…and this is a 
Oops, someone needs a lesson in “framing”
Category: Religion
Posted on: July 16, 2007 1:31 PM, by PZ Myers
Sheril seems like a well-intentioned person, but when she decides to step into the science/religion wars, it's a horrendous mistake to label atheists as "fundamentalists" (a term I despise) and compare me to Rush Limbaugh. Without even saying a word about her position on the issue, it's quite clear where she stands.
While giving us that great big clue, though, she also fails to explain anything about how religion and science are supposed to interact — she just calls for a "discussion". You cannot get a productive discussion if one side hides their point of view.
Shorter me: Sheril violated Blake's Law.
Comments
I can't tell that she equated atheism and fundamentalism. She said:
A minimalist interpretation is that she merely said that a form of atheistic fundamentalism exists.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | July 16, 2007 1:49 PM
The mere fact that theism is founded on mere faith and without objective grounds will always make discussion with atheists fruitless. This is a life-or-death issue, not a collaboration.
Posted by: Tom | July 16, 2007 1:51 PM
I'm a fundamentalist atheist. I only accept the atheism of the 18th century Baron d'Holbach and eschew any more recent developments in the field.
(thanks Wikipedia)
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 16, 2007 1:58 PM
Sigh.
Sheril loses.
Nothing to see here; move along now.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 16, 2007 1:59 PM
Sheril writes:
Since when does science need to win converts? Science enjoys the preeminence it does in society because it works. People who fail to heed valid science do so to their detriment, not science's.
If the fact that god-botherers distrust science because of what it has to say about the probability of their god existing, so much the worse for them. I feel to see how ignorant people's decision to remain ignorant is scientists' problem.
Posted by: H. Humbert | July 16, 2007 2:34 PM
Oh PZ - I daresay I don't know where I stand with regard to religion. I've never actually written about that in detail ;) But it sure is fun following the fallout..
I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.
And please don't be offended with regard to the radio reference - after all - I spent years in radio and mean no ill will. Only that your successful in that you keep people interested and engaged - whether they agree or not!
Posted by: Sheril Kirshenbaum | July 16, 2007 2:35 PM
Given that religion seems to be hardwired and a tough nut to crack, I don't object to it prima facie, but it is essential to realize as stated over and over here that there cannot be such a thing as a fundamentalist non-belief. I emphatically don't believe in LGMs. I'm a fundie anti-LGMer?
Posted by: PalMD | July 16, 2007 2:43 PM
Burnham's law:
In any long enough discussion, the probability that someone will say any random string converges to unity from below.
Burnham's corollary:
Anyone who disagrees with this is a fascist fundamentalist heathen.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 16, 2007 2:44 PM
If comparing someone who has dedicated his life to educating the next generation, and who consistently stands up for equality and justice, to the inventor of the term "feminazi" doesn't count as odious and offensive, I suspect I'd be truly appalled to see what you *do* consider "ill will". Very nice, your frame-up job there.
FWIW, PZ, Mr. Raven has also spent years in radio, and unlike some people, would never dream of comparing you to Limbaugh. Rachel Maddow, maybe... :)
Posted by: RavenT, Adjutant Minion | July 16, 2007 2:57 PM
She talks about converting people. Atheists aren't in the conversion business. We're in the anti-stupidity business.
We mock and sneer and get angry because religion, unlike science, is pure kookiness.
If someone doesn't like being mocked or called an idiot, they can do something about it: stop believing in a bunch of nonsense.
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 16, 2007 3:02 PM
Well, now my traffic is spiking. What's next, my own Wikipedia article?
;-)
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 16, 2007 3:09 PM
Sheril,
I generally lean towards your viewpoint (don't attack religion unnecessarily so as to avoid alienating religious people) as compared to that of PZ/Dawkins, et al, but this comment of yours really jumped out at me: "I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally."
Tolerate other beliefs? Well, yes, I can go along with that to some extent. But there are beliefs out there which most emphatically do NOT deserve respect. Others on here have pointed out a few already: alien abductions, creationism, belief in fairies.
Bottom line: I don't think there's any reason to universally *respect* other people's beliefs, or to grant other beliefs respect a priori. Respect must be *earned*.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 16, 2007 3:10 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 16, 2007 3:13 PM
Also, what Adrienne said.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 16, 2007 3:18 PM
Where to draw that line of tolerance? Should we merely discuss merits of positions* with NAMBLA?
*really, pun not intended. I feel dirty just typing the acronym.
Posted by: Bob | July 16, 2007 3:18 PM
You have a problem with the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes?
Posted by: tsg | July 16, 2007 3:24 PM
I should also say that I absolutely believe are limits on tolerance as well. But IMO, the "tolerance" bin is much larger than the "respect" bin.
Posted by: Adrienne | July 16, 2007 3:26 PM
"I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally."
Well i think the vast majority of atheists are tolerant of other people's beliefs. We aren't persecuting people, burning churches or anything like that. I've never heard of anything like that happening.
But respect? Just any time a person has a belief we're supposed to think it's worthy of esteem? Regardless of harm it may be doing or just the sheer insanity of it? This very concept of respecting someone's belief just because it's a belief is...totally beyond my comprehension.
Posted by: Brian W. | July 16, 2007 3:26 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 16, 2007 3:32 PM
"But respect? Just any time a person has a belief we're supposed to think it's worthy of esteem? Regardless of harm it may be doing or just the sheer insanity of it? This very concept of respecting someone's belief just because it's a belief is...totally beyond my comprehension."
Agreed.
phat
Posted by: phat | July 16, 2007 3:32 PM
I want to add to Adrienne's comment:
What about the innate superiority of men and whites? Children as sexual partners?
These are beliefs that I suspect the majority here would agree do not deserve respect. Should we call someone a fundamentalist if they stand up against sexism?
Or have we all tacitly agreed that sexists and racists are 'wrong', but the jury's still out on the existence of [your
mythologydeity(ies) here].Posted by: Brownian | July 16, 2007 3:34 PM
I tend to become apoplectic when someone insists that we "respect all beliefs," so I'm glad calmer posters beat me to the punch at responding to that.
Beliefs are like opinions and blogs: they're ubiquitous, and 90% are poorly though-out garbage.
I thought I was gonna have to whip out the ol' Mencken "respect the other fellow's religion" quote, for a second, there.
Posted by: Fox1 | July 16, 2007 3:36 PM
Damn, my point was made a few times while I was trying to figure out the strikeout tag.
Also, please do not criticise my replacement of a question mark with a period at the end of my previous comment.
It's a religious belief, not a typo.
Posted by: Brownian | July 16, 2007 3:43 PM
his inflammatory remarks keep us all reading
Granted I've only been reading a few months, but I seem to be completly missing the inflammatory remarks part of the posts. Do I need to exfoliate?
Posted by: EnoNomi | July 16, 2007 3:48 PM
Sheril (#6): I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally.
Sheril, I'm with 'ya on tolerance, because we don't have a choice, do we? PZ has said the same thing, basically. But I doubt you're being honest with the bit about universal respect of other beliefs. I suspect that like most people, you have a sliding scale of respect that puts believers in fairies, Thor, and the Emperor Xenu at one end, and believers in (insert religion of choice, probably the one you were raised in) at the other.
As a skeptic/athiest I have no sliding scale of respect that says one wacky belief is better than another. To me, the buttoned-down preacher in the local Presbyterian church is spouting essentially the same pointless drivel as someone who thinks the Emperor Xenu imprisoned captured souls in volcanoes. I may have to tolerate the god-botherers and woo-believers as fellow residents on the planet, but none have earned my respect, or ever will, as long as they're trapped in those irrational belief systems.
Posted by: foldedpath | July 16, 2007 3:56 PM
It's like the problem of fundamentalist anti-pentists, who insist intransigently that 2+2=4 and not 5. Clearly they are just as much of a problem as the fundamentalist pentists, who insist that 2+2 =5 (because the Book of Samwise says Jeroboam had two daughters, the Book of Hamfast says he had two sons, and the Book of Gamgee says he had five children).
Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 16, 2007 3:59 PM
Hey, relax, she's hot! I say we give her a free pass.
j/k -- was just trying to tie in yet another scienceblogs controversy.
Posted by: Michael | July 16, 2007 4:08 PM
really pointless stuff, all-in-all
The only reason there seems to be a 'science/religion' conflict at all is because of the false legitimacy for biblical literalism that fundamentalist Christianity attempts to earn through scientific mimicry. Otherwise, religion is of very little concern to science, except maybe as the subject of studies into patterns of human behavior.
What seems most outrageous to me is not that creationists mimic us, we should be flattered after all, that they wanted to be like us rather than like some sort of Borneoan shaman decorated with nose piercings derived from marsupial ribs and wearing a head dress derived from long extinct fowl.
What bothers is they just that they do such a poor, awful job of pretending to be like us, that they end up completely distorting our own life work.
But every once in a while, there is some real comic relief. Like the guy who hypothesizes that humans and animals once copulated and centaurs were products of such unions. In terms of getting archeological proof for this compelling theory, they believe they are making excellent progress to the point where they may stand on the precipice of a major discovery:
Alexander Guryev says that researchers have no whole centaur skeletons but lots of upper and lower parts of centaurs skeletons.
Clearly, with luck like that in finding skeletons, its only a matter of time.
Posted by: Blader | July 16, 2007 4:10 PM
This is a bit off topic,PZ but I thought you would like to see this video.
It is congressman Keith Ellison, speaking to "Atheists for Human Rights"
And I agree with him, he has got Bush - Chaney nailed down, this guy is smart.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=031_1184599788&p=1
Posted by: The Physicist | July 16, 2007 4:12 PM
This Sheril person writes for a science blog?
No shit?
Uh...ok.
Posted by: ice weasel | July 16, 2007 4:18 PM
H.Humbert -- could I just point out that many people live in a large country full of people who are, in many respects, hostile to science and due to that hostility, unwilling to learn anything about science. These people vote. Their votes put in office the people who control the funding and the laws which control your life. They also affect much of the rest of the world, through things like foreign policy and responses to climate change.
There is a very real real-world need for science to "win converts", as unpleasant a taste as that might leave in your mouth.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 16, 2007 4:18 PM
Given that Sheril compared PZ to Limbaugh, presumably we should call them "feminazis".
Posted by: Tulse | July 16, 2007 4:20 PM
Luna, all past conquests in the war for science's independence from religious interference were won by people who FOUGHT, not people who rolled over and begged the religious bigots not to hurt them.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 16, 2007 4:23 PM
Rush Limbaugh.....I was in Wichita, Kansas on business years ago, and he was speaking right down the street. I didn't bother to go, though. I'd forgotten to pack my harpoon.
Posted by: Coragyps | July 16, 2007 4:33 PM
i have nothing useful to say, i just want to N+1 on the "tolerance may be universal, but respect has to be earned" theme. and on the "all ridiculous beliefs are essentially equally ridiculous, regardless of popularity" notion, while i'm at it.
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 16, 2007 4:42 PM
Science and religion DO go together!
Science's "interaction" with religion is similar to penecillin's "interaction" with bacteria. It kills the weak - and - given enough - kills off the strong, too. Of course religion adopts and (dare I say?!) evolves by coming up with new strategies to survive in the face of knowledge. But fundamentally, the end-game is that religion will have nothing to offer that survives empirical observation (or more likely lack of empirical evidence) except for some vague woo-woo feeling of "connectedness"
Religion and science? Yeah... Bambi VS Godzilla. Once you take away the faithful's ability to violently suppress doubt you're left with whining retards going "NO! *whine* WE'RE REALLY NOT STUPID!!! REALLY. We're just ACTING ignorant and superstitious because it's a tradition and it makes us feel comfortable."
All this crap about science and religion being compatible is ridiculous - science will eventually destroy religion. It's inevitable.
mjr.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 16, 2007 4:47 PM
Teh stupid!!11!!! It BURNS us, precious!!
Posted by: Tlazolteotl | July 16, 2007 4:49 PM
I'm basically an outsider here and have never posted before. I'm a teacher and parent interested in promoting good science education and occasionally check in. I have the impression that many of the posters on this blog believe that one cannot truly believe or understand science concepts and processes if he or she were to harbor any spiritual or religous beliefs. However there are respected scientists who do have spiritual beliefs. So perhaps strictly adhering to the basic idea that a scientist cannot also be spirutual or religious is fundamentalism (i.e. fundamentalism as defined by a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles in spite of evidence to the contrary)?
Posted by: KD | July 16, 2007 4:51 PM
KD wrote:
"(i.e. fundamentalism as defined by a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles in spite of evidence to the contrary)"
So maybe here is the problem with labeling some atheists as fundamentalists. The 1st part of the definition I think could be used to describe many if not all atheists: "a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles". The problem comes with the second part: "in spite of evidence to the contrary".
What is the evidence for theism?
Posted by: Mark F | July 16, 2007 5:07 PM
Steve LaBonne -- you missed my point entirely. Seriously, how do you draw that from what I wrote?
H.Humbert in #5 wrote, "I feel[sic] to see how ignorant people's decision to remain ignorant is scientists' problem." I responded directly to that. Do you see anything in what I wrote about "rolling over and begging them not to hurt us"? You made one hell of an assumptive leap, I think.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | July 16, 2007 5:10 PM
KD: I've rarely, if at all heard anyone here express the opinion that religious people can't be good scientists- but perhaps it does make it more unlikely!
Here's an analogy: Smoking doesn't absolutely preclude someone from being a competitive sportsperson, but it does make it more unlikely. Also- however good that person is at cycling/running/jumping etc., that person would be even better without the cigs.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 16, 2007 5:10 PM
KD, if fundamentalism is "strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles in spite of evidence to the contrary", then it is not atheists who are "fundamentalists", it is the "respected scientists" who have "spiritual beliefs".
That is, unless they have actual evidence for those "spiritual beliefs" which they have not shared with us.
A scientist is only respected as a scientist by his/her scientific ideas, vision and abilities. "Spiritual beliefs" on the part of a scientist does not win that scientist the sligtest bit of scientific respect.
Posted by: daedalus2u | July 16, 2007 5:15 PM
The problem is, this isn't evidence for anything other than the fact that even "respected scientists" are inconsistent in how they treat ideas. Or does one of these scientists have some really good evidence for their particular deity hidden somewhere?
It's not you can't both use the scientific method and have faith, you just can't do both with any given idea. And I think the record of history speaks pretty clearly as to which way of dealing with ideas has been most effective.
Posted by: Lunacrous | July 16, 2007 5:17 PM
"You cannot get a productive discussion if one side hides their point of view."
I think that the word dicusiion is ill placed here; it seems that you only like to argue;-) So does Rush. Megalomaniacal,nonsensical, patriarchal blather from two different sides of the spectrum( well, you make sense sometimes).
Posted by: JJ Ross | July 16, 2007 5:18 PM
"I have the impression that many of the posters on this blog believe that one cannot truly believe or understand science concepts and processes if he or she were to harbor any spiritual or religous beliefs."
I can't presume to answer for everyone, but I suspect the feeling held by most posters here is that spiritual/religious beliefs are non-scientific and lack a basis in evidence.
It's up to the individual to reconcile whether or not he or she can hold religious beliefs as a scientist. What we will not allow is for people to play at science to justify their religious beliefs, nor will we allow religious beliefs a special exemption from the criticism that all other ideas are subject to.
Posted by: Brownian | July 16, 2007 5:19 PM
What's to discuss? Their arguments are often logically invalid and suffer from being extensively contradicted by what evidence is available, they have the same problems as all positions based on wishful thinking, and virtually none of their opponents even bother to notice any of this since they're too preoccupied with their "EWWW YOU FUCKING PERVERTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111!!!!!!!" knee-jerk responses (which, while understandable, does not constitute a rational counter-argument, and there is no reason to deploy an emotional, subjective--and thus weak--response when a strong objective rebuttal is available).
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 16, 2007 5:23 PM
"Megalomaniacal,nonsensical, patriarchal blather"
Please give examples of the above, JJ, lest you sound like Rush himself (or even worse, O'Reilly.)
Posted by: Brownian | July 16, 2007 5:24 PM
So perhaps strictly adhering to the basic idea that a scientist cannot also be spirutual or religious is fundamentalism (i.e. fundamentalism as defined by a strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles in spite of evidence to the contrary)?
There is no "fundamentalism" in the abstract - there is only "fundamentalism" of some brand: Christian fundamentalism, Muslim fundamentalism, etc. The strictest use of the word should limit it to Protestant Christianity; more loosely it can be applied to any religion. Applying it to any non-religious belief system requires a great deal of loosening of the concept as it is normally used.
Now, given all that, what exactly is the "fundamentalism" you are trying to describe here? What is the belief system about which a person could be "fundamentalist" in the way you describe? It's not atheism, because atheism isn't a belief system and doesn't include what you describe as a "basic idea or principle." If what you say is to make any sense, there must be some specific belief system, ideology, or religion which includes what you describe.
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 5:40 PM
Luna said:
Eh, I'm of the opinion that any devil's bargain made with those kinds of people won't be worth it. History has shown, when push comes to shove, people by and large will always abandon superstition for proven science. Those who pray for health will still take the vaccination and medical treatment, those who pray for good crops will still use latest farming technology, and those who decry the unbiblical state of public education will still whine when their children fail to get into prestigious colleges. For all their bitching, the religious still want what modern science has to offer.
So there really is no need to win "converts." Results speak for themselves. Science works and religion doesn't. The god botherers just want scientists to bend over backwards and hand the goodies to them on their terms. Ignore them. They don't get to set the terms. If more people had the spine to stand up to them, you would see them cave.
Posted by: H. Humbert | July 16, 2007 5:44 PM
Not really. I think it would be fairer to say that religious and spiritual beliefs are not addressed by science and are irrelevant to the practice of science. Until said beliefs start to corrupt the scientific process and lead one astray from solid scientific principles in order to bolster ones faith.
Right. Which, I believe, we all recognize.
Can you name, names? And, BTW, fundamentalism is, frankly, much more specific than people like to acknowledge as they tend to misuse the term. Fundamentalism is a paring back of religious belief and practice to "fundamentals." That fundamentalists are, frequently rigid and intolerant, doesn't make rigid and intolerant atheists into fundamentalists. Until there is a built up dogma of interpretations, practices, exceptions and what not in the "Church of Atheism," there's nothing to reject and get back to "fundamentals."
Posted by: Moses | July 16, 2007 5:49 PM
That fundamentalists are, frequently rigid and intolerant, doesn't make rigid and intolerant atheists into fundamentalists.
It should be added here that while fundamentalism may be a matter of being "rigid and intolerant" in matters of religious doctrine, it doesn't automatically translate into being "rigid and intolerant" in all other matters. A fundamentalism may thus be rigid and intolerant in that they rigidly adhere to traditional liturgy and are intolerant of any new additions or interpretations. This does not mean, however, that they are rigid in how they behave in non-religious contexts or are intolerant of adherents of other religions.
This is part of why the "fundamentalist atheist" label can be such a slander against real fundamentalists: it assumes that being a fundamentalist means being a class-A jerk who is generally intolerant and inflexible. Many fundamentalists are. Then again, many non-fundamentalists are as well. These aren't "traits of fundamentalism," but generally human traits and it's unethical to pretend that they are somehow inherent "in that group over there."
Posted by: Austin Cline | July 16, 2007 6:02 PM
The problem with religion, or any claim of supernatural forces are these: God(s) must break Newton's Laws and Joule's Laws of Thermodynamics to act within our universe (unless people are constantly being used as deus ex machina which blows the whole free will thing, and he(she, they) does so without leaving any evidence; none other than ANECDOTAL evidence and we all know how reliable that is.
Posted by: Jsn | July 16, 2007 6:04 PM
Sheril's original blog post was so fluffy it actually lifted my monitor off the desk, hovered around for about 30 seconds and drifted casually down the hall. I'm off to retrieve my monitor now. Thanks Sheril.
Posted by: GeorgeBurnsGod | July 16, 2007 6:08 PM
It is PZ's opinion that religion is kooky.
Respect it.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | July 16, 2007 6:26 PM
KD, yes that is true. Science uses methodological naturalism which only addresses what can be seen or measured. The supernatural is explicitly beyond its subject of investigation. So science and religion are separate areas. Up until recently, most scientists were also religious, Newton, Maxwell, and the whole gang. Many still are.
However, expecting rabid atheists to agree with the common viewpoint is as hopeless as getting fundamentalists to agree that the ancient Jews did not keep dinosaurs as pets.
The point was settled in the recent Kitzmiller versus Dover case in Pennsylvania. Your time would be better spent on more neutral ground.
Posted by: raven | July 16, 2007 6:53 PM
I am a fundamentalist when it comes to elves. I absolutely will not believe in them no matter what arguments you have or what you say. I daresay evidence in the form of an elf would be undeniable, but since everybody knows elves don't exist providing one is impossible. So not only will I *NEVER* believe what you say, I have impossible evidentiary requirements.
Posted by: Tatarize | July 16, 2007 6:59 PM
I have to add that believing that science is incompatible with religion and being religious is, if anything, even more stupid. If everyone believed that we would still be sitting around fires, making stone tools, watching half our kids die before 1, and dying ourselves at 40.
There is no record of cars, computers, space vehicles, microwave ovens, and modern medicine being created in the first 6 days of genesis for a good reason. These are the results of science, not prayer.
Posted by: raven | July 16, 2007 7:01 PM
By its refusal to provide evidence to the contrary whatsoever, we can conclude it is in fact the universe's opinion that religion is kooky.
Posted by: Brownian | July 16, 2007 7:07 PM
Science concerns itself with reality. If "religious and spiritual beliefs" aren't addressed by science, then they're not part of reality.
Science is a systematic form of honesty. You can't practice honesty and dishonesty together, and practicing dishonesty at all corrupts the capacity for honest thought. Faith in a form of dishonesty, in that you try to convince yourself of the truth of statements that you know have no justification. Science and faith just aren't compatible; you cannot possess a rational and logical worldview and accept a theistic doctrine.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 16, 2007 7:37 PM
caledonian ,
delusion != dishonesty
Posted by: T_U_T | July 16, 2007 7:48 PM
PZ, just out of curiosity what is your definition of fundamentalism? I know the dictionary definition does your vary from that?
Posted by: The Physicist | July 16, 2007 7:51 PM
Recognizing that it's a delusion, and accepting it anyway, is dishonesty.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 16, 2007 7:53 PM
It should also be pointed out that Raven's nonsense about science and religion being "separate areas" is a rather recent invention. Originally, most theists presumed that god's fingerprints would be all over his creation, and science was a legitimate way of uncovering the mind of the Grand Architect.
It was only after centuries of disappointment and failed prognostications that the religious cried: "Stop. We've had enough" and moved the goalposts to their current location. Now their religion is indistinguishable from a fiction. Safe from science's grasp, yes, but also now quite impotent and useless.
Ah, the lengths the religious will go to avoid surrendering their delusions.
Posted by: H. Humbert | July 16, 2007 7:55 PM
the deluded don't know that they are deluded...
Posted by: T_U_T | July 16, 2007 7:59 PM
To further agree with Caledonian's statement above:
From a blog post I wrote earlier today, that is quite relevant here but entirely by accident: Science is about the real world.
Posted by: Ithika | July 16, 2007 8:01 PM
i said this over on the intersection and on my blog as well.
i wish i could remember who first said this, but saying that atheism is a religion is like saying "off" is a tv channel.
Posted by: skippy | July 16, 2007 8:09 PM
"I mainly advocate tolerance and respect for others beliefs universally."
Others have already been here, but how about we go a bit further.
Are you advocating that we ought to tolerate the belief that those who disagree with a set of religious opinions (feel free to pick any at random, it doesn't matter which) should be killed? Wiped off the face of the Earth? Or yet better: tortured for all eternity?
Because the latter opinion is a nonnegotiable item of doctrine for most of the Christian denominations that have ever existed, including those which exist today AND those which have the largest numbers of adherents in our own country. The whole point of their religion is to avoid being tortured for all eternity.
Do you respect this belief? Do you advocate that others do so?
Posted by: Samnell | July 16, 2007 8:31 PM
Interesting- after spending an afternoon wading through blog after blog filled with strident demands that theists should just "deal" with being called "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed," I come back to this blog that to find all sorts of atheists getting all thin-skinned over the word "fundamentalist" and a passing reference to Stern/Limbaugh.
Funny that.
Posted by: uriel | July 16, 2007 8:33 PM
skippy (#65), my favorite line is 'not collecting stamps is a hobby'.
Posted by: rmp | July 16, 2007 8:34 PM
It's that truth thing again. "Fundamentalist" is a word with a specific meaning that cannot apply to atheists (at least, not until we have a dogma encoded somewhere). You'll also notice that many people are suggesting alternative labels that aren't entirely pleasant, like "militant" and "angry" and "uppity" and "outspoken", so this is not a matter of taking simple offense at a pejorative term.
But of course, to a relativist, none of that matters. You can freely compare anything to anything else, and it's all just as relevant, and all just as meaningless.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 16, 2007 8:45 PM
There are no fundamental doctrines for atheists to become fundamentalist about.
"I lack a belief in gods."
"Oh, yeah? Well, I lack a belief in gods even more than you do!"
"Well, my lack of belief in gods is purer and more refined than your lack of belief in gods! So there!"
Posted by: Caledonian | July 16, 2007 8:54 PM
Brownian #57, the universe doesn't have opinions. (And it hates it when you anthropomorphosise.)
Posted by: Zarquon | July 16, 2007 8:59 PM
Stephen Jay Gould was a pioneer in injecting the term "fundamentalist" into intra-science debates, coining "Darwinian fundamentalism" to describe Dawkins and Dennett.
Posted by: Colugo | July 16, 2007 9:12 PM
Sheril, how about reading this, which brings up some of the same issues, and also gives lie to your classification of fundamentalism in atheists:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=25A5DA8D-E7F2-99DF-32F53BCD97024B43
Just ran across is today when I bought the magazine and thankfully you can read it online too. And just to be absolutely clear, I don't like people using the term *respect* when talking about beliefs. You can respect people, you can respect actions, you can't **respect** the intangible, you can only tolerate, ignore or appose it. I respect a lot of religious people, I tolerate their less absurd and dangerous emissions, but I can neither respect their views, which assumes acceptance of some of their value judgments about their positions, nor can I simply tolerate those beliefs, when they are perceptibly dangerous.
In that much I actually disagree with the sentiments of Dawkins and Krauss in the article above, as started at the end of the article. But otherwise, our positions are identical. Including with regard to the silly concept that PalMD brings up in this thread early on about believing silly shit being "hardwired" into us.
Needless to say, this is why **they** write books and the like on the subject, while I don't, since I doubt I could have said the same things that they did without putting my foot in my mouth up to the knee at some point out of shear frustration.
Had the funny thought today of rewriting the lords prayer (I think its called) with secular concepts, starting with, "Give me the serenity of Dawkins that I may...". lol
Posted by: Kagehi | July 16, 2007 9:30 PM
What about the Code of the Brethren, set down by the Atheists Morgan and Bartholomew?
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 16, 2007 9:30 PM
That's pirates, not atheists.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 16, 2007 9:40 PM
I'm an atheist and a reductionist and I could consider my views "fundamentalist" in that I believe that the "fundamental laws of the universe" are the ones that form the basis of our existence. The holy text I follow is the one being written (and edited) daily by scientists.
Posted by: Mark | July 16, 2007 9:51 PM
"I have the impression that many of the posters on this blog believe that one cannot truly believe or understand science concepts and processes if he or she were to harbor any spiritual or religous beliefs."
Yeah.. That pretty much hits the nail on the head. How can you call yourself a "scientist" and be willing to accept such a huge and important notion as a diety based on a complete absence of evidence? (Indeed, much evidence contra-indicates the existence of a diety) You can't be a scientist if you attempt an experiment and conclude that "gravity works because little tooth fairies move atoms around in accordance with god's plan" - accepting phlogistic explanations for measurable phenomena is exactly the opposite of what a scientist does.
In short, people of faith who claim to be scientific are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to convince themselves they are rational and well-educated in spite of the fact that they are possessed of beliefs that exactly contradict both education and rationality.
Rational, or faithful: pick ONE.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 16, 2007 9:58 PM
Careful Mark, that is so quote mineable that I am surprised it didn't just jump across the net to some right wing site as you wrote it and even before hitting "post". Its exactly the sort of BS crap they accuse of us *literally* doing, not just figuratively for poetic reasons.
Posted by: Kagehi | July 16, 2007 9:58 PM
Excellent response PZ very well stated on fundamentalism.
But this leads us to one problem and the last thing I will ask about it, just trying to learn.
You said: It's that truth thing again.
My question now is, what is truth? who defines it. Is it you me or the relativists? If there is a truth by what measure is it measured? And who decides the measuring thereof.
And I would like ta ask the rest of the commenters here, is there really a truth? and if so whose in charge of it?
Posted by: The Physicist | July 16, 2007 10:30 PM
Loaded question! Presumes there is an personifiable entity in charge of truth.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 16, 2007 10:39 PM
Kagehi: The Serenity Prayer
God, grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The Courage to change the things I can,
And the Wisdom to know the difference.
A secular version would be convenient, but not strictly necessary. Just drop the leading "God" and it becomes a handy-dandy reminder to ones self.
The cutting-edge version has something to do with Summer Glau.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 16, 2007 10:48 PM
"Rational, or faithful: pick ONE."
Many people have lived productive lives and made valuable contributions to various scientific fields while developing their spiritual lives. I don't think anyone can really know "the truth," but I find it interesting and inspiring to try. If you don't find it helpful to think about spirtituality, then don't. But it is false to claim that people can either be rational or faithful. There are too many examples of individuals who have done both.
Posted by: KD | July 16, 2007 10:50 PM
Cal, I read Physicist's question to mean "Who is in charge of determining what the truth is?" I could be mistaken, but it's not quite so loaded that way.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 16, 2007 10:50 PM