strongly.
What I propose is that, at the very least, religion simply be placed in the same category as any other behavior that is sometimes benign, or if it has negative effects, it is at worst a victim-less crime, but at other times not at all benign, and in fact, quite dangerous or at least obnoxious.
Religion, gun ownership, snow mobiles, satanic ritual in your own basement among friends, whatever. These are all things that should probably be allowed but regulated....
I actually sat down and answered each of the questions on my own blog, and found it an only moderately satisfying experience. Many of his questions are the same thing being asked over and over again, and the main point seems to be: "Since you can't blame religion for every bad thing, then just leave it alone." Imagine that as a defense in a court of law. "Hey, I'm not as bad as Jeffry Dahmer ... I only killed and ate a couple of people.... "
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 7, 2007 5:43 PM
Ryu wrote:
I have been called an Atheist (which *is* a belief... the belief that God does *not* exist). I have been called an Agnostic (which is the belief that Gods "Plan" is unknowable, not disbelief in God).
You really should invest in a dictionary. Atheism is not a belief, any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is non-belief in any of innumerable gods. As for agnostic, I can't imagine how you came up with a definition involving God's "Plan", since any mainstream dictionary will give you something like,
"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
Posted by: tomh | January 7, 2007 5:48 PM
RYU:I have been called an Atheist (which *is* a belief... the belief that God does *not* exist).
This might be correct in the sense that one often uses the phrase "belief" in language, but since we're talking about belief as a specific practice, I think it has to be defined more clearly.
An Atheist typically is someone who has figured out that there is no evidence supporting religious belief. That is not the same thing as believing in something. It is explicitly qualitatively different.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 7, 2007 5:54 PM
It's not religion per se, that we need to get rid of. It is the sort of uncritical thinking that lets religion and other belief systems flourish. If there were no religion, then there would still be people who would believe it when a charismatic leader says, "we have to make war on those guys because they are [evil|immoral|dirty|fat|ugly|?]". If "those guys" have something we want, it's easy to get people to "believe" what ever is said about them. Be they capitalists, communists, muslims, christians or what ever label you put on them, gullible, uncritically thinking people will buy it and act on it.
Posted by: TomDunlap | January 7, 2007 6:04 PM
Very good PZ. But I strongly disagree that without religion, "we would still have the same wars". Not that there would never be any, but that certainly without the divisiveness and bigotry of religion there would be a whole lot less reason to do battle against some "other" tribe. Not to mention eliminating that psychotic resolve of the fighting masses to die as a slave for one's particular sky-daddy. Indeed, many of the wars we see today would be wholly without reason among the warriors to continue the fight, and certainly without motive to sacrifice their life.
Posted by: Jack | January 7, 2007 6:15 PM
To intrude a personal note, a small irony about all this from viewpoint is that I don't consider myself a "militant atheist" at all. I have a starting point of metaphysical naturalism, but the issues that usually concern me - and which I deal with in my own blog and elsewhere - are quite different. I do applaud Dawkins for saying, in public and in a forthright way, things that I often think about the evil done by religion, but that would have been as far as it went.
What has stirred me up a bit, just lately, is all this rather nasty backlash against Dawkins, who is essentially speaking the truth. In particular, I'm dismayed by the hurry of so many non-religious people to distance themselves from him. That phenomenon has made me feel like standing up in his support. I'm feeling a fair bit more "militant" as a result of the Dawkins bashing that's going on. I wonder if I'm the only one who feels like this.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | January 7, 2007 6:45 PM
A thought experiment: Recently, Dawkins did a series of interviews, or instance on NPR and Science Friday, promoting his book.
This thought occured to me: What if Ira Flatow (host of Science Friday) or the host of Mid Morning (NPR) etc. happen to be atheists? And what if they "admitted" this publicly during the interview with Dawkins?
Can you be a mainstream radio talk show host and be an "outed" atheist? I suspect not. Am I being paranoid?
The fact, if indeed it is a fact, that this is so is itself reason to drive one radical, IMHO.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 7, 2007 7:05 PM
"Yes, curtailing religion is "just the start of a difficult process" (PZM) but of all of the different possibilities, it is probably in the top three in potential effectiveness."
Effectiveness in doing what? The 20th Century had two large clinical trials, with millions of subjects, and in these group studies "curtailing religion" was at the top of the experiment. As the world watched and awaited the outcome, because these tests were performed behind closed doors, a group of "China Watchers" sat in Hong Kong cafes and mused about Mao creating the "socialist new man" who would revolutionize humankind. Stalin too eradicated religion and created a nation that traded its religion for bottles of vodka. And now that both clinical trials have been completed and the results are in, I just wonder if they are included in today's history classes.
Posted by: Bro. Bartleby | January 7, 2007 7:17 PM
PZ writes: I do not believe that abandoning superstition is all it takes to make a better world, but sweet jebus, demanding reason and evidence and questioning those glib old dogmas is certainly part of the answer, and I think people are capable of it. This is the start, the foundation, not the complete solution...
Okay, that sounds to me like a scientific claim. Is there really any evidence for it?
It seems to me that you have it exactly backwards. A peaceful sane world governed by sweet reason is the end of a long process, not the beginning. What do I think the starting point ought to be?
I think there are two main pillars, two points of agreement to work towards: (1) When making decisions that will affect the lives of many people, we agree to use the best science available; we agree to be guided by the scientific method. (2) When it comes to the big philosophical questions about the nature of the universe, the existence of god, whether Elvis is still alive, etc. we agree to practice the virtue of tolerance. What people believe is their own business, except to the extent when their beliefs conflict with pillar number (1).
It is possible to get people (many people, anyway) to agree to use the best science available when it comes to policy decisions even when they don't have a completely scientific worldview...Even if they are superstitious or religious about the nature of the world. As to the second pillar, while religion may be a contributing factor in many wars, certainly intolerance is proximate cause in most cases.
In my opinion, getting people to agree to these two pillars will, in the long run, cause religion to "wither away". If Jews and Christians and Muslims and atheists all tolerate each other, you'll have mixed marriages and you'll have children being allowed to choose which religion (or lack thereof) they want to practice, and it will eventually become just another lifestyle choice of no more significance than choosing Coke over Pepsi. At that point, society is effectively atheist, except for stray, meaningless touches such as putting up a menorah or a manger scene at various times of the year.
I think the drift from liberal theist to atheist is pretty predictable. The only thing that prevents the process from running to completion is recruitment by intolerant theists. Fighting intolerance is the way to go.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | January 7, 2007 7:25 PM
Greg,
Ira Glass, of "This American Life" (which is one of my all-time favorite radio programs) is an atheist.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | January 7, 2007 7:27 PM
Greg,
Ira Glass, of "This American Life" (which is one of my all-time favorite radio programs) is an atheist.
Figures. And in his particular case, outing himself may actually be a benefit.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 7, 2007 7:40 PM
Quoth Russell Blackford:
No, you're not. :-/
My feelings over the continuing kerfluffle have to an extent been tempered by the knowledge that the Internet has always been full of stupid loud people, and I'm constantly surprised by the subtle and learned responses flickering through the blogoweb (not least because the people making them are doing so for free). The signal/noise ratio is much higher than my cynicism would lead me to expect, and like Mr. Universe says, "You can't stop the signal."
All that said, the inflamed rhetoric coming from the trained experts has not, to put it mildly, filled me with esteem for the theological profession. The pains to which nonreligious folk have gone to distance themselves from the rabid, fire-breathing, etc. Dawkins also leave me, what's the word, nonplussed.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 7, 2007 7:47 PM
You can't stop the signal, but you can drown it in noise; you can hide it in nonsense; you can obscure it with banter and cant and dogma and popular conceptions.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 7, 2007 7:59 PM
Russell,
I'm in agreement, I'm a pretty mild atheist. I'd heard about Dawkin's before I read anything he wrote and assumed he is a histrionic blow hard. However, seeing him interviewed a couple of times I see him as a well reasoned, well spoken man. The distance between the reality and the criticisms made is amazing. To me I take it that it is a sign that ID is dead, Creationism is becoming a spent force and the theism/atheism debate is the one we should be having.
Posted by: Michael J | January 7, 2007 8:06 PM
I find the "militant atheist" labeling somewhat parallel to the "militant breastfeeder" label I earned a few years ago, at least in my case. Both started out as something I really would rather not discuss, that I didn't think was a big deal, at least nothing that should be of interest to anyone else minding their own business, nothing I'd even want to make a case out of. However, in both situations, people can't seem to help but intrude themselves in a very pushy negative manner.
"You can't do that in the dressing room." "You're still doing that?" "How can you stand it?" "Why won't he drink milk?" "What, you have something against formula?" "So, I suppose you think I'm a bad mother because I don't?" One can only take so much prodding before lashing back, and even when managing to avoid being rude in reply, one tends to develop a very hardened attitude about the whole thing. This is entirely reactive, not an inevitable condition. If people would just leave well enough alone, they'd notice no militance. I see the same thing with atheism. If people would stop saying we're evil, and stop trying to legislate their own religion, and quit trying to get religion in schools, and stop making a big deal out of, well, everything, there wouldn't be militant atheists, either. At least not so many of them. They've made their own enemy.
Posted by: Carlie | January 7, 2007 8:32 PM
Ahhh, the "what we really meant when we said" defense.
The gripe and the questions are a demand that the usual suspects quit talking and writing like there aren't nuances involved, as though "everybody gets what we're really saying when we say this thing or that thing" instead of making blanket statements they handwave away later.
Posted by: Rev. Raven Daegmorgan | January 7, 2007 8:55 PM
Bro. Bartleby:
I presume by 'clinical trials' you refer to the official atheism practiced in Soviet Russia and Communist China.
Well, look, I'm a believer, so I have no atheistic ax to grind here. But I think it is really a mistake to conflate the principled non-belief of many skeptics with the sort of state-sponsored atheism that feeds itself by criminalizing religion.
I feel that the latter is in itself a belief system! Since that's the case, the 'clinical trials' you refer to are just another example of faith-based persecution; in this case, faith in Communist doctrine about the evils of religion.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 7, 2007 9:23 PM
Amen Carlie, I too was a "militant breastfeeder". Talk about social pressure, sheesh. This whole militant atheist thing is just an effort to make athiests be quiet and get back in line. It's like uppity women and uppity black people. They are fine as long as they know their place.
A Militant Athiest is any Athiest that stands up for themselves at all.
Posted by: Yiela | January 7, 2007 9:37 PM
Just an observation that I think is original with me. First, I hate this bickering. I've always considered atheists, liberal Christians, liberal Jews, liberal Buddhists, etc. to be basically comrades-in-arms fighting for tolerance, civil rights, environmental protection, education, etc. Sowing conflict among these groups seems to me to be helping out our common nemeses: intolerance, bigotry, repression, etc.
But it occurred to me that maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if the discussion has shifted from people declaring "I'm a Christian, but I'm not that kind of Christian" to people declaring "I'm an atheist, but I'm not that kind of atheist", then some kind of progress has been made.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | January 7, 2007 9:38 PM
Who wants to lay odds that the Brayton's of the world ignore this and still act like PZ wants to ban religion to form a utopia (as they are so fond of saying)?
But great post. Couldn't have wrote it better myself.
Posted by: Kevin | January 7, 2007 10:11 PM
Daryl McCullough wrote:
I doubt this observation is original with you, since it might well be the position of many sensible folk, at least some of which must have said it for the record. Personally, I suspect that a good part of the current double-double-toil-and-trouble seething and surging through the Blogotubes comes from bitterness, the anger that atheists have felt due to "liberal Christians" not keeping their part of the bargain defending against outright lies. When the organized Protestant denominations of America issue stern condemnations of the immoral tactics used to propagate the stupid, vile mind-poison known as "creationism" and "Intelligent Design", then we'll have made progress.
You have expressed, in my opinion, a good and kind sentiment. Now, let's everybody live up to it!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | January 7, 2007 11:09 PM
It's not religion per se, that we need to get rid of. It is the sort of uncritical thinking that lets religion and other belief systems flourish. If there were no religion, then there would still be people who would believe it when a charismatic leader says, "we have to make war on those guys because they are [evil|immoral|dirty|fat|ugly|?]".
...and that's certainly nothing new.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 7, 2007 11:10 PM
Blake,
That wasn't my observation, that was just background about how I feel about it. My observation was the second paragraph.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | January 7, 2007 11:16 PM
PZ - You accuse me of creating straw men, and then you set up one of your own. I never said any atheists (much less all of them) believe religion is the "root of all evil." I said two of them were suggesting that humanity's social ills would decrease if all religion were eliminated. And I said that I don't find the arguments in favor of this position convincing, given that religion has provided benefit as well as harm.
You write "I do not believe that religion is the root of all evil, and I don't know any atheists who do." Me neither, and I never said so. And while my list of questions may seem self-serving and rhetorical to you, there is an unending stream of atheists who defend their position by saying: "Oh, yeah? What about the Crusades?"
Of course religion contributed to conflicts such as the Crusades, as I've always acknowledged. That's why I wrote that I suspect organized religion has caused more harm than good, although I can't prove it any more than Richard Dawkins can. Still, the ills caused by organized religion may be caused more by the organization part than by the belief part.
But if you don't know any atheists who argue that - philosophical arguments aside - society's problems would be reduced without religion in any form, I can point you to a few who do.
I suspect that's not true, and that's what I wrote.
Posted by: RJ Eskow | January 7, 2007 11:48 PM
Do you even know the history of Marxism's atheism? Because if you don't, you're not really qualified to talk on this point.
Marxism's atheism is a holdover from it's anarchist roots. The anarchist philosophers of the 19th century felt that religion (as they understood it at the time, i.e. Christianity/Judaism/Islam) was inherently harmful because it accustomed people to accepting authoritarianism and hindered their ability to function is a truly free environment. (Mikhail Bakunin: "If there were a God, it would be necessary to destroy him.") Furthermore, the church was viewed similarly to the state, as a coercive power structure that wielded illegitimate authority; thus religion was considered to have no place in a society free from coercive force.
Ultimately, Marx split from the anarchists over "irreconcilable differences." Marx felt that, following the revolution, there would need to be some form of intermediate government to guide the proletariat's transition to a condition of true and complete liberty. The anarchists, who felt that all state authority was oppressive and invalid, argued that such an interim government, regardless of the purposes behind it's creation, would inevitably become itself oppressive. From the anarchist point of view, atheism is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for true liberty and equality.
The excesses of the communist states of the 20th century had nothing to do with their atheism; they were the inevitable result of power acting in it's own interests.
Posted by: AC Serrano | January 7, 2007 11:48 PM
The "militant atheist thing" is an attempt to get practicing militants to engage in socially responsible interaction, not silence them or their positions.
The term "militant" is usually applied to members of a specific self-identifying group who have not learned how to interact with others to get their way without violence and aggression (often verbal and social, sometimes physical), and who justifies those negative (and unproductive) social behaviors as necessary, as productive, as correct and righteous in the pursuit of their goal.
That such behavior is not necessary is borne out by the example of individuals who stand up for themselves successfully without resorting to militancy. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a militant race activist (whereas the Black Panthers were militant race activists). Ghandi is another example of a non-militant social rights activist; as is the Dalai Lama.
When you learn to treat others with the respect you want to be treated with, and that a person can stand up for their rights (even to a rude prick) without being a jerk, you will find not only that people listen more deeply and are more considerate of your position than when you are spitting on them and striking them, but they will start to stand up for you. (All which holds to my own experience as an ex-militant.)
So, when Blake says, as have others:
One must realize that the first step towards achieving that is rooting militant atheism and its associated negative behaviors -- the use of insults and pejoratives, the us vs. them rhetoric, the snide and superior attitudes, etc. -- out of the atheist community. Otherwise, the majority is not going to stand up for you (for obvious reasons).
Posted by: Rev. Raven Daegmorgan | January 7, 2007 11:55 PM
...like Mr. Universe says, "You can't stop the signal."
Oooh - a Firefly/Serenity reference? The checkmarks just keep piling up in the plus column of Mr. Stacey's balance sheet.
-K. (who is now too tired to say anything more intelligent than "good night".)
Posted by: Kseniya | January 7, 2007 11:58 PM
One must realize that the first step towards achieving that is rooting militant atheism and its associated negative behaviors -- the use of insults and pejoratives, the us vs. them rhetoric, the snide and superior attitudes, etc. -- out of the atheist community.
sorry, Rev, but what you are seeing in the "atheist community" is, if anything, merely reactionary to the dipolarization and hyperbole used by regligious fundamentalists to begin with.
I can think of NO scientist who arbitrarily got fed up with religious creobots and started yelling profanities. It took a lot of poking and prodding from the ignorant and intolerant before a reaction was provoked.
If you think a more tolerant approach is warranted, you'd have to explain why it didn't work to begin with.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 8, 2007 12:01 AM
Religion is just another ideology.
...and one of my favorite aphorisms by the ex-East German author Gerhard Zwerenz is "Ideologie ist Denkfaulheit" (Ideology is mental laziness...)
The Russians have the same kind of messianic element in their national consciousness as many Americans do who are into "American Exceptionalism"...American messianism comes wrapped in God, flag, country, baseball & apple pie, while in the former Soviet Union, it was transfered to The Party, Lenin, World Proletarian Revolution, etc...old wine in new bottle...both out to "save" the world, with the rest of the world wishing both giant bullies and their swaggering egos would just go away and leave them the f*ck alone.
That's what Che thought, anyway, and why his Bolivian adventure became a suicide(d) mission.
My fellow Americans who are still locked in Cold War patterns of thought would mostly still probably want to tell me to go to Russia for my views...but in the ex-USSR I probably would've been denounced as a Titoist or a Trotskyite.
There are a few Russian writers I admire who were dissidents before the USSR broke up and have remained dissidents in the "New" Russia.
The problem of religion is only going to get worse with falling literacy, collapsing & crumbling educational systems, etc. Reason & science, yes, but only for the "responsible" children of the elites who can "handle it", not the rabble...seems to be the way things are going, at any rate.
Yes, there were ulterior motives for the crusades--trade routes, conquest, usual things...but Religion was the ideology du jour that kept the enterprise glued together.
Today (cruel twist of fate) it's "promoting Democracy and Freedom" (tm) and "Free Markets", but Religion still has its uses even today...General Boykin and the like...Christian Zionism, etc. The Neocons are all good Straussians and know that very well...they may not believe it themselves, but it's very useful to discipline and rally the herd with it.
I wish religion would go away, but until educational and literacy standards are raised world-wide (and that won't happen because those on top benefit from the existing inequalities--thrive on it), not a chance. It is just possible that there was so much atheism in the former USSR because the USSR also had, despite its limitations and ideological blinders, a very high degree of universal literacy and educational attainment, quite apart from "official atheism" and anti-religious propoganda & persecution...which was wrong, I agree...the Soviets were a little too fond of psycho-pharmacological "remedies" to such "problem" people. Heavy handed, and certainly unnecessary. If anything the active persecution probably ensured religious sects would survive and thrive underground and outlive the USSR...benign neglect might have made for better policy; Ah well...like I've said before, the Soviets made the mistake of turning their Marxism into a kind of non-theistic religion...no god, fine, but no less "religious" because of it...witness Lyshenko, etc. And as Anne Lynne Gaylor of FFRF once pointed out, Stalin was educated in a seminary.
Dawkins I agree with 100%; Sam Harris has flashes of brilliance but is otherwise an apologist for Empire, much like Christopher Hitchens, who, like a broken clock, is still sometimes right, but mostly not, anymore.
But my disputes with them are over politics, not the desirability of atheism and rationality being more widespread as a general condition.
Anyhow, great post PZ!
Posted by: JJR | January 8, 2007 12:16 AM
REV:The "militant atheist thing" is an attempt to get practicing militants to engage in socially responsible interaction, not silence them or their positions.
The thing is, I don't think there are very many, or possibly any, militant atheists. Atheists are pretty much dead in the middle of where everyone should be, so why should they be militant anyway?
A friend of mine was almost murdered when she was about 11 (my daughter's current age). Other kids her age, who were evangelical fundamentalists, heard that she was an atheist and plotted to smother her to death during the night at summer camp. It's pretty much a fluke that she happen to be rescued.
She, my friend, remains an atheist, but she never became militant. She simply refuses to accept any sort of bullshit whatsoever.
What I do see occasionally is a measured yet strong, and fully appropriate reaction to insanity cloaked in sanctimony and given credence by threats and bullying.
I have yet to meet a militant atheist. Seriously.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 8, 2007 12:45 AM
Russell Blackford mused: I wonder if I'm the only one who feels like this.
Blake Stacey seems to have the same sentiment. So does Michael J.
Add me to that list.
Rev. Raven claimed: The "militant atheist thing" is an attempt to get practicing militants to engage in socially responsible interaction, not silence them or their positions.
This is what is technically called "crap." And it's time to "cut the crap."
The "militant" label is a pathetic attempt to conflate "vocal critics" with looting rioters and suicide bombers. That label may please the cry babies amongst believers, but it reinforces my conviction that my (usually private and quiet) atheism needs to be aired much more vigorously and frequently.
As for this comment: -- the use of insults and pejoratives, the us vs. them rhetoric, the snide and superior attitudes, etc. --
Has been used utilized exclusively by the fundy and literalist Christian side.
Carlie and Yiela: Thank you for sharing your insights.
Posted by: MTran | January 8, 2007 1:09 AM
Boy did my editing & proof reading skills tank out when I said: Has been used utilized exclusively by the fundy and literalist Christian side.
What I thought I had typed was:
Has been used utilized almost exclusively by the fundy and literalist Christian side.
Sorry about that.
Posted by: MTran | January 8, 2007 1:27 AM
And still I did not remove the redunant word, did I?
I'd better stop while I'm behind!
This migraine is making me see things...and not see things, too.
Posted by: MTran | January 8, 2007 1:40 AM
However, I don't think it's enough to fight the nastiest symptoms while pretending the underlying disease is a beautiful thing."
Ahem******
I need to pick up my jaw now. I think you have no idea that you have just quantified everything that made me NOT believe - and I thank you. (insert copious tears here)
I won't go into much detail, but when I went through a family illness, the whole time we dealt with the insurance agency, we were bombarded with the psychosocial model of illness. So, damage to the body was more able to spontaneously heal itself if you went to church and had a strong spiritual background. WTF????? This was proven in diagrams that had a circle divided up like a pie, which included family friends spirituality work and physical factors. That there was a dearth of belief was counted as a bad thing.
This bodily damage, that is inoperable and will never go away, was used as an OPPORTUNITY when a job was lost. "When one door closes, another opens" was actually said to us by an employment counsellor who was maybe all of 22. This was a way of being able to make a change. No matter that there was no reason (except injury) to make this change. Which meant having no job, and no way to feed our family except a very meagre income after the benevolent insurer kicked us off their rolls, and all.
Because of their claims that one could heal cancer with their mind, and reading their horrible research papers that even I could tell their was something wrong with, and I am no math whiz, and because of this mindless fuck enthusiasm that was perpetuated constantly in that organization.... I gave up on the whole idea of a god (who I never believed was a tooth fairy, anyways) , and began to look at