…and this is a 
Do-nothing atheists and re-igniting the Enlightenment
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: May 23, 2007 3:18 PM, by PZ Myers
I'll take a leaf from Chris Ho-Stuart's book and urge you to read this post on Positive Liberty before I tackle his post. Jonathan Rowe is making the useful point that we have an interest in shaping religions, even religions with which we do not agree, to make them compatible with a civil, democratic society. He points out that the US founding fathers put an Enlightenment twist on the Christianity they favored, rejecting old notions of exclusivity and intolerance to promote a more benign form of religion — without actually establishing a state religion, they at least exemplified some broader-minded principles against which other religions had to compete, and it had the result of at least temporarily softening the hard-liners.
That's excellent, and I'll agree with it—barring the complete eradication of religion, we need to change it to accommodate the modern world. I'll add, though, that other countries did set up state religions, and then seem to have modified that institution into similarly benign forms that have had a more lasting effect. The unofficial position of America's founding fathers may have been wonderfully positive in the beginning, but we can see now that they flopped mightily at building enduring institutions that would maintain any kind of religious rationalism. I tend to think that if they had, for instance, declared Unitarianism the official US religion (with the same strong statements that religion was not to be a prerequisite for holding office, etc., and that it was not a declaration of exclusivity) we'd be better off today. There'd at least be one officially sanctioned brake on the excesses of our wildly proliferating looney-tunes churches.
Rowe quotes the goals of this Jeffersonian view of enlightened religion as "inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man; acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter," which is all well and good as a desirable end of a government that wants to promote civil harmony. One issue is that even this view of religion doesn't seem to be implemented well in this country; another, though, and one I'm more interested in, is how we can expand that enlightened view to also encompass the needs of a more scientific society.
These are hard problems.
I'd have to say that a science-compatible religion would have to reject miracles and myth, superstition and the supernatural, and would have to be open to constant self-criticism and readjustment of its beliefs. It would have to refuse to try and squeeze god into quantum minutia or into the preconditions of the Big Bang. It would have to be intensely suspicious of hypothesized meddling spirits in our past history, and of the transmogrification of brains made of meat into ethereal invisible unworldly souls in our future. It's not impossible — I'm looking at you, Spong, and you, Dalai Lama, as at least going in the right direction — but we're deluding ourselves if we think modern religion, especially modern American religion, is anywhere near that point. If anything, it seems to be drifting the other way, towards ennobling dogma yet more and treating magic as a credible strategy for coping with the real world. And this is where I part company with Chris Ho-Stuart.
Chris advocates a conciliatory approach, and also tosses out a new label, "tolerant atheist," to describe it.
The conciliatory approach -- mine -- is that religion itself is consistent with science; though of course there are individual believers (creationists, for example) who hold views that are unambiguously falsified by the findings of scientists. But we tend to say that science is a process for finding things out, and that it can't find out everything. We tend not to think of science as requiring a belief in metaphysical naturalism, even though most of us actually do seem to be metaphysical naturalists -- disbelievers in God and in the supernatural. No matter; we admit that some of our scientific colleagues may have radically different metaphysical perspectives; and as long as they don't try to bring in the supernatural as a way of distorting the actual methods of scientific investigation, we don't mind what they believe. If you really can form your beliefs in such a way as to avoid being directly falsified by a line of empirical evidence, then you can be consistent with science.
Now there's something to be said for the notion that we are promoting as "authentic" a form of religion that is highly unusual and quite distinct from traditional religion all down the ages. It's not quite a total humbug, because religion does change over time; and there are plenty of religious leaders trying to promote an expression of their religion that remains fully consistent with all the discoveries of modern science. We tolerant atheists approve and encourage them.
I categorically reject the label and the approach, for a couple of different reasons. One, as Larry Moran already notes in the comments there, it sets up an obvious dichotomy and implies that this is a disagreement between the good, sweet, kind, tolerant atheists and those who reject Ho-Stuart's position, who must be the awful intolerant atheists. This plays right into the hands of the reactionary supporters of the status quo; I've been accused of wanting to march the religious into camps, of planning forced sterilizations, and of wanting to purge science of Christians, all false, but still reflecting this unfortunate choice of terminology.
For another, it's delusional. Someone who favors applying pressure to tack the Southern Baptists towards a science-friendly deism is no more tolerant, from their point of view, than someone who advocates for an outright rejection of all religion. It will misleadingly find approval from many of the liberal theists, but we aren't worried about them. It's ignoring the real threat to wallow with a few like-minded progressives and pretend all is right with the world.
I've got a different label for Chris. Instead of "tolerant atheists," they are "do-nothing atheists". Their goal is to avoid conflict, ignore differences, and just get along, and hope that by avoiding confrontation the great theistic mob will just generally drift into friendship with them and eventually align themselves more and more with that great bunch of guys and gals. It's nice. It's even going to work — with some people. I'll also admit that most of us are "do-nothing atheists" most of the time. When I talk to some Christian fellow at the coffee house, we'll talk about the weather, the news, what's happening around town, and I'm not interested in sparking a confrontation over an issue that isn't relevant to the interaction at hand (remember, we're all tolerant atheists together here, and despite all rumors to the contrary, I do not think my fellow citizens are idiots if they go to church).
The do-nothing atheists optimistically hope that everyone will evolve into a more enlightened form of religion, and unfortunately, will abstain from contumelious contention even when they are directly opposed by strongly held and patently absurd religious beliefs. I get the impression they'd instead want to fix a nice pot of tea and reassure the visiting evangelist that they can still find common cause in a conversation about the azaleas this spring. It's all so damned nice and buries all the argument under the sociable politesse that it makes my sublingual venom glands start to spasm. OK, sure, I'll join them both in a cup of tea and a little chit-chat, but let's not fool ourselves: this is not a step towards resolving conflicts, it's evading them. It's a delaying maneuver while the do-nothing atheist vaguely hopes progressive social forces draw people away from hellfire-and-brimstone religion, and the evangelical Christian enjoys a moment's conversation while his peers are actively proselytizing and influencing the political process in the background. At some point we must engage the fight.
The complement to the do-nothing atheist is, naturally enough, the activist atheist. The difference isn't that we're intolerant, or even that we have different beliefs about god and religion—it's that we'll unfurl a bold banner and stand uncompromisingly beneath it, state our differences loudly, and dare the others to contend with us. We do not aim to get along. Our goal is to strengthen others in our shared skepticism about religion and our positive affirmation of the power of reason and the sufficiency of the natural world, to challenge the long-held domination of supernatural and authoritarian thinking, and to change minds. Not to passively hope that others will eventually see the light, but to light that fire ourselves. Not to glimmer optimistically, but to incandesce ferociously. Where some hope the world will follow, some have to lead.
Jefferson and Madison and the other founding fathers also led. Their position was not so radical as atheism, but they did not sit back and make excuses for states that restricted freedom of religion or the advocates of heretic-burning, they did not wait for liberal winds to waft the populace towards a kinder, gentler religion—they worked to promote their vision of an enlightened faith. They got the country part way there, but as we can see, we're backsliding at a tremendous pace, a frightening portion of the world around us is enslaved to faith, and now is not the time to trust to those liberal winds…now is the time to work harder, push farther, and aim higher. And I choose to aim for an unapologetically secular state that trusts in empiricism and natural law rather than revelation and traditional dogma.
And I will speak and act to achieve that goal.
Comments
Wow.
I like it.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | May 23, 2007 3:24 PM
Chris needs to watch Jesus Camp to see how the other side is approaching it. These are the same people who condemn Catholics and cast a skeptical eye at Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Methodists; they certainly will not afford atheists any respect for being "tolerant" atheists as opposed to any other kind.
Really, people like Chris need to understand: they hate your viewpoint and see you as a threat simply for existing, regardless of how you act about it.
Posted by: Carlie | May 23, 2007 3:25 PM
What's the point of compromise?
Religion is bullshit. It breeds stupidity. It harms civil society in many ways. It breeds truly nasty people in the United States like Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson.
Every time someone invokes belief in a fantasy God it is an insult to human intelligence.
Mock religion. Scorn it. Do not molly-coddle the people, nasty and nice, who want to believe in fairy tales.
The "shut up you atheists" meme is getting tiresome.
Posted by: CalGeorge, radical secularist | May 23, 2007 3:49 PM
Posted by: Randy Owens | May 23, 2007 3:51 PM
As usual, an excellent rebuttal of milquetoast non-theism from free folks' favorite bio-buccaneer, PZ.
(Look! You even brought one of the poor recovering postmodernists out of the lurking shadows!)
It's worth mentioning, despite the myriad flaws and foibles of the founding fathers, their deism was as radical in the context of their times as atheism is in ours.
Posted by: Arren Frank | May 23, 2007 3:54 PM
Do people change religions because they change their beliefs, or because they want to affiliate with a different group, for reasons that have little to do with the stated beliefs of that group? Seems like there must be data on this. If the latter, rational (or irrational) argument is pointless. The issue is, who has better parties?
Posted by: Ford | May 23, 2007 4:03 PM
Whenever I criticize the more extreme elements of Islam, I always stress that most Muslims say this doesn't represent the authentic version of their faith.
Uh-huh. From an article in the Columbia Dispatch today:
FROM STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
WASHINGTON -- One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable in some circumstances, a poll says.
[...]
Although nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam cannot be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
[source]
Posted by: CalGeorge, radical secularist | May 23, 2007 4:11 PM
Or, will I sell more cars if I go to this church or that one? Or, he/she won't marry me unless I convert.
A few people may actually weigh the plausibility of different religions, but I don't think people who weigh the plausibility of things are the problem.
Posted by: Ford Denison | May 23, 2007 4:12 PM
PZ, you certainly are ferociously incandescent!
I would suggest that a more neutral term than either "tolerant" or "do-nothing" is "conciliatory" atheist (which I think still works in comparision to "activist" atheist). I agree that "tolerant" has the implication that other atheists are "intolerant", but I think it's also incorrect to label non-activists as "do-nothing", since many vigorously push for alliances with the less-fundamentalist theists. Their chief attribute is not that they do not act, but that they believe a conciliatory attitude toward religion is fruitful.
I'm surprised you'd grant this much, PZ, since I don't see how one can have science-compatibility in anything that meets a most basic definition of a religion (as opposed to a philosophy, or a culture, or a social club). Perhaps more accurately, I don't think it is possible for anything reasonably labelled "religion" not to make empirically-falsifiable claims about the world. Is there any extant religion that does not involve some sort of belief in miracles (as broadly defined)? Is there any extant religion that does not hold that pleadings to a supernatural being are not somehow efficacious in the natural world? Would it even make sense to call belief in a supernatural-but-completely-non-intervening being "religion"?
I agree with the conciliators that there are religious groups that are more benign toward science than others, and perhaps as a matter of politics it is helpful to recognize this. But I am completely unconvinced that any meaningful religion could be completely compatible with science.
Posted by: Tulse | May 23, 2007 4:16 PM
Quote:"If you really can form your beliefs in such a way as to avoid being directly falsified by a line of empirical evidence, then you can be consistent with science."
This seems to be about the most comforting, apologetic load of drivel I can imagine. An analogy that comes to mind is "Police can't be everywhere at once to enforce all laws, so as long as there are no police officers around when you rob banks, you're still a law-abiding citizen."
What a load of crock.
Posted by: Newtronflux | May 23, 2007 4:26 PM
I entirely agree. That's another reason we won't win people over by being shy about our beliefs, or constantly conceding the privilege of possibility to religion. People also follow strength. And confidence.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 23, 2007 4:30 PM
Sublingual?
PZ is no treacherous snake. He's a Gila monster.
Posted by: David Marjanović | May 23, 2007 4:33 PM
"I'd have to say that a science-compatible religion would have to reject miracles and myth, superstition and the supernatural, and would have to be open to constant self-criticism and readjustment of its beliefs...."
Wow. Sounds just like what I was thinking when I read Thomas Paine. Don't have time to elaborate, but maybe someone else will.
Posted by: speedwell | May 23, 2007 4:36 PM
Very appropriate quote that came up on the random quote thingy:
We may not have things as bad as MLK's circumstances, but we still have to stay active.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | May 23, 2007 4:37 PM
Many religions in Africa have a god who created the universe, hasn't done anything since, and is above worship. AFAIK those religions are all polytheistic, though, with plenty of more lowly gods that meddle with the world and require worship and sacrifice.
Posted by: David Marjanović | May 23, 2007 4:40 PM
Some social change is occurring. Although Hitchens' F-eulogy of Falwell excited even rabid tolerant apologists like Brayton, he almost certainly would not have been allowed on TV a couple of years ago. So, which group is contributing most to this change: the "tolerant" non-confrontationists fighting their Quiet War of conciliation behind their Maginot Line of the Establishment Clause or the strident activists aggressively attacking and ridiculing the absurdity of religious/supernatural beliefs?
Posted by: Alan Wagner | May 23, 2007 4:40 PM
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to getting my opinions from Ed.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | May 23, 2007 4:52 PM
As I understand the argument, it isn't "do-nothing atheism" at all. It's "true-religion atheism."
TRUE Christianity has no problem with evolution. TRUE Islam has no problem with human rights. TRUE Wicca only uses spells as a metaphorical prop. TRUE religion is about love, peace, kindness, and respect for others. That's what "true-religion" atheists want religionists to recognize. They deeply respect religion, even if they don't agree with it, as long as the religionists are talking about the REAL version. Meaning the version that bothers atheists the least because it makes more sense without all that extraneous interfering supernatural hoo-doo.
I suppose this would contrast with "false-religion atheism." No, the supernatural claims in religion are all false and the rest of the sensible stuff stands on its own. It's not the place of atheists to tell the religious the "right" way to do their theology because God really wants it this way instead of that way. We don't genuinely approach religion from that perspective, and are playing a pretend role when we do.
Posted by: Sastra | May 23, 2007 4:57 PM
Get your radical tentacles out and make Darwin proud!
Posted by: John Danley | May 23, 2007 5:00 PM
Sastra, atheists aren't saying anything about theology -- they are saying that religion is incompatible with science. Atheists don't give a horse's ass about the finer points of theological discourse, as long as it is kept out of science.
On the other hand, with statements like "TRUE Christianity has no problem with evolution", you seem quite content to dole out theological pronouncements, claims that would be disagreed with by a majority of Americans (sadly).
Posted by: Tulse | May 23, 2007 5:17 PM
"religion itself is consistent with science" - Chris, that's just incorrect. If anything actually happens that can be measured, it's in the realm of science, even if it can't be explained at the moment.
Posted by: chuko | May 23, 2007 5:22 PM
Ridicule as a tactic only works at the margins -- it encourages people to move toward the mainstream. It has its place, but we have a harder job in persuading people to adopt enlightenment principles.
It's probably useful that we have a whole spectrum of approaches going on at the same time. It had better be, anyway, since that's what we're going to have.
Posted by: chuko | May 23, 2007 5:34 PM
The founding fathers regected Christianity, supernatural events, and divine revelation in support of Deism: the religious philosphy of a 'supreme being' based on human reasoning and observations of the natural world. I think Jefferson and Lincoln might have even been Atheist.
Posted by: Brandon | May 23, 2007 5:49 PM
What about simply turning Science into a religion. Isn't there a name for that? Scientism? Why can't we worship delta or omega or some other arbitrary symbol for the relentless pursuit of scientific truth? Where's my science church? Hmmm?
Posted by: Christopher | May 23, 2007 5:58 PM
Good idea Chris. Why don't you set a church of science up and see how many people come along to worship science.
Then, after its folded, or been laughed out of town by scientists, you might work out why.
Posted by: guthrie | May 23, 2007 6:11 PM
Tulse wrote:
You misunderstand. I'm saying that the division between different "kinds" of atheists on the specific science/religion stance PZ is talking about here is not so much "do-nothing atheists" vs. "activist atheists," but "True-religion atheists" vs. "False-religion atheists."
The former seem to think that the wisest course towards resolving the conflict between science and religion is to promote the view that the best, truest forms of religion are those which agree to keep themselves consistent with modern science. They advocate what amounts to getting involved in theology by promoting some forms of religion as more "authentic," or True, than others. In politics, this is the Real-Islam-is-peaceful or Real-Christianity-promotes-Enlightenment-values school of atheism.
In this view, faith is only a problem if it steps outside its proper bounds, so we should encourage the religious to keep it there.
The "False-Religion atheists" are uncomfortable with the idea that atheists should get involved in telling the public that "creationism is not only bad science, it's bad theology." We (and I probably come down on this side myself) may recognize some pragmatic value in "doling out theological pronouncments" like this, but think it is dishonest, untrue, and will probably come back to bite us.
The problem with faith is that it redefines rules and -- once you accept it as the basis of your beliefs -- technically speaking there are no "proper bounds."
Posted by: Sastra | May 23, 2007 6:21 PM
truest forms of religion are those which agree to keep themselves consistent with modern science. They advocate what amounts to getting involved in theology by promoting some forms of religion as more "authentic," or True, than others.
*strrrreeeeeetttttccchhhh*
*ping*
don't recall seeing ANYBODY with that position on any science blog. OTOH, I could easily point to those on the RELIGIOUS side as doing that very thing: accusing other sects as not being "TRUE" xianity, for example. you see it every day.
Can you point to examples to clarify your position?
The problem with faith is that it redefines rules and -- once you accept it as the basis of your beliefs -- technically speaking there are no "proper bounds."
I'll agree with the gist of that; it's why NOMA doesn't work.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 23, 2007 6:36 PM
Our goal is to strengthen others in our shared skepticism about religion and our positive affirmation of the power of reason and the sufficiency of the natural world, to challenge the long-held domination of supernatural and authoritarian thinking, and to change minds.
The problem with attempting to "change minds" with regard to a religious notion is that those minds are simply not pursuaded by logical argument. In my experience, applying "reason" in this regime usually leads the opposing party to galvanize their standpoint rather than to concede their error. (eg "Why should I be wrong, why aren't you wrong?") Attempting to reason with them generally causes such people to dig in and become less pliant to the suggestion that they are wrong.
People usually take a criticism of their belief as an insult to themselves, and therefore do not accept criticism, or the application of reason (which is generating the criticism), constructively. With regard to belief and religion, people do not change unless they want to change.
I think the real question is whether more is accomplished by beating your opponent into submission or by coaxing him/her into making small concessions. While application of main force is seductive for promising immediate results, it does not always get the job done and can sometimes do more damage than it sought to repair. It does not help that some approach may come across as main force when it was not intended as more than benign logical discourse.
This is part of why the Framing argument is so important.
Posted by: viggen | May 23, 2007 6:38 PM
The Church of Listening to Radiohead is wholly compatible with science; it preaches no intolerance*; and it offers Guinness and a range of other fine beverages in lieu of sticky-sweet communion wine. I look forward to seeing all you civil, democratic types at our next (late-morning, early-afternoon) service, whenever and if-ever that happens.
*it preaches no anything
Posted by: RedMolly | May 23, 2007 6:41 PM
RedMolly: You have a church for Radiohead fans? And I thought I saw the light when i converted to pastafarianism...
Posted by: forsen | May 23, 2007 6:53 PM
Yeah, that should work, the religious have always been so generous in making those small concessions. Who cares where the Holy Spirit proceeds from, or who was the true heir of Mohammed?
Posted by: windy | May 23, 2007 7:02 PM
I hate it when people use perfectly good terms in trendy, buzz-wordy ways.
Intolerance is not a bad thing. Intolerance is what motivates us to push back when people walk all over our rights. Intolerance is what makes work to keep non-science out of science classes. Intolerance is what permits us to reject the bigots, the racists, the sexists. Intolerance is vitally necessary to a healthy, functioning mind, and by extension a healthy, functional society.
Stop using 'intolerance' to refer only to intolerance you don't agree with!
Posted by: Caledonian, Meat Wrangler | May 23, 2007 7:03 PM
Thanks for the comments, Paul!
On my blog, Larry also asked if I am calling others intolerant. The answer is definitely "No", I am not. By saying that I aim to be a "tolerant atheist", I am not saying everyone else is "intolerant", any more than "Democrats" are the only people who support democracy.
I think it is fair enough to say, meaning no insult, that one of the differences between me and you is that I am more tolerant of religion. Don't you agree? I'm not saying this as an attempt to insult you, nor am I setting up a dichotomy between tolerant and intolerant. It's a spectrum of sorts, and I understand you to be arguing that part of our problem is that we've been too tolerant of religion.
Tolerance is not always a good thing, after all! One of the points in my essay -- and you echo it here -- is that the approach taken by the USA Founding Fathers might not have been entirely positive. They did contribute to the reshaping of religion into a more reasonable form. But in the end this may have contributed to your current situation, where religion has more impact on your society than in any other first world country -- and this is plainly to your detriment.
I do find it incredibly silly to fuss about the labels in this way. I don't really mind what you call me. I've used the "Neville Chamberlain" label for myself sometimes, despite its inaccuracies. Another term that seems apt is "conciliatory".
If the only way you can talk about those who disagree with you is in negative terms that belittle and denigrate, or if you take umbrage any attempt by us to use a term with some positive connotations, then I fear you are falling into a kind of extreme fundamentalism that may win you notoriety but is losing you respect in some quarters at least.
You propose as a label that "do nothing" atheist. That's just idiotic.
I've been active in this for years. I go out of my way to engage with Christians directly; and when I do so I wear the label "atheist" prominently and with pride. Over the last couple of years I have been an active contributor to the conservative Christian webforum "TheologyWeb". Just recently I heard about a contributor there who has abandoned their Christian faith and become an atheist, and who has credited my writings with a large part of that. Such conversions are rarely instantaneous; and they tend to occur offline, as people reflect for themselves on a point that rankles. There are other similar cases I know of in the past, and I suspect there are probably more I don't know of.
This, however, is not actually my main objective, and I spend a lot of time talking all kinds of issues. I even make even occasional comments on theological topics in Christian only discussion areas, with permission from the moderators and always with the explicit disclaimer that I speak as an unbeliever; and without any explicit attempt to denigrate or refute religion.
That is, I don't just have one hobbyhorse to ride. I'm planning a post at my own blog sometime in the future that describes a bit more personal background and which may help explain my own personal choices for approach.
I can understand skepticism about my chosen approach. That was part of why I wrote my last blog entry; specifically to look at possible negative long term consequences of my style. For the time being it remains my deliberate choice; but I do understand the concerns of my more hardline atheist colleagues.
Anyone who thinks this amounts to a "do nothing" approach has missed the point entirely, and has no idea of all that I'm doing in this engagement.
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | May 23, 2007 7:03 PM
"Tolerant" of what?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 23, 2007 7:08 PM
Well, of course Chris Ho-Stuart advocates that, but he's neither on scienceblogs nor, I think, an atheist:
Have I heard this strategy -- or similar comments about how extremists are not "real Christians (Muslims, Hindus, etc.)"-- come from atheists of my acquaintance? Sure, but that doesn't help you. Have I seen "creationism is bad theology" written by atheist apologists, or references to "non-christian behavior = bad behavior" come from atheists on the net or in print? Yes, but can't recall specific examples right now.
So ya got me. Good question. I'll look around...
Posted by: Sastra | May 23, 2007 7:25 PM
Sastra writes:
For the record, I am an atheist. I am identified as such in my on-line profile, and in every post that I write for the Christian discussion forums to which I belong.
I am what is sometimes called a "strong" atheist; that is, I do not merely lack a belief in God, but I am definite that no such thing exists. My own apologetics for strong atheism can be found here. I'm surprised to see it still being maintained at that site; I no longer work at QUT. I've repeated and revised that argument a couple of times since then; and when I get a bit of time it will become the basis of a blog article at my new blog.
Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | May 23, 2007 7:40 PM
I go to the Kid A mass regularly.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 23, 2007 7:45 PM
Carlie says:
There is no "they". Christians are enormously diverse. Many of them are my friends. I've not at all shy about speaking up in the company of Christians to say I don't believe God exists. I am very familiar indeed with the kind of approach you describe. But in a discussion forum with lots of Christians, I nearly always find that there will be other Christians -- plenty of them -- who speak up in my defense and in repudiation of the the violent antipathy some Christians have to any expression of unbelief.
Carlie, I suspect you have no idea just how deeply immersed I am in this engagement. I started up my blog about a month ago and that is now slowly taking over my time; but most of my online activity has previously been a Christian discussion board. There are lots of other unbelievers present but the majority are Christians, and the leadership is strongly conservative. I am, nevertheless, welcome there; indeed I recently won a member-of-the-month award in a popular vote.
The denigrations and antipathy is always there from a vocal contingent; but they are a minority.
Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | May 23, 2007 7:54 PM
CalGeorge, nice to whip up hysteria. And 51% of Americans think that intentionally attacking civilians is alright also (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/23/polls/index.html?source=rss). Yeah, people in general are scumbags - and we in particular are scumbags. But to run around screaming the Muslims are gonna get us? Playing right into the hand of the Christian fundamentalists (50% for torture of "suspected terrorists"). Evangelical fundamentalists are the enemy, of every religious (and even the few non-religious, aka Maoist and such) variety. But repeating a propaganda campaign to beat the drums of a failing war? That's scurrilous.
Posted by: frog | May 23, 2007 7:57 PM
PZ, quoting Chris Ho-Stuart:
"But we tend to say that science is a process for finding things out, and that it can't find out everything."
I see this sentiment expressed by so many, from creationists to scientists, yet it seems to me the height of arrogance. Consider what the great botanist, John Ray, wrote over 300 years ago, "I predict that our descendants will reach such heights in the sciences that our proudest discoveries will seem slight, obvious, almost worthless. They will be tempted to pity our ignorance and to wonder that truths easy and manifest were for so long hidden and were so esteemed by us ..." Is there any doubt that the same is true today? Who knows what science will discover in 300 or 3000 years. It may well "find out everything". To proclaim otherwise from our still rather primitive vantage point is nothing but conceit.
Posted by: tomh | May 23, 2007 8:10 PM
Don't be ridiculous. One of the things we've already found out is that you can't find out anything.
The real question is whether we will ever find that there are things that can be found that we can't find with science.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 23, 2007 8:12 PM
Chris, I know you're an atheist, and even a strong atheist. So what makes you more tolerant than me? Or does your category of "tolerant atheist" also include me?
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 23, 2007 8:16 PM
"Tolerant" is a horrible word to use in this connection. It implies that atheists who are not filed in the "tolerant" drawer are less accepting of all variety, not just religious belief. I don't like being called a racist and a homophobe.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 23, 2007 8:21 PM
Isn't it obvious? What he thinks makes him "tolerant" is that he won't say that religious belief is foolishness and the religious are just plain wrong. He respects their beliefs, after all, no matter how dumb they are.
He's like the guy in the cartoon you posted a while back.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 23, 2007 8:21 PM
This post will probably surprise some of you.
I think the 'broad spectrum' of non-belief is a good thing. It is a very good thing that there are activist atheists, who are especially good at holding the feet of fundies and their fellow travelers to the fire. In my own way, I think of myself as an activist and there are some things I don't mince words on. Sometimes it's cruel to be kind!
On the other hand, I also find the nuanced approach of Chris Ho-Stuart useful, because it allows for a different sort of dialogue between believers and non-believers, as Chris has demonstrated elsewhere. Sometimes, it's better to use honey instead of vinegar...sometimes!
Why do I find both of these 'useful', if I'm a theist? Because, in different forums and in different ways, both raise issues and points that help folk like me make common cause with others on things like defending science education. And (this is just a personal preference) I find that a lot more interesting than the sort of bland uniformity where everyone in the pew nods in agreement!
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | May 23, 2007 8:22 PM
Chris' approach is incorrect. Religion permits and even encourages belief without evidence and belief in the face of contrary evidence, and accepts authority as a valid justification. Science rejects these things.
How can a system of thought that permits things scientific thought forbids, but be consistent with it?
This is just another excuse to say that religion is a valid method.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 23, 2007 8:25 PM
Yes - when you're trying to catch flies.
Posted by: Caledonian, Made out of Meat | May 23, 2007 8:27 PM
I don't really understand how you can be a conciliatory strong atheist. Does it go something like "I'm a strong atheist under my metaphysical assumptions but yours are fine too"? That sounds like agnosticism to me.
Posted by: poke | May 23, 2007 8:33 PM
I think that rather than some sort of dichotomy, these are two different approaches to the same goal. More importantly, I have been coming to realize, they are both necessary, for achieving the goal of a more reasonable, secular society.
What I have less certainty about, is whether arguing about which is better, which is more effective, isn't counterintuitive to that goal. All I really see the fighting accomplishing is to alienate people who should be accepting their different approaches and working together where they can.
A great example of this is the longstanding distain between PZ and my brother Ed Brayton. I started out with the perspective that such outspoken anti-theists, were just pissing people off, without really having a net positive effect. Being a theist myself, that was a natural position for me to take. However, as I think that the goal of drasticly reducing the impact of religion on secular society and eliminating it's effects on secular law, is critical to the wellbeing of everyone in society, including theists, I have come to realize that both approaches have important roles to play.
While chastising and mocking the religious, will create more backlash than converts (just look how effective it is when theists do it), simply convincing theists that we can reconcile our faith with science, does not necessarily translate into Enlightenment values. I do think that rather than using juvenile condescension, or being an asshole about it, it helps to be more gracious and polite (Dawkins does this very well). I also think that rather than just tearing down religious notions, it is more effective to displace them with the awe and wonder the natural world has to offer.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 23, 2007 8:33 PM
Chris - I think the "but they're a minority" attitude is a dangerous one. The Christians I was referring to are the fundamentalist evangelicals, and the latest word is that there are over 80 million of them in the US altogether. That's not a small minority, and they've made themselves even more prominent in society by being loud, brash, and figuring out how to be a strong force in politics. Think about the religious leaders who have been in the news in the last 6 months. Who are they? If you ask people on the street to name prominent pastors, who do they name? Aside from the pope, almost all the ones in the public eye are evangelical fundamentalists. Saying "most of them aren't like that" really ignores the incredibly potent force the extremists become.
Posted by: Carlie | May 23, 2007 8:34 PM
Overgeneralization alert! Caledonian: Religion permits and even encourages belief without evidence and belief in the face of contrary evidence, and accepts authority as a valid justification. Science rejects these things.
That would be most religion - even practically all religion. But there do exist some varieties of Buddhism and Taoism that, have as an essential principle, all doctrine must be supported by evidence. And in general, primitive religion works on an evidentiary system. The animists may be wrong in fact, but they don't call upon faith to justify their beliefs - at worst it's tradition, but in general it is the evidence from a limited collection of data.
Posted by: frog | May 23, 2007 8:36 PM
It's worse than that: it reduces atheism, strong or otherwise, to the status of a religion. And one religion is as good as another, so clearly any other religion is just as good as science.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 23, 2007 8:37 PM
I'm a philosophical Taoist myself. The cultural practices of Buddhism and Taoism are still religions.
Do they present evidence that Buddha existed? That he said what he is supposed to have said? They present these doctrines as religious matters to be accepted on faith, not rigorous evidence.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 23, 2007 8:40 PM
Scott Hatfield, OM:
I suspect my taste buds may be calibrated in an odd fashion. I consider Sagan honey and Hitchens vinegar. Daniel Dennett is a bittersweet chocolate truffle, and a great deal of the talk about NOMA (and, lately, philosophical vs. methodological naturalism) is saccharine diet soda.
This is a sentiment I like.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 23, 2007 8:44 PM
poke -
The same way that one can be concilliatory about anything. By making the point that in some regards you believe the other person is wrong - pure and simple, yet still accepting the common ground you do share. I see a lot of it, when I have the time to go to meetings of the interfaith alliance against church and state. Believe me, there are a lot of differences among members. Yet most everyone there gets along - including the atheists - because we all share a common goal. We not only tolerate, but accept each other, in spite of some members having some rather extreme views about the "rightness" of their own faith over others. One need not accept the beliefs of the person, to accept and even really appreciate that person.
It is from that place that it becomes easier to influence others. It's a lot harder to do from the "your beliefs are stoopid" approach.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 23, 2007 8:48 PM
Generally, you can't question everything - it's not so much accepted on faith, as assumed (at least for some). A fine but essential distinction. If you assume a general Buddhist doctrine, then why would you really care if there actually was a Buddha? The important question is whether Buddhism, as a doctrinal body, actually helps you to escape suffering - the historical facts are at best elusive and irrelevant.
Not the same as science, but the methods to escape suffering are supposed to be testable, by doctrine, and rejected if they fail. But historical or textual criticism? In a Buddhist mindset, it's a distraction from the work at hand. Quite a difference from the Christian claim that Christianity is true, by faith.
Posted by: frog | May 23, 2007 8:49 PM
"a great deal of the talk about NOMA...is saccharine diet soda."
Brilliant. I think I will steal that.
Posted by: j | May 23, 2007 8:49 PM
I actually knew the meaning of the word "contumelious" from doing some research on blasphemy.
(My blog.)
But a couple of points for Chris:
1. I can't see how we can force a religion to be more "liberal" nor "humanistic" by accommodating it.
2. In marriages, one partner may buy some time by shading the truth about their real feelings, but speaking from experience it ends up making things worse in the long run. You will find the same thing happens when accommodating on religious views.
3. There is nothing wrong with standing firm on atheistic beliefs. If atheism is a passion, then that passion must be expressed and not buried in order to make things smoother.
4. It is definitely not the job of atheists to re-shape religion in any manner. Our responsibility is to make a strong case for rationalism and skepticism, for those who have ears to hear.
If it seems that I often parrot PZ in most of my responses, you must remember, Mate, that Aarr!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 23, 2007 9:00 PM
Because the doctrines of reincarnation, the nature of suffering, and the possibility (and desirability) of escape from that suffering are based on his authority.
What evidence is there that rebirth (in any sense) occurs?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 23, 2007 9:03 PM
I'm not going to be able to answer all questions adequately here, so my apologies for being selective.
PZ asks an important question and I'm thinking on it before answering. Carlie makes a point where I can dash off a quick clarification. Calie says:
Carlie, I am trying to do nothing else in that remark about minorities than give an accurate evaluation of the facts of the matter. I also am refering to fundamentalist evangelicals -- if you count 80 million of those then you are using the term fairly inclusively.
Those 80 million include many of the folks who have made me welcome, treated me kindly, and spoken up in my personal defence in response to intransigent ratbags who express hate and distain everytime they speak of me. The owners of the Christian web forum where I engage are in that 80 million. They are extremely conservative; fundamentalist in theology; politically right wing; young earth creationist; the whole nine yards. But they don't express the kind of hatred you described. The hatred can be found, to be sure; but in my serious opinion, with no attempt to spin or dissemble, when you talk with people you find the genuine haters to be a minority.
I've had strong disagreements on the discussion boards; sometimes on matters of factual disagreement, sometimes critical of one another's ethical behaviour. And always we come back to a mutual recognition that we are still friends. We like each other. We fool around on topics have nothing to do with religion. We share griefs and joys and human concerns.
PZ asks about tolerance. If the word is holding people up, then call me a "milksop atheist". I don't much care; you can't hope to capture all the nuances of our differences as a single word.
Tolerance is a spectrum, and it is not always a virtue. There are somethings of which we should not be tolerant. I would have thought it was pretty uncontrovertial that PZ and I differ somewhat on what we consider to be the appropriate level of tolerance to religion.
Cheers -- Chris
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | May 23, 2007 9:12 PM
Caledonian: Because the doctrines of reincarnation, the nature of suffering, and the possibility (and desirability) of escape from that suffering are based on his authority.
Explicitly not - in practice it may be so for the mass of Buddhists, but doctrinally it is not based on Buddha's personal authority. In Buddhist myth, Buddha tells his followers to test his doctrines, and if the doctrine fails, to abandon it.
The nature of suffering is supposed to be logically understood - whether it is correct logic is supposed to be individually recognized, at least in your more cerebral Theravada Buddhism. The desirability of escape is assumed - as all ultimate motivations must be. The possibility of escape is based on numerous figures (semi-historical), and on the examples of the living who are farther along the path - of course that is subjective, but to some Buddhist, their personal experience tells them that figure such as the Dalai Lama are bodhisatva, having escaped suffering and returned. Reincarnation is first a cultural assumption - not the same thing as faith, but in traditional cultures what everyone is so sure of that they never think to ask - and on personal experience. The personal experience is such things as memories of prior lives induced by meditation.
Clearly, most of this is highly subjective, but that's not the same thing as being based on faith. Faith is most clearly seen in the Abrahamic religions, and particularly the Roman derived variations, where the authoritarian state was fused with religion.
Posted by: frog | May 23, 2007 9:17 PM
That's just swell. Peachy keen.
But the nature of the people expressing the positions is irrelevant. Forget about the people: do you 'tolerate' their position?
Posted by: Caledonian | May 23, 2007 9:17 PM
On my blog, Larry also asked if I am calling others intolerant. The answer is definitely "No", I am not. By saying that I aim to be a "tolerant atheist", I am not saying everyone else is "intolerant", any more than "Democrats" are the only people who support democracy.
If you are a tolerant atheist because your atheist position is different from mine, that leaves me with "not tolerant atheist" as my leftover "choice". If you're talking about starting a group with a trademark style name, like Democratic Party that's another thing entirely and then your above comment makes sense. If that's not your plan though and you're talking about differentiating yourself by staking out that space and calling it small t tolerant, then the "Democrat" thing is a BS anaology.
Posted by: QrazyQat | May 23, 2007 9:22 PM
One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable in some circumstances, a poll says.
[...]
Although nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam cannot be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
And how many Americans say that torture is acceptable in some circumstances, that it can be justified, at least rarely, to defend "our way of life"? And in many instances, what these Muslims are talking about defending is Palestinians having their homes bulldozed by the IDF, or Iraqis having their oil stolen by multinational companies, whereas Americans are talking about defending their right as 6% of the world's population to use 25% of its resources, and to enforce "free" trade agreements that allow Americans to enjoy cheap coffee, sugar, and chocolate grown on land where people are near or at starvation.
I'm an activist atheist, but that doesn't mean I support the demonization of -- leading to the slaughter of -- Muslims.
Posted by: truth machine | May 23, 2007 9:28 PM
Poor question. Any successful movement must appeal to a wide variety
of audiences. Some audiences are better moved by diplomacy, others by
aggression. Additionally, the aggressiveness of a speaker is judged
in relation to the other speakers she is grouped with. If Carl Sagan
was alive, and the only outspoken atheist, he would be judged an
extremist. Add Dawkins to the mix and Sagan looks like a moderate. Add
Hitchens and Dawkins seems moderate while Sagan seems
conciliatory.