Pharyngula

He's mostly right. However, even if religion was "just a belief" that didn't want to impose itself on the actions of every human on the planet it still would not be deserving of respect. I am not required to respect the beliefs of a man who reckons he can talk to teddy bears, or a woman who believes there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter, so why should I be expected to respect the beliefs of the man who claims he has a personal relationship with an invisible, immortal, mindreading wizard who created the universe?

Posted by: Willo the Wisp | August 9, 2007 1:37 PM

I've always said, I respect others' right to hold beliefs, but nothing says I have to respect the beliefs others hold.

Posted by: Randy | August 9, 2007 1:46 PM

Pure Gold!

Posted by: waldteufel | August 9, 2007 1:59 PM

What's that quote about respecting religion in the same vein as telling your neighbor his wife is pretty and his children are smart?

Posted by: wÓÒ† | August 9, 2007 2:04 PM

That was awesome. I particularly like the line:

"Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule."

Posted by: hyperdeath | August 9, 2007 2:34 PM

I have been following PatCondell for a while and as my kids say, "he's the bomb". Check out the rest of his monologs on YouTube.

Posted by: jufulu, FCD | August 9, 2007 2:48 PM

The bit from about 3:40 to 3:25 on the countdown to the end timer dealing with faith by definition being unexamined. "It has to be among the shallowest of experiences."

Happy happy. Shame that logic will not do anything to anyone already clad in the shiny armor of faith.

Posted by: Sean | August 9, 2007 2:59 PM

He's terrific... and his "About Me" webpage says he's a Scorpio. (Now I wonder why he needed to tell us that?)

For what it's worth, I'm a Scorpio too. It is meaningless, except that we have another thing in common besides our atheism. That and he's also a fan of (Minnesotan) Bob Dylan! Oh and I'm also 70% water and live on the planet Earth.

Posted by: Sonja | August 9, 2007 3:48 PM

I hadn't heard of him before, but found his style to be rather amusing in a wordy sort of way. His response to the Blasphemy Challenge is particularly hilarious.

Posted by: Sampo Rassi | August 9, 2007 3:57 PM

I liked the bit about how people shouldn't believe you're a chicken until they see a few eggs.

Posted by: Lana | August 9, 2007 4:08 PM

Wow.
Well said.
You get my respect.

Posted by: Lilith | August 9, 2007 4:52 PM

"Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule."

I'm a little uncomfortable with this. There are plenty of people who have been afforded little or no respect by society who have had to demand it. The mentally ill. Oppressed minorities. Etc.

I may be using the word respect too broadly perhaps.

Posted by: craig | August 9, 2007 5:11 PM

I agree. This guy is great. I have had his video on my site for a couple weeks.

How can you argue with his positions? It is definitely time we stopped respecting faith!

Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/

Posted by: Richard | August 9, 2007 5:28 PM

In this video, Pat Condell says:

"The truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It's an act of will. It's not a state of grace, it's a state of choice."

That sounds a lot like what anti-gay Christians say about gays. Me no likey.

How does Pat Condell know this? If you like evidence so much, show me the evidence for that one, Pat. Who died and left you the owner's manual on the human mind?

Posted by: cm | August 9, 2007 5:37 PM

cm

You got it the wrong way round.

There is already fMRI evidence that faith, etc., are functionally equivalent to simple 'acts of will'. The 'faith' driven actions/behaviours are physically identical to 'choice' driven actions/behaviors.

If the religionistas want us to *believe* there is a difference... then it is incumbent on *them* to demonstrate the difference.

Pat is basing his statements on evidentiary science (AFAICS). On what do you base your statements?

Posted by: tony | August 9, 2007 5:48 PM

There is already fMRI evidence that faith, etc., are functionally equivalent to simple 'acts of will'. The 'faith' driven actions/behaviours are physically identical to 'choice' driven actions/behaviors.

Is this published fMRI evidence? If so, could you point me to the reference? Because I cannot evaluate it carefully based on how you described it.

If the religionistas want us to *believe* there is a difference... then it is incumbent on *them* to demonstrate the difference.

At very least, Condell's claim is contrary to common intuitions about belief in general. Our common intuition is that one does not choose to belief proposition x, one simply believes it or not depending on how proposition x hits his cognitive apparatus. For example, I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. I did not choose, or exert my will, in believing this. When I was young, I believed that God might protect my cat if I prayed hard enough. I also did not choose to believe this, I simply believed it. I am not claiming common intuition is always right--it often isn't--but Condell's claim is contrary enough that he ought to back it up.

Pat is basing his statements on evidentiary science (AFAICS). On what do you base your statements?

I base my statements on my ignorance of any evidence to convince me that belief of any sort is an act of will.

Posted by: cm | August 9, 2007 6:15 PM

Respect, maybe not. But how about some civility and perhaps sympathy? We are all human, after all, and each of us comes pre-installed with a basic package of irrationality. And given the sh** world we live in, it's no wonder people turn to crutches like religion.

Haranguing people with religious beliefs is like yelling at the depressed: "There's nothing to be so unhappy about! Plenty of people have it worse than you. Your feelings are ruining your life -- quit being such an idiot!!" It may feel good, but it's not going to accomplish anything.

Posted by: George | August 9, 2007 6:31 PM

I make a distinction among the following:

1. individuals and groups who try to impose their particular faiths on others by insinuating themselves into government and manipulating public policies

2. individuals who try to convert me

3. believers who do not fit into either of the above categories.

Re the first group: Believers who insert themselves into the political process and use their influence to impose a particular set of religious beliefs do not deserve any special respect for those beliefs. And, more and more during the past couple of years, I have come to the conclusion that we non-believers have a duty to confront these individuals and groups.

Re the second group: the first time somebody tries to convert me, I politely request that the person stop. If the person does stop, end of discussion. The second time that same person tries, I give a warning: keep this up and I'm going to tell you exactly what I think of your faith. So far, nobody has gotten past #2 - but if it happened a third time, I would feel totally free to attack that person's faith.

Re the third group - and an explanation of why category 2 exists for me. For obvious reasons, most of my friends are also non-believers. But during the past several years, I have become friends with a few individuals who are deeply, but quietly, religious. They don't speak often of their faith, and I usually discover that they are, indeed, religious when something difficult or bad happens in their lives or the lives of mutual friends. I don't pretend to understand why their faith sustains them, but I see no reason to attack them simply because they find comfort in something I do not understand.

It is, I think, absurd for atheists to deny the special place that faith holds in the lives of many. I wouldn't knowingly hurt a friend by criticizing a spouse, lover, or child. Or by pointing out some physical flaw. So why should I risk hurting that same friend by criticizing a faith whose existence in that person in no way affects me personally?

Posted by: LC | August 9, 2007 7:09 PM

to clarify a bit: if we say that beliefs should only be held if evidence supports them, then we cannot believe anything subjective like morality. if we say that beliefs may be held until evidence contradicts them, then we cannot criticize beliefs for which evidence will never be available (i.e. that god exists).

Posted by: le_sacre | August 9, 2007 7:15 PM

le sacre: If you a priori reject reference to the consequences of actions or general principles that guide them, then yes, you're going to have a hard time assembling a coherent and defensible set of moral beliefs. This is because morality in all its forms represents, at the simplest level, an attempt to determine which set of actions or attitudes are most conducive to the happiness of those performing or holding them, which cannot rationally be evaluated without consideration of the consequences of actions. However, the cause and effect relationship between certain courses of action and an increase or decrease in happiness can, supported by entirely reasonable inferences, be both observed and predicted with a fair degree of success on the basis of pattern-recognition and cause-and-effect reasoning, and is in this sense objective, so I'm not sure what the objection is.

Stephen: You are mistaken; both case 2 and case 3 are indefensible logically. This is because logical propositions, until proven true (and empirical propositions, until supported by a convincing weight of evidence), default to "false" not to "50/50."

Posted by: Azkyroth | August 9, 2007 7:33 PM

Azkyroth,

i like this. however, favoring consequentialist justifications of belief without objective evidence, how are we then to reject notions of god(s) that are objectively linked to certain "good" outcomes, such as the happiness that people report religion brings them (possibly health benefits too)? see, this is my concern.

if we have to resort to common sense in order to separate religious and humanist beliefs (by humanist here i mean believing things like "it's wrong to cause suffering unnecessarily"), then that puts on shaky logical ground. but if we depend on objective consequences without an a priori logical backing, then how is that different from religious faith, other than that it *seems to us* more in accordance with common sense?

Posted by: le_sacre | August 9, 2007 7:44 PM

God told me you would say that.

Posted by: Justin Ballzak | August 9, 2007 9:04 PM

People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect. It won't work. It will only have the opposite effect. So I would rather politely disagree, and not disrespect.

I long for the day when people will get the collective Epiphany that their institutional beliefs are no different than the beliefs of the idol worshiping 'savages' we used to chuckle at in nature shows. But nay, I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, if ever.

Posted by: Doug | August 9, 2007 9:39 PM

le_sacre,
If you want the ultimate hard-wired explanation, it would be that since humans are social creatures, we have to rely on altruism. If we don't want ourselves or our offspring killed, we have to agree not to kill others in return. That agreement over time becomes part of the general state. Matt Ridley's "The origins of virtue" is a nifty book on the subject, if a little bit out of date now.
To the question of why we have to be social, there was an interesting article last year in Scientific American that posited that humans require assisted birth as a consequence of becoming bipedal and having big heads. The bipedalism twisted the birth canal so that the mom can't just catch the baby as other primates do (the baby comes out facing backwards, so cradling it would require flexing the spine the wrong way), and having the big brain means there's very little room for error. Apart from all the other benefits of communal living, that is the most directly tied to reproductive success.

Posted by: Carlie | August 9, 2007 9:46 PM

CM: I would like to post citations to the research papers -but not being a scientist have only access to magazine archives, etc., and google... I do recall a number of articles (I think sciam,new scientist, among others)discussing the fMRI experiments (all in the past two or three years).
I can promise you I'm not just pulling this out of my ass - but I'll need to do some digging to find the papers (mags don't tag archives conveniently for searching,and headlines often aren't really related to the context of the article,or provide reference to what may have been a sidebar discussion)
In regards to your challenge, and Pat needing special evidence. It's in that very research.

With regards to the other points made...I think PZ & Azkyroth have them covered.

Faith is indistinguishable from wishes. prayer likewise.

I have no beef with faith (as described by PZ above). I have a huge beef with 'faith in god'.

It's the 'in god' piece that is most challenging.

I could care less what you place faith in - animate or inanimate, real or imaginary... so long as you don't expect me to automatically 'respect' your belief.

I have no problem if you treat me exactly the same way.

Posted by: tony | August 9, 2007 10:21 PM

How does Pat Condell know this? If you like evidence so much, show me the evidence for that one, Pat. Who died and left you the owner's manual on the human mind?

Posted by: cm | August 9, 2007 05:37 PM

L. Ron Hubbard

Posted by: Janine | August 9, 2007 09:44 PM

I saw that one marching up the street. Now that you have written it the eternal prophecy is fulfilled.

Posted by: cm | August 9, 2007 11:56 PM

Doug: I appreciate your view that ridicule-disrespect is counter productive and only provokes people into being even more intractably irrational--but I disagree.

If someone tried to convince you that Peter Pan and Tinkerbelle were real, and that you could fly around the room if only you believed in them, and they kept getting in your face about it and wanted it taught in public schools and inserted into the constitution, and (this is the big one) you saw millions of people actually being converted to their "religion", buildings packed with people praising Peter Pan and trying hard to believe that any day now they will fly around the room just like him, would you be respectful? What tools would you use to counter act such foolishness and stop their numbers from growing?

Ridicule can be taken to a high art that is very effective. And if it is thoroughly honest-truthful scorn, then it will get people's attention. No violence, no destruction of property, just consistently, resolutely trying to point out silliness to people by calling attention to it.

The insistence that the faithful flock of true believers deserves respect, and should be excluded from ridicule, is a testament to religion's continued power to cow us and subjugate our common sense.

Posted by: RamblinDude | August 10, 2007 12:04 AM

"Ridicule... taken to high art" is called satire, and a great body of it exists vis-a-vis religion.
As to the question of when such ridicule is appropriate, I would suggest that the easiest test any atheist could give to determine if such ridicule may be appropriate is the "our dead buddy would have wanted..." test.

This reason is invoked quite often, and I do not know of a single atheist who, at the moment of the suggestion (even allowing for the many alcoholic beverages imbibed by this point), would stand and say, "where is your evidence that [dead buddy] would want that?".
Religion, in the dead buddy test aspect, is a way of coping with tragedy. It neither helps, nor hurts, and calms the minds of those in need of calming.

Outside of the dead buddy scenario, however, I can not imagine an instance of religion ever producing a tangible benefit. Religion is, by my standards, and the standards of many good (as opposed to me) writers and thinkers, open to ridicule. Hopefully, the ridicule is so biting and insightful (think Swift or Orwell), that it reaches the level of satire, but don't be surprised that much of it is puerile and stupid.

A thing being open to ridicule does not in any way imply that all of the ridicule of it is insightful or intelligent.

Posted by: autumn | August 10, 2007 1:43 AM

he has a very specific and rational fear of people who want the whole world to live by Sharia law and who are quite willing to murder those who disagree, and that dismissing this as "Islamophobia" is pointlessly disingenuous.

Oh. You don't say? That'll teach me to judge a book by the cover - In my defence, all the OTHER times I've seen people use the terms "Myth" and "Islamophobia" in the same sentence, it's been a transparent set of apologetics for hating brown people. Still, boy is my face red...

Posted by: Proteus454 | August 10, 2007 2:23 AM

Wow, that's brilliant! Just have to disagree on one point. Religion doesn't bring out the worst in the best of us, because the best of us are already atheists... or athiest as I guess PZ is now.

I'm so jealous of people with cool accents. All the cool atheists have something colonial, why can't I have one, too!??!

Posted by: Timothy | August 10, 2007 3:05 AM

CM: I didn't want to let this drop, without a follow up.

I had a look for the citations, and couldn't find the 'specific' articles. I did find many on 'meditative states' etc...

Sorry. I may have been conflating multiple articles into one, and I accept that the specific articles may not exist. they may, but I cannot find them, so cannot produce the evidence.

There is still (in my opinion - reading all the articles i *could* find last night) a large correlation shown between meditative states, prayer, and wishing... But I cannot find those specific articles, so have no concrete evidence to share with you. I apologise.

I still stand by my earlier statement - it is simply a little less 'directly' supported by available evidence - but definitely 'indirectly' supported.

Posted by: tony | August 10, 2007 9:08 AM

People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect. It won't work. It will only have the opposite effect. So I would rather politely disagree, and not disrespect.

I read this all the time, and it always catched my eye because that is exactly how I WAS deconverted. An asshole college boyfriend who just couldn't shut up his criticism of religious things I believed, even when he knew it upset me. I broke up with him because he was a jerk. But I became an atheist because he was right. Had he "respected" my nonsensical cobbled-together answers to standard atheist questions, I never would have been forced to see how ridiculous my answers all were. And to this day, I'd probably still be trying to make those answers make sense. He was an ass, but he forced me to be honest with myself.

Maybe that's not the norm, but it does happen now and then. And I'm heartily glad that it does.

Posted by: kmarissa | August 10, 2007 9:35 AM

Tony, thanks for looking for the articles. I'd just point out that when you say, "There is still (in my opinion - reading all the articles i *could* find last night) a large correlation shown between meditative states, prayer, and wishing...", keep in mind that this still sounds pretty vague to me. I mean, a correlation in what? Brain area activation?

OK, let's say that's true. But what if love of one's mother, love of one's country, and love of one's girlfriend all "lit up" the same parcel of brain real estate--would you conclude that they were all essentially the same thing? No. But you might conclude they shared some commonalities, like a positive affective component. In the same way, the fact that meditation, prayer, and wishful thinking all "light up" the same brain areas may refer to some common component, like use of imagination, or positive attitude, or future orientation, etc., and it may not be appropriate to then conclude that they are all the same thing. Also, don't be too sure that the studies are a) right, b) conclusive, or c) well-reported in the magazines you read.

I'm not saying it's all flat wrong; just to retain a healthy degree of latitude until better understanding is available (give it about 20 years I'd say). fMRI, as I said, is pretty coarse even with 9 Tesla strength magnets, it can only pick up regional blood flow in the brain which is like measuring economic activity of a country by how bright their cities look at night--tells you something but doesn't give you much understanding of mechanism. We may indeed find out at some point that the "faith software" and "wish software" in the brain is one and the same, but I know any neuroscientist who claimed this at a conference in 2007 would get laughed out of the lecture hall--the data simply isn't in.

Posted by: cm | August 10, 2007 11:23 AM

"I think Sinbad has his MC Hammer pants in a twist."

Good comeback. You must have worked on that for a while.

"And he's already lost his argument.

"Blake's law in the first post."

Godwin's Law doesn't apply because (a) you don't have sufficient authority; (b) there is no subject matter jurisdiction; and (c) I'm not referring to vocal or militant atheists in general as fundamatheists (I've used the term for over five years, though it was coined by an atheist) but rather to a very specific category of atheist.

Way to attack the substance though.

Posted by: Sinbad | August 10, 2007 12:10 PM

"'People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect.'
People who claim this completely miss the point..."

I don't believe they do miss the point, they (and I) just don't agree that the tactic will work. Have you evidence that attacking people's religious choices creates more room for doubt among interested onlookers? It seems completely counter intuitive to me, but if you have something more than anecdotal or analogical to demonstrate this, I'm all eyes.

I understand the spirit of this, and certainly I myself hold no religious belief, but I cannot see how attacking people's belief is a rational tactic. It is simply a false dichotomy: one neither needs to respect nor disrespect someone's belief. Why not simply be uninvested in what others believe?

I disrespect certain actions, and certain comments -- and certainly a great deal of bad public policy. Much of this stems from personal beliefs, but whether it does or not is irrelevant to me. Being a Christian does not predicate such policies, and as long as a person's actions and civic responsibilities meet a reasonable conduct, I don't care if they believe a tart fairy created the world out of a walnut filled with blackberry jam.

You seem to attack a symptom and not a problem in my mind. I seek to convince others to approach the world logically and reasonably. If more people did that, I imagine more will be non-theist. But being a-religious does not imply that one is reasonable. A more constructive approach is suggested by that goal.

More troubling, you are not just pejorative to people of faith, but to those non-theists that refuse to be as abusive as you are toward people of faith. If I choose the middle-road, I am an "accommodationist", worthy of nearly as much contempt in your eyes. I don't understand the utility in that position; you are only sowing greater divide in a minority community.

Though anecdotal, you might consider the following as food for thought: I have been a non-theist for many, many years; I am very well-read, reasonably educated, and give a fair amount of thought to these issues; I've read some of this blog, much of Dawkins and a bit of Hitchens -- despite this, none of you have managed to put together a sufficiently cogent argument that religious belief deserves my contempt and ridicule by default. If you cannot convince me, who will you convince?

It seems more like you are preaching to the choir to me.

Posted by: R. Paul Wiegand | August 10, 2007 1:22 PM

despite this, none of you have managed to put together a sufficiently cogent argument that religious belief deserves my contempt and ridicule by default.

Really? Trying to have creationism taught in schools doesn't deserve contempt and ridicule by default?

Believing that god hates fags, that natural disasters are manifestations of God's wrath, that the bible contains all the truth that God wants us to know, that some old fart in Rome is the earthly conduit between heaven and earth, that this country is not a secular nation but is, instead, rightfully a theocracy, that the rapture is imminent and if God doesn'