…and this is a 
You know, authorities are only as good as their arguments
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: September 20, 2007 9:16 AM, by PZ Myers
Paul Kurtz is an intelligent and interesting fellow who has done commendable work in advancing the cause of skepticism and freethought. He can be rightly considered one of the heroes of the atheist movement, and he's one of the reasons that the sobriquet "New Atheist" grates — Kurtz has been writing this stuff for decades.
Now, suddenly, he's being trumpeted as an advocate of "silencing the New Atheist Noise Machine." This is weird on so many levels.
For one, if he were to announce something like that, I'd be disappointed — Kurtz deserves to be listened to carefully — but ultimately, it wouldn't matter. There is no atheist pope, not Kurtz, not Dawkins, not Harris, and there never will be. If Kurtz were to take that position, it would mean a ponderously strong voice had been wheeled out into the argument, not that the matter was settled.
For another, Chris Hallquist has doubts that Kurtz's position is being accurately reported.
Kurtz has never said, and probably never will say, that the work of these religion critics is “a major self-inflicted wound.” The truth is that Kurtz has dismissed the notion that they are “too outspoken”.
…If you’re going to say the things you’ve said about Dawkins, have the courage to be consistent and take the next logical step of denouncing Paul Kurtz and everything he works for. Indeed, you should be denouncing Kurtz even more strongly than you denounce Dawkins. Dawkins may have put out one book dedicated to attacking religion, but most of his public work has been about explaining science to the general public, but Kurtz’s number one goal has always been the promotion of a philosophy that explicitly rejects God, and he founded a publishing house for this purpose which has published more anti-religious books than Dawkins will ever write. This should be more than enough for you, since you aren’t just picking a bone with Dawkins use of the word “delusion” (which Kurtz agrees with in any case) but have also insisted “The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his [Dawkins] advocacy of evolution and his atheism.” Why aren’t you saying the same thing about Kurtz?
Ophelia Benson isn't exactly enthralled with this line of argument, either. I think we'd all welcome an actual, explicit opinion from Paul Kurtz one way or the other, but I'm afraid the question of how we should engage is not going to be settled by the voice of authority, nor should it be.
Comments
Hmph.
Not that I was expecting better, you understand, but I'm still disappointed.
I still think "Uppity Atheist Noise Machine" would be a great name for a band.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 20, 2007 9:30 AM
Sorry, totally off topic, but it looks like Tiberius and Pontius Pilate may be getting their day in a Kenyan court. Seems Jeebus should have been tried under jewish not roman law. In which case he would have been stoned to death for blasphemy. Think of the cultural implications here: it's hard to imagine Monty Python singing "life's a piece of shit..." under a hail of boulders..
http://allafrica.com/stories/200709030916.html
Posted by: Umilik | September 20, 2007 9:48 AM
PZ,
Once again, a nice sleight of hand distortion. You really are a master at false spin and innuendo.
Just like you endorsed a post by Greg Laden insinuating that Chris Mooney and I were covert creationists, you now direct your readers to a post that claims that I "lie."
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 20, 2007 9:49 AM
Moreover, like Shermer, Wilson, and Kurtz, I strongly believe that when Dawkins et al. attack moderately religious Americans it alienates our natural allies and is a major self-inflicted wound.
The moderately religious are not allies of the atheist crowd.
The moderately religious are as deluded as the fundies.
All religious people need to wake up, smell the coffee, and stop believing in a bunch of fairy tales.
The earth is not flat. God does not exist. People don't fly up to heaven to sitteth somewhere. No amount of pew sitting and mindless chanting is going to make someone's favorite deity pop into extra-mental existence.
A hard line is the only line to take with the billions of kooks who refuse to acknowledge reality.
Wake up!
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 20, 2007 9:50 AM
There's been a lot of talk about speaking against "extremist" religion and seeking compromises with "moderate".
If these are being used in their relative sense, why exactly should we reject a position merely because it differs from the common one, and why should we reject the common one just because it's not rare?
If not in their relative sense, what are the terms being used to hide?
Posted by: Caledonian | September 20, 2007 9:52 AM
Not attacking moderate religious people is as logical as not attacking a moderate case of flesh eating disease.
As Sam Harris points out, the moderate godbots, who are posited to be so open-minded and tolerant, potentiate the fundamentalist by making it "reasonable" and "acceptable" to believe in things in the absence of evidence. Because there is no rhyme or reason to what the moderates believe, there is no rational reason not to take it to its extreme conclusion.
Posted by: oxytocin | September 20, 2007 9:58 AM
Nibet should run for Congress. He'd be a perfect "do nothing" Democrat.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 20, 2007 10:00 AM
CalGeorge,
From a purely psychological perspective, the "hard line" is rarely the most effective behavior-modifying tactic. Just sayin.
Posted by: Mike P | September 20, 2007 10:01 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | September 20, 2007 10:01 AM
i just listened to an interview with him like 2 days ago. I don't remember him saying anything very negative about Dawkins or Harris. To me he seemed to be saying that they should be doing what they were doing, but should do more positive stuff in addition to what they were currently doing. But not instead of it.
You can listen here:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=127
Posted by: Brian W. | September 20, 2007 10:02 AM
I did not endorse the claim that you lie, and even trimmed out some of the rhetorical excess. I direct people to the post because it makes a good point, that Kurtz has long been a strong advocate of outspoken unbelief; I also make the point that appeals to the authority of Kurtz for either side aren't going to settle the issue.
I don't know Kurtz personally and I get the impression that you do. Maybe he has grumbled his discontent with Dawkins to you in private, for all I know, but it wouldn't matter -- neither Kurtz nor Dawkins dictate my opinions.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 20, 2007 10:03 AM
Paul Kurtz was interviewed at the point of inquiry podcast last friday. He had nothing but good things to say about Dawkins, Hitchens and Dennet. His thesis is that we should not focus on attacking religion as a goal but focus on the positive aspects of rationalism.
Personally I think it just happens that rationalism is infinitely more positive than religiosity with any need for framing. Matt: you lost me entirely when you said that we should present science without using the language of science itself. My response, as well as many others was: WTF?
Posted by: Alric | September 20, 2007 10:04 AM
As was said above, in the most recent PoI podcast, Kurtz seems to commend these writers. His problem is that their book are almost totally negative, and you cannot have a world-view that is worth having based on negations. Kurtz is a hyper-optimist, so if he talks of atheism/humanism he wants to show its positive aspects, not just the weaknesses of religion.
It's a very valid point.
Posted by: Gilgamesh | September 20, 2007 10:08 AM
So? The point being missed is that if no one takes the "hard line", if the position we're advocating has no voices, no representatives, and no basis in reality, it's awfully hard to convince anyone that even a nudge in its direction is worthwhile.
This is a situation where we need a plethora of different tactics, and unfortunately we've got people nominally on our side who are more interested in silencing the atheists who openly espouse the values of the secular position than they are in fighting the evangelicals who openly oppose those values.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 20, 2007 10:10 AM
If you always compromise your own position, and conform to your opponents', whose position will end up dominating?
The point of debate isn't to compromise your position, the point of debate is to make the other guy compromise his.
Posted by: Caledonian | September 20, 2007 10:14 AM
I agree with PZ. I think the history of the women's rights and gay rights movements teaches us that we need the "caustic" folks just as much as we need the cool-headed conciliators. People have to be shocked into opening their eyes before anything substantive will take place. Simultaneously, we need people in the trenches promoting science and its metholoogy [i.e., the positive elements].
Posted by: oxytocin | September 20, 2007 10:16 AM
oxytocin, to go further, there is no rational reason to be "moderate" in the first place; if any of these fantasies were true, mere mortals would not seem to have the authority to revise the tenets of their belief system or to revamp its behavioral prescripts in attempt to keep their faith compatible with modern civilized life (which is exactly how these "moderate" flavors came about). If the bible truly is god's word, we better be sitting on our assess on the sabbath and stoning those who don't, or things are going to be rather gruesome for us in the afterlife. Sam Harris sums it up nicely: moderates betray faith and reason equally.
Posted by: J Myers | September 20, 2007 10:19 AM
Those of us who study social movements talk about it in terms of the "radical flank" effect. We "radicals" make the "moderates" more palatable.
I'll draw on my own work and experience in queer movement as an example. I'm a radical and anti-marriage (for a number of reasons that I'm not going into here). My presence also allows for the nice "normal gay people" to say, "See, we're not like the crazies. We don't want to transform society. We just want to be let in." I'm not giving up my radicalism, my attempts to tear down heteronormative practices and institutions and erect other things in their place, but my mere presence is advantageous for those in the middle. Unfortunately, they're often unwilling to accept that we, too, have a role to play (and might even be right), so they'd rather line up with their oppressors.
We out, loud, proud atheists have made a difference. Hitchens talks about people coming up to him and saying "I always felt like the only one." Others of us have heard this as well. It was the same thing when I came out of the closet. Hell, when I lived in Mankato there were people who would not associate with me because I was openly, publicly gay. However, my presence made it easier for them in the long run. I've taken the death threats and abuse. And you know what, screw the bigots, and also screw the folks "on my side" who are telling me to shut up. Ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: MAJeff | September 20, 2007 10:20 AM
Must be why all those religious positions which take a harder line than the 'new' atheists are such dismal failures.
Posted by: MartinM | September 20, 2007 10:22 AM
Calgeorge,
You may want to acknowledge to yourself that you have crossed the line from atheist to antitheist. I notice that you explicitly appeared to be attacking a specifically Christian paradigm in your comment. So, why no mention of the horned Goddess worshipped by pagans, or Allah, Buddha or any of the millions of gods worshipped by the Hindus? Where is your anger towards the synagogues full of faithful Jews, whose record of religious scholarship directly contradicts your most holy book of Darwin?
Or is your ire exclusively reserved for the followers of Jesus? I suppose all the Odin worshippers, the practitioners of Santería and the Rastafarians can breathe easy knowing that the antitheist community will not spotlight them in its' unblinking Sauronic Eye.
I suppose that the Christians draw your fire since you encounter more of them than you do those wascally Wiccans. Let's also not forget that a tenet of the Christian religion disallows them from hitting you back, I rarely see any brave antitheists posting long hysterical screeds against Islam, especially under their real names. Oh, that's right, when you insult Christians they turn the other cheek, when you insult the Prophet the Muslims cut off your head. So clearly the flat-earth Baptist fundies are the bigger threat, to be sure.
The conclusion that will be drawn by the smarter set here is that those people who are religious, no matter what sect, view your gospel of atheism and secular humanism as simply a competing religion, no matter how vociferously you protest to the contrary. So, you will not be able to 'wake up' those people without using methods that are antithetical to your stated moral position of doing no harm.
If atheism brings the sword, how is it any better than the Inquisitionists or jihadists you constantly condemn?
Posted by: Crom | September 20, 2007 10:24 AM
I find myself entirely unmoved by claims that Dawkins and Dennett offer only negative remarks and should parade more "positive aspects" of non-belief. To paraphrase everybody's favorite book of the Bible, there's a time to build up and a time to tear down — and when reason and democracy are imperiled by myth, tearing down will be necessary.
I haven't waded into Hitchens' book yet, because, well, I'm not rich, I have work to do and I don't need to have an opinion on everything right away. (If Deepak Chopra is any indication, I can still review books without having read them, anyway.) I can state, however, that anybody who says that Dawkins has nothing "positive" to offer must have stopped reading midway through.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 20, 2007 10:26 AM
I agree with Hallquist -- reading Kurtz' editorial "Are 'Evangelical Atheists' Too Outspoken?" (which PZ linked to in the article), it appears Nisbet is awfully close to intentionally misrepresenting Kurtz' position, and certainly has little right to count his views as close to his own. Take these excerpts:
What disturbs us is the preposterous outcry that atheists are "evangelical" and that they have gone too far in their criticism of religion.
I have often said that it is as if an "iron curtain" had descended within America, for skeptics have discovered that the critical examination of religion has been virtually verboten. We have experienced firsthand how journalists and producers have killed stories about secular humanism for fear of offending the little old ladies and gentlemen in the suburbs, conservative advertisers, the Catholic hierarchy, or right-wing fundamentalists. [emphasis added]
The war against secularism by the Religious Right is unremitting. Even New York Times columnists are running scared. We note the column by Nicolas Kristof (December 3, 2006) calling for a "truce on religion." He deplores the "often obnoxious atheist offensive" of "secular fundamentalism."
it is important that we apply scientific inquiry as best we can to all areas of human behavior, including religion and ethics. I fail to see why it is "arrogant" to attempt to do so.
We think it appropriate to defend the integrity of science and the importance of secularism at a time when both are under heavy attack.
But why should the nonreligious, nonaffiliated, secular minority in the country remain silent? We dissenters now comprise some 14 to 16 percent of the population. Why should religion be held immune from criticism, and why should the admission that one is a disbeliever be considered so disturbing? The Bush administration has supported faith-based charities--though their efficacy has not been adequately tested; it has prohibited federal funding for stem cell research; it has denied global warming; and it has imposed abstinence programs instead of promoting condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS. Much of this mischief is religiously inspired. How can we remain mute while Islam and the West are poised for a possible protracted world conflagration in the name of God? [emphasis added]
Given all these facts, why should the criticism of religion provoke such an outcry?
These don't sound like the words of someone who is attacking the "New Atheist Noise Machine". And for Nisbet to claim Kurtz as some kind of ally is clearly spin, and damned close to intentional mendacity. (Although this also seems on par with Nisbet's tendency to name-drop alleged allies, like Sagan and Wilson, who may have said some conciliatory things about working with the religious, but whose specific opinions on the "NANM" are unavailable or unknown.)
Posted by: Tulse | September 20, 2007 10:26 AM
This discussion assumes that you can either emphasize the positive aspects of rationalism or appease and respect religion. I don't believe this is true. You can challenge and disprove bunk religious claims like creationism or ID and still emphasize the positivism of rationalism, depending on circumstance.
I think this is closer to what Paul Kurtz argues and far from the framing silliness.
Posted by: Alric | September 20, 2007 10:28 AM
This just seems like such an odd argument. There are two questions not one. First should atheist and moderate religious folks make common cause on some issues? Second, should atheists never side against moderate religious folks?
The answers to these questions don't need to be the same. And let me go further to suggest the best answers are yes to the first questions and no to the second.
Posted by: AgnosticOracle | September 20, 2007 10:29 AM
My point of confusion has always been about the objective of the respective atheist camps.
The way I see it, on the one hand we must address what Chris Mooney describes as the Republican War on Science: Intelligent Design, Global Warming, Stem Cell Research (and the Dems too with Alternative and Complementary Medicines). On the other hand is a broad brush of ridicule and minimization of claims of knowing the unknowable - the undue respect faith and piety over evidence and methodology as espoused by Dawkins, Harris, etc.
Certainly both objectives have many things in common. If evidence and methodology are given due respect, the other wars against science will be won. But the second objective is extremely long term goal, the first objective is a near term goal.
Posted by: Doug | September 20, 2007 10:38 AM
That's not true. Christians bomb people, shoot people, take machetes to them and do all manner of things every bit as bad as the representatives of other religions. It is only some Christians who have been forced to become more civilised in recent centuries, by having to deal with not being the only kids on the block and not simply getting their own way - even against other flavours of Christian. Islam (of the Mohammedan sort) is merely newer, younger and with more corners/chips still to be knocked off.
Posted by: SEF | September 20, 2007 10:41 AM
Crom, I think many people pick on Christians because they're the most commonly encountered of the deluded. I would doubt that most believe that Jewish, Muslim, or Zoroastrian thinking is any less wacky. They're just less on the mind due to their relative rarity.
Many people ARE anti-theists. You say this like it's a bad thing.
Posted by: oxytocin | September 20, 2007 10:42 AM
Posted by: Tulse | September 20, 2007 10:43 AM
I love these hoax posts. Good one, Crom!
Posted by: Russell Blackford | September 20, 2007 10:55 AM
Matthew C. Nisbet wrote:
Unlike you, who could not frame an argument effectively to save your life.
Posted by: valhar2000 | September 20, 2007 11:09 AM
I missed the part where CalGeorge advocated the slaughter of religionists. Could you highlight/blockquote that please?
Posted by: Bill | September 20, 2007 11:14 AM
My characterization of Kurtz's views is based on his most recent statements broadcast this week at Point of Inquiry, which I have transcribed at my blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/09/aaas_panel_communicating_scien.php
He emphasizes several times the themes captured in these quotes:
KURTZ: Of course, you know, America is a great liberal pluralistic democracy and we have common ground not only with liberal religionists but even conservative people who believe in human freedom. So we need to make, if you will, coalitions, we need to work together with others to make this a greater democracy. We need a kind of unity, if possible, about the basic framework of this country.
GROTHE: And I take it if some of these people decrying God belief, as true as you think they are, you are saying that they limit coalitions. That they turn off people who might be able to work with us around certain issues of concern?
KURTZ: I think that is true, so we have to put another step forward.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 20, 2007 11:14 AM
So we need to make, if you will, coalitions, we need to work together with others to make this a greater democracy.
I have heard bilge.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 20, 2007 11:21 AM
"Dawkins and Hitchens have both written extensively about Islam, and there are various bloggers (including PZ) who attack Islamic creation science. So you're simply wrong."
Perhaps I was a bit too sarcastic in my portrayal of the differing attitudes towards the differing religions. I am aware that Dawkins and Hitchens have written on Islam, but I don't recall their writing having the same vitriol against Islam that Christians receive. Although I am certain that links can be found to venomous anti-Islamic atheistic posts, the better known authors rarely jeeringly mock Mohammed in the same fashion that they do Christ. Case in point, I have seen numerous references here in the few months I have been reading here to "Jeebus" and do not recall anyone coming up with a similar derogatory name for Mohammed or Allah... Or any other deity at all. If someone can link the archives to where this happened I will read them, and if someone really wants to prove me wrong please list the number of times a mocking nickname was used for Allah/Mohammed/Any Other Deity vs. how many times Christianity was mocked in the same time frame.
Tulse makes a good point in that the Christians proposing legislation here in the US that is favorable to their cause and therefore are seen as the most immediate threat to the cause of atheism. However, SEF's point about Christian macheteros is silly, because anyone killing people in the name of Christianity is not a Christian. Oh, they can claim that they are and claim the label, but I can also claim that I am the President of Hair Club for Men but that does not necessarily make it so, now does it?
The sad truth is, it's simply fashionable to bash Christianity now that it's influence is no longer as palpable in the American social consciousness.
While someone may have posted while I was writing this, at the time I published not one single person had answered my question regarding atheism bringing the sword as espoused by some of the readership here. Are you all making the statement that violently converting or killing religious people is indeed the greater good?
Posted by: Crom | September 20, 2007 11:27 AM
Crom, Where on earth did anyone say anything about physical violence or forced conversions?
You should read Sam Harris. In his book, "The End of Faith", his scorn is mostly directed towards Islam.
Again, I would assert that we have less need to make reference to other faiths in our daily discourse since we encounter them less frequently.
I think it is a complete cop-out to disavow any person who act discordantly with your idiosyncratic version of xianity. If we use your logic we could then say that the 9/11 terrorists weren't "real" Muslims. In fact, we have many people saying just that, but I don't think they're fooling anyone. ...but let's not forget historical xian violence such as the Crusades, Nazi complicity, etc.
Posted by: oxytocin | September 20, 2007 11:39 AM
"If atheism brings the sword, how is it any better than the Inquisitionists or jihadists you constantly condemn?"
Well, to start with, we haven't KILLED ANYONE.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 20, 2007 11:40 AM
Crom, that's stupid. First of all, it's the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, secondly, on what authority do you claim you're in any position to tell us who's a True Crhristian™ and who's not, and thirdly, here's your own 'Prince of Peace' himself on the subject:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
I bash Christianity because of the obnoxious fools such as yourself that it harbours.
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 11:41 AM
Blake Stacey wrote (#20):
I'm unmoved by such claims, too. Of the books on religion written by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennett, I've only read Dennett's Breaking the Spell. I'm puzzled that people would refer to that book as negative. What I took from it is quite positive: religious people claim their religions benefit society, so let's test those claims and give religions credit where they deserve it. But only where they deserve it. Is that negative?Me, neither. That's why I love libraries. But keep it quiet. I'm terrified the digital rights fascists will catch on and ban libraries if they ever hear about them.
Posted by: Wicked Lad | September 20, 2007 11:42 AM
Figures someone would answer while I was writing. CalGeorge does in fact say that atheists should take, and I am cutting and pasting here:
"A hard line is the only line to take with the billions of kooks who refuse to acknowledge reality."
He did not say "kill". He did not say "sword." I did. The billions of "kooks" won't give up their religion without a fight, history has proved this time and time again as many of the antitheist crowd are quite fond of pointing out. So, kooks being kooks what hard line are you prepared to take? Are you going to take the Westmoreland method of winning hearts and minds? How are you going to win the heart or mind of a theist by insulting him, mocking his beliefs and being antagonistic? If this is the Plan, I would say that the Plan needs a better set of ambassadors, because attack dogs don't make people all warm and fuzzy.
Somehow taking a "hard line" seems to be a more aggressive stance, and I am curious to know how hard that line is prepared to be, considering that most people here claim to be liberal, and claim to believe in individual freedom.
Posted by: Crom | September 20, 2007 11:43 AM
The hard line atheists were the ones to convince me to move to full-blown atheism: When I was one of those generic "spiritual" people visiting forums, it was the hardliners who focused on substance and displayed genuine care about what was true and what wasn't, as well as how we can gather that knowledge. Far too many of the "moderates" in those debates were what I now call "squishy": They too often support inaction, sloth, etcetera. In short, a lot of the so-called moderates weren't for moderation or anything: They were for maintaining the status quo, which happened to include a lot of double-standards favoring the fundies on the far right.
Anyway, for the real moderates who will actually come out in support of civil liberties and so forth, if they're really sincere, will do it regardless of who's doing the same. It's the squishies who'll go back towards supporting far right on religious issues just because they don't like having to deal with the concept of people having intellectual debates.
At an explicitly atheist rally in Austin, I saw a woman with a sign "Christian Mom for Separation of Church/State" with "Render unto Caesar" on the other side. I may try to tear her up on the debate table of epistemology if we met on a forum, but I think we can count on each other for standing up for civil rights.
Anyway, I'm done with my undirected rant for the time being.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 20, 2007 11:45 AM
Yes, and there are at least a couple of names conspicuously missing from the list of non-candidates for atheistic pope.
Be afraid ...
Posted by: mel | September 20, 2007 11:47 AM
Gee Crom, we're all very sorry that we don't hate Muslims as much as you do.
"because anyone killing people in the name of Christianity is not a Christian"
Who died and made you the arbiter of Christianity?
"not one single person had answered my question regarding atheism bringing the sword as espoused by some of the readership here."
Probably because it's such a stupid accusation. But I have to say that I'm kinda likng this power. Apparently our words manifest as actual weapons to Christians! The things I could do...
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 20, 2007 11:49 AM
Crom, I think many of us are prepared to take the "hardline stance" of...gasp...vigorous verbal barrages! I know that's extreme, but the xians leave us no choice but to "violently" and "ruthlessly" expose their irrationality. I'm very sorry it's had to come to this.
And by the way, probably better not to put words into someone's mouth. It's leads to all sorts of nastiness that we could avoid if we would be intellectually honest.
Posted by: oxytocin | September 20, 2007 11:50 AM
So much squabbling and bickering! It reminds me of denominational battles amongst believers. I prefer the peacemakers on both sides.
Posted by: Louise Van Court | September 20, 2007 11:52 AM
Because we all know: Arguing is exactly, precisely the same as war.
So we should all just agree on something randomly or agree to never talk about anything ever again and never vow to look for the truth.
[/Sarcasm]
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 20, 2007 11:55 AM
I suppose it would, only if you knew nothing of the history and formation of various denominations, much of which involved actual persecution, warfare, and exilement.
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 11:56 AM
Just a heads up: The washington post link is broken (the url contains a "br" tag).
Posted by: Hank | September 20, 2007 11:59 AM
Louise Van Court:
You're free to be reminded of whatever you'd like. Myself, I tend to see the better discussions here in blogo-territory as reminiscent of open debates at scientific conferences. Not all the evidence is in yet, and some big questions remain open, so let's get together and talk about them. Genuine science thrives on a diversity of viewpoints, because that diversity opens the possibility that some people will be less wrong than others. In a complicated world where the truth is hard to figure out, that's a good thing!
Rey Fox:
Excellent question. No true Scotsman went to fight in the Crusades. . . et cetera.
Honestly, now! Nobody here is "bringing the sword" to anybody. We've got better things to do, like teaching classes and getting published in scientific journals, not to mention talking like pirates. The weapon we are bringing is the pen.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 20, 2007 12:04 PM
Rey Fox, and others:
Josef Stalin. Former Christian, ex-seminary student, militant atheist. How many deaths was he responsible for?
And as for the rest of your incoherent insults, why don't you bring that powerful intellect to bear and answer the questions. I have not been insulting, I am being polite. If you read carefully, I did not insult SEF personally, I said her comment was "silly." So what is with the personal attacks? You reveal yourself as intellectually weak.
The people who cannot answer rationally without being insulting I am going to simply ignore, if you can't bring it with "the science" then you aren't worth responding to. Sorry, I stopped playing the dozens on the schoolyard as a young boy, and prefer to argue with people who can answer the issues rather than acting like ignorant fundamentalists - yes you read correctly "ignorant fundamentalists." They come in more than one flavor, you know.
To those who are answering, thank you. I do appreciate your effort and your "vigorous verbal barrages" since I think that the only way to any sort of detente between the two camps will be found with exactly that method.
Posted by: Crom | September 20, 2007 12:06 PM
Wrong again, Crom.
My insults are always coherent.
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 12:11 PM
Wicked Lad (#37)
Libraries are wonderful. But there is a form of non sanctioned censorship going on in some communities. Books by Hitchens, Dawkins, and others routinely get "lost" by the fundie that checks them out. Libraries have lost a lot of books that way.
Posted by: Bifrost | September 20, 2007 12:14 PM
First should atheist and moderate religious folks make common cause on some issues?
If it's a choice between:
Moderate religionists + atheists against the fundies.
vs.
Atheists against fundies and moderate religious folks.
I prefer to see atheists fighting their battle against the entire spectrum of religious beliefs - from the soft to the hardline.
The moderate Christianistas need as much waking up as the fundies. They've all swallowed the same bilge.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 20, 2007 12:21 PM
Yawn...after x number of posts, when backed against the wall, the resident cretinist will always resort to "Stalin and/or Hitler were atheists! So there!"
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | September 20, 2007 12:21 PM
Oh for fuck's sake, Crom pulled out those evil Commies, whom we all know were dedicated solely to the ideals of reason and evidence that are the foundation of atheism and didn't have any other agenda. Josef Stalin had no interest in totalitarian control of the populace, hadn't the slightest yearning for absolute personal and political power, and wasn't attempting to advance any socioeconomic system based loosely on the writings of Karl Marx (which, like most religious believers and their holy texts, he cherry-picked vigorously for whatever he decided was best and ignored otherwise). Nope, Stalin was just an atheist, that's all. A militant atheist, and everything he did was in the name of and from the cause of atheism. Sure.
The stupid, it burns!
Remember, everyone, the consequences of feeding trolls.
Posted by: G Felis | September 20, 2007 12:26 PM
Forgive me if I thought we were talking about the "new atheists", and not long-dead tyrants. Stalin, while I won't say that he wasn't a "true atheist", did what any self-respecting tyrant would do: co-opted religion. He didn't use anything that would be recognized as an existing religion, but he essentially set up Communism and the state (and the head thereof) as the national religion. He trumpeted the discredited evolutionary science of Lysenko as the official line, which led to widespread famine. He did not rule over the Soviet Union in the name of atheism.
And if we're going to talk about insults, then well, I never called you anything either, except "the arbiter of Christianity". But really, the tone of one's argument is irrelevant to the content of the argument anyway.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 20, 2007 12:26 PM
What is so hard for people to understand?
The hardline is outwardly calling religion nonsense. And not being afraid to state that wheneever and wherevet anyone brings up religion as a justifaction for anything.
Religion should be tolerated. That's it. Respected? No. Encouraged? No. Mocked? Yes.
Religion is silly. If people are offened, that's too bad. No one was saying how mean everyone was to Tom Cruise, when people were mocking him for his goofy religious based behaviour.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 20, 2007 12:27 PM
anyone killing people in the name of Christianity is not a Christian.
Would you like some haggis with your "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
Posted by: hyperdeath | September 20, 2007 12:28 PM
Josef Stalin. Former Christian, ex-seminary student, militant atheist. How many deaths was he responsible for?
This is a common mistake. Stalin may have been an atheist, but Communist Russia was not.
Look, any society that thinks marching a parade past a painting of their leader is just as good as saluting the real thing clearly isn't atheist. The society of the Soviet Union merely exchanged one religion for the other. They didn't become atheists.
Obviously not, since the return of the Orthodox church was immediate after the fall of communism. Clearly, soviet society was never atheist. Stalin was the leader of a religion, not an atheist leader.
Posted by: Chet | September 20, 2007 12:29 PM
Matthew C. Nisbet:
Surely you will grant that his editorial is somewhat at odds with that stance. It is not clear to me whether his position has changed, or whether he holds a complex of both views, but either way, I don't see him as fully in the anti-New Atheist camp. At the very least, I think it would be far more academically honest to acknowledge that the position you quote are countered by some of his earlier writing.Posted by: Tulse | September 20, 2007 12:30 PM
It would be nice, to say the least, if the anti-Uppity Atheists advanced a positive position, rather than ceaselessly declaiming their unhappiness with the Uppity Atheists. Otherwise, how can they hope to succeed? You can't have a world-view which is entirely negative, after all.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 20, 2007 12:35 PM
Blake Stacey wins teh intarwebs!
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 12:43 PM
CalGeorge:
That is a false dichotomy. Take the obvious example the issue of abortion and reproductive rights. I'm sure you aren't arguing we shouldn't fight for these issues because we will be on the same side as many moderate religious folks? I would also like to think you don't seriously believe we can't work in coalition with people on an issue we agree unless we agree on all issues. If so we may need to start by kicking out Christopher Hitchens, since most of us can't agree with him on Iraq.Posted by: AgnosticOracle | September 20, 2007 12:58 PM
Chet,
You state in your post that Stalin was an atheist, then claim "Stalin was the leader of a religion, not an atheist leader." Aren't these two statements mutually contradictory?
Unless of course you are claiming - and I believe this to be 100% true - that atheism is merely another religion. It has articles of faith, for example, evolution which has yet to be proven, and there is still that matter of spontaneous life generation from a primordial puddle of goo that has yet to ever be observed, nevermind replicate itself in a controlled environment utilizing the scientific method. It has high priests, Dawkins, Hitchens etc. and atheisms' adherents believe utterly without solid, observable proof. Believing without total proof is faith. Therefore, atheism requires faith, and faith is the hallmark of religion.
Sorry, I know that one will irritate many of you.
As for the haggis, yes please... I will even bring a bottle of 15 year-old Macallan. I knew someone would bring the No True Scotsman fallacy up, because it allows the commenter to avoid answering the question with a pithy riposte.
I believe I have accomplished my goal in coming here, I was looking to plumb the depths of the animosity of the average atheist and I see that you all have your wacky fundamentalists same as the religious folks do. I don't see any progress being made, as it is clear that you folks are as entrenched as the theists and appear as ready to do battle for your viewpoint as they are. Thanks again, most of you are articulate and knowledgeable and I appreciate your time.
Posted by: Crom | September 20, 2007 1:01 PM
I agree with Brownian.
This comment needs a molly at some point.
Posted by: Siamang | September 20, 2007 1:03 PM
Tulse,
I'm going by his most recent statements. I interpret Kurtz's position as consistent with the nuanced view that I have been arguing for, first voiced in our op-ed at The Washington Post.
It's also consistent with the views of Shermer (SciAm) and EO Wilson (voiced at Bill Moyers' program, transcript will be up at my blog soon.)
As I have always argued, I personally agree with Dawkins et al.'s view that there is no credible argument for the existence of God. I also support their right to voice their opinion.
But in a pluralistic democracy, if we are going to solve collective problems such as climate change and poverty, we have to also raise concern about drawing a bright line in the sand between atheists and anyone who is religious, attacking and denigrating the moderately religiously even though they share almost all of our values.
As Kurtz argues at Point of Inquiry, the best way forward is to critique religion in its most extreme form while emphasizing the shared values between secularists and the moderately religious.
This is exactly what Sagan tried to do back in the late 1980s and 1990s on the environment and what EO Wilson is doing today. In my public scholarship efforts bringing to light the relevancy of my research and that of others, I suggest we do systematically what Wilson and Sagan have been so successful at doing intuitively.
Along these lines, in his interview of Kurtz at Point of Inquiry, DJ Grothe notes that Kurtz has been talking lately more and more about the need to embrace the moderately religious around shared values and concerns.
Kurtz then goes on to note that he has reservations about Hitchens' and Harris' assault on the moderately religious.
I encourage everyone to listen to the interview at Point of Inquiry, but you can read a transcript at my blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/09/paul_kurtz_in_contrast_to_the.php#comments
From the transcript:
GROTHE: Let's get back to the liberal religious. You have been more interested I think lately in reaching out to the liberal religious. Not just drawing a line in the sand and saying if you believe in the supernatural, you are my enemy. You're not fighting that fight. We need to reach out to more liberal religious allies on issues of concern.
Number one, how do we reach out to them and tell me what some of these issues are.
[Kurtz replies in detail, naming poverty and the basic principle of democracy and human rights. He also names environmentalism and climate change as issues where collaboration between the religious and non-religious are absolutely necessary.]
GROTHE: What about the critics that say that the liberal religious are part of the problem, that they give room for fundamentalists to grow?....They make it harder for reason and science to prevail against the cults of unreason?
KURTZ: I realize that many people have said that. Hitchens says that religion poisons everything. Well some religions have poisoned many things. And Harris says that we need to attack the liberal religionists at the same time. And I think many of the religionists overlook these problems.
But nevertheless, I think that [liberal religionists] are well meaning, good natured, honest, moral people in the churches, and they want to enter into the modern scientific world. So it is the scientific extremes of religion that need to be attacked.
---
I think Kurtz states his current position pretty plainly, despite how people might selectively perceive his past editorial.
Posted by: Matthew C. Nisbet | September 20, 2007 1:06 PM
Crom:
hyperdeath:
Not only that, but the statement from Crom above is the archetypal "No True Scotsman" fallacy, isn't it? Isn't that specific "argument" the whole reason the term "No True Scotsman" was invented in the first place?
Posted by: Rieux | September 20, 2007 1:07 PM
Crom wrote: "Where is your anger towards the synagogues full of faithful Jews, whose record of religious scholarship directly contradicts your most holy book of Darwin?"
Shalom, and hunh?
Posted by: Jud | September 20, 2007 1:11 PM
Thanks for letting us know you came here with the intent of data-mining to support your a priori conclusions. Have fun discussing the 'evidence' with your fundy friends (BTW, keep using terms like 'proven' with regard to scientific theories like evolution. It'll let any scientists you might accidentally encounter know that you haven't the foggiest what such words mean, and thus save them a lot of wasted effort in discussing such things with you.)
You won't be missed here.
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 1:13 PM
Thanks for letting us know you came here with the intent of data-mining to support your a priori conclusions (not that it wasn't apparent from the get-go.) Have fun discussing the 'evidence' with your fundy friends (BTW, keep using terms like 'proven' with regard to scientific theories like evolution. It'll let any scientists you might accidentally encounter know that you haven't the foggiest what such words mean, and thus save them a lot of wasted effort in discussing such things with you.)
You won't be missed here.
Posted by: Brownian | September 20, 2007 1:14 PM
Thanks for letting us know you came here with the intent of data-mining to support your a priori conclusions (not that it wasn't apparent from the get-go.) Have fun discussing the 'evidence' with your fundy friends (BTW, keep using terms like 'proven' with regard to scientific theories like evolution. It'll let any scientists you might accidentally encounter know that you haven't the foggiest what such words mean, and thus save them a lot of wasted effort in discussing such things with you.)
You won't be missed here.
Posted by: