…and this is a 
It's taken over 80 years to recognize this sound advice
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: December 16, 2007 3:55 PM, by PZ Myers
Timothy Sandefur has an excellent quote from H.L. Mencken on how we ought to be responding to creationists.
This actual conflict is joined, and it is the height of absurdity for the...compromisers to seek to evade it with soft words. That conflict was not begun by science. It did not start with an invasion of the proper field of theological speculation by scientific raiders. It started with an invasion of the field of science by theological raiders. Now that it is on, it must be pressed vigorously from the scientific side, and without any flabby tenderness for theological susceptibilities. A defensive war is not enough; there must be a forthright onslaught upon the theological citadel, and every effort must be made to knock it down. For so long as it remains a stronghold, there will be no security for sound sense among us, and little for common decency. So long as it may be used as a recruiting-station and rallying-point for the rabble, science will have to submit to incessant forays, and the same forays will be directed against every sort of rational religion. The latter danger is not unobserved by the more enlightened theologians. They are well aware that, facing the Fundamentalists, they must either destroy or be destroyed. It is to be hoped that men of science will perceive the same plain fact, and so give over their vain effort to stay the enemy with weasel words.
Mencken sure was right — his prediction came true. It's the 21st century. Let's finally get around to demolishing the old superstitions.
Politics
Comments
Slightly OT. Two of my favorite Mencken quotes
andMencken should have gotten a Molly by now.
Posted by: Christianjb | December 16, 2007 4:03 PM
H.L. Mencken wrote:
Ummm, but science did step on religion's toes. It always is. Gallileo, etc.. Didn't doctors once need degrees in theology?
But I agree with this: "A defensive war is not enough; there must be a forthright onslaught upon the theological citadel, and every effort must be made to knock it down."
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 16, 2007 4:05 PM
There's far too much defense and not nearly enough offense against creationism. That's partly because we can give answers to the IDiots, while they ignore what we say because they have no answers.
Nevertheless, we need to press these jerks. Keep asking why vertebrate wings were made out of legs. Keep asking why the "designer" made a web of life among the prokaryotes, and a tree of life among the eukaryotes (hint, differences among known mechanisms explain it, "design" can tell us no reason why "macroevolution" happens to agree with evolutionary predictions). Ask them to explain taxonomy, for gosh's sake.
They get off too easy when we merely demonstrate that their criticisms are bogus. Evolution was developed to make up for what seemed terribly curious by design standards, and the buffoons haven't closed that gap in the slightest in over 150 years.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 16, 2007 4:12 PM
Only because religion claimed to rule in every sector of life.
Yes, if it claims jurisdiction over science, science will step on religion's toes, as it continues to do with religions that wish to control everything in society. But not if religion were to leave science alone in the first place.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 16, 2007 4:18 PM
More from Mencken
I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking. I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty... I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect. I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech... I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run. I believe in the reality of progress. I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.
H.L. Mencken
Posted by: gypsybiker | December 16, 2007 4:18 PM
have you ever noticed that the fields of science being invaded by the theologians appear to be the most rarefied fields?
I never see Intelligent Design being applied to, for instance, the construction of large bridges, the mixing of industrial chemicals, or the (spiritual) control and monitoring of nuclear power plants.
It's an indication of the quality of the argument -- at least so far as I can see -- that it's never applied to an area where cars can be dropped in a river like dumplings into a soup, or chemical factories can suddenly spew out a fog of 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate, for instance.
Furthermore, I would guess that only a tiny percentage of creationists or other religionists would consider using religious engineering strategies for everyday construction. The others, along with the rest of us, would be out there buttonholing their state highway department or whoever, demanding that they get back to the techniques of "cold iron".
I wonder if there's any way to bring evolution as far forward in most people's minds as the structural members of a bridge, or the LD50 of a chemical factory?
Posted by: Noni Mausa | December 16, 2007 4:21 PM
The difficulty in dealing with creationists is that they are lying machines. They generate slime quicker than hagfish. One strategy might be, as much as possible, to always have experts in more than one area of evolutionary biology at creationist meetings. A sadly overlooked field for this is biogeography- nowhere else can YEC's be so easily crushed. Discuss the pre-19 century distribution of coconut palms, biogeographic regions, adaptive radiation, etc. Always point out to others that they are being actively deceived
Off topic- I have the latest issue of AiG in front of me- there is reason for good news here. Looks like the CM funding situation may be getting a bit desperate.
Posted by: mothra | December 16, 2007 5:16 PM
I was gonna say something similar to Norman Doering (#2). The religious were all deluded into their fantasies about the world until more critical and generally smarter people hit them with something called "reality" and made their delusions (at least for reasonable religious people) ever so smaller. The unreasonable ones are reasonably pissed off, and I wouldn't care if they are ('cause reality doesn't care), unless they were planning on bombing me or burning me or something else.
But the thing is that religion, as long as it claims anything about the universe, be it the earth is The Center, witches exist, evolution doesn't, or some more trivial things like prayer works, it's a moral code, etc., is always and by definition stepping on reality, and thus, science.
As an aside, the general public needs to realize that "science" is not just some guys in lab coats handling test tubes, nor wacky-hairstyled nerds doing equations on a blackboard. Instead, if the public just understood science as the only reliable to find what's real, they would realize that there's no other choice. Whatever method or theory that comes up that's reliable, will be integrated by science, it's not gonna become an "alternative".
Posted by: andyo | December 16, 2007 5:21 PM
I agree about soft words, and especially about muddying of the waters, which theologians tend to be good at. But I think that the important thing is for the scientific community and creationists to develop better personal relationships. Isolation always leads to exaggeration and other distortions; I was raised a fundamentalist, and we were led to believe that pubs and cinemas are hell-holes, that "Rome" is constantly plotting against us in N. Ireland, that "Darwinists" are trying to push some hidden agenda, etc.
On the other hand, your post about Rudi Boa seemed absurd. It was surprising, because I recall you once posting that it was good that your students met some creationists and found that them to be nice people.
So, yes, less soft words, but not less friendship. As an illustration of what can be acheived in a few months of personal contact, after a few decades of fighting, think of Paisley and McGuinness in N.Ireland, who are now known as the "Chuckle brothers". (Alas...)
My two pennies.
Posted by: Paul Robinson | December 16, 2007 5:31 PM
Emphasis mine.
Posted by: Kseniya | December 16, 2007 5:41 PM
Especially as we near the christian high holy day disguised as a happy go lucky consumerist orgy, this advice to those who might want to use more liberal or inclusive approaches designed to not ruffle any feathers, makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
Posted by: darkdaughta | December 16, 2007 5:44 PM
The religious have a trump card. They are free to espouse that God/Allah/Hindu-deities created the world, exclaim "I didn't come from no monkey," or demand that a book which asserts the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old be sold at a National Park (because that's what their holy book says). However, you are restricted to pointing out that their specific claims relative to the natural world are inconsistent with reality and scientific knowledge. What you are not permitted to do is attack the underlying supposition; that their supernatural sky-spirit is a superstitious fantasy and a childish delusion. Doing so is tantamount to telling little Sally that Santa is make-believe. Even though we are discussing adults the reaction is the same. That it, you are a bully for telling anyone that their religion, faith, or belief is make-believe. You have hurt their feelings, made them upset, and caused bystanders to get angry at your insensitivity. This includes all supernaturalism including the established religions, belief in ghosts, souls and reincarnation, voodoo, etc.
Posted by: noodlesoup | December 16, 2007 5:45 PM
Another favorite Mencken quote; "There's only one way to look at a politician......down your nose."
Posted by: bluthetan | December 16, 2007 6:13 PM
I never see Intelligent Design being applied to, for instance, the construction of large bridges, the mixing of industrial chemicals, or the (spiritual) control and monitoring of nuclear power plants.
Well, to be fair, that's all engineering not science.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 16, 2007 6:17 PM
Doesn't Ann Coulter claim to be the right-wing Mencken?
In your dreams, baby, in your dreams...
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | December 16, 2007 6:22 PM
My current favorite Mencken:
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
I still don't believe in psychics, but damn.
Posted by: Neil | December 16, 2007 6:23 PM
"Doesn't Ann Coulter claim to be the right-wing Mencken?"
Mencken was the right-wing Mencken.
Posted by: Samnell | December 16, 2007 6:33 PM
Speaking of HLM, everyone here would probably enjoy his "Christmas Story," a tale of Baltimore free-thinker philanthropy gone horribly wrong. It's in his "The American Scene" collection, edited by Huntingdon Cairns.
Posted by: anon1234 | December 16, 2007 6:40 PM
It's interesting to compare the writings of the contemporaries, HL Mencken and GK Chesterton. Mencken's writings resonate with the future, Chesterton's with the past.
Posted by: jeh | December 16, 2007 7:22 PM
"It's interesting to compare the writings of the contemporaries, HL Mencken and GK Chesterton. Mencken's writings resonate with the future, Chesterton's with the past."
I am quite fond of one thing Chesterton wrote. In answering a reader about what was wrong with the world today, he said it was him. He meant something along the lines that he failed to live up to his own standards, and so did millions just like him. I instead take it to refer to the times he did live up to his own backward-looking, irrational standards.
Posted by: Samnell | December 16, 2007 7:45 PM
Ah, my man H L Mencken ! Two gems from the sage of
Baltimore:
"Theology is an effort to explain the unknowable in terms
of the not worth knowing. . . it is not only opposed to the
scientific spirit; it is opposed to every other rational
form of thinking."
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in
the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory
that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
We will never have his like again, nor can our current crop
of rationalists extol his sane and ascerbic wit. He will
always remain among my favorite rational people.
Posted by: JIM JORDAN | December 16, 2007 7:57 PM
Another thing you need to do, at least for the sake of the bystanders, is to keep the devious cdesign proponentsists from moving the goalposts when discussing this stuff. Almost inevitably, they say they want to talk "evolution" and they start talking about abiogenesis. My proposed rhetorical strategy for doing this is to, as much as possible, nail them down on the definitions of words right at the outset. When they move to Conservative Non-Argumentation Tactic #2, which is "Dodge, Obfuscate, and Change the Subject," then you can point at all your invisible readers and say, "See? Look! S/he can't even define the thing s/he claims to be talking about."
I've seen way too many blog comments threads get hopelessly off-track because the busy creationist is pulling up the rails ahead of itself and laying them down at warp speed, heading in a direction completely antithetical to the original thrust of the conversation.
The kicker is, as a student of rhetoric, pretty much all right-wingers do this. If they can't nail you on the facts (and they usually can't), they move the goalposts. If you don't let them do that, and try to get them to define something, they obfuscate, bluster, and change the subject. If that doesn't work, next comes projection and the Tu Quoque accusations. After that, name-calling and "I'm leaving" followed by nearly endless posts to the same effect, generally followed by the site mods shitcanning the creep(s). They generally have all the imagination of a dead gym sock, so the pattern is pretty predictable.
Posted by: Interrobang | December 16, 2007 8:10 PM
I said: I never see Intelligent Design being applied to, for instance, the construction of large bridges, the mixing of industrial chemicals, or the (spiritual) control and monitoring of nuclear power plants.
And then coathangrrr said:Well, to be fair, that's all engineering not science.
I'm not so sure of that. At first glance, it seems like a reasonable separation. However engineering is either built on pure science, or is built on trial and error, which is a quick and dirty back-of-the-envelope version of science herself. You keep throwing the spaghetti at the wall until one day it sticks.
If science were being attacked at this end,(I can't at the moment imagine how), then one or two fallen bridges would stir up the interest of citizens in short order.
But when science is in her inner chamber, dealing with quantum effects or evolution or the age of the universe, then the guy on the street can feel free to say whatever he likes about her, because before he was in a position to really understand any of these areas very well, he would have to ask her out now and then, buy her an ice cream and actually listen to her conversation. Too much work. But a falling down bridge -- that's not much of a feat of imagination.
Noni
Posted by: Noni Mausa | December 16, 2007 8:13 PM
H.L. Mencken said:
Summary: Creationists tried to serve us, then they got served: now it's ON!
DAAAAAMN!!! Oh, Mencken did not just go there!
Posted by: Spaulding | December 16, 2007 8:21 PM
What tripe. The Diary of H. L. Mencken, published recently by Alfred A. Knopf, shows that Mencken was a racist and an anti-Semitic bigot. Myers' anti-Christian bigotry fits nicely with Mencken's.
Modern science arose only in Judeo-Christian civilization. It arose because Christians (i.e., virtually all scientists of the Enlightenment)believe that the world is rationally ordered by God, and that we can and should explore that order. Atheism is parasitic on Western Culture. Its gifts have not been scientific but political- Communism is atheism's gift to mankind.
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 8:40 PM
So, Mark. Creationism is therefore true, and evolution is false?
Posted by: Kseniya | December 16, 2007 8:52 PM
"So, Mark. Creationism is therefore true, and evolution is false?"
Kseniya,
I said nothing about creationism or evolution. That's a separate discussion. What I said is this: modern science arose from Christian civilization, and Christianity was and is indispensible to the scientific revolution. The view that nature is intrinsically rational and that man intrinsically has the capacity to understand it and should use that capacity is a direct consequence of Christian theology. Modern science arose only in a culture soaked in Christianity.
To understand the contribution that atheism has made to scientific progress, consider the scientific output of explicitly atheist cultures- the Soviet Union, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea...
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 9:08 PM
"What I said is this: modern science arose from Christian civilization, and Christianity was and is indispensible to the scientific revolution. "
Got anything to back up this assertion?
In what way is Christianity indispensable?
From where I sit science is being attacked by the religious.
Posted by: spurge | December 16, 2007 9:16 PM
1.what's this business talking about witches as if they don't exist? I hang out with witches, danced in the circle, called the quarters... I expect Google will give you the address of the nearist coven to your area.
2 No, Mencken was not a liberal. He may have agreed with liberals on some topics, like censorship, but he was not a liberal
Posted by: Lyle G | December 16, 2007 9:28 PM
Holy non sequitir, Batman. Whether early science was supported by Christianity (it's hardly the creation of Christianity by any stretch of the imagination) has nothing to do with the fact that creationists actively campaign against science now. Science doesn't even seek to step on the toes of any religion, it just happens that religions were silly enough to make claims about reality that are false. Now we have a bunch of people throwing hissy fits because scientists have too much integrity to lie about reality to prop up ancient beliefs that were pretty ridiculous even before bringing the evidence into it.
Atheism (possessing no belief in gods) makes no contribution nor does any harm to science because it posits nothing to be considered by science. Simple theism (merely believing at least one god exists) at best makes no contribution to science (the non-empirical belief in gods being compartmentalized away from affecting scientific work) and at worst causes some harm by presupposing the existence of something without any evidence (much less sufficient evidence). Quite simply, you can't have atheistic science or theistic science. You have good science and bad science. Both kinds of science can be practiced by atheists and theists alike.
Also, fuck you for insinuating that atheism leads to mass murder. It seems you've got your own bigotry. Perhaps you should remove that plank from your eye before worrying about others.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 16, 2007 9:36 PM
spurge,
You've got to be kidding. Are you telling me that you don't know that modern science arose in Christian Europe over the past 5 centuries? Christendom is the only culture that has given rise, in any systematic way, to modern science. Virtually all Enlightment scientists (Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, etc) were passionate Christians, and most would today be considered to be particularly dogmatic fundamentalists. Rodney Stark's 'For the Glory of God' (2004) is one of countless books in which the connection between Christianity and modern science is spelled out. No historically literate observer can deny the intimate connection between Christianity and the rise of science.
As for your view that science is being attacked by the religious, that's not true. Most people are religious, and no one is attacking Newton's laws, Charles' law, the Watson-Crick model of DNA, or String theory. Some religious people are attacking Darwin's theory because atheists have advanced their unscientific ideological viewpoints by hijacking genuine science. In addition, some Christians have opposed experimentation on human embryos. Regardless of what you think about the issue, the use of embryonic human beings for research is a moral, not scientific, issue, and 'science' isn't being attacked.
Mark
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 9:44 PM
"As for your view that science is being attacked by the religious, that's not true."
Liar
Posted by: spurge | December 16, 2007 9:48 PM
Mark:
Despite the fact that the Christian Church tried hard to snuff it.
In addition, the development of science was heavily influenced by cultures in the Middle and Far East as well. Not everything good came from Europe.
Wake up.
Posted by: JRY | December 16, 2007 9:58 PM
uknesvuinng,
Re: "fuck you for insinuating that atheism leads to mass murder."
There have been only a small number of explicitly atheist governments in human history. The first was the Reign of Terror in France ('The Cult of Reason'). A bloody affair. Next was the Bolsheviks (Lenin, Stalin, the Ukranian Famine, the Gulag, etc), followed by Mao's China (probably more than 50 million people starved and murdered), Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge (a third of the population exterminated), North Korea... the list goes on. 'The Black Book of Communism' counts 100 million people dead from Communism in the 20th century.
I'm sure that you have plenty of excuses (they were different atheists...). Of course all of those excuses can be applied to religous violence as well. Yet the fact remains that every explicitly atheist government in human history has been homicidal, and homicidal on a scale never before seen in human history. Stalin killed more people each day (about 3000) than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 300 years.
List for me the explicitly atheist governments in history. Tell me which ones haven't been murderous.
Open your eyes.
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 10:01 PM
None of your examples did what they did because of atheism.
They did it for power.
Posted by: spurge | December 16, 2007 10:06 PM
While I don't agree with your thesis (or Starks'), Mark, I do find it interesting that you failed to give the full title of Stark's work: "For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery". It seems Dr. Stark has a much less narrow (or more honest) view of history than you exhibit. Why, I'd imagine he gives a little credit to Muslims for preserving the early scientific thought of the Greeks.
Yes, I know, you're arguing that "modern" science sprang full-grown from the head of Christianity, but I suspect you're not that simple, simply blinkered.
Posted by: allen | December 16, 2007 10:06 PM
JRY,
Re:"Wake up."
I'm wide awake. The science questioned by religious people is either 'science' that makes atheistic assertions that aren't supported by the science at all (the atheistic aspects of Darwin's theory), or raise very real moral questions about which reasonable people can disagree (human embryonic stem cell research), or makes claims on limited evidence that would radically alter human society (Global Warming).
The questions raised are reasonable, and your view that science is being attacked is paranoid. America is the most religious Western nation, and is also the world leader in science.
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 10:11 PM
Now, now, let's be charitable.
How about,ignorant and misled, with little or no regard for the facts.
Posted by: Ken Cope | December 16, 2007 10:12 PM
"What tripe. The Diary of H. L. Mencken, published recently by Alfred A. Knopf, shows that Mencken was a racist and an anti-Semitic bigot."
And this invalidates everything else he said? Sorry, we don't deal in cults of personality.
"It arose because Christians (i.e., virtually all scientists of the Enlightenment)believe that the world is rationally ordered by God, and that we can and should explore that order."
And now it has outgrown the need to presume that the Sky Daddy loves us all very much and is behind everything.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 16, 2007 10:21 PM
spurge,
Re: "None of your examples did what they did because of atheism.
They did it for power."
Of course they did it for power, just like religious thugs did it for power. Do you really think that the European Wars of Religion in the 16th Century were mainly about 'works vrs faith', or that the car bombs in Baghdad are about disagreements over 7th century succession to the Prophet? All violence on a large scale- theist and atheist- is about power. The fights are over family ties, sectarian loyalties, booty, revenge for personal issues, etc. Do you really think that the terrorism in Northern Ireland was because of disagreements over the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
The real question is this: in what cultural environment- say, Christian vrs. atheist- is the violence worse?
The answer is obvious. For all of the violence that has taken place in theist cultures, is has never been even remotely as horrendous as violence which has taken place in atheist cultures.
Again: which explictly atheist civilizations have not been murderous? I can name scores of theist civilizations that have been relatively humane.
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 10:24 PM
"The science questioned by religious people is either 'science' that makes atheistic assertions that aren't supported by the science at all (the atheistic aspects of Darwin's theory)"
Please elaborate.
"or raise very real moral questions about which reasonable people can disagree (human embryonic stem cell research)"
Stem cell research only raises moral questions if you believe that some sort of magical ensoulment happens at conception. Science has shown no evidence for this, but religious people frame the argument as if it were true. Therefore, they are impeding the practice of science.
And anyway, on what grounds can religion question science anyway? Science is based on evidence. Religion is based on revealed knowledge and tradition. There is no reliable way to know whether your religious claim is wrong. It's all just made up.
"or makes claims on limited evidence that would radically alter human society (Global Warming)."
What does religion have to do with global warming? I think you're getting religion and right-wing politics mixed up. Forgivable.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 16, 2007 10:27 PM
Dear Mark,
Wipe that "scowling clown" face, please! You are not frightening anyone, anywhere, anytime with these attempts at polishing the cow pie that is Xianity. You sound like a lonely little whimperer calling up from the the bottom of the miles-deep well of lies you were stupid enough to dig yourself down into.
I'd offer, as many here would, a candle to light your darkness, but it's clear you are afraid to see yourself even in the weakest light, much less to allow youself to be hoisted into the light of the sun beneath which ordinary human beings walk.
(Hopefully we can enrage your shrunken "soul" enough to not notice you have learned something about yourself, maybe even about something new about the world you clearly cannot see in the thick, smelly burlap bag that is your "faith".)
Ta!
Posted by: darwinfinch | December 16, 2007 10:28 PM
There's not exactly such a thing as explicitly atheist countries. As it turns out, there's no further implication of beliefs stemming from a lack of belief in a certain premise. On the other hand, technically, every secular country is an "explicitly atheist" country (as much as the absence of a belief can be explicit), as they hold no national beliefs in in any gods. So, following the definition of atheism as possessing no belief in any gods, then the US is an "atheist" country. But, it's kind of silly to define a country by beliefs it lacks, as non-belief has no effect on policy or national acts, and defining countries as atheist conflates the term with secular. Individuals are atheists, countries are secular.
The countries that you listed were explicitly anti-theist (a tiny circle inside the big circle of atheism if described by a Venn diagram). While technically atheist (as they lack beliefs in gods), they can hardly be considered representative of all atheism, and their policies and acts stemmed not from the atheism itself, but from anti-theistic motivations that also led to their atheism.
A difference in atheism and religions is religions have the ability to provide motivation for horrible acts of evil. Atheism posits nothing by itself and so cannot do the same. Of course, you can replace "horrible acts of evil" with "great acts of good" and the above still holds true. You can't really credit atheism itself with anything good or bad because it doesn't do anything. Saying atheism causes something is really making a claim that theism inhibits it and vice versa.
While thinking of "explicitly atheist" countries, try to think of some explicitly a-unicornist countries. If we're lucky, you might realize why it's so stupid to label countries as explicitly atheist.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 16, 2007 10:42 PM
Rey,
Re: "Stem cell research only raises moral questions if you believe that some sort of magical ensoulment happens at conception. Science has shown no evidence for this, but religious people frame the argument as if it were true. Therefore, they are impeding the practice of science."
First, sicence doesn't address the issue of ensoulment. Furthermore, all sorts of things 'impede the practice of science'. Science- like every other human activity- is heavily regulated by law. We can't experiment on people in ways that are likely to harm them, we're not allowed to do painful experiments on animals, we can't spew nuclear waste all over the countryside.
Regulation of expermentation on human embryos is no different. People on both sides have moral viewpoints, and both sides have a right to be heard. Are you suggesting that the viewpoints of religious citizens should be excluded from influencing public policy?
Your argument is with democracy, not religion.
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 10:46 PM
uknesvuinng,
Atheism's biggest problem in the 21st century is the blood spilled by atheists in the 20th. Your hand-waving about "You can't really credit atheism itself with anything good or bad because it doesn't do anything." is nonsense.
The murders committed under the auspices of Communism (and by the Jacobians in the Reign of Terror) were committed by fervent atheists. They were committed for a host of sectarian and ideological reasons. Every 'excuse' you can offer for atheist atrocities can be offered for theist atrocities.
The fact remains that cultures that have been explictly atheist (as Marxist cultures tend to be) have been extraordinarily murderous. Your refusal to come to grips with the real history of your ideology, as we Christians have had to come to grips with our less-than-peaceful history, prevents you from being taken seriously.
Atheism needs fewer hacks, and more thoughtful adherents who are willing to be honest about history.
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 11:03 PM
Wow -- did you actually flunk history? Do you have any notion of the contribution of the medieval Muslim world to science (you do know that terms like "algebra" and "alcohol" derive from Arabic, right?). Are you completely ignorant of the "Islamic Golden Age", when thinkers in the Muslim world laid the groundwork for science while most of Europe was wallowing in the Dark Ages? Did you not know that a great many historians of science think that the beginnings of modern science can be attributed to the Muslim world?
Posted by: Tulse | December 16, 2007 11:03 PM
No one claims that atheism is some sort of moral code or that it leads people to be good.
All it means is lack of belief in gods.
That is it. It doesn't in itself lead people to do anything.
Only religion makes a claim to morality and fails.
Posted by: spurge | December 16, 2007 11:06 PM
Tulse,
Re: "Do you have any notion of the contribution of the medieval Muslim world to science"
I have great respect for the contributions of medieval Islamic civilization to science. Medieval Islam contributed more than modern atheist (Marxist) civilization has. Yet the fact remains: the scientific revolution is a product of Christian civilization.
Why are you evading the obvious?
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 11:13 PM
Again: which explictly atheist civilizations have not been murderous? I can name scores of theist civilizations that have been relatively humane.
The Spanish Revolutionaries during the Spanish Civil war for one. They were avowedly atheist and they were slaughtered by the Catholic, Nazi supported Fascist Franco.
Moreover, look at Hitlers actions, again an avowed Christian. He slaughtered more people at a higher rate than any before or since, he killed somewhere around eleven million in four years of death camps. That's some efficiency that the Atheist regimes couldn't match.
And as per Mao and the Chinese communist regime, people starving because of bad policy decisions, which is what a huge number of the deaths were, is no where near the same level of evil as the sort of thing Hitler did.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 16, 2007 11:14 PM
Mark, you still don't understand what atheism is. It doesn't make any claims, period. It's merely not accepting other claims of a specific nature. We wouldn't even need a word for it if the assholes of religion didn't overstate the value of their particular religions. Atheism makes no claims for anyone to act on.
I don't deny the communist regimes were atheist, but your implied claim that their atheism was causal regarding their actions and policies is false. Your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and your bigotry are duly noted.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 16, 2007 11:21 PM
I haven't dealt much with the other false implied premise that's being thrown around, that atheists do not contribute to science, but I'll point it out now. The contributions of atheist societies are not the sum total of the contributions of atheists to science.
I'm feeling rather lazy now, but maybe someone could be kind enough to list some numbers on how many scientists are atheists, and maybe a short list of atheist scientists that have made a notable contribution to science.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 16, 2007 11:30 PM
coathangrrr,
The Spanish revolutionaries slaughtered priests wholesale. There were atrocities on both sides.
Hitler doesn't fit easily into either Christian or atheist philosophy. He was a baptized Catholic, but Nazism obviously wasn't Christian, and wasn't explictly atheist either. It was nearest to paganism, worshipping blood, race, and nationhood. Nazism owed much to Nietzsche, who hated Christianity, and historian Richard Weikart in "From Darwin to Hitler" traces much of Nazi eugenic policies to Darwinism and the eugenic movement in the late 19th century that it spawned.
To claim that Nazi atrocities are 'Christian' is to seriously misunderstand Nazism.
Communism, on the other hand, was explictly atheist.
Posted by: Mark | December 16, 2007 11:32 PM
Minor correction to my penultimate post (excluding this one). It's not post hoc ergo propter hoc but cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 16, 2007 11:33 PM
"It was nearest to paganism, worshipping blood, race[...]"
Things which are totally alien to Abrahamic tradition. Riiight.
Posted by: Numad | December 16, 2007 11:34 PM
Hitler doesn't fit easily into either Christian or atheist philosophy.
Nonsense, he claimed over and over that he was Christian and that he was doing what he was doing for the white Christian race.
Nazism owed much to Nietzsche, who hated Christianity, and historian Richard Weikart in "From Darwin to Hitler" traces much of Nazi eugenic policies to Darwinism and the eugenic movement in the late 19th century that it spawned.
You are totally not spouting that crap. Nazism owed much to Nietzsche's sister who doctored up a couple of his works to make them pro-Christian and then gave them to the Nazis. The Nazis were fucking Christian, they said it again and again.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 16, 2007 11:43 PM
Oh and countries that are atheist and peaceful. Try Estonia and Sweden, right now.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 16, 2007 11:49 PM
The anti-semitic tradition that the Nazis exploited is a Christian one. Europe was not pagan or overwhelmingly atheistic at the time, unless I'm mistaken on that little detail.
Posted by: Numad | December 16, 2007 11:49 PM
One of my favorites from the Sage of Baltimore, which I think I've posted here before:
"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous."
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 16, 2007 11:52 PM
Quoth Mark:
And the culture which put "Gott Mit Uns" on its uniform belt buckles, how life-affirming was it?Quoth Tulse:
That's a pernicious bit of Islamic propaganda (anyone who recalls the imperialist Soviet claims to have invented everything under the sun should be skeptical of similar claims from Muslim imperialists). This claim is addressed at Dhimmi Watch, and in more depth by Fjordman.Science only got going in the West when the hold of christian orthodoxy was weakened. The sterility of the Islamic world can be traced directly to its suffocating religious orthodoxy. While there are certain philosophical requirements for science, religious orthodoxy is antithetical to it. Even Mark moves his goalposts by saying "Christian culture" without any reference to church dogma. Nice job of equivocation there, Mark.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | December 17, 2007 12:05 AM
Some religious people are attacking Darwin's theory because atheists have advanced their unscientific ideological viewpoints by hijacking genuine science.
I would ask Little Mark how he accounts for Christians who accept Darwin's theory, since Darwinism is just one big wicked atheist conspiracy, but he's not very bright and I have my doubts his explanation would make any sense.
I would also ask him that given that the great majority of scientists accept Darwin's theories, whether that means that most science is not 'genuine', but I don't want to confuse him more.
So, go ahead, Mark. Explain to us why Noah's ark and the resurrection and a 6,000-YO earth are 'scientific ideological viewpoints'. We can't wait.
Posted by: Jake Boyman | December 17, 2007 12:21 AM
No way. It is a product of the enlightenment and Western civilization. Xianity had nothing much to do with the scientific revolution and to this day mostly just gets in the way. Bruno died an agonizing death for defending heliocentrism and Galileo almost followed him. To this day, when you find a speed bump in the road, it has Xian fundie written all over it. You are mistaking correlation with causation, a fallacy so old it was first written in Latin when Latin was a living language.
Posted by: raven | December 17, 2007 12:21 AM
coathangrrr,
What Nietzsche's sister added to his philosophy was virulent anti-Semitism. Nietzsche's hatred of Christianity was unambiguous.
Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership were practicing Christians in any meaningful sense. They had plans to kidnap the Pope, and they killed as many Christians as Jews in the concentration camps. The Vatican frequently condemned Nazism, and Pius XII harbored may Jews in the Vatican to protect them from the Fascists. The Chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war, and Pius XII was proclaimed a "Righteous Gentile" by the State of Israel. There were millions of Christian martyrs to the Nazis- among them Lutheran pastor and theologian Deitrich Bonhoeffer and Polish Franscican priest Maximilian Kolbe. By the way, who were the (non-Communist) atheist martyrs to Nazism?
The 20th century was characterized by the weakening of Christian culture in Europe, a decline that had been accelerating since the late 19th century. The Nazis (and the Communists) rose when the influence of Christianity was waning. Yet they arose from a Christian culture, of course, and therefore Christianity has some soul-searching to do (which it has done) about 20th century Europe.
I have seen no analogous soul searching by atheists about Communism, which was explicitly and proudly atheist. You behave as if your ideology sprung out of the ground a few years ago, newly formed, innocent of history.
You still haven't answered my earlier question: list the explicitly athiest civilizations (there have been many in the 20th century and there was one in the 18th century)that weren't murderous.
No one doubts that mankind is brutal. My argument is that atheist civilizations are objectively more brutal than theistic ones. By far.
Posted by: Mark | December 17, 2007 12:25 AM
Hitler doesn't fit easily into either Christian or atheist philosophy. He was a baptized Catholic, but Nazism obviously wasn't Christian, and wasn't explictly atheist either. It was nearest to paganism, worshipping blood, race, and nationhood.
Short Mark: "even tho Hitler explained he was a Christian hundreds of times, he was a bad person, therefore I get to decide that he wasn't a Christian".
Christians have treated Jews so wonderfully over the last 2,000 years, Mark. We're sorry we forgot.
What tripe. The Diary of H. L. Mencken, published recently by Alfred A. Knopf, shows that Mencken was a racist and an anti-Semitic bigot.
Certainly. This proves that everything he said was false, and that evolution is false. Your logic bowls us over.
Posted by: Jake Boyman | December 17, 2007 12:25 AM
"They were committed for a host of sectarian and ideological reasons. Every 'excuse' you can offer for atheist atrocities can be offered for theist atrocities."
Bingo. Neither theism nor atheism are enough to encompass an entire ideology. Stalin was not simply an "atheist", he was a Hagelian, a Marxist-Lenninist and a cultural heir to the monarchial tradition of Tsarism.
The latter, by the way, in explicitly tied to Orthidox Christianity and established many of the facets of the Soviet regime we consider the most grotesquely inhumane. For instance, Lenin and Trotsky didn't themselves commence the incarceration of political dissident in Siberia prison camps, their Tsarist predecessors had been doing this for centuries.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 12:28 AM
The 20th century was characterized by the weakening of Christian culture in Europe, a decline that had been accelerating since the late 19th century. The Nazis (and the Communists) rose when the influence of Christianity was waning. Yet they arose from a Christian culture, of course,
You mean...
Antisemitism arose from Christianity?
But... I thought Antisemitism was never a problem when Europe was *Christian*.
Oh my god, you've gotta be shitting me, Mark.
Posted by: Jake Boyman | December 17, 2007 12:28 AM
"Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leadership were practicing Christians in any meaningful sense."
How about the fact that they were expressed Christians? How about the fact that they denounced the Communists primarily because they were "godless"?
Or if you don't consider the Nazis "practicing Christians in any meaningful sense", how about Martin Luther?
"You behave as if your ideology sprung out of the ground a few years ago, newly formed, innocent of history."
Bzzzzt. Wrong, thanks for playing. Atheism is not an ideology, try again.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 12:34 AM
Mark:
Here's your reading for the weekend, there'll be a short quiz tomorrow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
Posted by: Arden Chatfield | December 17, 2007 12:38 AM
Mark,
Apologia isn't compatible with "soul searching."
Don't strain yourself.
Posted by: Numad | December 17, 2007 12:41 AM
Religion (maybe politics is a better term?) does interfer with bridges from my standpoint. I live in Minneapolis where the bridge collapsed last August. These fricken republicans actually back this lousy government we have in state and out state. I am totally disillusioned with this country and where is has gone but not many people seem to care. I am not a scientist but I am not stupid like the religious right counts on to survive. Scarey country I live in these days.
Posted by: MCullen | December 17, 2007 12:42 AM
Tyler,
Re: "Neither theism nor atheism are enough to encompass an entire ideology. Stalin was not simply an "atheist", he was a Hagelian, a Marxist-Lenninist and a cultural heir to the monarchial tradition of Tsarism."
I agree. As I wrote earlier, thugs (atheistic and theistic) act for a variety of reasons. Metaphysical reasons are usually not up front.
My point is this: given the complexity of motivation for human atrocities, which milieu (explicitly atheist or explicitly theist) yields the worst atrocities? The history of the 20th century is unambiguous: explictly atheist civilizations are astonishingly bloody. For goodness sake, the first atheist government in human history (Revolutionary France) quickly earned the name "Reign of Terror".
Atheists need to take the bloody history of their ideology seriously.
Posted by: Mark | December 17, 2007 12:42 AM
"The history of the 20th century is unambiguous: explictly atheist civilizations are astonishingly bloody."
"Atheists need to take the bloody history of their ideology seriously."
You seem to be stuck on two fatuous propositions: 1. that atheism is an ideology and 2. that atheism is something that can fully encompass a "civilization". It is neither. The histories of Soviet Russia, Maoist China, etc. have numerous subtleties and nuances and crisp divisions into "atheism" versus "theism" tell you virtually nothing that is historically meaningful.
You continually reference the French Revolution, but fail to acknowledge that "The Cult of Reason" was only one part of the entire affair. Robespierre, the figure behind the most bloody aspects of the French revolution, was reacting against the atheists and was himself a theist. You also ignore the various historical contingencies that cause the French revolution to descend into chaos, ones that could have easily hapened in its American counterpart (the French revolutionaries, for instance, did not preserve the institution of land ownership and had a proto-Leninist notion that liberation could be achieved by an omnipotent political party).
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 17, 2007 12:53 AM
Mark,
It's obvious that