…and this is a 
In which the obnoxious atheist addresses his critics, and makes a polite suggestion to his fellow bloggers
Category: Godlessness • Weblogs
Posted on: July 15, 2007 2:09 PM, by PZ Myers
This week, I tossed off a casual, flippant comment that launched a thousand ineffectual bastinados. I described a map that purported to show the frequency of religious adherents in the US this way:
It shows the concentration of ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies in the United States, with the lighter colors being the most enlightened and the dark reds being the most repressed and misinformed
Fury, outrage, and massive snits ensued. Blogs were riven to their very foundations by anger — "How dare Myers insult me…I am offended!" — and the sun was darkened in the sky, while badgers gave birth to raccoons and other abominations occurred with alarmingly elevated frequency. Mostly, though, people wrote more blog posts pro and con, commenters were roused to furious typing, fora were inundated with tirades, and my in-box was overflowing.
I was much amused — man, wait until I really cut loose — but basically thought the to-do was far too much noise about nothing. Please try to get used to it, O Pious Ones: atheists think your beliefs are wacky. Just as wacky as you find idols to monkey gods or cargo cults or Mormonism or Seventh Day Adventists or Bratz dolls. But now that the bonfire is cooling to a few scattered glowing embers, I thought I'd offer a few general responses to the most common complaints.
So here they are, the three most common protestations, distilled down and paraphrased.
Why do you say that? Don't you know that will alienate our allies/I will hate science with a passion because of you?
There was an immense amount of speculation about my motives. People were arguing about whether this helps the cause of atheism, whether it hurts the cause of science education, whether it's all part of my plan to rally the godless to my uncompromising, invigorating banner, yadda yadda yadda. I hate to tell you all this, but in all the guesswork, no one, not even those sympathetic to me, got the right answer, except for Revere. The explanation is very, very simple, and you're going to kick yourself when I say it.
I said it because it was true.
There is no god, or to say it in the most optimistic and sensitive way possible for a rational person, there is absolutely no evidence for a god. In particular, there is no sensible support for the multitude of peculiar doctrinal, dogmatic, and delusional weirdnesses documented in this (much better) map. You've got crazy-ass megalomaniacal evangelical kooks telling people to hate their gay/muslim/hindu/godless/female/evolutionist neighbors, you've got mobs believing them, you've got people electing presidents on the basis of how fanatically they will wage a crusade, and you've got even more swooning with the vapors at anyone who criticizes religious belief. Religion makes you nuts. It makes ordinary people identify with invisible spirits, it turns them into caterwauling flibbertigibbet idiots at any slight to a magic man who has never done a thing for them, and it makes them center their lives around head-dunkings and cracker-eating and gibbering chants to an unheeding phantasm.
I'm not saying you're a bad person or even stupid if you're a believer. I'm saying that you are possibly wicked if you're promoting it, probably ignorant if you accept its contradictions with reality, almost certainly foolish if you think rituals will get you into heaven, definitely deluded by centuries' worth of lies, and most definitely oppressed by your deference to baseless superstition.
As for my cause, ultimately it's not anti-religion or pro-science education, although those are subsidiary goals. My cause is simply the truth — the truth stated plainly and openly.
So all those people squawking that they were offended were wasting their efforts. I don't care if you were offended. There is no god (or no evidence of one), and you aren't rebutting my claims by telling me how deeply your feelings are hurt. If you walked into a doctor's office and were told that, to improve your health, you need to lose weight and stop smoking and exercise more, would you start shouting that you were insulted? (Yeah, I know, some of you would.) Do you think the depth of your indignation would change the diagnosis?
You've been given your prescription, people of faith: you believe in a lot of goofy, stupid, ridiculous ideas. You can resign yourself to them if you aren't strong enough to part from them — I'm not going to follow you to church and drag you out with a choke-chain — or you can wake up. It's all up to you. One thing you don't get to do is silence the people who point and laugh.
As for those other causes, truth is always going to be anti-religion, and science is a process that aspires to uncover the truth, so I'm entirely self-consistent. It's those who think they can reconcile a mythology of lies with honest attempts to learn the nature of reality who have muddled objectives.
Here's the second most common complaint I got.
You're an asshole. All you do is insult people.
Meh. Everyone is free to think that. It was bizarre, though, that the single most common epithet people were flinging around was "asshole". Even people who were defending me would often say things like, "You're an asshole, but…". The weird internal contradiction in my example above was fairly common, too — I saw so many arguments that I'd never be able to persuade people to my side with insults that culminated in furious descriptions of the deep inner assholishness of my character, and oh, I'm ugly, too, that the only reasonable conclusion I can come to is that logic and self-awareness are dead. Or that a lot of assholes were writing to me.
Anyway, there's not much to say about that one.
This last one may be true for individuals, but it's missing the point.
You're boring. I never read your garbage about religion, and it's gotten so boring that I never read Pharyngula anymore.
I think these are patent attempts to make my brain meltdown and explode, ala the super-intelligent computers in Star Trek that could be destroyed by telling them a paradox. How is it that my science posts get only a small (but usually appreciative and intelligent) response, while my incendiary godless atheism posts drag all these strangers out of the woodwork to complain, if they are so boring? Is inciting a riot boring? Maybe you aren't interested (even if the fact that it's driven you to write to me or about me contradicts that claim), but so what? I am not writing for you. I am writing for me, and I find it interesting.
Allow me to make a constructive suggestion. I seem to be a fairly successful blogger, at least in terms of traffic and linkage and all those other artificial metrics. Now there are good reasons to ignore those metrics — there are excellent blogs with low traffic, obviously, and I do not pick my readings by how many other bloggers read them — but if you're complaining that I'm boring or that your avoidance of my blog is some kind of chastisement, you're clearly thinking that entertaining a readership is something of value. Now think about how a blog could attract a large following.
One strategy is to pick a topic with a wide base, and pursue it well and deeply. Politics comes to mind; it's a subject of broad interest, with lots of built-in contentiousness. Some of the biggest and most popular blogs around are built on that foundation. But you should also look at sports blogs: they're completely alien to me and of absolutely no interest ("boring"), but they've got huge readerships. There are blogs dedicated to particular makes of car that are thriving!
Science, alas, does not have quite so much general support. There's solid interest among a small and healthy percentage of the population, but if you're a pure science blogger you're drawing on a small slice of the pie. Maybe it's the most marvelously tasty slice and your presentation is superb, and it's an entirely respectable and worthy focus, but if you want the big traffic numbers, face it, science won't do it. Maybe after Seed and scienceblogs grow the audience, though…
Anyway, by chance (no, by the contingent details of my personal interests) and definitely not by design, this particular blog has multiple foci that work together to draw in an audience.
Science, of course. It's why I started the thing, and why I invest much more effort in the individual science posts than anything else here.
Godlessness. This is the most contentious subject and also the one with the broadest appeal — like politics, it draws in the arguments.
Anti-creationism. Another good source of battles that draws in a crowd.
Liberal politics. A subject of varying interest here, and I think better handled by the numerous specialist blogs, but I care about it.
Cephalopods. This one attracts the weirdos. You gotta have a few freaks to liven up the place.
There are people who read Pharyngula just for one of those topics, and I get email all the time telling me that one or the other of those is "boring" (except the cephalopods, everyone loves those). I'm not surprised that many people are utterly uninterested in some part of what I write — probably the only person on the planet with exactly my constellation of interests is me, and that's who I write for. So telling me that some aspect of this blog is "boring" will never have any impact at all, especially not when it is apparently exciting enough to stimulate you to write.
And if you're a blogger and want a hint on how to increase traffic, there it is: tap into multiple audiences. If you're a scienceblogger, go ahead and pick some other subject that excites you and invest some effort into expressing your enthusiasm for it. Why not make a third of your posts about your favorite sport, for instance? You'll enjoy it, if that's your thing, and you'll build a following among football fans, and occasionally enlighten them with an article about chemistry. I'll find the football intensely boring and will skip those posts, but I promise I won't ever complain to you about how tedious they are — somebody else will find them fascinating. Open up and write about anything you love, and trust me, readers will love you back (some will hate you, too, but that's all good for traffic.)
This is obvious advice, that the key to successful blogging is to follow your passions and follow them well, but from all the people who complain that my passions aren't the same as theirs, I clearly need to explain the obvious.
Comments
Ask Rob Knop. He found that inciting even a polite discussion was terribly, terribly exciting. So much so that he had to hide posts and close comments, to cut down on all that excitement.
He hasn't even apologized for his behavior - the most he's done is apologize "for the upset he's caused". Nothing he said or did.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 15, 2007 2:15 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 15, 2007 2:17 PM
Incidentally, this:
is why no matter how ridiculous his positions are or become, PZ will always be a bigger man than quite a few of his detractors - he appreciates a good livening up.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 15, 2007 2:22 PM
Ok, I have to admit I don't read your cephalopod pieces, but in general i find the damn things delicious.
As a fellow godless scientist, I applaud your asshole-ishness. Thanks for taking one for the team.
Posted by: PalMD | July 15, 2007 2:22 PM
Posted by: llewelly | July 15, 2007 2:25 PM
> (except the cephalopods, everyone loves those)
Sorry... I find those boring.
:-P
Posted by: John Morrison | July 15, 2007 2:26 PM
By some cosmic coincidence / convergent evolution, the Bad Astronomer put his own post up a few minutes ago tackling the same subject
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/07/15/politics-science-me-and-thee/
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 15, 2007 2:31 PM
Ah yes, god forbid (irony intended) that you should actually let the flamewar die.
PZ, I usually read you for ideas and amusement, but why did you feel the need to pour on more gasoline? You couldn't let the hurt feelings of your fellow f**king scientists die down, at least for a few days? You don't care that they have hurt feelings, yeah, got that, you're perfectly justified, of course, and have right on your side, but you need to stoke the flames? This is crap. You're a great guy and all, but this kind of behavior is crap.
Out of here for a while, I guess. I need to let my own temper cool, and this isn't helping.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 15, 2007 2:32 PM
PZ, you rule! Your blog is a constant source of joy, laughter and cephalopods.
Go, PZ!
Posted by: michael | July 15, 2007 2:40 PM
Um, so everyone else can tie me to the stake, pile the faggots high, and light the fire...but if for my own amusement I choose to mock the flames, I'm the bad guy?
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 15, 2007 2:41 PM
bwahahahaha
I'm stunned that people would get their knickers bunched this far up their cake exits over someone calling religion stupid and wacky. as PZ mentioned, IT IS STUPID AND WACKY! And calling something non-stupid and non-wacky because it makes others feel less stupid and wacky is what you do for your grandmother, not in public. Otherwise you're enabling the stupidity and wackiness.
to me it's the same as not warning someone they're going to get hit by a bus. it's just irresponsible.
this kind of behavior is crap? Come on. that's snit-behavior, and i say that is crap. exact same situation: my feelings are hurt, therefor you MUST BE WRONG! sadly, no.
Posted by: garth | July 15, 2007 2:42 PM
I really think that one reason so many of the faithful are offended by your posts is because deep down, they know that their beliefs and practices are baseless. You touch their weakest points, that little kernel of doubt that they carry around but try very hard to ignore. On some level they know it is all bunk, and you remind them of that every time you write this kind of thing.
I say more of it!
Posted by: pablo | July 15, 2007 2:42 PM
Quoth Michael Franti: "All the freaky people make the beauty of the world."
Posted by: MAJeff | July 15, 2007 2:43 PM
Ah, truth, that eternal bugbear of the religiosi. I've always thought it curious that asking them to explain contradictions always leads to them howling about their poor widdle feelings (or that other favourite: "you just don't understand (because, ya know, you're not sufficiently spiritually endowed, not that I'm gonna say that out loud because I'm ever so 'umble *cough* passive-aggressive)"). And I'm not even talking about pointing out the gormlessness of their rationalisations; just posing a question is bad enough to warrant accusations of prejudice and meanness.
Way back in the days when I was still a believer (albeit more out of fear than anything else) I used to struggle with a whole bunch of contradictions. Couldn't help but note that when I asked people wtf was up with some issue or other that they would either 1. get angry 2. tell me to hush up or face divine wrath 3. (in the more moderate cases) make up some out-of-ass rationalization, get called on the fact that it doesn't make sense, admit sheepishly to pulling it out of ass, then claim that we humans can't know the truth (though they'd just claimed to be propounding it 3 minutes ago). Ooh, I don't miss those days, not one bit.
So, as far as I'm concerned: hurrah for PZ and truth!
Posted by: Liane | July 15, 2007 2:50 PM
There's an important general point here that is worth emphasizing: There is no reason why we should always try to frame our remarks with the aim of charming or persuading others. The fact that being critical of religious belief alienates and upsets some people, and may even lead a few among them to reject evolution because someone they're offended by believes in it, is not a conclusive reason for adopting a policy of polite silence--unless you take the goal of not offending to be more important that whatever other goals you may be pursuing. This can certainly be the case when you're dealing with politics or relationships that are personally important to you (think of Darwin and Emma). But trying to say clearly what you take to be true is a perfectly honourable goal, even when dealing with sensitive topics--better yet, it's one that doesn't leave you open to complaints of duplicity or disingenuousness (which seem, in effect, to be the tactics urged by those who defend evolution but complain about PZ's style of advocacy).
Of course, we should always be prepared to entertain replies and criticisms, but when we're arguing about what's true or false, 'I've been offended' is not a relevant reply. A relevant reply would be along the lines, 'You're wrong because...'
Posted by: Bryson Brown | July 15, 2007 2:54 PM
Badgers birthing raccoons is no abomination: it's evolution. Don't you people remember your Chambers?
Posted by: SEK | July 15, 2007 2:55 PM
How are these things even an issue in the internet age? Are people tied to chairs, eyes pried open, and forced to read every post sequentially?
Personally, I open your page and see a series of links and headers - quick and easy directions to whatever discrete portions of your site I want to read. I'm not often interested by your cephalopod posts; so I don't click on them.
All of those "it's boring" whines, or exclamations about this being a science blog are just empty attempts at politely saying "I disagree with you: please stop thinking things I dislike." If it was merely a matter of boredom, they could just. not. read it.
Posted by: James Stein | July 15, 2007 2:56 PM
PZ, I'm afraid I haven't seen that much of you being tied to a stake and burned. Sorry if I missed it.
Yes, I am still here. I will take one last swipe at making myself clear.
I am agnostic, and mostly identify myself as an agnostic Secular Humanist.
I think that much about religion *is* ridiculous.
I think that religion can cause a lot of damage, but the possibility exists that it is merely an excuse rather than the actual cause, and that if it didn't exist, people would find another way of being damaging and stupid to each other. They would probably invent something like it just for that purpose, in fact.
I have reasons for being agnostic rather than atheist, which I note that no-one has actually asked about; the assumption is merely that I am delusional. There is no acknowledgement that there might be any rational reason for anything but atheism, as far as I can see. Ok, whatever. Your opinion.
But it is not out of jealousy, insecurity, or personal insult that I protest any of this. My personal happiness, wellbeing and security do not depend on anyone here's approval or your attitude or my freedom from being insulted by you on the basis of religion. I don't even know you personally. Your opinion makes no particular difference to my life. My beliefs are not under threat, nor do my beliefs even rely on religion.
My "snit", as it is termed, is on the basis of the fact that there are good, decent, intelligent, educated people out there -- including amongst those on Seed ScienceBlogs, including people who I *do* like and who I respect -- who got sick of getting tarred with the same brush as the loonies and snapped back, and you couldn't let the flames die because, what the heck, it's not about reasoned discussion, is it.
That disgusts me.
It's a blog vent, and it's your blog. I get that. I get that you have justified opinions. I get that you are a good and decent person in person, too. But there is nothing at all to be proud of in fanning the flames of a flamewar.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 15, 2007 3:07 PM
PZ, you don't sound like an asshole to me at all. (And you aren't that ugly either).
I think its telling that so many use the term to express their outrage at having to encounter an "ugly truth". People don't like the suggestion that they have wasted their lives on superstitious nonsense. The notion that they are incapable of refraining from deluding themselves, or that they cannot recognize the distinction between facts and lies (meaning that their powers of rational thinking are severely underexercised) is naturally something they take personally. Its a culture of stupidity, and they are emotionally very strongly invested in it.
So anyone pointing it out is an "asshole". But its far better to be an asshole than a gullible fool.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | July 15, 2007 3:08 PM
Hon, other people gathered together piles of wood, put stakes in the midst of them, dowsed it all in gasoline, tied themselves to the stakes, and threw down the match.
All PZ did was point and laugh. And you'd blame PZ?
Posted by: Caledonian | July 15, 2007 3:09 PM
Cephalopod lovers are weird are we, well ie Cuthulu!
The religious are terrible sensitive to any questioning of the validity of their god and go totally ballistic when someone calls them on the consequences of their superstition. Luckily we have stalwarts like PZ to keep the heat on, maybe they will eventually get so worked up that they will all have aneurisms and give the rest of us some relief.
Posted by: Natasha Ya-Routh | July 15, 2007 3:14 PM
Anyone got a match? Oh, right, none of us smoke.
Damn. All of that gasoline gone to waste.
Posted by: Russell | July 15, 2007 3:14 PM
Just for the sake of clarity, Luna (and because if you didn't want it addressed you wouldn't have emphasized it in your post) the reason no one asks your reasons for being agnostic is because no one here cares - it's extremely improbable you have a strikingly unique and compelling reason for agnosticism/faith.
I'm sure your feelings are valid for you: they're your feelings, after all. But since we don't share your feelings, we only care for your rationale, which is unlikely to be unique in this instance. And beating apart poor rationalizations that have been beaten apart a thousand times before just isn't any sort of fun. Thus the whole "not caring" bit.
Posted by: James Stein | July 15, 2007 3:14 PM
Russell: I smoke.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 15, 2007 3:16 PM
Caledonian, sweetie, given that you have been one of the people in there calling individuals names and kicking fuel onto the flamewar actively, including going onto Rob Knop's blog and calling him an irrational, credulous coward, I can see why you think that PZ is blameless. But it was dying down, we were moving onto other topics, then this. Yeah, dragging it all back into activity instead of letting it all die and tempers cool a bit is PZ's doing.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 15, 2007 3:17 PM
PZ, If anything you're still being too polite. The intellectually vacuous pleading for the value of "knowledge" obtained through irrational processes as offered by even some of your fellow Scibloggers clearly demonstrates that more scorn is justified, even required. When someone cannot distinguish between feeling, wishing and knowing, when that someone is a university science professor, what other response is possible? You can either laugh at them or weep, but standing politely and silently by when you have a soapbox available is what would make you a real asshole.
Posted by: Alexandra | July 15, 2007 3:18 PM
Everybody: louder and with feeling!
I think the message is finally starting to get through!
Posted by: fontor | July 15, 2007 3:18 PM
I don't understand why "cancelling your subscription" to a blog is any kind of of threat. Who cares?
PZ - Just so you know, I thik I find you via Daily Kos and Panda's Thumb, when liberal politics was more my passion. I've been an atheist for several years, and the combination of atheism and pro-evolution advocacy is delicious and satisfying. In fact, after reading the devastating take-downs of Creationists by Miller, at the Panda's Thumb and here, I've decided to pursue a degree in biology. And the fact that there is an out, loud and proud atheist in biology (at least one!) helped me make my decision.
The search for small-t truth is what yokes atheism and science together; any atheist who isn't scientific, and any scientist who isn't an atheist, is only living half a life (or, you know, maybe two half-lives.)
Posted by: inkadi | July 15, 2007 3:21 PM
But, Luna dahling, he IS an irrational, credulous coward. And everyone* on the side of reason and science knows that. (Even some of the people who aren't know that.)
*If you don't know it yet, just click on the url-name-link for this comment post to see the evidence.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 15, 2007 3:21 PM
At some point in their life people who adhere to organized religion (be that Christianity, Mormonism, or Scientology) start thinking that religious teachings (such as the existance of "hell") are no longer subject to choice, but has to accepted as facts whether they like them, or not. They being to equate religious edicts with physical laws.
What I'd like to know is when this actually happens? When does their personal need for superstitious sky-daddy also require the belief that a particular religious edict must be infallible?
Posted by: daenku32 | July 15, 2007 3:22 PM
I just want to say I've been a lurker hre for over a year now, and this is one of my favourite blogs. I came for the science, stayed for the pretty pictures of cephalopods and the amazing godlessness. I wish real life included more of those 3.
Posted by: nancy | July 15, 2007 3:23 PM
The example you propose has an interesting secondary effect: the hard sports fan will read, from time to time, a good chemistry article.
That would be a good strategy to "enlighten" people: write about something a lot of people likes, and then, without previous warning, drop an article about evolution, or atheism, or cosmology; and perhaps some people will reconsider their views.
But, of course, perhaps they won't.
Posted by: RinzeWind | July 15, 2007 3:25 PM
Well, I may as well weigh-in.
PZ, I do have to question why you feel that antagonizing people is the best way to get your views across. I like your blog, I'm going to keep reading it, but when you go out-of-your-way to start flame wars, I, at least, always get really annoyed.
At least, I assume you made the original post about the map to start a flame war, since I can't think of any other reason to make it.
If you wanted to get more followers then insulting what they currently believe isn't the way to do that.
If you weren't trying to get more people to become atheists, then maybe you were simply trying to give atheists a better name? Or defend the ideology from an attack? Hmmm, nope. That's obviously not the case.
The only other option I end up seeing is that you wanted to provoke a fight (In which case it's distressingly similar to that movie you posted a while back with the "God hates the world video". Which (the video, that is) was almost certainly made to get people mad at the creators.)
As I said earlier, I'll still read your blog, and I agree with you on quite a few things, but this apparent need to insult everyone with a different religious belief system is something I can't understand. Heck, you go and rant about how horrible people are for doing the that, then turn around and do it yourself.
Posted by: GDwarf | July 15, 2007 3:29 PM
James Stein: yeah, I get that too. The frustration mostly stems from the other assumptions that I have had made about me over the last few days -- namely, that because I have defended Rob Knop, that I must myself be an irrational, deluded Christian. I don't post on SB all that often, but I'm not entirely silent, either, and it really is an idiotic assumption for anyone who has ever encountered what I've posted before to have made. No-one ever bloody thought to check on their assumptions, though, did they.
But hey, I posted in defense of a Christian who got pissed off at how he was characterised -- and yes, there is justification for being ticked when someone says "anyone who believes what you believe is wicked, deluded, or an oppressed victim". People have their own, many and various, and sometimes widely complex, reasons for believing things, and blowing them all off with your own unflattering categories is bound to piss people off. He got pissed off. I thought that the dogpile on him afterwards went far past the bounds of reason into sheer mean-spiritedness. So, obviously I have irrational beliefs as well, and no good reason for holding them. *shrug* Get why I lost my temper?
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 15, 2007 3:30 PM
No - we didn't conclude that you're Christian.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 15, 2007 3:34 PM
It's ok, Caledonian, I don't think anyone has concluded that you have constructive contributions to make, either.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 15, 2007 3:38 PM
I read this infamous map post just a few minutes after it went up and thought it was a fine example of what Pharyngula is (in part) about. But now I'm just SHOCKED! How could you insensitive rapscallions be so upset over a scientist lambasting beliefs that are inherently anti-scientific? We should expect and cheer on those responses--science should have teeth and we should be able to rely on the scientific community to call things what they are, even/especially if what they are is ridiculous and stupid. Science isn't supposed to be sensitive to your pre-existing beliefs that have been handed down for thousands of years.
And if you have to go after a scientist for being anti-religion, you could at least find someone more likely to care than PZ. If you've read this blog at all then you probably know how he feels about "appeasement."
Posted by: Justin H. | July 15, 2007 3:39 PM
"At least, I assume you made the original post about the map to start a flame war, since I can't think of any other reason to make it."
I assume he, like many atheists, feels a little penned in by the crazies (aka religious) and was sharing some of that frustration with his fellow travellers.
What's so difficult to comprehend about that?
Posted by: inkadu | July 15, 2007 3:39 PM
inkadu,
but religious belief is special! It needs to be exempt from mocking and/or criticism.
I'm sure someone will be here soon offering to pray for us, so I'll just toss out a pre-emptive, "please don't bother." We're not interested in your silliness and it's really annoying of y'all to keep saying it.
Posted by: MAJeff | July 15, 2007 3:44 PM
Actually, I had drawn no conclusions regarding your religious beliefs up until the moment you made that aside regarding no one requesting the reasons behind your agnosticism. That, I admit, led me to believe you're a Christian. I do happen to agree with PZ's reasoning on the matter, so naturally I do append "irrational, deluded" to the "Christian" in that sentence. While I grant that there is an assumption involved in presuming you're a Christian, your agnosticism could have referenced any faith (and must have referenced *some* faith); and PZ's rationale (and mine) characterizes *all* faiths as irrational and deluded. You don't strike me as the Christianity-is-true-and-all-other-belief-systems-are-myths sort, which inclines me to think that the assumptions you refer to are in regards to categorizing you as "irrational, deluded" rather than any assumptions about your specific choice of faith, however. And in that regard, there are no assumptions to check (or at least, so we feel); to have faith in regards to something for which no evidence exists is essentially the definition of irrational. It could be rational - and our assumptions incorrect - only if you do indeed have some sort of evidence upon which to base your faith. I admit, the lack of such evidence is an assumption required for my opinions to be valid and true, but I make that assumption with a great deal of confidence.
There is no doubting that the ultimate rationalizations for faith do get quite complicated, and even the most overwhelmingly brilliant people may hew to them - to do so is not a sign of lack of intellect or complexity of thought. However until evidence is found these faiths must ultimately depend on nothing more than feelings - even if they are complex and deeply dwelt-upon feelings - and so, irrational and deluded.
As for Rob Knop: he could have handled it better. I do not mean in the kindergarten sense of "better," in which one attempts to quell the debate. I mean "better" in the sense that if he had a well-reasoned argument for his faith - whatever that faith is - that contradicted the description of "irrational, deluded" he ought to have presented that. He did not. In fact, he out-and-out stated one of the age-old cliches (to paraphrase) "the point of faith is believing in spite of lack of evidence." That's in the same post that he's indignant at being characterized as "irrational, deluded." I harbor no affection nor warmth of feeling for a man that feels insulted because someone described him as he is. It would be foolish for me to be indignant if someone called me "stubborn" and I shouted back "no, I just persevere in my goals and opinions!" They may be using a pejorative connotation, but there are few attributes that do not cut two ways.
For a man to say that he believes in spite of evidence and to claim it is inappropriate to paint him as irrational. . .
Posted by: James Stein | July 15, 2007 3:50 PM
MAJeff, you've been reading your dawkins I see...
Here's how to write a really interesting blog post:
"Hi, Guys. I found this map of religious adherents in the US. I just bring it up so you can see, you know, where the religious adherents are. Are there religious adherents near you? Are there more somewhere else? I find it interesting when I drive down South for instance to note, 'My, but there do seem to be a larger concentration of religious adherents out here than in some other parts the US I've driven through.'"
Clearly the real reason PZ is interested in the map is because it also shows where PZ is mostly likely to get strung up by his thumbs for ruining the morals of childen with his atheistic evolution claptrap. (and, unfortunately, the map isn't that useful due to its methodology, but the point stands...)
Posted by: inkadu | July 15, 2007 3:52 PM
Religion makes you nuts. It makes ordinary people identify with invisible spirits, it turns them into caterwauling flibbertigibbet idiots at any slight to a magic man who has never done a thing for them, and it makes them center their lives around head-dunkings and cracker-eating and gibbering chants to an unheeding phantasm.
I think it's a shame that PZ has let his critics intimidate him with their strawman arguments and unflagging hypocrisy, and as a result has immediately started softening his characterizaions of religion, as in the above. I believed him to be principled and he turns out to be just one more rhetorical relativist. Next thing you know, he'll be posting in tongues and asking people to sacrifice fatted atheists to Qetzalcoatl, and the terrorists will have won.
Posted by: kemibe | July 15, 2007 3:56 PM
Luna_cat,
I don't know you, and I haven't read your posts; but, since you seem curious, I don't generally question the rationality of agnostics -- only their courage.
Cheers.
Posted by: inkadu | July 15, 2007 3:57 PM
PZ, while I may not totally agree with your politics, your posts on godlessness, anti-creationism, and all things atheist are right-on. And anyone who has an opposing view is, well, a smeghead.
Posted by: jeff | July 15, 2007 3:57 PM
PZ, you're doing a valuable job with the anti-religious diatribes.
The only good thing about religion that I can think of is that it gives comfort to weak-minded people. Otherwise, it's all bad. I mean, if you set someone a problem to solve, then feed them incorrect data, they're likely to fail. Life is the 'problem', religion is the 'incorrect data'. Wars, terrorism, misogyny, anti-science attitudes, etc, are the failures.
If enough of us keep chipping away at the idiotic nonsense, we'll reduce its influence.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | July 15, 2007 3:58 PM
Like many of those here, I don't suffer fools gladly, and thus to some extent admire the prodigious vitriol PZ heaps upon theists, creationists, and the rest. That being said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone--there is on this site nearly as much of wishful thinking and unwarranted, unconditional belief in absurdities as there is in any creationist cesspool, and twice as much hubris. So often it is proclaimed by fiat that this or that is just evil or good, that someone (Hovind, for example) deserves his punishment because he freely choose his actions, that we know for certain that so and so is a fact, true beyond all doubt or challenge. I have yet to see the famous hard-nosed skepticism that is supposedly beloved of atheists and scientists applied to these problems. Until PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, and other "crazy-ass megalomaniacal evangelical kooks," not to mention the "mobs believing them," turn their microscopes to these other "goofy, stupid, ridiculous ideas" which they cling to so fervently, they will continue to epitomize the very sloppy thinking they so courageously vilify.
Posted by: Epiphenomenal Gremlin | July 15, 2007 3:59 PM
I said this in the brilliant argument on the other guy's blog, but it seems to have gone. The reason why the word 'delusional' is important is that the central religious claim is from personal experience. This means that when we say they are mistaken we aren't just saying they've argued incorrectly, we're attacking them in a very personal way, by saying that the inner spiritual experience they claim is just something they're imagaining. There is no nice way to say this, but it still needs to be said.
The word 'delusional' carries this meaning quite nicely, and I'm not aware of another word which does, which hasn't also been co-opted by psychology (one of the objections to 'delusional' was that psychologists to mean something more precise than its everyday meaning). 'Mistaken', which was offered in the debate, is completely inadequate.
Posted by: Jon Eccles | July 15, 2007 4:01 PM
Oh dear! I didn't realize that this was a flame war! Oh god! They're burning people alive, dragging them kicking-and-screaming from their computers! How could PZ be so inhumane as to continue with this very real bloodshed?
I'm leaving the internet. It's way to dangerous!
Posted by: Shnakepup | July 15, 2007 4:01 PM
Why do I like Pharyngula?
Science: interesting.
I have no scientific training, aside from Computer "Science". Nevertheless, nothing about the philosophy of science seems alien or absurd, and scientific methods (or The Scientific Method?) seem only a restatement of what it means to be rational.
Anti-creationism: interesting.
Creationist arguments seem simply silly to me, hardly worthy of response. Evolution Denial seems on a par with Holocaust Denial, except more specifically characteristic of stupid or innumerate people.
Liberal politics: interesting.
As a Canadian, I find almost all American Liberal commentary a little too right-wing for my taste. I think it's a shame that you have only two viable political parties, but few people anywhere agree with my political ideas anyway.
Cephalopods...
... well, what sort of a world would it be without such organisms? Drearier, I'm sure.
Godlessness: !!
This is where Pharyngula is most brilliant and this is where I, like everyone else in the world, am expert. I might claim an edge in discussions of religion because I've clicked through to online ordination with at least two organizations, but every deist or fundamentalist or atheist or -ist of other coloration builds an underlying unifying personal philosophy through a lifetime of social negotiations: very often this personal philosophy is identified with a religion. Importantly, it needn't be so. I like the way PZ deals with those who insist on respect for their imaginary friend(s), who try to promote subscription to their own beliefs. Best identification ever: "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies".
Posted by: fred | July 15, 2007 4:03 PM
Epiphenomenal Gremlin:
Even though I think you're talking rubbish, I think you could have made your post more pithy. How about "Skeptic, doubt thyself'?
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 15, 2007 4:05 PM
I guess I'm missing something. Calling religious belief "silly" shouldn't really be insulting to anyone. If you believe, have faith, etc, you obviously don't care very much what other people think, otherwise you're mind would be torn to bits trying to decide which god to worship. CHILL! Religion is inherently irrational...that doesn't mean it can't bring comfort, joy, etc, just that it can't bring understanding of the natural world. Rant away!
Posted by: PalMD | July 15, 2007 4:05 PM
The Cephalopod pictures are wonderful, and I look forward to every one. Please don't stop.
Cephalopods are the Devine made flesh. But not bones, just flesh and cartilage. It's a Miracle!
Posted by: Mooser | July 15, 2007 4:09 PM
Posted by: CJ | July 15, 2007 4:09 PM
One can be intelligent, compassionate, logical, rational, reasonable, properly skeptical and open-minded as well as religious. However, just never at the same time.
Anyone who thinks they can be is deluded. They've fallen for some rationale that makes superficial sense but would ultimately crumble under proper scrutiny. They also hate being told this. Oh, well. Reality sucks.
Note to theists: so long as you fail to provide valid justification for your religious faith, it will continue to be proper to remind you that your faith is unjustified. Deal with it. Whining about your feelings doesn't validate a damn thing.
Posted by: H. Humbert | July 15, 2007 4:10 PM
"I assume he, like many atheists, feels a little penned in by the crazies (aka religious) and was sharing some of that frustration with his fellow travellers.
What's so difficult to comprehend about that?"
Understandable, actually, I feel like that myself sometimes.
However, if that was his reason, it hardly makes sense to bring to our attention the fact that people with other beliefs are also frustrated by his claims, as this post does.
...And the above is about as clear as mud. Let me try again.
If it was just frustration, why make another post which, in essence, makes fun of other people for also being frustrated?
Posted by: GDwarf | July 15, 2007 4:11 PM
I guess I'll have to join John Morrison (upthread) as one of the few Pharyngulite dissenters on the real issue of the day: I love this blog for its science, outspoken godlessness, anti-creationism and liberal politics--but every time I see another damned post about cephalopods, I think, "man, that PZ is a total asshole."
I'm this far from canceling my subscription in protest. You've been warned.
Posted by: Rieux | July 15, 2007 4:16 PM
Wow, PeeZed. I've been too busy for a day or two to read the blog in depth and look what I missed.
I saw the map post, had a bit of a giggle at what you pointed out (it ~was~ hideously red) and Moved. On.
Flame war? Why?
Isn't a man's blog his castle? Yer don't like what's written therein, yer scuttle back to your own blog and put your counter-argument, right? Surely.
Sorry, but I just don't see what all the strong feelings are about. And now that I've read the post, read the comments, read the follow-up post and read *those* comments, I'm off to catch up on last Friday's cephalopod!
Posted by: Triumphal_Thusnelda | July 15, 2007 4:17 PM
James Stein: Could I just point out that there is a profound difference between believing something in spite of evidence against it, and believing something in spite of a lack of evidence for it? Rob Knop has been writing about belief for a long time, and I regarded him as being both rational and as making himself quite clear.
Yes, he lost the plot with his rant, and with calling PZ names, directly. Yes, he could have handled it better. I have personally gotten mad at people in the past and said stupid things, rather than defended myself with reason; I recognise it when I see it in others, and I tend to regard it as being human and not, say, a saint. Like I said, my objection was in the sheer unreasoned nastiness which got dogpiled on him for it. For the love of little green apples, the man is facing stresses enough at work; a little bit of compassion for someone who actively works for science education would go a long way. Especially when hatred is being heaped on him by people who have not demonstrated that they do anything at all to help the world (no, I'm not talking about PZ, there.)
As for my own agnosticism, it is based on events for which I do not have an explanation. They did not take place in my head, but were external to me, and had other witnesses. They are not data; they are nothing more than unsubstantiated anecdote, and as such, not only are they likely to be unconvincing to anyone else, they damned well shouldn't be. Other people should shrug them off as irrelevant until such events are replicable and adequately documented. The fact remains that for me, as a witness, I had enough corroborating evidence that something happened, that it was real; as a rational being, my considered reaction is that it is far more rational to regard said events as something which result in the questions "what really did happen there? How did it happen? What did it mean? How could it be tested?" rather than insisting, since I cannot repeat the events or explain them within the conventional framework of understanding, that it couldn't possibly have happened.
Two hundred years ago, someone insisting to other people that there was invisible radiation which, if you could capture it on a plate, would illuminate the interior or a human body, would rightly have been regarded as something of a lunatic. However, this does not mean that x-rays didn't exist; just that there was not, at the time, adequate justification to insist to anyone else that something like them did.
I think it is an equal mistake to say that modern science is so complete in its understanding that we will not discover something which seems to be completely irrational today. It would be irrational to say that there are things out there until there is evidence to back it up. But when and if something inexplicable comes along, it makes more sense to me to investigate it rather than dismiss it as impossible because it doesn't fall within the remit of what is already known.
Please note: I am not claiming that we should discard what we do know, and I think that anything which appears to contradict what we do know with reasonable certainty, had better come with a bloody good explanation attached -- one which stands up to sharp and determined scrutiny. I think that believing in something which there is good evidence against is idiotic and deluded. However, the fact is that the universe is vast, and humans are finite, and I'm reasonably certain that there are things out there which we encounter infrequently and have a tendency to assign a "supernatural" explanation to for lack of any better understanding. I would like to get answers. I don't claim to have them already. Does this clear up my position a little better? Have I explained it adequately?
Anyway, that really is irrelevant to the rant-fest to hand, so feel free to ignore.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 15, 2007 4:18 PM
Well, some of them cephalopods look like Devine made flesh.
Posted by: Mooser | July 15, 2007 4:18 PM
It is an interesting question: if religious beliefs are delusional and destructive, then is there a need to make an effort to remove them from society? I suppose there is, but it's not a fight I would savor for myself. For starters, it might destroy any relationship I have with my parents, and I don't think it's worth that cost.
In the larger picture, though, it is curious to see the "gosh that's impolitic so Don't Say That!" kind of response. You know, I think people prefer sincere people over people they think are telling them what they want to hear.
How did H.I. McDunnough said in his conversation with the parole review board:
Parole Board member: You're not just telling us what we want to hear?
H.I.: No, sir, no way.
Parole Board member: 'Cause we just want to hear the truth.
H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.
Parole Board chairman: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?
H.I.: Yes, sir.
Parole Board chairman: Okay, then.
OK, that was a bit of a tangent.
Gremlin: um, not all ideas are equal. The fact that one set of ideas is not constantly under a barrage of attacks while another is does not, by itself, constitute intellectual inconsistency. The fact that you think evolution needs to be viewed skeptically is, um, a curious point of departure but for people who work in the field, engaging a constant state of doubt to matters that have already been resolved by the greater community would be, um, a phenomenal waste of time. Unlike the Memento guy, we don't have to rebuild the world every day.
Indulging the false equivalence between one set of people's arguments and another set of people's arguments is cheap posturing. In lots of situations, one set of people is correct, while another set of people is wrong. If you have quibbles with individual points brought up from time to time, then by all means address those points as they arise. If you fail to do so, claiming at a later date that
seems like just a content-free ad hominem attack. I've been reading this site for quite some time and I cannot recall any "unconditional belief in absurdities".
So I'm calling bullshit. Perhaps the neophyte things it is politically astute to say that believers in evolution are just as balmy as creationists. But I think it's a crock.
Hmm...this comment went off in three different directions. Oh, well! First draft of history, yada yada yada.
Posted by: RickD | July 15, 2007 4:22 PM
Nope! Still there (if you know where to look)!
Posted by: Caledonian | July 15, 2007 4:22 PM
Christian Burnham:
Well, good. That means a) you have a match, and b) we can sprinkle a little gasoline on the movement to corral smokers to the most blighted corners of the urban environment.
Flamewars are worth spreading, dammit.
;-)
Posted by: Russell | July 15, 2007 4:23 PM
I also love the appeal to secret knowledge every time I hear it. No theologian, no philosopher, no great thinker in the history of the world has ever offered a compelling reason to accept god's existence as even merely probable. Yet we're often told to feel chastised because we supposedly didn't consider the possibility that theists really do have rational, compelling reasons to believe in god. This is never actually followed up with such arguments, mind you. Our "arrogance" at presuming to know there are no such arguments is sufficient to dismiss us as close-minded...and therefore wrong. Or something.
Posted by: H. Humbert | July 15, 2007 4:27 PM
I find it quite hilarious that so many people got their virtual panties in a bunch over this. It's very simple. If you disagree with PZ's interpretation of the map defend your reasons for believing in your particular brand of religion. But please be advised that explanations like "I believe in God despite the fact there is no evidence for it" just go to proving that PZ's assessment, while some consider it abrasive is correct. Instead of running to the teacher to complain that Paul said your mom was fat, defend her with a reasoned argument not tattle tales. But just remember, we've all seen her waddling to the all you can eat bar at the cafeteria.
Like he said, saying your feelings are hurt doesn't change the facts or move your side of the argument closer to the goal line. "Scoring points" in the argument involves knocking down his statement. All this crying over flamewars is a distraction. The sure way to end the flame war is to win the argument.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 15, 2007 4:29 PM
Hey, the godlessness is interesting!
It's nice to have someone stating the obvious in a country where most people ignore it.
Posted by: Maronan | July 15, 2007 4:32 PM
I have to chime in.
Godlessness is something that has come to me gradually over the years. If you have grown up believing that everyone believes in God and that you MUST believe in God, it takes some time to break from that mindset... at least it took me some time.
I started reading PZ's blog a couple of years ago, at which time I considered myself an agnostic. Since them, from reading his fiery posts and linking with other related sites, both scientific and/or Godless, I recognized that I was actually an atheist (about level 6 on Dawkin's scale) and learned to become more open and vocal about my opinions on religion.
So, I think that many critics of PZ are correct that he is not encouraging theists to recognize that their beliefs are unjustified, unsuppo