…and this is a 
High Priest Epstein in Newsweek
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: June 14, 2007 1:27 PM, by PZ Myers
Well, you know it's not going to be a good article when it's found on Newsweek's goofy "Beliefwatch" section, and it has this kind of inauspicious beginning:
It may not be fair to call what's happening in the atheist community a backlash, since atheists have always been and continue to be one of the smallest, most derided groups in the country.
Right. And since we're a minority and we're derided, why, we must be wrong! Of course, the facts are on the author's side—we are a minority. We need to grow. I think we'd all admit to that. What's weird right now is how journalists report it.
In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, only 3 percent of respondents called themselves atheists and only 30 percent said they'd ever vote for an atheist.
Lots of polls have consistently reported that a significant fraction of Christian Americans would never vote for an atheist. That's interesting, but what's even more interesting to me is that journalists always bring this matter up in articles about atheism. It fits their stereotype of the untrustworthy atheist. But that's the wrong place to discuss it! It's a much more useful factoid to drag out in a discussion of theists—when they're writing a fluff piece about a church's piety and purported tolerance, it would be much more interesting to casually mention that "oh, by the way, 30% of this religious community is so intolerant that they wouldn't vote for an atheist, or a gay man, or any other minority." When writing about the atheist community, it would be more relevant to quote statistics about atheist representation in politics — a number that hovers somewhere near zero — and how nearly all of them vote for theists.
But no, the point of this article is to portray atheists as weak, untrustworthy, and riven with internal dissension, all the better to dismiss us.
No, what's happening in the "atheist, humanist, freethinkers" community is more like what happens to any ideological or political group as it matures: the hard-liners knock heads with the folks who want to just get along, and the cracks are beginning to show.
No, this is incorrect. The appeasers have always been with us, and have been dominant for a long, long time. The atheist community has been a splintered mess, mostly ineffective, and the "folks who want to just get along" have pretty much been the majority. What's happening now is different. The internal conflicts are a side effect of a growing recognition that "just getting along" hasn't worked at all, and in fact has allowed the country to proceed down a path towards insanity. The writer, Lisa Miller, has it all backwards. This isn't an old movement splitting in its age. It's a new movement growing within an old and relatively moribund framework.
Those cracks are what you see when an egg is about to hatch and discard its shell. Complacency is going to be thrown away and replaced with activism.
But of course Miller wouldn't get this message from the subject of her article: it's Greg Epstein, who thinks he is the "center" of the controversy when he's really just those clingy bits of leftover membrane and slime that we have to clean off after our emergence.
At the center of this controversy is the humanist chaplain of Harvard University, a 30-year-old "secular rabbi" named Greg Epstein. In March, in remarks to the Associated Press, Epstein called the popular writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins "atheist fundamentalists." He accused the best-selling authors--he now includes Christopher Hitchens among them--of being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive; his own responsibility, he says, is to speak out for the positive aspects of disbelief. "My problem with the atheists," he told NEWSWEEK, "is not that they're saying God doesn't exist. What I'm saying is we've got to build something." (Harris calls the term atheist fundamentalist "an empty play on words.")
Ugh.
"Humanist chaplain."
"Secular rabbi."
"Atheist fundamentalist."
Notice a trend here? Epstein is one of those fellows who thinks inventing terse little contradictions is an exercise in profundity. He has turned being an oxymoron into a career.
That last term, "atheist fundamentalist", is revealing. I've never heard anyone use it who wasn't also exposing themselves as someone who wants atheists to sit down and shut up and "just get along"—people who want atheism to be dead ineffective and irrelevant. Harris and Dawkins are not fundamentalist in any rational sense of the word, and definitely not in the pejorative sense that Epstein uses. The "new atheism" (I don't like that phrase, either) is about taking a core set of principles that have proven themselves powerful and useful in the scientific world — you've probably noticed that many of these uppity atheists are coming out of a scientific background — and insisting that they also apply to everything else people do. These principles are a reliance on natural causes and demanding explanations in terms of the real world, with a documentary chain of evidence, that anyone can examine. The virtues are critical thinking, flexibility, openness, verification, and evidence. The sins are dogma, faith, tradition, revelation, superstition, and the supernatural. There is no holy writ, and a central idea is that everything must be open to rational, evidence-based criticism — it's the opposite of fundamentalism.
Here's another oxymoron: Epstein claims his role is to "build something." What has he built lately? The only way he gets any press is by his efforts to tear down the atheists who are trying to build and inspire a coherent community! I think that's really the point here: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. aren't being destructive of anything of value — their goal is to clear away the useless detritus of the supernatural and see human society redirect its efforts productively, towards some genuine progress. The people who fling around terms like "fundamentalist atheists" are defenders of kipple and trash, who uncritically demand protection for the unlovely excrescences of religion because they're still hobbled by the fear that the priests have inculcated in us — that they are the guardians of morality and goodness, and exposing transubstantiation (or any of their other hallowed myths) as nonsense means we'll all be turned into murderers and rapists.
Don't be fooled. Epstein and his ilk are just frightened little fellows trying to find a calm dark safe spot in the shadow of religion. Of course they are worried about anyone who wants to reignite the enlightenment.
Comments
Bonus points for using a word from PKD.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 14, 2007 1:40 PM
PZ, you quote Newsweek "only 30 percent said they'd ever vote for an atheist."
That would mean that 70% are intolerant wouldn't it?
"oh, by the way, 30% (70%) of this religious community is so intolerant that they wouldn't vote for an atheist, or a gay man, or any other minority."
Posted by: Scholar | June 14, 2007 1:45 PM
In the photo he looks like one of those door-to-door religious missionaries.
Posted by: sailor | June 14, 2007 1:46 PM
I think this kind of "attention" from the MSM, Fairy Believers & pseudo-atheists like Epstein reflect a real fear of the depth of the threat provided by both science and atheism.
That threat is truth.
And the truth is not particularly flattering to them.
It doesn't make them "feel good".
Posted by: Jaycubed | June 14, 2007 1:52 PM
What's wrong with "humanist chaplain"?
I think it takes all types for secularism to be successful. We need certainly need vocal critics presenting withering attacks on religion, but at the same time I think more moderate--non-radical, "appeaser" atheists--can be helpful. As long as they don't hide the fact that they're atheists, these atheists who aren't outwardly hostile to all religion might help the "image" of atheists as regular people.
I'm not criticizing Dawkins, etc... for blasting god-belief. We need them, and people like them. But moderates--again, as long as they're not afraid to call themselves atheists openly--aren't too bad.
Posted by: Dylan Stafne | June 14, 2007 1:54 PM
Bonus points for using a word from PKD
Love it.
"No one can win against kipple, except temporarily and maybe in one spot"
Posted by: JRQ | June 14, 2007 1:58 PM
"The New Atheism" was coined by Gary Wolf in Wired Magazine, wasn't it? November 2006, if I and Google are not mistaken. (All right, some god-botherer named Robert Morey wrote a book called The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom back in 1994, but I don't think anybody read it.)
A while back, I suggested that the term "fundamentalist atheist" (and trivial grammatical variations thereupon) be made the target of a new Godwin-esque Law. I guess nobody listened. :-(
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 14, 2007 1:58 PM
Oops, here's a description of my proposal.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 14, 2007 2:00 PM
You know, I keep making that mistake: I read the numbers, and I just can't believe that 70% could possibly be that bigoted. I have to learn to be more cynical.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 14, 2007 2:04 PM
Not only did I notice the trend, I got some on my shoe.
Posted by: eewolf | June 14, 2007 2:04 PM
What's wrong with "humanist chaplain"?
The same thing that is wrong with "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" -- it's an oxymoron.
More seriously, why isn't he a "humanist councillor", or "humanist advisor", or "humanist comforter"? Under any at all reasonable definition the term "chaplain" denotes someone with a religious affiliation. By using the term, but claiming to be "secular" and "humanist", Epstein is courting a contradiction. I think PZ is exactly right -- it is a way to cling to the comforts of religion and not actually confront religion. It is profoundly dishonest.
(To be fair, however, he did not choose the term, as it is the official position name at Harvard:
http://chaplains.harvard.edu/chaplains/profile.php?id=45 )
Posted by: Tulse | June 14, 2007 2:06 PM
@Scholar: I think you missed the change from just atheists to atheists, homosexuals, and minorities.
Posted by: ifriit | June 14, 2007 2:06 PM
"I guess nobody listened. :-( "
We heard you, but we thought you were just crying snark (wolf) again. You tread daintily all over the fine line between snarkiness and sarcasm and expect us to pick up the pieces.
Posted by: Scholar | June 14, 2007 2:07 PM
Ifriit: See PZ's comment to ME. (aha, I am now a fully legitimate tooth-fairy agnostic!)
Posted by: Scholar | June 14, 2007 2:12 PM
I appreciate that no opponents were accused of masturbation in this post. We can heal together, PZ.
Posted by: Gilmore | June 14, 2007 2:25 PM
You fundie atheist do need to sit down and shut up. Let beacons of light and reason(like Ed) shine through. If you do that, maybe you'll be as good looking and talented as Ed. Listening to James Taylor helps.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | June 14, 2007 2:30 PM
My mirror of some of PZ's statements:
Doggerel #71 and "Why You Woos Got to be Such a Downer, Maaaaan.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 14, 2007 2:34 PM
We've got a lot of scientologists down here in Florida. I've met people who went to the same schools as John Travolta's kids (what joy! ;), and there are numerous scientology facilities here. They are in the process of buying up all the available real estate in downtown Clearwater (including as many of the count goverment building as they can get) to turn into a solid Mecca of Scientology. It's very weird to visit the area and see all the cultists walking the streets. Ironically, I am reminded of being in a science-fiction movie.
Posted by: Diego | June 14, 2007 2:34 PM
"He accused the best-selling authors--he now includes Christopher Hitchens among them--of being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive..."
I think tearing down and waging war on religion is VERY positive.
Posted by: Rich | June 14, 2007 2:35 PM
Posted by: J Daley | June 14, 2007 2:37 PM
Yeah, Gary Wolf might be the original source. I panned his article, myself. Gary Wolf showed up on that thread, by the way.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 14, 2007 2:43 PM
Thank the Lords of Kobol for the militant fundamentalist atheists. I'd suggest the most important contribution Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens are making with their outspokenness is that they provide an example to all the closet atheists and agnostics who go to church and mouth along to the hymns because they think they're the only ones for whom religion makes no sense. In effect, they say 'Come on out of the darkness. It'll be OK. Trust us."
How is that not a positive contribution?
Try rereading the following with my edits:
Or this:
Y'see, once them Negras and womenfolk get all uppity, there ain't no way of keepin' 'em down nohow. Jes' best to keep quiet, an' don' go stirrin' up no trouble. It'll all work out on its own, God willing. (With my apologies to the Onion for the paraphrase.)
Posted by: Brownian | June 14, 2007 2:44 PM
Huh! "...tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive".
What could be more positive than 'tearing down and waging war on religion'?
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | June 14, 2007 2:47 PM
I find it fascinating that in the US, a country that is officially disestablished, it would be highly difficult for someone who doesn't believe in God to be elected, and as a minimum, that atheism would be held against him.
But in Canada, a country whose head is, technically, head of the Church of England, and whose laws do not recognize disestablishment, candidates for government office who are highly religious have that fact held against them and by their beliefs injure their chances at public office.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | June 14, 2007 2:48 PM
Tell you what, Rabbi Epstein. You've invented your own little term to describe us in terms which you find are useful for your purposes.
Seems what's good for the goose is good for the gander. How about if I invent one for you? I like "christian fundamentalist collaborator".
Posted by: Dave Littler | June 14, 2007 2:51 PM
Raging Braytard:
Aha, the cat is out of the bag. I thought RB was just a silly troll, but now he
standsdangles revealed as a sock puppet. Hi Ed!Just kidding. Ed writes well, RB does not.
Posted by: xebecs | June 14, 2007 2:51 PM
I think he should shorten his title to: humanist chap.
Greg Epstein, Humanist Chap.
From article: ...being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive;
Tearing down religion is one of the most positive things I can think of!
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 14, 2007 3:14 PM
What the heck do you guys want, anyway? If you (a) tar all religion with a broad brush, treat it all as not just something you disagree with but as actually evil, and lump reasonable moderates in with the wackos, and call anyone even sympathetic with the moderates as "appeasers", then (b) unavoidably you will be portrayed -- accurately -- as harsh, dogmatic, intolerant, and, well, fundamentalist.
But when (b) happens, you get all annoyed and bent out of shape about the culture's stereotype about atheists, and to express your displeasure you go back to (a), thus perpetuating the cycle. If you enjoy this merry-go-round, then great, but don't blame other people for your image problems.
Cheers, Nick
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | June 14, 2007 3:16 PM
Well, as I've said, "new" atheism, isn't.
Posted by: Skemono | June 14, 2007 3:18 PM
It's funny reading atheists whinning (Where is LGF's crying baby picture?) at the "intolerance" of non-atheists, AS IF atheists were known to be tolerant of contrary views.
Need I remind the crying baby atheists the ways your blog master sugests in dealing with those who disagree with his religious worldview?
Yep, he sounds tolerant of contrary views alright.
I mean, in the days were living the last person you'd turn to in search for "tolerance" is an atheist.
Posted by: Mats | June 14, 2007 3:25 PM
Typically, what is presented is stripped of all context. The full quote can be found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/john_g_west_is_just_so_concern.php
appropriately with Pz's complaint about quote-mining.
Posted by: Tulse | June 14, 2007 3:36 PM
Funny how atheists are the targets of the same kind of persecution that religious fundamentalists like to imagine they suffer. If a poll suggested that 70% of the country's populace would never vote for a Christian, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and their like would scream themselves into cardiac arrest.
What if a president had declared that Jews shouldn't be considered citizens? The shock and outrage in the media would still echo today. But it sure didn't ruffle many feathers when George H. W. Bush said the same thing about atheists.
Posted by: Richard Clayton | June 14, 2007 3:42 PM
reignite the enlightenment
There's us all a new bumper sticker. I'd buy one.
Posted by: Hairy Doctor Professor | June 14, 2007 3:42 PM
Tulse's right: "Chaplain" is his official title. And even stanger, he is also entitled to the name "Humanist rabbi". To quote his webpage;
"In 2005 he received ordination as a Humanist Rabbi from the International Institute for Secular and Humanistic Judaism, where he studied in Jerusalem and Michigan for five years."
Oh and, Blake Stacey or JRQ, could you please explain the PKD reference? I'm not American, and English is not my first language...
Posted by: Abie | June 14, 2007 3:43 PM
Nick. Let us rephrase your little "argument".
If you a) wear a tank top and shorts and walk down the street, then b) some ass dressed in men's clothing will harrass and degrade you.
Then when b) happens you get all annoyed and bent out of shape about the culture's stereotype about women, and to express your displeasure you go back to (a), thus perpetuating the cycle.
Sigh. Really. Think about it. Should we all dress the same, think the same, stay quiet and be "peaceful" all the time watching as our beloved country spirals down into a theocracy?
And really. I can't take any blame for someone else's intolerance. That is THIER problem and I have no control over thier psychological shortcomings. Do not blame the victim for the bully's behaviour.
How are blamign someone else for our image problems? Has an atheist EVER flown a plane into a building based soley on his or her beliefs in the supernatural? Ever? Has a atheist EVER done a wretched thing in the name of Atheism? No, the worst we do is write books and TALK. And really that seems to be enough to disturb people. So does the fault lie with the writer or speaker or does it lie with the intolerance, ignorance and general close-mindedness of others?
We are trying desperately to open minds only to have the vast majority tell us to be quiet and "good".
It took me 33-freaking-years to publicly admit I held no religious beliefs. now you want me to be quiet? I dont think so.
Posted by: 5ive | June 14, 2007 3:46 PM
When I see the term "humanist chaplain" I imagine a kindly scholar who counsels the anxious unbeliever when the unbeliever is tempted to merge into the teeming masses of the god-ridden. It's the person who answers the call "Help thou mine unbelief!" and reassures you about the honor in living a rational and self-respecting life.
(Yeah, yeah. I'm quoting Mark's gospel out of context. They quote-mine. I can, too.)
Posted by: Zeno | June 14, 2007 3:46 PM
I always thought Raging Braytard was a satire troll. Mind you, I have seen glimpses of such bemocked toadying over there, but only mere glimpses, and only when they're ganging up on people who deign to think Ed's full of it on a particular topic.
Posted by: stogoe | June 14, 2007 3:48 PM
Nick (Matzke):
(a) I, for one, don't want to "tar all religion with a broad brush." Speaking on scientific grounds, I think that religion is a complicated enough phenomenon that multiple natural causes are almost certainly responsible for its development (spandrels, selfish memes, etc.). I try to appreciate the full diversity of human mental processes which go under the label "religion," but elementary ethics and an appraisal of the evidence force me to conclude that the strongest elements of Western religion, by both numbers and political influence, deserve some heavy helpings of tar indeed. And while individuals who take on the "appeaser" mantle can and have done good work for critical thought — bully for them! — the emergent properties of "moderate" religious organizations do not exactly fill me with confidence.
(b) How does harshness segue automatically into fundamentalism? If I am intolerant of dishes building up in the kitchen sink, does that make me a fundamentalist dish-washer? The Book of the Universe is my only holy writ, and I know I'm fallible enough in reading it that I won't insist on a word-for-word interpretation.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 14, 2007 3:54 PM
How many times have you been on cable news to discuss why religion is 'not so bad, for the masses anyways', Nick?
Posted by: stogoe | June 14, 2007 3:57 PM
Abie:
Sorry! "PKD" is a reference to Philip K. Dick, a science-fiction author who is often known by his initials. He coined the word kipple in his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (which was later made into the movie Blade Runner). He defines kipple in the following way:
Cheers.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 14, 2007 3:57 PM
I could never write as well as Ed. He is the greatest writer ever to grace scienceblogs. He makes great, original jokes as well.
Down with Dawkins, etc.
Posted by: Raging Braytard | June 14, 2007 4:13 PM
PZ (#21):
Thanks for linking back to that thread. I find it fascinating that by the end, it had turned into a conversation about Bayesian probability.
The only moderately serious topic broached in that discussion was the possibility that the division between the "New Atheists" and the "New Humanists" (and the Humanist Popular People's Front, etc.) is analogous to a schism between religious factions. I've already explained why I don't think that's the case, so that's that.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 14, 2007 4:28 PM
So, Nick, try this: replace the word "religion" in your tirade with "creationism", and apply it to yourself.
Do you consider yourself a "harsh, dogmatic, intolerant, and, well, fundamentalist" evolutionist?
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 14, 2007 4:30 PM
"No, what's happening in the "atheist, humanist, freethinkers" community is more like what happens to any ideological or political group as it matures: the hard-liners knock heads with the folks who want to just get along, and the cracks are beginning to show."
Way off - I don't even really consider myself an atheist - more of an agnostic who really likes science and doesn't care if there is some sort of higher power or not. I spend more of my energy on other issues and leave it up to the "hard-liners" to wage the culture wars on this one. But when the "hard-liners" start making waves, especially on national t.v., all I can think is "Thank god; it's about time."
Posted by: jflo | June 14, 2007 5:57 PM
One thing:
"oh, by the way, 30% (70%) of this religious community is so intolerant that they wouldn't vote for an atheist, or a gay man, or any other minority"
Meaning they wouldn't vote for a MAN?
Since women are more than 50% of the population, men are, by definition a minority.
Somehopw, I don't think that's what they meant, but .....
Posted by: G. Tingey | June 14, 2007 6:31 PM
Over 1 in 5 adults in the US has no religion. I would say the media voice of this group is smaller per capita than any other, so we have some ground to catch up. And the delusional fan club can keep wailing in childlike fury.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | June 14, 2007 6:33 PM
Almost 1 in 5...I do math good.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | June 14, 2007 6:35 PM
Nick Matzke,
What the heck do you guys want, anyway?
Among other things, we want people like you to stop calling us names when we express--and present arguments for--our view that religion in general is harmful and false, not just the conservative or "fundamentalist" varieties. And we want you to stop misrepresenting what we say.
Posted by: Jason | June 14, 2007 6:36 PM
3 common arguments that the "New Atheists" wish to label as myths:
1.) "True religion is good."
People who do things religious moderates and atheists don't like are "distorting" the real meaning of the religion. They just don't understand their faith the way liberals and atheists do. The 'best' scholarship goes against them.
And even if this is not strictly true, atheists ought to pretend it is, because it will encourage extremists to become moderate.
2.) "Truth? They can't handle the truth!"
Unlike atheists, most people need supernatural beliefs to cling to in times of trouble. It inspires and brings people together. If atheists try to take away faith by publically explaining why there's no God, they're being cruel to sensitive people. And it's pointless, because religious people don't care about reason anyway.
And even if this is not strictly true, atheists will gain respect if they show respect.
3.) "Science has nothing to say about the existence of God, one way or the other."
Science examines how the world works, religion is morals and meaning. Claims about the supernatural are only testable if they're 'paranormal.' There's a huge, huge difference between the paranormal and the supernatural. Huge.
And even if this isn't strictly true, atheists should say it is or else the Creationists will use it to win rhetorical advantage.
I think those are 3 common bromides that a lot of atheists -- including secular humanists -- do not think work. Not on the truth level, and maybe not on the pragmatic one either.
Posted by: Sastra | June 14, 2007 7:27 PM
Let me be blunt: I don't think it's a coincidence that Epstein is Jewish.
There's a long-standing tradition of Jewish people to abandon belief in the religion associated with their ethnicity, but to continue to practice the rituals and to make that ethnicity the primary focus of their personal identify. It's like the Jesuits, only with Judaism instead of Catholicism.
Epstein thinks we need to produce a new mind-virus to compete with the religions in the same way that Jewish atheists have reinvented or co-opted the practices of Judaism without the belief.
I think Epstein needs to take a long walk. Off a short plank.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 14, 2007 7:33 PM
"It's very weird to visit the area and see all the cultists walking the streets."
Whats more weird is if you cut through their parking lot, and stop and look around, while holding a camera.
You get spotted and approached immediately. It's kind of fun.
Posted by: craig | June 14, 2007 8:34 PM
I view all polls on belief or lack thereof as suspect. Given the hate directed at most any public atheist, I suspect most atheist hide their belief (lack thereof really), or at least don't wear it on their sleeve like so many Christians. I suspect that for decades many blacks in this country would have given anything to hide their "blackness" but couldn't for obvious reasons. Atheist can hide their beliefs. In fact, I would probably never spent most of my professional career as a text book editor had my religious views been known, even if they never appeared in the science texts I edited and published.
Posted by: Keanus | June 14, 2007 10:13 PM
Blake Stacey, #40:
I'd read the book about ten years ago, so I guess that explains why, until I read your quote, I hadn't made the connection between kipple and the web!
Posted by: chuko | June 14, 2007 11:00 PM
Two analogies have been raised to counter my point: (1) women dressing provacatively (analogy to atheists) and (2) creationists (analogy that bashing religion is no different than bashing creationism). Neither really helps your argument.
(1) How a woman dresses is her own business. But if a woman went around and dogmatically, preachily told everyone else how to dress, then she would rightly get labeled harsh, intolerant, etc. She has a *right* to say whatever the heck she wants, that's free speech and no one disputes that, but she shouldn't *expect* to get ultra-nice commentary from the free speech of others if she is going around militantly castigating those who disagree with her personal tastes. Ditto for you guys.
(2) Creationism pretends to be science and it is on that basis that creationism deserves whatever criticism people are interested in giving it, and furthermore the creationists have an agenda to ram their stuff into the public schools which makes it important to vocally fight creationism (rather than just ignore it) as a matter of public policy, the integrity of science, and the constitution.
However, religion in general (except for fundamentalists) does not pretend to be science, and it's not after the public schools, and in particular religious moderates hold these positions. And plus, according to a great many people -- not just me but the courts, the NAS, the AAAS, a grand tradition in the history of science, etc. -- science is neutral on metaphysical questions like the existence of God, because such things are beyond the natural world and beyond the limits of science to confirm or disconfirm. So religion primarily a matter of private conscience and it's everyone's own business what they think. Everyone of course has a right to say whatever they want, and you can even go around preaching in the streets if you want, but don't complain if others view it as annoying.
But if you want a model for "gettin' atheism some respect" in the U.S., again, I ask you, WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT? You have several options:
Goal #1. You want to proselytize and convert millions to the metaphysical worldview of atheism.
Goal #2. You think you are experiencing infringements on your constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights and want redress and remedy through governmental/legal reform.
Goal #3. You want atheists to be viewed positively in the media and politically.
What I am trying to tell you guys is that you *can't* easily have all of these goals at once, and that pursuing some of them is precisely what produces problems for the other goals.
E.g., the New Atheists often compare themselves, for example in this thread, to various minorities-rights groups. This would imply the goal is #2. But I have not seen much actual complaining from New Atheists about governmental or other legally-actionable discrimination. And acting as if you have Goal #2, without actually having any concrete legal problems, makes it seem like you are confused and/or oversensitive.
It's pretty clear a lot of New Atheists have Goal #1. If so, that's great, you've got every constitutional right to it, but then don't expect any progress on Goal #3. Many people don't like being preached to, many people don't like having science dragged into a metaphysical apologetics dispute, and politicians and government actors aren't going to want to touch you with a 10-foot pole.
If what you really want is Goal #3, hey great, but you will have a lot better luck if you drop the act about Goal #1 and Goal #2. If you really want Goal #3 then your model is not gay rights or whatever but e.g. American jews or other religious minorities. In this situation the American instinct towards tolerance works for you instead of against you, and you can focus on communicating the positive messages, like: "atheists are upstanding members of a modern democratic society, we're happy to tell you about our views on religion but we don't bash you over the head about it. If you want to agree to disagree, that's fine, we can still collaborate on common political and social goals." I think religious jews in America are instructive -- despite the fact that they are a small minority religious view that denies key beliefs of the dominant religious tradition in the country, and have historically experienced discrimination, in modern society they are widely respected, politicians are not at all embarrassed to associate with them even though they are a small group, and most people would think it shockingly rude to insult them as a group. But then, religious jews in the U.S. are not known for proselytizing or writing books equivalent to The God Delusion.
Since I have not seen much evidence of any careful or systematic thinking about what the New Atheists actually want and why, I suspect none of the above goals will happen, instead there will be the usual mishmash of self-contradictory working at cross-purposes, and the result will be basically more complaining without realizing how much of the problem is due to foot-shooting. In other words, the forecast remains as PZ described the history of atheists: "a splintered mess, mostly ineffective."
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2007 6:05 AM
Wrong on all 3 counts, Nick.
1. We want millions of people to abandon the nonsensical worldview of theism. Everyone is already an atheist right now -- they don't think prayer is a substitute for an oven when they want to fry an egg -- but they've piled up this ridiculous religion stuff on top of common sense. Let's throw out the trash.
2. We are experience infringements on rational thought by the inane ideas of the religious. This is not a subject that can be managed by the courts -- I swear, though, some of you guys get into this mindset where you think legal redress is the only way to go -- but by starting up a social movement that changes people's views of religion.
3. We do not expect atheists to be viewed positively until there are more of us and people are more aware of us. There will always be religious nutcases who hate us.
Face it, Nick. Our goals aren't your goals. You do not understand our goals or even sympathize with our ideals. So what do you want here? Are you trying to make productive suggestions about how we atheists can better eliminate the foolishness of religion, or are you, as I suspect, simply concern trolling because your desire is for all those vocal atheists to shut up and go away?
And the analogy with your fight against creationism still stands. It is almost exactly the same thing. You want to stop the intrusion of creationist idiocy into the classroom, you'd like to see people stop respecting the opinions of creationists on science matters as if they were valid, and you know that creationism is just plain wrong, contradicting the evidence of science. The major difference is that religion is bigger, tougher, and more pervasive, and has already made deeper inroads into public institutions. We want religion out of the classroom, we want religious affiliation to stop being a media shortcut to virtue (you could learn something there, too), and we see superstition and mythology as contradicting science -- again, something you seem blind to.
The real substantial difference in our goals, though, is that our eyes are open while yours are shut. What's driving creationism, the root of your problems, is the credulity and ignorance bred by religion...and that source is something you won't touch, preferring to wrestle with each little minion that emerges rather than even trying to address the cause. You're doomed to failure. Unless, that is, some of us succeed in making this a more secular nation.
We won't count on your help.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 15, 2007 8:41 AM
"If I am intolerant of dishes building up in the kitchen sink, does that make me a fundamentalist dish-washer?"
It means you a not a wishy-washy dishwasher!
More of a washbuckler?
Posted by: Scholar | June 15, 2007 10:28 AM
PZ, it seems to this observer that both you and Nick have valid points.
For example, I agree that you and Nick don't share the same goals. Well said! Nick seems more concerned with muzzling unpopular expressions of atheism which complicate the mission of evolution education than with advancing atheism, and it does seem a bit much that he would offer advice as to how atheism might prosper.
And, with other others, I acknowledge that Dawkins, Harris, etc. are not fundamentalists in the sense that a Jerry Falwell or an Ayatollah Khomeini are fundamentalists. It's rhetorical overkill, and it's appropriate to complain when others misrepresent your views as not only radical, but extremist. So I don't share Nick's sense of frustration with the atheist community which dares to publicly complain when it is so smeared.
OTOH, there really is some merit to Nick's observation: there really are different goals being pursued by different folk within the 'atheist community', and that contributes to that community's lack of cohesion and historical ineffectiveness.
In that respect, atheists are no different from other groups which have multiple agendas relating to both short and long-term goals, with some being easy sells in the political arena and others being hard sells. If we substitute the word 'scientific' for the word 'atheist' in the previous paragraph, I suspect we could all of us, Nick included, nod ruefully as we consider how relatively ineffective at times the scientific community has been at promoting significant change in the political arena.
Political effectiveness, for example, involves building a broad coalition of interests. Atheism does not, as yet, have a broad base of support. It therefore follows that Nick's Goal #1 is a long-term, future goal which is unlikely to be achieved through a direct frontal assault on the existing power structure.
His Goals #2 and #3, however, could plausibly be addressed by making common cause with non-atheists on things like religious liberty, academic freedom and the persecution of minority groups.
Speaking purely for myself, I am sure that many folk here are aware that I make common cause with atheists with respect to something like Goals #2 and #3 already, and I think this is suggestive. It is not so much a case of muzzling dissent, which I would oppose, but of being effective. As your namesake once remarked, PZ, 'all things are lawful but not all things are profitable'.
Anyway, that's my two cents, nothing more or less. I don't presume to speak for non-believers like yourself. I'm thankful for the opportunity to 'hear' you and Nick debate the merits of this or that strategy that impinges upon the promotion of science education, and I hope that both of you will receive this comment in a gentle and receptive spirit.
Peace....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | June 15, 2007 12:26 PM
It seems to me that Epstein is picking the fight in order to make a public name and a livelihood from a kind of career that is generally more likely to involve a vow of poverty. And there's nothing unusual about Newsweek publishing garbage. The interesting question is why Newsweek chose to feature him rather than somebody else on the anti-Dawkins bandwagon, but I suppose that the Harvard name and Epstein's self-promotion (marketing) skills can explain that enough.
Posted by: bullfighter | June 15, 2007 1:35 PM
Nick Matzke,
And plus, according to a great many people -- not just me but the courts, the NAS, the AAAS, a grand tradition in the history of science, etc. -- science is neutral on metaphysical questions like the existence of God, because such things are beyond the natural world and beyond the limits of science to confirm or disconfirm.
Er, Witham and Larson's study of religious belief among scientists found that NAS members are even less likely to believe in God than ordinary scientists. And the Cornell Evolution Project found very high levels of atheism among evolutionary biologists. These findings strongly contradict the view that science, and evolutionary biology in particular, has nothing to say about the plausibility of theism.
Posted by: Jason | June 15, 2007 2:20 PM
With respect to Jason's quibble, I would say that the *philosophy of science* holds that 'science is neutral on metaphysical questions'.
Science as practiced is an atheistic enterprise by definition, of course---as is plumbing, lest we take on too many airs.
To further muddy the waters, many scientists make no distinction between atheism/naturalism as method and as a personal conviction. This makes sense in a way, since it is a simplifying move on a number of levels, including ethically.
Still, whatever scientists believe or don't believe, and however philosophers contort themselves in pursuit of a comprehensive definition of science, on an everyday basis science is not about metaphysical questions, it is about evidence and models/arguments based upon evidence.
BTW, Jason, at the request of some friends I respect I have finally got around to starting my blog and I intend to create a few articles regarding my privately-held beliefs to satisfy the occassional request that I provide a stationary target to shoot at. Cheers....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | June 15, 2007 2:48 PM
I have to chime in on that comment by Nick, too:
I will arrogantly state that the courts, the NAS, the AAAS, the grand tradition in the history of science, and Nick too, are all wrong. There is a superstitious and fallacious tradition of deferring far too much to religion that taints that argument from authority and from popularity. Keep it simple: science is not neutral on effects in the natural world, and is therefore not neutral on metaphysical intrusion into reality. We can't say a thing about some other unnatural dimension or plane or reality or universe, but so what? Every religion insists that the separation between our reality and that one is in some way porous.
We can rightly insist that this metaphysical god has no manifestation in our world and is therefore impotent and irrelevant. And if anyone wants to counter that by claiming gods and spirits do act in our world, we can demand the evidence.
Which will not be forthcoming, of course.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 15, 2007 3:07 PM
Scott Hatfield,
With respect to Jason's quibble,...
I hardly think the question of whether science has anything to say about the existence of God is a "quibble." It seems to be a central point of dispute.
I would say that the *philosophy of science* holds that 'science is neutral on metaphysical questions'.
Well, I would say you're wrong. At the heart of the "philosophy of science" is reason. And I think belief in the omnipotent and benevolent creator God of Christianity clearly defies reason in light of the evidence we have from science about the nature of the world. Even Christianity itself sometimes recognizes the unreasonableness of its metaphysical claims, as when it describes the Problem of Evil, and when Christians appeal to God's "mysterious ways" or to the need for faith when they are confronted with rational critiques of their beliefs.
As Dawkins says, science doesn't absolutely, categorically rule out the kind of God postulated by Christianity and other traditional religions. But it does make him look highly implausible.
Posted by: Jason | June 15, 2007 3:21 PM
PZ, I'm glad and grateful that I have you for support whenever I get swarmed by the "science and faith are 100% compatible" crowd.
It just kills me to hear people spouting "religion is compatible with science" like it is well, gospel.
If religion and science are compatible, then why did I become an atheist ONLY AFTER studying science? There has gotta be something conflicting, or there would not be so much of an argument.
Posted by: Scholar | June 15, 2007 5:40 PM
Thanks for your reply PZ. It looks to me like pretty much your goal is #1. That's great, more power to you. All I'm saying is that if that's the case, then you shouldn't be complaining about #3, any more than Jews for Jesus or other groups that make it their business to annoy people.
As for the NAS etc -- there are a lot of nonreligious folk, that's great -- but even so, those institutions have taken my more moderate position. And what's the alternative to the moderate position, anyway? Do you want the NAS, AAAS etc. to issue statements saying that science and evolution disprove God? That you can't be religious and be a real scientist? This would make Will Provine and the creationists extremely happy, but it's totally delusional for everyone else.
Regarding surveys: IIRC the typical result is that biologists tend to be heavier on agnostics than other groups, and that psychologists are the real hard core atheists.
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | June 15, 2007 5:46 PM
I'm curious as to what position Nick thought the AAAS was explicitly taking when they unanimously approved boycotting the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.
what message exactly, did that send in Nick's opinion?
oh, and since Nick appears to be paying more attention to this thread than his own on PT regarding creationists currently, I would ask him also to clarify why he thinks that people like those he created a special thread for on PT, are mere "months" away from "deconverting".
still awaiting the evidence to support that contention.
if Nick could provide that, there might be some evidential support for his where he places himself on this issue.
Is it all anecdotal, or did he actually read a published article suggesting that creating threads for creationists to expound their mental deficiencies somehow contributes to their "deconversion"?
I don't mean (necessarily) to pick specifically on Nick here, but I've seen this argument several times now, and have yet to see any supporting evidence for it.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2007 6:10 PM
Tearing down false beliefs is a fine thing, but a serious vision of the future does have a positive component.
Clearly, individual atheists can be moral and successful, but can an atheist society be moral and successful?
The subset of atheists who were Marxist-Leninists managed to create societies which where neither moral nor successful.
Western European social democrats (many influenced by Marx but rejecting Leninism) have created a promising society. The main concern in Western Europe is if secularism is sustainable in view of low reproduction rates and immigration pressure.
If America were to become more secular, it probably would become more like Western Europe. But this is reason to be scared that it turn out more like an Any Randist utopia, which would be dystopia to many.
Posted by: Transparent Eye | June 15, 2007 6:15 PM
No, we should be complaining about #3. We aren't looking for accommodation in society because we're nice delicate people who deserve a cookie and a pat on the head -- we're ferocious militant atheists, remember? We're driving for a position of strength. We want respect because we don't bend over and take it from confused fence-sitters like Epstein.
We're a minority. I don't expect those organizations to just meekly turn over their policy statements to us. The ideal is that some years from now (10? 20? a century?) people will look over the old documents from those groups and giggle at how quaint they are. I'll be happy when there's recognition that there is a vocal atheist wing that doesn't put up with that crap.
And how silly. You can't disprove gods -- theists will just back their definitions further and further into the vapor. And of course you can be religious and a scientist, just as you can be a stamp collector and a scientist. You just can't be religious and a scientist at the same time.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 15, 2007 6:16 PM
Clearly, individual atheists can be moral and successful, but can an atheist society be moral and successful?
spoken like a true Leo Strauss fanboy.
The subset of atheists who were Marxist-Leninists managed to create societies which where neither moral nor successful.
one, that had nothing to do with atheism, but instead had far more to do with group control.
two, the resulting "societies" had very little to do with actual communist philosophy and doctrine.
Next, you'll be telling us that Stallin was a marxist, instead of just a totalitarian dictator.
*sigh*
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 15, 2007 6:24 PM
Nick Matzke,
Do you want the NAS, AAAS etc. to issue statements saying that science and evolution disprove God?
No, I don't think they should say anything as an organization. Any such public statements at the institutional level are likely to be compromised by political calculations involving fears of funding cuts or damage to the public standing of science. I'd like to see the NAS pub