…and this is a 
Robert Bakker plays blame-the-atheist
Category: Creationism • Religion
Posted on: May 19, 2008 10:45 PM, by PZ Myers
Robert Bakker is one of the good guys, a paleontologist who really does an excellent job of communicating enthusiasm for science. I saw him talk at St John's University a few years ago, and he clearly inspired the kids in attendance — I greatly enjoyed the talk too, even though one of his hooks was to incessantly emphasize the religious backgrounds of famous dinosaur hunters. It's a strategy, all right? If he can get more kids to follow through on science, more power to him.
However, he also illustrates another unfortunate phenomenon: religion turns even good scientists' brains to mush. In a recent interview on Laelaps, he said some awesomely stupid things.
We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What's the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?
Militant Creationism?
No way. It's the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.
Right. And the caste system in India would have simply withered away if only those untouchables weren't so repulsive and disgusting. Homophobes can't be blamed for beating up gay men, since the queers insist on being non-heterosexual. It's not rapists fault, we ought to be punishing women for being sexually attractive.
This is the same dumb move Ken Miller pulled a while back, trying to place the blame for a religious movement that promotes ignorance on the backs of a minority group that opposes religious dogma. I assure you, if every atheist in America vanished tomorrow (raptured, perhaps?), the creationists would not go away. They would be stronger. They'd be moving faster to push their dogma into our schools, and to make it the law of the land.
Look, it's very simple. Creationism is a problem because people are indoctrinated into biblical literalism, and because in this country the proponents have successfully coupled generic "faith" as a virtue with the specific follies of simple-minded Christianity. If you want to find the roots, look to evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic Christianity as it has been exercised in this country — which has not been as a reaction to atheism. People like Bakker would be on less shaky ground if they were to blame it all on a reaction against modernity, but theistic scientists can't then turn around and damn the modern, because that would make them part of the problem, too.
Bakker continues in a follow-up and makes his position worse. First, he goes on a tirade about the "Brights". That ham-handed public-relations misstep is not atheism, and it's ridiculous to dismiss a rationalist view of the world because once upon a time a couple of well-meaning people tried to escape the stigma of the word "atheist" (a stigma that Bakker treats as deserved, symptomatic of the problem) with a new coinage. I do not call myself a Bright, and never did — when I first heard about it, I rejected it — so Bakker's argument simply sails by me outside the foul line to fall into the bleachers of irrelevance.
The rest of Bakker's protestation is nothing but a Courtier's Reply.
Dawkins performs clip-art scholarship with the History of Science and Religion, a field that over the last several decades has matured into a rigorous discipline with fine PhD programs, endowed professorships, well-funded conferences, edited volumes luxuriously printed by Oxford, Harvard, and The Johns Hopkins Press. With footnotes.
Yeah, and Oral Roberts University, Bob Jones University, and Liberty University have huge endowments and churn out degrees — that must make them repositories of Truth.
It's a smokescreen. Religion is a real, historical, and sociological phenomenon, and of course there is a genuine body of scholarship in those aspects of religion. But those studies have no bearing at all on the reality of the supernatural phenomena creationists endorse. Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, which has Bakker fuming, is an attempt to cut through the layers of apologetics to get right at the central premise: the existence of a guiding intelligence that has ruled the universe. Quoting St Augustine or Martin Luther changes nothing. The key facts are that the history of the world does not correspond to the accounts of the church fathers; the revealed "truths" of the Abrahamic religions are false; biological reality contradicts any assertion of teleology or purpose. The Christian myth is objectively wrong. Those are the issues that have to be addressed, not how many footnotes a theologian can cram into his fantasies.
Bakker is a smart fellow, and I applaud his public outreach efforts. But he's also a walking, talking demonstration of the fact that religion poisons everything. It takes the minds of logical, rational scientists and scrambles them into defenders of absurdity.
Politics
Comments
Wow! Well said. A very quotable entry....
Posted by: scott | May 19, 2008 11:00 PM
Very well written and also very right...
Posted by: mcl | May 19, 2008 11:01 PM
I was similarly disappointed to read Shermer's dismissal of 'militant atheism' in "Why Darwin Matters" (which I've only just finished). For some reason, if we say that the Christian cosmology is wrong, that's some kind of 'warfare' view. We're supposed to blend truth and falsehood into some big mushy ball.
I hate it when people I like get it so egregiously wrong.
Posted by: Daniel | May 19, 2008 11:03 PM
Be sure to send Bakker a copy of your message and post his reply here for us to see.
Posted by: Stephanurus | May 19, 2008 11:04 PM
You can think religion is wrong. You just can't say it.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 19, 2008 11:08 PM
It was Bakker that first inspired me to study comparative vertebrate anatomy with his book on the Dinosaur Heresies. I knew he was Pentecostal, which never bothered me, as I knew he fought creationists tooth and nail.
Now I see he has given up totally on logic when it deals with religious mythology. I simply do not grasp how someone that can use logic as well as he can misplace this logic when it comes to popular mythology.
Finally, blaming atheists for the current state of things is like blaming 60s equal-rights activists for the lynchings in the South.
Posted by: Lago | May 19, 2008 11:17 PM
Richard Weikart and Hector Avalos debated on Hitler and evolution today. Avalos is a professor religion and atheist. Weikart is a DI fellow as well as appeared in "Expelled" to tie Nazism and science.
http://mickelson.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=341046
Audio:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/mickelson/mickelson-2008-05-19.mp3
Posted by: Carl | May 19, 2008 11:18 PM
"so Bakker's argument simply sails by me outside the foul line to fall into the bleachers of irrelevance."
oh, man. i'm definitely stealing that one for re-use.
i mean: thinking it up independently, on the spur of the moment, by dint of my lightning wit.
Posted by: kid bitzer | May 19, 2008 11:19 PM
A yes, "militant atheism". People who fight against being forced to fall in line and handle religion with soft gloves like it's a cracked egg. The most militant atheist you find doesn't even advocate banning religion. That's sooooo "militant" of us. The most militant Christian you find is off planning our or deaths or at least fantasizing about us being tortured brutally and eternally.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 11:22 PM
@#6 Lago --
Well, what other option is available for a theistic scientist? Either you have to distort reality and logic (creationists) or just compartmentalize and ignore reality and logic when thinking about religion (Bakker, Ken Miller, etc). Or you could just stop wasting mental energy trying to defend indefensible notions....
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 19, 2008 11:26 PM
Er...the "you" in #10 was addressed to the imaginary theistic scientist, not Lago.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 19, 2008 11:27 PM
The Christian myth is objectively wrong.
as Carl above intimated, Avalos would entirely agree:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hector-avalos-how-archaeology-killed-biblical-history-part-1-of-2/265703079
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hector-avalos-how-archaeology-killed-biblical-history-part-2-of-2/2504436649
for those that haven't seen Avalos' talk on this issue, it's worth seeing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2008 11:30 PM
I simply do not grasp how someone that can use logic as well as he can misplace this logic when it comes to popular mythology.
Was Sam Harris going somewhere with the idea that religious ideas are handled by a different part of the brain than the part that handles cold rational evaluation of ideas? I think he was. It'd explain a lot of things.
I've noticed that religious believers (including my former self) are great at all kinds of critical thinking. They can even go to town on other people's religious beliefs. But when it comes to subjecting their own beliefs to critical scrutiny... blackout.
Posted by: Daniel | May 19, 2008 11:30 PM
I assume it's mostly a ploy, a PR attempt that he half believes in order to say it in "good faith". Maybe he really believes it to the core, I really don't know, but I don't know how anybody in his position could watch Dover and the rest and see it as unproblematically true. So I think he's blaming the "bad cop" and seeing himself as "good cop".
But it won't do. It was roughly the "godless" who undermined the "message" of Expelled before a lot of journalists saw it and bought the story simply because they saw it on a screen. It was vitally important that the message would be out there prior to Expelled being seen, and Dawkins' review was excellent in getting good judgment out there in time.
And even some religious folk, while blaming Dawkins et al. for their forceful atheism, will admit that the "new atheism" is primarily a reaction against a theocratic drive that arose quite unprovoked. The causation is completely backwards in Bakker's scenario, most of us would happily ignore religion and theocracy if we felt that we could afford to do so without a threat to the liberties afforded by a secular governement, as atheists assumed (wrongly) in the past.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 19, 2008 11:32 PM
PZ still refuses to admit that the term "atheist" isn't good for public relations and never has been. Equally important, it's philosophically bankrupt (atheist with respect to which deity?).
Bright is obviously the superior label, but if you want to put "godlessness" at the centre of your life, PZ's inane criticism may carry some weight.
Posted by: J | May 19, 2008 11:32 PM
"militant atheism", this term really gets under my skin attached to people like Dawkins, Harris, PZ. Is anyone converting Christians on the point of a sword here ? We know that's what it took to christianize all the Heathens like the Saxons, Avars, Slavs,....
Posted by: hans | May 19, 2008 11:33 PM
If religion is this sophisticated thing which requires endowed professorships and footnotes to understand, then we've no business calling children Christian. "Awww, honey, it's so sweet you love Jesus, but to really talk about faith, you have to understand the Essential Precondition of Being." It's either sophisticated or common: pick one!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 19, 2008 11:35 PM
I wanted to write a reply to Bakker on Laelaps' blog when I found some time, but now I don't have to. He really, really doesn't seem to get it. Well said, PZ.
Posted by: H.H. | May 19, 2008 11:37 PM
Atheist with regard to every god that has no evidence, J. Right now that's all of them. I am pretty damn happy to have "godlessness". I just wish more people around had it, it results in much better decision making.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 11:39 PM
PZ still refuses to admit that the term "atheist" isn't good for public relations and never has been.
let's stretch your logic back a bit:
"Susan B Anthony refuses to admit that the term "woman voter" isn't good for public relations and never has been.
Equally important, it's philosophically bankrupt (atheist with respect to which deity?).
ALL, dumbass.
nice projection on the philosophically bankrupt issue though.
again, I would refer you to Hector Avalos, but I doubt it would do any good.
Bright is obviously the superior label
while typically being bright is more common amongst atheists than religious nutters, it's hardly directly correlated.
conversely...
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."
- John Stuart Mill
inane criticism
your projection is duly acknowledged, and fits with the rest of your "contributions" to this blog.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2008 11:41 PM
J.
Suck an egg.
Being soundly grounded in reality and refusing to accept faith is a virtue, is wise.
Atheism is the disbelief in any and all gods, fairies or supernatural anything... there's nothing wrong or bad about it.
And pointing at supernatural beliefs and saying what they are isn't militant, it's just incredibly obvious.
It's silly.
Posted by: Steve_C | May 19, 2008 11:43 PM
@#15 "Equally important, it's philosophically bankrupt (atheist with respect to which deity?)."
All of 'em.
a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Posted by: Caveat | May 19, 2008 11:44 PM
AGAIN someone calls Richard Dawkins "loud" and "strident"??
Bloody hell.
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 19, 2008 11:45 PM
PZ's position is also strategically weaker, as "atheist" doesn't encompass the millions of people who consider themselves deists. Why attach such importance to a mere cosmological question (did an intelligence create the Universe)? By doing this we're missing out on countless people who agree with us on all major issues (e.g. stem-cell research and creationism). It's much more useful build a group around rejection of religion rather than rejection of a specific academic hypothesis which happens to be irrelevant to everything except theoretical physics.
Posted by: J | May 19, 2008 11:46 PM
There are terms that could be bad for PR. We could call ourselves baby-eaters. I fail to see how "atheist" is bad PR, but I hope J could illuminate us, and maybe suggest a new name, besides atheist or bright.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 11:46 PM
J.
Suck an egg.
Steve is a man of few words, but very clear ideas.
;)
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2008 11:46 PM
Bakker is blind or something.
The rise of militant atheists is a reaction to the attempt by the fundie Death Cults to take over the USA, set up a theocracy, and head back to the Dark Ages. They've already caused a huge amount of havoc and most Americans are getting fed up with them.
It isn't atheists who keep trying to sneak creo mythology into kid's science classes or persecute evolutionary biologists every chance they get.
Bakker is a minister in a pentocostal church after his day job. He might be one of the few such that thinks the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Maybe the stress is getting to him. LOL
Posted by: raven | May 19, 2008 11:46 PM
"atheist" doesn't encompass the millions of people who consider themselves deists.
ROFLMAO
you don't say?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2008 11:47 PM
I have to point this out to you, J. You are using the same argument that many religious people make against atheists, that atheists base their life around a lack of god.
I humbly have to say, if there were not so many people around me trying to push god upon me, I would not think of the topic. There are so many other things that takes priority. And I doubt I am alone in this.
You are free to be Bright but I desire better and more available lighting.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 19, 2008 11:52 PM
Maybe the stress is getting to him. LOL
I'd get into yet another discussion of the evidences of cognitive dissonance in the likes of Collins and Miller, but I'm off to do something more productive.
I'll just add that like Wilson, Bakker might be playing up the religious angle for tactical effect.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2008 11:53 PM
Sorry - I'm with PZ on "Brights". To #15 "Bright is obviously the superior label" - obvious to whom? You? To me it sounds like something from a bad TV sci-fi series. It has not caught on in the public mind, so its dead. I am an atheist. You can be who you want. With your three friends. Enjoy your movement. We'll be over here with the grownups.
Posted by: JordanB | May 19, 2008 11:54 PM
ALL, dumbass.
nice projection on the philosophically bankrupt issue though.
In which case it's curious why Bertrand Russell agrees with me. Maybe he was a dumbass too?
Everyone is an atheist with respect to innumerably many deities, and full-blown atheism isn't a worldview any more than full-blown afairyism. Philosophically, use of the term misses the point.
The cultish reactions I'm eliciting are very curious indeed.
Posted by: J | May 19, 2008 11:54 PM
as "atheist" doesn't encompass the millions of people who consider themselves deists
Just like "christian" doesn't encompass the millions of people who consider themselves muslim. Just what is your point?
Posted by: Janine ID | May 19, 2008 11:56 PM
Ugh.
With all the talk about "appeasement" on the political front these days, why do so many otherwise sane scientists still want to give half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler (metaphorically speaking, of course)?
Posted by: unicow | May 19, 2008 11:57 PM
Please explain this claim.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 19, 2008 11:58 PM
ROFLMAO
you don't say?
Good argument, fuckface.
You're a little savage in a tribe, always eager to go tear into the enemy.
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:01 AM
How are we reacting like a cult? First off, there's like 7 or 8 people commenting right now out of thousands of people who read this site. And we're not representative of all atheists. Point out anything cult-ish you see. Asking someone to back up their claims is not cult-like behavior; it is quite the opposite.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:01 AM
In which case it's curious why Bertrand Russell agrees with me. Maybe he was a dumbass too?
you do like to play the argument from authority, don't you J?
are you that intellectually bankrupt yourself?
Maybe he was a dumbass too?
why don't you present the actual argument he made, and find out for yourself?
The cultish reactions I'm eliciting are very curious indeed.
the strawmen you keep building are OTOH, hardly curious at all, since I've seen them coming from you before.
I'm thinking Steve is right, the appropriate response is:
suck an egg.
you were a waste of time in the other thread, and you will obviously be a waste of time here.
maybe you would do better discussing "framing" with Nisbet?
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/
see if you can convince Matt that redefining atheism is worthwhile.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2008 12:04 AM
Just for an example of some of the more intellectual religious people admitting that "new atheism" is a reaction, not some bizarre evangelistic fervor among the godless, here:
I included the second paragraph because the first clearly leads beyond itself. I don't care about the second at this point, though, just the admission on the Pew Forum that "new atheism" didn't take the initiative, religious mischief-makers did.
I don't want to fault Bakker overmuch, since he can persuade people that we never could. But he should not be making starkly untrue statements (like implicitly blaming "loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists" for nonsense like Expelled and the Dover circus) when he speaks for science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 20, 2008 12:04 AM
You're a little savage in a tribe, always eager to go tear into the enemy.
and you seem to always be happy to play the victim.
maybe you need thicker armor?
or better arguments?
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2008 12:05 AM
Dennis N, this J person seems to think that people who call themselves atheists base their lives on nothing. Otherwise, why would this person claim the we base our lives on "godlessness". This is reason enough to accuse us of acting cult like.
But J is unable or unwilling to back the claims.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 20, 2008 12:06 AM
"It's much more useful build a group around rejection of religion rather than rejection of a specific academic hypothesis which happens to be irrelevant to everything except theoretical physics." - J.
Who's building a group? I'm not. I'm not an atheist because I'm joining something. I'm an atheist for the same reason I'm tall - I was simply born this way (and no one has been able to convince me otherwise). Changing the meaning of atheist to better facilitate some political agenda is complete idiocy. Worse, it'll force me to create a new word to communicate the meaning of the old one.
Posted by: Jams | May 20, 2008 12:07 AM
Janine, I don't know if we should talk to each other in J's presence, he might think we're colluding against him. Since we're a cult and all.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:08 AM
Please explain this claim.
Very well, here's Russell. A choice quotation:
He means "agnostic" in the philosophical sense, not ordinary sense.
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:08 AM
In today's time, that position is best described as "weak atheism". Agnostic is used to express doubts of theistic belief. I don't have doubts. I just acknowledge what can and can't be proven.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:10 AM
As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
and he was wrong.
why?
because an atheist does not have to prove there is no god.
a deist, OTOH, is the one with the burden of proof.
this is why you shouldn't rely on authoritarian argument so much, J.
now go lick your wounds.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2008 12:12 AM
In case I'm accused of misrepresenting Russell, he goes on to say:
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
This part isn't relevant, because I was talking about the correct philosophical use of the term atheist, not "ordinary man in the street" use.
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:12 AM
raven #27, you got it exactly. Creationism has become a well organized political advocacy to subvert our constitutional system. Before this started, most people were willing to let things be out of mutual respect and leave each other alone. Outspoken atheism is the reasonable pushback to an agressive and subversive political movement.
Posted by: C Barr | May 20, 2008 12:12 AM
Bright is superior to Atheist?
Ok.
Then Rainbow Bright is even better!
I agree that Atheist, while semantically accurate to an almost absurd degree, is unfortunately very heavily laden down with baggage that has long been imposed upon it by entites which have had their own very obvious agendas. Bright, however, is superior only in that it is not. In my equally valid and equally meaningless opinion, Bright is laden down with a shallow smugness that does itself no favors.
You're kidding right? You write this in the same paragraph in which you characterize PZ's criticism as "inane"?
LOL! Now I can go to bed smiling. Thank you!
FWIW, it's true that "atheist" isn't all-inclusive of those who reject most or all gods and forms of organized religion, but ... so? Atheist describes atheists. Surely there are other terms that describe the groups you refer to. Secular humanist? Liberal? What are you proposing? That the term "atheist" no longer be used to describe atheists?
Posted by: Kseniya | May 20, 2008 12:13 AM
This part isn't relevant, because I was
talkingbuilding a strawman.there, fixed that for you.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2008 12:13 AM
I always thought Bakker was one of the good ones.
Apparently not. He screw that up just like he did the predatory theory of T. Rex
Posted by: Andy James | May 20, 2008 12:14 AM
Agnostic conveys a feeling of indecision. I've made my decision: there are no gods. Now, I sit humbly and am open to any evidence to the contrary. I am an atheist.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:14 AM
"What's the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?"
Here he gets it a *bit* wrong. The answer is "consensus", and forget about any religion while you parse that.
Posted by: Mike | May 20, 2008 12:14 AM
Fine. I agree with that. Under those terms, I call myself an agnostic and for those same reasons.
Now just why did Russell come with with his teapot?
Answer that and perhaps you can understand why an agnostic person will take an atheist position. Just keep in mind that we are not basing our lives and philosophy on being godless. Just that god does not enter into these things.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 20, 2008 12:15 AM
@#24 J --
Because it isn't a mere cosmological question. It's an important cosmological question that reflects a general way of looking at the world -- whether one seeks rational, naturalistic explanations and shows a willingness to say "I don't know" when this is the case, or whether one sometimes chooses to fill those "I don't know" gaps with supernatural explanations (eg, the deists in the question of the origin of the universe). The deistic god is utterly superfluous, and what's more, may well eventually become as utterly scientifically contradictory as the creationist god with the progress of physical cosmology.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 20, 2008 12:17 AM
We're so immersed in religious culture, Christian culture, that the least little bit of truly independent, objective thinking looks like a poisonous attack, not just on Christianity and religion, but on objectivity itself.
If you have a big glass of milk, the least little black speck floating in it makes you not want to drink it.
Except in the case of religiosity in the U.S., it's more like a big glass of black specks, and a quarter-teaspoon of milk. It takes an immense amount of straining and filtering to get a sip of milk completely free of black specks.
And it's obvious Bakker has swallowed more of the black specks than a scientist really should.
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 20, 2008 12:17 AM
and he was wrong.
why?
because an atheist does not have to prove there is no god.
We all know that, moron. Russell was the one to come up with the teapot analogy, which is a classic way of demonstrating this.
The term "agnostic" in the sense Russell meant implicitly contains all that stuff about burden of proof, and is not the same as today's popular meaning of the term, which may be more aptly called "50:50 agnostic".
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:18 AM
Here, I think is the appropriate authoritarian quote to use in response to J:
hopefully most here won't have already forgotten where that came from.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 20, 2008 12:19 AM
I don't know what you are arguing for, J. Do you want people to refer to themselves as agnostics, or do you just want everyone to know the difference between atheist and agnostic? Cuz we all already know the difference.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:20 AM
Well, J, if the millions of deists would come clean and explain why we should believe in a non-specific initial creator of the clockworks who let everything just run on its own with its hands off, then perhaps there would be a reason to accept your position.
I see no reason why such a deity would give a rat's ass if we acknowledged it or not. What's the point of deism if not the cowardice to admit that you are afraid to say that you don't have a personal god?
The deist deity isn't claimed to interact with us or the natural world at all. We don't need it. So, what do we gain from it? How does it help us to believe in it? What is there in the natural world that even needs it as an explanation?
Using science we can figure out the processes which have led the universe to its current condition. A deity adds what exactly?
1. Community? Nope, no Deist churches.
2. Money? Deists don't hold up the collection plate under your nose and guilt you into contributing.
3. Charity? Name me a deist charity.
4. Morality? Your deity is absent.
5. Spiritual fulfillment? See (4.)
J, you are being a smug dumbass. The only thing that deists have on atheists is a special pleading that you, too, are religious and not godless atheists. Nature's God was fine in Paine's day, but deists should pick a side in this modern world.
I, too, dislike the term "Bright." And I didn't like what Bakker said to Brian either. The fundamentalists consider anything that isn't explicitly religious to be equivalent to being atheist, and so the disappearance of public atheism wouldn't have jack-all effect on the creaionists.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | May 20, 2008 12:21 AM
@#46 J --
And why exactly is "bright" philosophically better? Rationalist, secular humanist, naturalist, even agnostic, I can see...but bright?
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 20, 2008 12:21 AM
There is actually a good technical reason to differentiate between atheist and agnostic, and Russell recognized it. Arguments against the existence of god are very possible. Indeed, Dawkins comes up with one himself in The God Delusion.
So "atheist" is a good word to describe a person with an even stronger opinion, who actually has an argument against the intelligent creator hypothesis.
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:22 AM
But we already know the what these words mean. And the terms strong atheist and weak atheist already do a good job delineating us. Agnostic is best used to describe a doubter, or someone still deciding.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:24 AM
Words change over time, particularly their connotations and baggage. The words "nice" and "silly" have more or less traded places in connotation over the history of the English language. Change the connotation, don't reinvent the wheel.
Meanwhile, OT but in the spirit of this blog: http://www.partiallyclips.com/pclipslite.php
Posted by: chancelikely | May 20, 2008 12:25 AM
Huh?
J in #15:
J in #61:
(Emphases mine.)
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 20, 2008 12:28 AM
Well, J, if the millions of deists would come clean and explain why we should believe in a non-specific initial creator of the clockworks who let everything just run on its own with its hands off, then perhaps there would be a reason to accept your position.
I'm not a deist myself, but deism isn't an especially crazy position. Nowhere near as obviously absurd as actual religion.
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:28 AM
So what is your position J?
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:30 AM
Crap, the link only goes to the current comic (which is right for the moment). The relevant comic is for 5-13-2008 "Cranes".
"Bright" loses handily to "atheist" when it comes to semantic accuracy and name recognition, as it were. That it isn't laden with quite so much baggage in no way makes up for loss of accuracy and awareness.
And quoting Russell to support the use of a word coined after his death seems almost perverse.
Posted by: chancelikely | May 20, 2008 12:30 AM
J, Re. Etha's post: What, exactly, are you arguing?
Posted by: Patrick Conley | May 20, 2008 12:30 AM
So, I did not become an atheist twenty five years ago when I rejected the church I attended and did not attend any other one. Also, my rejection was not based on an argument. I did not feel the connection to god that I, as a believer, was supposed to have.
Thank you very much. In an earlier thread, I had a true believer inform me that I was never a christian. Now I have you saying that people like me are not really atheists. So, please tell me. I really need to know this. WHAT THE FUCK AM I?
Posted by: Janine ID | May 20, 2008 12:31 AM
J, you don't seem to be advocating anything. I have this sneaking suspicion that you are wanting us atheists to just go away, as if that would help us. I could be wrong, but you haven't really put forth a position.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:35 AM
Etha,
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
Dawkins defines what he calls the "God Hypothesis", so we know which "God" his atheism is "respect to". "Atheist" is a good word for someone who, given his definitions, subscribes to his conclusions (or other arguments against God's existence).
Without those clear definitions "atheist" is a bit of a silly word.
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:37 AM
You do not have to be atheist with respect to a certain god. You can be a-theist. Not believing in any god. Strong and weak atheism.
Being a weak atheist, you do not need to make any positive claims. And you can still proudly call yourself an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:42 AM
J, are you arguing, then, that an atheist is someone who disbelieves in one god specifically? I'm not familiar with Dawkins' God Hypothesis, but I'd bet money that his argument could be used against any and every creator god, and he was merely naming it according to the dominant god of his culture.
Posted by: Patrick Conley | May 20, 2008 12:43 AM
Without those clear definitions "atheist" is a bit of a silly word.
Posted by: J
I am grateful that I am not going by your definition. I have not problem calling myself an A-THE-IST. And damn proud of it. And I have no problem being silly in your eyes. But what the fuck, we are all rather cultist here.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 20, 2008 12:44 AM
This is Dawkins' opinion:
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:45 AM
J, you don't seem to be advocating anything. I have this sneaking suspicion that you are wanting us atheists to just go away, as if that would help us. I could be wrong, but you haven't really put forth a position.
Total bullshit. I've stated several views, but I was distracted by that little shit Ichthyic's ignorant attack on my hero Bertrand Russell.
I'll summarize:
(1) Atheism is bad for public relations, because of the stigma associated with the term.
(2) Strategically it's an foolhardy move. We're missing out on all those people (e.g. deists) who agree with us on all major political issues. By going under the banner of atheism, we automatically marginalize ourselves.
(3) Philosophically it's a silly term unless it comes appended with a load of cumbersome definitions. Unless atheist is used to mean "disbeliever in ", it totally misses the point, as everyone is an atheist with respect to innumerable deities.
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:45 AM
Bah! I intended to write, "Unless atheist is used to mean "disbeliever in [abstract phrasing of the cosmological God hypothesis]...".
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:47 AM
See, you people have got me stressed out. Maybe third time lucky:
I intended to write, "Unless atheist is used to mean 'disbeliever in [abstract phrasing of the cosmological God hypothesis]...'".
Posted by: J | May 20, 2008 12:48 AM
How many people are deists? That fell out of style in the 1800s. When you say atheist, people know what you mean. When you say Christian, people do not think "atheist in regards to all gods except Jesus". I still don't see how the stigma with the word is bad. We're fighting against that exact stigma. It's not going to go away by changing the name. The stigma shouldn't be there, and we will eventually remove that stigma.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:50 AM
All this thread reveals is that being an expert and accomplished dinosaur hunter does not make you well-qualified to pontificate on a theological position, in this case the quasi-religious version of atheism.
Here's the thing, PZ. You and I can rather civilly disagree about the God delusion I still embrace. And you and those who think like you have every right to assert your non-belief, and ask hard, pointed questions of believers. But, as soon as one is assertive, that assertiveness is seen as something akin to the blind enthusiasm of the faithful. Why does Bakker fall for the trope of 'evangelical atheism'? Not because he's spent a lot of time parsing the arguments, evidently. He falls for it because people perceive assertiveness in these matters as religious.
And, many times, that perception is correct. You and I both know that some of your faithful readers are just that. Makes the place interesting!
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | May 20, 2008 12:51 AM
J, it seems that you are making a scapegoat of a the word "atheist". Guess what, most religious people would heap the same scorn on the concept of not believing in any god. It is not the word those people hate, it is other people not sharing their beliefs. Using the word Bright will not change the situation.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 20, 2008 12:56 AM
However, the advantage of the label "atheist" is that, unlike "bright," it will not expose anyone adopting it - even J - to a false advertising lawsuit.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 20, 2008 12:57 AM
J,
OMFG.
1. Atheism bad PR? Do you judge a person's science based on their personal beliefs?
2. Strategy? To what end? Do you believe that all atheist scientists (and perhaps all atheists in general) have a political agenda?
3. *facepalm* Atheist = without theism. One who does not believe in supernatural deities or a prime creator.
Posted by: me | May 20, 2008 12:57 AM