…and this is a 
We don't?
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: July 23, 2008 10:28 AM, by PZ Myers
Nick Spencer of the Telegraph says Americans don't do atheism. It's a weird piece that frets over the religiosity of American politicians, but somehow seems to find it reassuring that there are different ways to be religious, and that maybe the US is moving away from dominionist wackaloonery towards religously-motivated social activism — doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, in other words. There's a germ of hope there, that the country might get somewhat less insane — but at the same time it represents an opportunity to entrench superstition deeper into the republic. I really don't consider a liberal theocracy any better than a conservative theocracy: both are built on ignorance and dogma.
Worse, Spencer thinks Rick Warren, glib cult-leader and bubble-gum philosopher, is a good thing for the country. Blah. He seems to be a nice fellow on some subjects, but ultimately he's a patriarchal loon who thinks gays and atheists will burn in hell. Maybe he is representative of the country, though…superficially earnest and well meaning, with a seething core of stupid that means we'll do horrible things in spite of good intentions.
That isn't anything to inspire optimism.
Politics
Comments
Well, Nick; FYI I don't do Theists.. I have a literal sexual aversion to them.. in general!
Posted by: Mike Pack | July 23, 2008 10:35 AM
"It is my firm belief that there should be separation of church and state as we understand it in the United States -- that is, that both church and state should be free to operate, without interference from each other in their respective areas of jurisdiction. We live in a liberal, democratic society which embraces wide varieties of belief and disbelief. There is no doubt in my mind that the pluralism which has developed under our Constitution, providing as it does a framework within which diverse opinions can exist side by side and by their interaction enrich the whole, is the most ideal system yet devised by man. I cannot conceive of a set of circumstances which would lead me to a different conclusion."
John F Kennedy
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 23, 2008 10:37 AM
Rick Warren?! There needs to be a mass protest of this event:
The Rev. Rick Warren has persuaded the candidates to attend a forum at his Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, Calif., on Aug. 16. In an interview, Mr. Warren said over the weekend that the presidential candidates would appear together for a moment but that he would interview them in succession at his megachurch.
How much longer are we going to tolerate this religious pandering, this religious test for office? This has to be publicly opposed and changes have to be made so that in upcoming years we don't go through the nonsense that we've suffered in recent years, especially this Presidential campaign so far.
PhillyChief
Another Goddamned Podcast
Posted by: PhillyChief | July 23, 2008 10:41 AM
PZ said:
"superficially earnest and well meaning, with a seething core of stupid that means we'll do horrible things in spite of good intentions"
I think that's a good description of humanity in general.
Posted by: Ron in Houston | July 23, 2008 10:41 AM
There's a germ of hope there, that the country might get somewhat less insane -- but at the same time it represents an opportunity to entrench superstition deeper into the republic. I really don't consider a liberal theocracy any better than a conservative theocracy: both are built on ignorance and dogma.
You're always going to have a degree of superstition. That said, if you can get people to do the right things for the wrong reasons, you can at least get the right things done.
I think people keep coming back to religion as a "last resort" when life gets rough. If you can move towards a more progressive society - one that doesn't treat stem cells with more "respect" than brown people - through religious means, you can eventually get to the point where people can free themselves of religion without freeing themselves of morality.
The Soviets and the Chinese tried to expunge religion from the culture decades ago. All they managed to do was create a big sucking void that foreign missionary charlatans were able to sweep in and fill. Christianity is a rapidly growing faith in China because they tried to get rid of religion before they improved the standard of living.
If you can raise the standard of living, people won't feel so obligated to go hunting after ephemeral salvation. If you can get religious institutions to back education and health initiatives, you won't have ignorant cancer-ridden blue-collar folks clinging to the every snake oil salesmen who rolls through town.
:-p You've got to build a system that can support society without feeling it needs a religion to fall back on. It's evolution. :-p
Posted by: Zifnab | July 23, 2008 10:43 AM
Ugh, he mentioned that Gallop poll that haunts me so. Wether it's science literacy, religous beliefs or political opinions, those polls are the only things that I refuse to consider that they are could be correct, assume the methodology is flawed without any evidence showing it and go about my business. It helps me sleep at night.
Hey, this must be how a theist thinks.
Posted by: Rob H | July 23, 2008 10:47 AM
[blockquote]Appearing before a small group of journalists at a Pew Forum conference in May, bestselling preacher Rick Warren (The Purpose-Driven Life) presents himself as a working pastor with no aspirations to be a celebrity, who just happened to write a historic book: "When you write the best-selling book in the world for the last three years, that changes your life," he confides in passing. He gets "a lot of invitations to speak" and turns down many. He has chosen to address our small group "because I only speak to influencers.... I read all of your stuff all the time," he says in a hyperbolic appeal to our vanity. "Thank you for helping me grow."[/blockquote]
I read parts of his particularly famous rag and found it inane. My wife thought it would be a good idea since everyone told her so. I wanted to vomit but had to restrain myself to avoid what would have been a very big fight. She can get really mean when defending Jesus. Yeah, thank you for helping me grow. Right. Thank you for showing me that what they consider their best is really really bad. Life changing. I guess maybe for those who never have looked within themselves. I find most religious people never introspect much unless they face a crisis.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 23, 2008 10:49 AM
Great post, and I love this blog, but I wanted to comment on a couple of comments:
First, we are basically drowning the world in our own poisons. How are we going to "raise the standard of living" that dramatically? There is an assumption that the current level of comfort experience by (decreasing numbers) of middle class people in the USA and Europe can be sustained, so religion will just fade away. That ignores the reality of upcoming resource wars and depletion.
I do like this, though: "with a seething core of stupid" but might replace "Stupid" with "Hatred" 'cause that's what I really see it as.
Posted by: Brian | July 23, 2008 10:51 AM
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/07/atheists-in-denial.html
Posted by: anon | July 23, 2008 10:55 AM
There are no atheists in bedrooms. Why else would people shout "Oh, God! Oh, God! Oh, God!" in bed so much?
Posted by: Slaughter | July 23, 2008 10:56 AM
Give me a liberal theocracy over a conservative one any day of the week. Except Sunday. On Sunday I'd like to rest.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | July 23, 2008 10:57 AM
Dude, it's the Torygraph. It's owned by Bond villains and read by characters from Wodehouse. You aren't meant to take it seriously.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 23, 2008 10:57 AM
Anybody read the Newsweek debate between Rick Warren and Sam Harris? If that were a boxing match, the ringside doctor would have had to have called off the fight...needless to say, Warren demonstrated neither the existence of the Christian God to any persuasive degree or the moral necessity of Christianity.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 23, 2008 10:59 AM
One way to look at it is that religion is not really a reason at all, that one might be doing the right things for the right reasons, but sanctifying it with religion. Not what I'd prefer, yet what has been done for millenia.
That's the real problem. If you don't make people credit humanity and thought for a humane and thoughtful policy, why shouldn't they then install Haggard's policies if he persuades them that he speaks for God?
A bit of genuflecting isn't so terrible. Crediting god for what humanity and intelligence do is terrible.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 23, 2008 11:00 AM
I guess I've forgotten how to blockquote. This last 6 weeks have been hard on my brain.
Posted by: Barklikeadog | July 23, 2008 11:01 AM
This battle between reason and religion will persist for many years to come and I predict will endure long after the last atheist is dead, either through natural means or hounded out of the community by the onslaught of the demented hordes. Is "community" the selective answer, as in a gated community for atheists only? Will we be content and happy among others of like intellect and ideas? I am inclined to think and say we would, even considering many qualifiers such as abortion, death penalty, and other touchy subjects. Let's get in there first and then hash them out in a manner that emphasizes our rational minds.
Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 11:03 AM
Andrew Sullivan, pointed to this article to note that Warren has already had an impact on Obama's political career.
Marc Ambinder, December 2007 Atlantic Monthly:
"Many Obama friends and advisers believe that the realization he actually could be president first hit Obama on December 1, 2006, which happened to be World AIDS Day. Obama appeared at the megachurch in Orange County, California, run by Rick Warren, the best-selling author of The Purpose Driven Life and an emerging force in national politics. Sam Brownback, the Republican senator from Kansas, spoke first. "Welcome to my house," he said to Obama, as the crowd laughed. When Obama rose to speak, he replied, "There is one thing I've got to say, Sam: This is my house, too. This is God's house." Before an audience of socially conservative evangelical Christians, Obama then called for "realism" and advocated the use of condoms to control the spread of AIDS. As the next day's Orange County Register described it, Obama received a "hearty standing ovation." Could any other Democrat, Obama wondered, talk to evangelicals about condoms in Africa?"
Posted by: Colugo | July 23, 2008 11:11 AM
Oh no Rick Warren... He's the Pastor of Saddelback cult (oops I mean church), in Orange County. That place is EVIL, I grew up in that area, and had many friends who at some point joined that church (all left after a year or so). That place is so big, and has so much money, it's scary...
Posted by: jj | July 23, 2008 11:14 AM
According to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us, US GDP per capita, adjusted for inflation, has increased over 20 times since 1820. Does that count as a dramatic raise in the standard of living? We now live longer, rarely starve, and have air conditioning. Little changes over time can add up. If we know in what direction we want that change to happen, all we need is more pressure than the other side can provide and a lot of patience.
Good vector calculations probably wouldn't hurt.
If everyone in China had at least the standard of living of the average person posting on this blog, the hypothesis seems to be that they would be less open to Christian missionaries.
I was going to say: Religiosity-income comparisons provide support for this hypothesis. However, most of what I found when looking for a citation was more in agreement with this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1088980 which shows a relationship between income and religion, but not always an inverse one.
Posted by: SDyuaa | July 23, 2008 11:14 AM
Ugh. Rick Warren. My ex's mum gave him The Purpose Driven Life and we read it aloud on the drive back for shits and giggles. I don't recall much, but it didn't impress me. A lot of false cause and effect, attributing things to God that had more to do with coincidence, and stupid metaphors. Inane is too kind a word.
Posted by: PixelFish | July 23, 2008 11:15 AM
Barklikeadog:
Nah, you've just outed yourself as also posting on a forum that uses BBCode instead of HTML. Fess up, now: Who is the other blog and what have you been doing with that hussy?
8^)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | July 23, 2008 11:15 AM
I wouldn't be that pessimistic. Organized religion is just a crutch that's outlived its usefulness. Eventually people will shed it like we shed our tails and large amounts of our body hair. But generic superstition is never likely to go away simply because people are born completely ignorant. Never having another guy cling to a lucky rabbit's foot will happen the same day you eliminate the fear of monsters under the bed from every 6-year-old in the world.
The real trick is preserving morality in the face of wanning religious authority, because the only thing that keeps a great many people from doing a great many horrible things is the fear that they'll get caught. That's why you've got the current crop of idiots in the White House making such a mess. They don't fear anything - natural or supernatural.
How do you keep a society of people from acting badly without turning the region into a police state, if they don't have any fear of the big scary man in the sky? And that question really boils down to how you get a collective population to act responsibly.
Posted by: Zifnab | July 23, 2008 11:15 AM
"If you're poor, know that wealth can interfere with salvation: "Money has the greatest potential to replace God in your life." If you feel weak, know that "God has never been impressed with strength or self-sufficiency. In fact, he is drawn to people who are weak and admit it." If you feel inadequate, know that God "doesn't want you to worry about or covet abilities you don't have." Remember that suffering is purposeful: "God never wastes a hurt!""
This quote sums up the religious viewpoint. God wants you poor, weak, not self-sufficient, inadequate, and suffering. But don't worry "God luvs U."
Posted by: DouglasL | July 23, 2008 11:15 AM
Well, at least there are some good Americans out there that are will to do atheists if not atheism.
Posted by: Dahan | July 23, 2008 11:17 AM
The problem is they'll just as easily do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. "[Somebody told me] god told me so" isn't valid reasoning no matter what the outcome.
Posted by: tsg | July 23, 2008 11:19 AM
"and have air conditioning"
I don't :(
Posted by: jj | July 23, 2008 11:21 AM
I hear Rick Warren is the only one who was able to get Obama and McCain on the same stage prior to scheduled debates. Shit.
Posted by: John | July 23, 2008 11:23 AM
"I think that's a good description of humanity in general.
Posted by: Ron in Houston"
Nicely done. Surprisingly cynical, though.
Posted by: E.V. | July 23, 2008 11:24 AM
Well, if shouting "Oh God!" counts as prayer maybe we can get some Christians to have bumper stickers that read "Do an Atheist for Jesus!"
Posted by: Tressa | July 23, 2008 11:24 AM
#13: I remember that discussion with Harris and Warren. Warren's philosophy is so content-free he could simply be a mime in interviews; he says *nothing.* He did like to play the old standards: if humans are "merely" physical beings, whence morality? The disingenuousness of such a question is palpable; he will accept no answer to it. He's a fool--a rich, powerful fool. That our presidential candidates are going to bend to his will makes me want to never stop throwing up.
To me, "liberal religion" is like "positive stereotype." You know, Asians are good at math, black people are good dancers, Jews are good with money. It may sound nice but it's still *wrong.*
Posted by: Will E. | July 23, 2008 11:25 AM
This battle between reason and religion will persist for many years to come and I predict will endure long after the last atheist is dead, either through natural means or hounded out of the community by the onslaught of the demented hordes.
While this is a picture that does much for a very laudable call to action, I do have to protest that where it succeeds as rhetoric, my evaluation is it fails in accuracy. For unless and until human minds evolve in a startling different and disturbing direction toward even greater love of conformity, there will not be a 'last atheist'.
Indeed, if you were to accept the (amusing) charge of certain religionists that atheism is 'just another religion', it is almost certainly amongst the oldest of them. And leaving that nonsensical playground taunt aside, there have almost certainly always been human beings with sensible doubts, even within the most conforming, powerful, and terrifying of theocracies.
Reason is, to some degree, innate, in humans, and even if it weren't, would still almost certainly be indelible on the larger scale. Yes, it is easily deflected, subsumed, perverted, by powerful social interests--this is what religions do, this is how they survive. But it takes effort, and effort they must maintain. As well-evolved as religious systems have become to deal with this reality, they have yet overcome it entirely, and this is over several millenia. And as human beings need reason to survive and to thrive, and there is a powerful incentive to being that little bit smarter about things than your neighbour is, for purely material reasons, I find it generally unlikely they ever will.
This is part of why modern religions are so contradictory, such mosaics, such bastardizations of (only ever partially) tamed and sanitized 'reason' and obscurantism. They have to be to survive in the human brain and in human society at all. They have to kowtow to reason, if only to try to defuse the threat is presents them with. They have to try continually to pervert it to their service, also of necessity. And in that necessity is a wedge that opens opportunities for escape, age after age, whatever they do to prevent it. They can make it 'rational', even, not to point out how naked is their emperor, as a practical measure, in the short term, if only through intense social pressure, and through terror. But in the very reason they must appeal to make that mechanism work, their undoing still lurks.
So again: it is unlikely, our brains remaining what they are, and provided there are still humans, that there will ever be a last atheist. We will still be here, for a very, very long time. Probably long after the current crop of apparently terribly powerful monotheisms have themselves either withered and died in the face of other irrationalities, or themselves mutated beyond recognition to become the irrationalities of the far future.
It's a cold comfort, in the face of contemporary challenges, when faith healers seem as rich and as dishonest as they've ever been, when barefaced frauds use tragicomically bizzare claims of transcendant relationships with invisible friends as a lever to political office, and win, in doing so. But it's still something to keep in mind.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 23, 2008 11:26 AM
He seems to be a nice fellow on some subjects, but ultimately he's a patriarchal loon who thinks gays and atheists will burn in hell.
THAT'S a party I want to go to! I'll bring the hot sauce!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 23, 2008 11:32 AM
I forget who it was that said it, but re: a liberal theocracy being a step forward from a conservative theocracy, someone said to the effect of, "A benevolent king is worse than a tyrannical one, as he makes people believe that monarchical rule isn't always a bad thing, and prepares them to welcome the future tyrants."
Posted by: Andrew | July 23, 2008 11:34 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 23, 2008 11:39 AM
JJ @ #26
Air conditioning is one of my favorite examples because it's something that people of only moderate wealth today can have that KINGS didn't have two hundred years ago.
I only got air conditioning this year. I love the way it hides the 100+ degree Fahrenheit weather.
Posted by: SDyuaa | July 23, 2008 11:41 AM
#9 - Clicked on that link, wow! Voxday is so desperate he's stealing PZ commentor posts?
The atheists killing christians crap is getting old.
Posted by: Patricia | July 23, 2008 11:42 AM
Spay or neuter, then release.
That would seem to be a cost-effective and humane way to begin to deal with people who are afflicted by the contagion of religion.
Posted by: shrimplate | July 23, 2008 11:43 AM
Speaking as an atheist and a left-wing Democrat, I think there may be some good things to be found in Rick Warren's forum with Obama and McCain.
First, Warren says he isn't in the business of endorsing political candidates--he doesn't think pastors should do that. And, he actually seems impartial--he has said that while the candidates are very different, he respects and admires both of them. Of course, this whole thing may be more about helping America get to know Rick Warren rather than Obama/McCain, but that's another issue.
Warren acknowledges that his church is full of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc.
I hope that this de-partisaning of Christianity will reduce the evangelical community's influence of the Republican Party and public policy in general.
If it's okay to be a Christian Democrat, then just because you're a Christian, you don't have to agree with your (say) Southern Baptist preacher's political opinions. And you don't have to vote Republican. It also works the other way--once evangelicals no longer comprise an overwhelming segment of the Republican Party's base, the national leadership won't be forced to pay lip-service to their crazy socially conservative platform.
Some conservatives see this already--that the Republican Party's social platform mostly alienates people. Most people don't want abortion outlawed, or preaching in schools, and they don't spend all of their free time thinking about how to take away gay people's rights. The disenchantment with the religious right among conservatives can be seen very clearly, I think, in the enthusiasm young conservatives have for Ron Paul's libertarianism.
Posted by: jph | July 23, 2008 11:43 AM
I disagree with this guys conclusions. Having grown up in Texas and attended public school, I have met four people in my life who absolutely would not concede well-argued points that question faith or defend the atheist point of view. Four out of thousands. There are plenty of knuckleheads, but the vast majority of our fellow citizens just need to be educated and engaged. They may choose to cling to some form of religious in a way that many free thinkers and disbelievers cling to the Church of England for tradition's sake, but they are more than capable of living secular lives. Most of them already do, though they don't think of it like that.
Posted by: Julian | July 23, 2008 11:46 AM
#11: "Give me a liberal theocracy over a conservative one any day of the week."
I concur. I understand either may make you frustrated, PZ, but at least a liberal theocracy will align with us on SOME of the issues. Even if they are idiots.
Posted by: Kristin | July 23, 2008 11:46 AM
What, no Koran or cracker desecrations yet?
Sup wit dat?
Posted by: toothy | July 23, 2008 11:48 AM
"Americans don't do atheism."
Translation: "Americans don't understand science, and don't want to."
Posted by: Jason | July 23, 2008 11:51 AM
Here's something interesting from one of the conservative theocrats. Dembski's concerned about the lack of evidence for, get this, a religious claim. You know, it's religion that requires and has evidence, science neither has it nor needs it:
Gee, he believes in miracles. Who'd have guessed, after he renamed "miracle" as "intelligent design", and claimed that it was science?
Uh, yes, Dumbski, we've been asking for evidence of design (you know, design, purposeful and rational--not what we've always known, that life is complex) for years.
I'm sure you'll supply evidence for ID if you ever have it, too. Until then, it's as meaningful as your lying "faith healer".
Anyhow, you'll be surprised to know that Dembski's designer didn't choose to fix the faulty "design" of his autistic son:
What do you know, religion can easily be abused to exploit people. Now I wonder how Dembski would know that to be the case?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 23, 2008 12:02 PM
#11, #40
Give me Barry Lynn and C. Welton Gaddy over Pat Robertson and John Hagee any day of the week.
Posted by: James F | July 23, 2008 12:02 PM
Hmph. This is interesting, alright.
Americans don't do Atheism? That's like the President of Iran saying they "don't have that problem of homosexuality". Riiiiight.
I wonder what it's like living in the dark?
Posted by: Chris (@ Fabulously in the City) | July 23, 2008 12:13 PM
SDyuaa there is no firm correlation with income because that is not the determinant. Security is, job, health, child, education, safety etc. That is why Western Europe is so much more godless than the US, ditto Japan.
The US has no job security to speak of (in comparison) little social security, good health care only for the well off, bankruptcy for the rest, poor education for the poor, not good infant survival and as we have seen in the preceding thread a climate of paranoia about personal safety.
All that adds up to insecurity about the future and it is that which religion assuages since it seemingly offers certainty in an uncertain world. When I get sick I only have to worry about getting sick, I don't worry about armed crazies entering my home etc, etc.
However good luck changing that with your money and interests driven political system.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | July 23, 2008 12:27 PM
#30, excellent analogy there.
Also, yes, Warren made me slightly ill to my stomach when he said that if weren't for god, he'd abandon all his altruistic endeavors. I suppose doing the right thing for it's own sake doesn't hold a candle to being coerced by a cosmic tyrant...
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 23, 2008 12:30 PM
#13-
Thanks for that reference to the Warren-Harris debate. I had not read it before. Indeed, the only thing Warren said that made any sense was that "we only know a fraction of a percent of the knowledge of the universe."
Otherwise, Warren was a joke, and then to end with Pascal's Wager was pure failure. Like so many, it seems that he is unable to grasp the insignificance of four score years, or even an hundred score years in the span of eternity, or even the vastness, yet finiteness of our universe.
But as for me, I want to enjoy the rest of my years on this pebble in the sky with air conditioning.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | July 23, 2008 12:34 PM
What, no Koran or cracker desecrations yet?
Obviously, whatever he did was so heinous that he couldn't even bear to post about it. Heh.
Posted by: Carlie | July 23, 2008 12:41 PM
Point of order...
Nick Spencer is Director of Studies at the public theology think tank Theos - so while the Telegraph is giving him column space, he's not necessarily representative of the Telegraph themselves.
While its content and attitude is generally quite similar to Ekklesia, having read a fair bit of their output, which belies their frequent neutrality.
I mean, Theology isn't really something that can be thinktanked too much, can it?
Posted by: Mark N | July 23, 2008 12:41 PM
#48-
Well put. Pascal's Wager is so contemptibly stupid. It's essentially allowing ancient writers to hold your life hostage. If someone came up to you on the street and said, "believe these insane propositions or suffer forever," no one would lose any sleep. The biblical claims deserve the same indifference.
Even if the Christian God existed, I have to believe He'd see through this shallow insurance policy. Hitchens is right; better to be a sincere atheist than an insincere Christian.
After all, you can't just order someone to believe something. You believe something or you don't. If someone held a gun to your head and said "believe that Stockholm is the capital of New Jersey," that simply wouldn't work.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 23, 2008 12:45 PM
I see what he's getting at. Compared to an American Christian the Pope is agnostic.
Pope Palpatine has said that evolution is true, that The Bible is full of allegory and isn't literally true, and that George Bush may not actually be Jesus. There's some areas of the country where you can get pulled from your car and beaten with lead pipes for that kind of talk.
Posted by: Ibid | July 23, 2008 12:47 PM
I find most religious people never introspect much unless they face a crisis.
Posted by: Barklikeadog
I think that there's a human impulse to look outside of oneself during crises - to find external enemies and demons to blame. Not everyone and not all Christians. However, Christianity allows an always ready excuse to be easily deployed.
Why introspect when, as the great American philosopher Flip Wilson noted, "the devil made me do it" will suffice.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 23, 2008 12:52 PM
A minor quibble:
Benjamin Franklin said:
AFAIK, the curvature of the universe, and thus its finiteness, is an open question in cosmology (a universe with positive curvature is finite, a universe with zero or negative curvature is not). This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but nevertheless...
Posted by: JY | July 23, 2008 1:08 PM
I think that this is mostly right on but it doesn't go far enough to acknowledge reality. There are many types of people in this world. Some have absolutely no use for religion, never have. To paraphrase Hitchens, "Some of us are just not so built, as to need or be able to accept superstitious belief". But some of us are. The more people drift away from religion, the more some of them drift toward things like wicca, astrology and ufo worship. It seems as if some people are genetically hardwired (beyond the basic pattern seeking behavior that we all share) to look for superstitious explanations. We need religion as an outlet for the superstitious intuitions that so many people tend to follow. Instead of railing so hard against religion in general what we should be doing is fostering the kind of education and discussions that are necessary to domesticate (to borrow Dennett's term) the wild strains of religion that plague us.
If people want to believe in a Creator who loves and cares for them fine. Instead of heaping derision on them and calling them Fucktards we should patiently explain to them that they are free to use their belief to guide their moral lives but that we just require an explanation in natural terms why their morality is good for us before we will accept it.
What we have is a lot of people who sound like Hitchens and few people that sound like Dennett. I think that what we need is few people that sound like Hitchens and a lot of people who sound like Dennett. That's how religions work. They've got a few outspoken people who savagely assault the ideas of others (those outside their religion). The Hitchens's break down the firmly held ideas and worldviews (the bonds that hold religions together) and then the Dennetts of the world sweep in with a reasonable voice in an atmosphere of trust and common ground to build them back up again. And religions have Legions of Dennett types. We need more Dennett types. Everybody wants to be a Hitchens. Everybody wants to mock and berate and show these silly religious people what fools they are being. To destroy the foundation upon which they've built their lives. But very few are offering anything in return. Is it any wonder that they call us strident, militant and fundamentalist?
Posted by: ConsciousMachine | July 23, 2008 1:20 PM
jimmiraybob quoted Cotton Mather (#53)
Sounds an awful lot like what happened here recently.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | July 23, 2008 1:28 PM
We might have lots of people with a Dennett idea of the matter. They need to acquire the Hitchens-people's outspokeness.
Posted by: SDyuaa | July 23, 2008 1:29 PM
"We need religion as an outlet for the superstitious intuitions that so many people tend to follow."
Bogus, unsubstantiated, and a little condescending.
"Everybody wants to mock and berate and show these silly religious people what fools they are being."
Poor, poor religious people? Give me a break. I for one will never water down my criticism of religion. People can deal with it.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 23, 2008 1:32 PM
Sorry, off topic, but I was wondering if I missed PZ's take on Salon's new interview about religion and atheism? I mean, this is prime stuff for PZ to rip to shreds. A guy going off on how atheists are wrong to criticize religion because it isn't a belief system but poetry? I know it's similar to other crap you've ripped apart, but a good rant is due for this tripe.
Posted by: Kevin | July 23, 2008 1:39 PM
I can make this simple and concise: I have no need for religion nor the people who do need it.
Posted by: Holbach | July 23, 2008 1:49 PM
The reason we do most of this is because we lack the political will, not the technology. And because regulated capitalism, while it may work "the best" has its own issues with externalizing costs and problems onto society.
But the problems are, by and large, solvable.
Posted by: Moses | July 23, 2008 1:52 PM
Posted by: ConsciousMachine | July 23, 2008 1:52 PM
this forum is a joke- PZ "these catholics are mean people" Look at yourself and while I am at it -most everyone else on this board. How old are you people anyway early twenties? it shows. What is wrong with religious people anyway? they give more of their money to help people than anyone else, they believe in human dignity, they don't want to raise their kids with porn in the room and having to worry about the molesters on the corner. What is your hangup on people who try to create a better world to live in? And who is going to respond to this post, I'll tell you- people who are going to say go F*** yourself and the rest of the nasty comments I've seen in here. Read on and you will see the mean people -these jerks and you PZ. What's funny is when some disaster hits your home you will be the first taking from religious charities. Who is offending whom here?
What are you PZ? the nerd who was picked on in H.S. and now you're the cool professor that all the kids like? and you followers listen to this idiot. But when you or loved one are hurt, then you'll be the first on your knees pleading ...God , I know I haven't been a good person, BUT.... There are no atheist in fox holes are there.
Posted by: Dave | July 23, 2008 1:56 PM
#55: "very few of us offer anything in return"
Really? Hitchins himself hardly comes off as a nihilist. He talks about numinous experiences, about the beauty of art and literature, about the history of philosophy and about the shear joy of sex, food and whiskey. The godless public intellectuals who are scientists offer plenty "in return" (the vast wonder of life and the cosmos).
Also Dennett is pretty good "tearer down" of religion. His proposal for compulsory, value-neutral, fact-based religious studies is a very clever bit of memetic engineering (as DD might put it himself). If the faithful want to claim the courage of there convictions they should support it; after all the truth will out, right? But I would certainly expect it to lead many more kids away from religion than towards any religion.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 23, 2008 1:57 PM
If all you want to do is criticize those who hold different views than you own that is fine. But in a way you are excusing yourself from conversation in the same way that the really nutty fundamentalists are. Criticism is not constructive, it's destructive.
Being dismissive or ridiculing religion won't work on the current generation of the brain-damaged, but kids are remarkably sensitive to uncoolness and will reassess any belief that is clearly going to get them laughed at.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 23, 2008 1:58 PM
I'm going out on a limb here and disagree with the notion that a liberal theocracy is as bad as a conservative one. First, let me state that theocracies in general cannot work because they're not isolated islands. Any theocracy has to maintain political and global ties with many forms of government, and in fact, often times, those under theocratic rule can observe secular governments and determine what kind of lifestyle can be possible. The main difference between a liberal and conservative theocracy is that it's easier to perpetuate a conservative theocracy due to threats, intimidation, crack-downs, and other such religious intervention. Just look at Saudi Arabia or Iran for an example. In a liberal theocracy, such tactics wouldn't work, and either a conservative form would develop, or the nature of the government would change to be secular.
As for the few years that a theoracy maintains its liberal values, it has to be ar less abusive and intrusive to people than a conservative theocracy. Besides, since it's not going to last very long, the damage it can cause would be minimized.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 23, 2008 1:58 PM
"Their" not "there". I plead dyslexia in mitigation.
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 23, 2008 2:00 PM
they don't want to raise their kids with porn in the room
Please stop offending my beliefs. I think porn is great. In fact, porn is a sacrament. I'm going to riot, now, and it's all your fault.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 23, 2008 2:02 PM
#68 Did you really want to use irony on someone so clearly incapable of processing it?
Posted by: Matt Heath | July 23, 2008 2:05 PM
#62-
What are the tenets of fundamentalist atheism? I don't think any of us should take your arguments seriously until you explain that.
I predict your answer will be deeply unsatisfying.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 23, 2008 2:10 PM
Dave Teh Sanctimonious:
No atheists in foxholes, my arse
Posted by: True Bob | July 23, 2008 2:12 PM
Dave,
Our hangup is with false, superstitious beliefs. There is no such thing as God, for instance, and Jesus (if he even existed) was certainly not his son.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to create a decent society. If you bothered to engage us sensibly you'd see we atheists aren't scary devils.
Posted by: The Adamant Atheist | July 23, 2008 2:17 PM
I was once given a Rick Warren book as a gift from a worried friend, otherwise I probably never would have read it. Hell, I'm still surprised I made it to the end. What a half-assed pile of dung that was!
Posted by: The Alpha Centaurian | July 23, 2008 2:20 PM
It's time for a secularist party. Play up all of Jefferson's ideas on the great wall. We could even call ourselves "The Jeffersons".
Posted by: Dustin | July 23, 2008 2:20 PM
For all you folks given Purpose Driven Life as a gift, why not return the favor with a copy of The Reason Driven Life?
Posted by: Will E. | July 23, 2008 2:23 PM
To play devil's advocate for a moment (so to speak), liberal religion is a hell of a lot better than conservative religion. Sure, liberal religion has its own problems too, but I'd vastly prefer to be in a country of Unitarians and Methodists than one of Baptists and Pentecostals. Also, given that the liberal religious are more likely to be open to science, perhaps a move towards more liberal religion would be a positive step towards greater secularism.
So I say, yes, go for it. Go for liberal religion, people! We'll still call you stupid (openly), and get pissed off whenever you do stupid things in the name of your religion, but at least the more egregious offenses will be less common this way. And maybe, just maybe, you liberal religious nutjubs will slowly stop being nutjobs.
Posted by: Jason Dick | July 23, 2008 2:26 PM
Well read the post that people have written #72. I am not going to debate the existence of Jesus wi