…and this is a 
We are the New Atheists. We do not, however, like the name — ask any of us, and we'll tell you that there's nothing new about our atheism — all we're doing is speaking out about godlessness. I've talked to a lot of the so-called New Atheists, including some of the biggest big shots in this movement, and what do they do when they hear the term? Roll their eyes and shrug. We only grudgingly accept the term, not because we find it agreeable, but because it is imposed on us by a clueless media and an even more ignorant body of theists.
Weirdly, I'm now hearing more and more about something called Atheism 3.0, and unbelievably, they are using the term unironically, as if they really think they have something new to offer, some advance over the "Old Atheism," whatever that was, and the "New Atheism," misnomer that it is, and deserve a moniker that implies a new bump in the version number. I would like to remind the proponents of Atheism 3.0 of two things: they're offering nothing new, either, and a version increment isn't always a good thing. I remember Mac Word 5.0, which was a clean and simple thing of beauty, and Mac Word 6.0, which was an abomination, a hideous slug of a program that should have been aborted and the mewling, squirming undead fetus incinerated. I kind of feel the same way about this New New Atheism.
Atheism 3.0 is, as I said, nothing new. It's been around as long as atheism has, and there's a much better and far more descriptive term for it: "Atheism But." As in, "I'm an atheist, but I think religion is a wonderful institution (usually for someone else, just not me.)" It's atheism for people who don't like atheism, or who want to neuter atheism so it doesn't challenge a pious status quo, or have this condescending idea that the rest of society is dumber than they are, and needs the palliative of unreasoning faith. The New Atheists, as much as we detest the title, at least offer an honest, open integrity about their ideas; these guys seem to be more interested in hiding the significance of the nonexistence of gods so they can hide behind a façade of superficial religiosity, and appeal to a waffly, wishy-washy middle ground.
Greg Epstein, one of the most conciliatory members of the Atheist But brigade, even goes so far as to praise Rick Warren's awful little book.
Epstein argues in his forthcoming book, "Good without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe," that morality does not depend on a judgmental deity and that nonbelievers can lead meaningful, even purpose-driven, lives. But they can also learn from people of faith, such as California megachurch pastor and "Purpose Driven Life" author Rick Warren, Epstein says.
Warren's best-selling book basically says that "you have to have a purpose in life bigger than yourself, and that not everything is all about you," said Epstein. "And he's absolutely right about that. But he's wrong in saying that you have to believe in Jesus Christ and if you don't you're going to hell for eternity."
Have you ever read The Purpose Driven Life? (You can read the first seven chapters for free, not that I recommend this drivel). It's ghastly. It is Rick Warren stating with absolute certainty the intent and needs of an omnipotent being, which just happens to be that the most important mission you have in life is to be his personal slave. Oh, and the unwritten subtext is that since Rick Warren has such clarity of understanding of this ineffable and inconsistent being, you'd best listen carefully to Rick Warren. It is a wretchedly evil little book that represents all the misbegotten inanity of religion: the claims of divine knowledge, the demands that followers be subservient to the deity, and the charlatanry of making promises of strength, prosperity, happiness, and immortality to everyone who obeys the words of the prophet.
Atheists should not respect this book, and they should not encourage others to appreciate its message…except in the sense of acknowledging the effectiveness of propaganda and the adept sleight of hand of the professional con artist. An Atheist But can babble about learning from Rick Warren, but an atheist will simply tell you that all you can learn is what not to do.
What the Atheist Buts are trying to do is occupy a middle ground, compromising with religion to find an illusory magic mean. They're all but indistinguishable from another group, the God Buts. These are people who don't use the word atheism at all, but instead preach a nebulous version of religion that has no relationship to any established religion — instead, they want you to accept the virtues of simply believing in…something. Anything. If you told them you worshipped the transcendant god personified by the earthly presence of Mickey Mouse, they wouldn't question you in the slightest. Deny god, though, and suddenly you're treated as shrill, militant, and strident.
One of the eminent God Buts is Karen Armstrong, who I've laughed at before. Another is Robert Wright, who is becoming increasingly shrill, militant, and strident himself in his criticisms of New Atheists. This is a telling point, too: these defenders of religion never seem to get as riled up about the ranting fundamentalists as they do a few outspoken atheists. Wright's latest is full of fury and claims that the atheists are doomed, also citing a familiar complain: atheists are hurting the cause!
And this year doubts about that mission have taken root among the New Atheists' key demographic: intellectuals who aren't religious and aren't conservative. Even on the secular left, the alarming implications of the "crusade against religion" are becoming apparent: Though the New Atheists claim to be a progressive force, they often abet fundamentalists and reactionaries, from the heartland of America to the Middle East.
If you're a Midwestern American, fighting to keep Darwin in the public schools and intelligent design out, the case you make to conservative Christians is that teaching evolution won't turn their children into atheists. So the last thing you need is for the world's most famous teacher of evolution, Richard Dawkins, to be among the world's most zealously proselytizing atheists. These atmospherics only empower your enemies.
So, we have a rising tide of liberal secularists who dislike atheists…wait, no we don't. These are the same old conciliatory apologists who have been around for ages, the Atheist Buts. A chorus of whining from the nags and scolds who are ashamed of atheism isn't going to dissuade anyone, although Wright may find comfort in it.
That last paragraph, though, is the crux of the problem. Children might leave the faith of their fathers, and this is a horrible, evil, scary possibility, since, after all, atheists are monsters. What we should do is ask all those scary atheists to go hide their scary faces so the God Buts and the God Firsts and even the Atheist Buts can continue to freely demonize them. Only Good Christians should be promoting evolution. That Dawkins can be both an atheist and a scientist, and even worse, explains that science led to his atheism, is going to empower creationists.
Bullshit.
Evolution has implications about how the world works. If you deny them, if you pretend evolution is cheerily compatible with the god-is-a-loving-creator nonsense religions peddle, you aren't teaching evolution. You are pouring more mush into the brains of young people. If you are a conservative Christian, it's entirely understandable that you would fight evolution, because the truth does not favor your position. If you are a moderate Christian, you are not helping science education by enabling fear of atheism by continuing to lie to people, assuring them that science isn't going to challenge their religious beliefs. It will, or the teachers are doing it wrong.
Unfortunately, Wright's message is that we can't challenge religion.
All the great religions have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility when their adherents don't feel threatened or disrespected. At the same time, as some New Atheists have now shown, you don't have to believe in God to exhibit intolerance and incivility.
Flip it around; that's an admission that the religions feel intolerance is justified when they're not coddled and respected. That's part of the problem, too. I don't respond well to extortion from god-bothering zealots, sorry. What the New Atheists (who are the same as the old atheists) have shown, though, is that they can be subjected to generations of intolerance and to continued denigration by people like Wright, who think their call for atheists to be silent and modest is a liberal attitude, and yet we manage to cope without resorting to violence or threats to shut up our critics. That's something the apologists for faith need to learn, too: religion should be strong enough to stand against academic rudeness and mockery without this pathetic bleating for shelter from skepticism. It's easy to be tolerant and civil when you've compelled everyone to be agreeable with you; the challenge is to do the same when you're being denounced.
All the Atheist Buts and God Buts are missing the key point, too. We don't care if you think religion is good for you, or if you love your faith, or if you think rituals are lovely, or if believers have done good in history, or if a lack of praise for Jesus irritates the Baptists. That's not the issue. The central, fundamental question is whether anyone has any reasonable evidence for the existence of any gods, especially the gods that everyone is so busy propitiating. You haven't got any? Then we'll continue pointing out that you're chasing leprechauns, no matter how annoying you find it. It's the truth. Argue against that with evidence — anything else is fluff and noise.
They can't do that, though. They've decided that they can't compete on that ground, and instead have rushed to occupy a meaningless middle…an intellectually empty wasteland with no approximation to the truth, only a comforting distance from the real crazies of the devout. They're nothing but the lords of vapor, the kings and queens of the æther, too frightened by the retreating ghosts of old myths to join us in reality.
Comments
Posted by: Mumon | December 8, 2009 4:50 PM
As a Buddhist nontheist, I am in agreement with much of what you say, but of course I do practice a religion.
I don't seem to feel like I fit in either of your categories, although I do think there are things about which silence is the best policy.
I empathize with you, in that there are those who try to compromise with theists from within my admittedly out-of-both-camps camp. You can see from my blog that I often call to task those who give the Dalai Lama a free pass (oracles, you know). Or worse, Deepak Chopra.
And please don't give me the Buddhism ain't a religion, because it clearly is in many senses, even if we don't need a god thing.
Posted by: Rick R | December 8, 2009 4:51 PM
Rick Warren? SRSLY??
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 8, 2009 4:54 PM
To hell with Atheism 3.0, or New Atheism! I'm an unreconstructed Anti-Theist.
Posted by: Tulse | December 8, 2009 4:56 PM
AKA "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | December 8, 2009 4:57 PM
Good job, P.Z. One thing that neither you nor I have mentioned about this piece is Wright's dubious claim that religions are intolerant only when they feel threatened. This is specious at best, as one can see from Muslim Iran or, until recently, Catholic Ireland.
Posted by: felixthecat
|
December 8, 2009 4:58 PM
Jesus and Mohammad are lovers?
Posted by: crowepps | December 8, 2009 4:58 PM
We can all learn a lot from Rick Warren? This is the Rick Warren of "Purpose Driven Life" who has inspired his converts in Uganda to promote execution for gays and who "doesn't take sides" about whether this is a good idea? I really don't think there's much anybody can learn there, atheist OR Christian.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 8, 2009 4:59 PM
Wright's such an idiot, since "new atheism" is caused significantly by unprovoked attacks on science, scientists, and atheists by IDiots who didn't care in the least about tolerance. What is more, they're more the ones who insisted (rightly enough) on evolution's problems for religion, and it's not surprising that some on our side agree with what they said.
"New Atheism" is a reaction against a whole lot of scurrilous charges against people who really had done little but ignore the New Theocrats until their propaganda war was in full swing.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Tulse | December 8, 2009 5:00 PM
Why not -- that's what my Buddhist spouse would say.
The "god thing" is generally considered to be a necessary criterion for a religion. Otherwise, such things as fascism, Yankees' fandom, and Star Trek could all count as religions.
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 8, 2009 5:01 PM
What kind of god-thing would treat people like that? And that's supposed to be the same fecker that created the people in the first place. Rick Warren is a feckin' edjit.
Posted by: steve | December 8, 2009 5:01 PM
Or as Pat Condell puts it, Buddhism, a religion without a god, like a prison without walls.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 8, 2009 5:02 PM
Yeah, that kinda jumped out at me, too. Sounds an awful lot like one of those feel-good would-be-nice-to-believe thingies a certain class of mushbrain will happily dump into their already muddled thesis without a whit of supporting evidence...
And fuck, even if true (which is highly questionable), it's not like it's exactly reassuring anyway. This is a group containing members who seem to feel awfully threatened by certain others' very existence.
It's one of the fundamental problems with religion. When you're full of shit and you pretty much know it, having anyone around so much as rolling their eyes at you a little too loudly can well enough get you awfully nervous.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
December 8, 2009 5:03 PM
All my programs are being rejected by this new Atheism 3.0 operating system. I'm afraid that I'm just going to have to wipe the hard drive of that useless tripe and reinstall the old New system.
Seriously though, Wright really just isn't making any sense. In his dreadful dreck of an essay, he repeats his old claim that the "New Atheists", by opposing Islam, are (unwittingly) enabling right wing policies and hence hey are all functional (if not explicit) supporters of the right wing. The logic is so twisted and convoluted: I could use the same logic to argue that Wright is a functional supporter Christian Fundamentalist groups such as NOM.
Posted by: ZeaLitY | December 8, 2009 5:03 PM
Religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
How does Buddhism not fit virtually all of this? Any self-respecting atheist shouldn't give Buddhism a free pass simply because it's more palatable to New Age Western-cherrypicking. It's still a load of hooey.
Posted by: Brian | December 8, 2009 5:05 PM
I'm hoping that Atheism 2010 will be more successful at grabbing market share.
Posted by: stsmith | December 8, 2009 5:05 PM
The "new" atheism sure does sound exactly like the "old" atheism, whether expressed in the Christendom or the Islamic world. Where, exactly, is the line between Atheism 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 within these thinkers? Any attempt to draw one shows what nonsense is the term "New Atheism".
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 8, 2009 5:06 PM
Tulse, religion doesn't need belief in god-things. Belief in the supernatural, systematized, is what defines it.
So instead of a god-thing, it's sufficient to have a 'vital force' or some such nonsense.
Posted by: Kay-the-fish | December 8, 2009 5:07 PM
"... assuring them that science isn't going to challenge their religious beliefs. It will, or the teachers are doing it wrong."
Great line. Excellent piece.
I was an Atheist But briefly (less than a year) after leaving my old faith (about 2 years ago). Now, I'm becoming more "strident" every day.
Posted by: Greg Fish | December 8, 2009 5:08 PM
Aren't those in the "Atheist, But" camp already called "faitheists?"
http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/08/18/meet-the-faitheists/
Posted by: Cameron | December 8, 2009 5:10 PM
Fundamentalist.
Posted by: Clint | December 8, 2009 5:10 PM
Oi. Epstein is speaking here in Tulsa on Thursday - at a Unitarian church. I was interested in hearing him speak, but now I'm having second thoughts.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 8, 2009 5:13 PM
I would like for Greg Epstein to look at Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life campaign in Uganda and his connection with Martin Ssempa. I know that Warren has disowned Ssempa. But it seemed that Warren did not understand his purpose. Have to love Warren's impersonation of Pontius Pilate.
Posted by: vanharris
|
December 8, 2009 5:19 PM
I've heard of lying for Jebus, but surely we anti-theists don't want to be unethical like them?
Posted by: Blondin | December 8, 2009 5:20 PM
Yes, with or without a deity religion is indistinguishable from superstitious nonsense.Posted by: Charles | December 8, 2009 5:21 PM
Atheism 3.0 is a silly apellation, like Jews for Jesus (Christians).
I see two similar analogies for religion and faith.
Faith is something to be had by people who haven't grown up yet. Pat them on the head like children, say "that's nice, little one" until it's time to start acting like grownups and actually using their neurons. Some (most) never do.
This accommodation is a transitional state, a metastable phase. Sort of like glass or a supercooled fluid, it needs a bit of shaking before it'll transform into its equilibrium phase. It has valid uses (say, to provide a WEDGE between faith and the sheep), but is certainly not a proper end result
Posted by: deebbaasseerr | December 8, 2009 5:23 PM
Atheism 3.0? Right. A movement that could fit Michael Ruse as a keynote speaker? More like atheism .30
An excellent rebuttal to Rick Warren's horrible little book is Bob Price's "The Reason Driven Life" - which refutes Rick Warren specifically, and his brand of (stale, recycled) evangelism in general. Its a great read.
Posted by: blf | December 8, 2009 5:26 PM
There's a (semi-)tongue-in-cheek “rule” about software which is that any release N.0 should be avoided: It's the first release of version N, which means it's buggy, unreliable, incorrectly documented (if at all), and support will he overwhelmed. Hence, you should wait for N.1 or N.2 or something, depending on the reputation of the supplier. (In some cases, such as the Redmond Mafia, it will never be any useful/good, so you might as well give up.)
I wonder if this “rule” applies to Atheism? Should I wait for 3.1 (3.2 ?)…
Posted by: Torrie | December 8, 2009 5:27 PM
Why do we have to have a purpose? We are all going to die. Our purpose is to carry on our genes. Didn't those damn "New Atheists" or 3.0 or whatever, read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene? I don't want to hear one single word by Rick Warren. I like the term Militant Atheism far better than the new BS.
I was speaking with someone at Center of Inquiry to get a subscription. i was dismayed that the toll free number went to a call service and the call taker was not atheist. in fact, they were very angry that I WAS and didn't really want to talk to me. So, I called the local office and complained. During the course of the conversation, she said, you mean you are not interested in people's views who don't share your views? You don't even want to hear their side? I said NO. I have heard enough of their side. I am a militant atheist like Richard Dawkins. I don't think she was too pleased. She sounds like one of those you described, one of the 3.0 or "new atheists" BAHUMBUG, I SAY! and that Epstein guy does not make me proud! merry x-mas everyone. I can't wait to send out my presents, copies of "God Hates You. Hate Him Back".
Posted by: Newfie
|
December 8, 2009 5:29 PM
So, what shall we call all of the "believers" who don't actually believe any of the bullshit about non-existent sky fairies, and fictional messiahs, but continue to spout the same bullshit over and over, for the purpose of acquiring money and power?
Not that you'd ever see a statistic, but I'd wager that atheism among clergy is actually higher than the general populace. With the exception of a few of the more secular 'godless' countries.
Second oldest profession: Bullshit.
Posted by: SWH | December 8, 2009 5:29 PM
Wow - when you get this worked up can you turn the heat down a couple of degrees and help offset the cost of being on sabbatical! Or would the TW complain.
Loved the description of Warrens book - I was given a copy by a pious neighbor (I think because we are always at home on a Sunday morning and he thought the children might be salvageable). I couldn't actually get more than three pages into it, was too annoyed by the cherry picking of Einstein right at the front - sent it to my father-in-law who collects crackpot screeds, for his own amusement
Posted by: Stewart | December 8, 2009 5:30 PM
Religion has never heard of "live and let live." It either has the power to burn people at the stake or stone them to death, in which cases it invariably uses it, or it's whining about the encroachment of those who dare to say they're not convinced. Actively or passively aggressive are the only flavours on offer, with almost no middle ground (I won't say none at all, but that middle ground is where most believers would say it stops being religion at all and has evaporated into mere spirituality).
That piece you linked to has the "new New Atheists" (3.0) saying "there’s still no God, but maybe religion isn’t all that bad." I don't have sufficient reservoirs of verbal contempt to express what I feel about the morals of those who openly state that it might be a good thing for others to believe in what they themselves think is untrue.
Oh, and thanks for pointing out that the religious have a lot to learn from the "militant" atheists, as far as being peaceable goes.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | December 8, 2009 5:34 PM
Is Atheism 3.0 anything like Fun/Post-Feminism?
Posted by: Tulse | December 8, 2009 5:34 PM
Many varieties of Buddhism do not believe in supernatural agency or agencies.
Fair enough -- I was using "god" in my original response as a stand in for the supernatural in general.
Posted by: truthspeaker | December 8, 2009 5:37 PM
Right, but the title of his book is "The Purpose Driven Life". If you don't actually read his book and know nothing about what Warren actually says and does, and if you acknowledge that Warren is popular and is perceived as a nice guy, then it makes sense to be inpsired by what you imagine Warren's message to be, even though it's not his actual message.
It all makes sense in postmodern public relations land.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 5:37 PM
Mumon:
Relax, I treat religionists the same, whether theist or otherwise. You're welcome to your hobby, silly though it is; just don't expect respect for it.
Posted by: David D.G. | December 8, 2009 5:39 PM
Meet the New Atheism,
Same as the Old Atheism....
~David D.G.
Posted by: MVH | December 8, 2009 5:39 PM
I almost thought Atheism v1.3 instead of v3.0 but then I realized I FELL INTO THE TRAP!
Maybe those "deep rifts" are between Atheist v1.0s and v2.0s and v3.0s.
Posted by: Souljacker | December 8, 2009 5:40 PM
Atheism 3.0 is for nerds. You should all try my new invention. I call it, 'eXtreme atheism' (capital X for Xtreme). It basically amounts to not believing in any Gods while on a skateboard. BMX bikes are also permissable.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 8, 2009 5:42 PM
As I've said before there are two words one has to remember when contemplating the motivation of people like Wright and Armstrong and anyone else who's bowing and scraping and cowering and forelock-tugging at the feet of the believers: Templeton and Foundation.
Prominent unethical commentator + promise of cash = New Militant Faitheist.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 5:42 PM
Tulse,
Can you name one such?
Posted by: Mumon | December 8, 2009 5:43 PM
John Morales:
Your respect I don't care about. I do care about being lumped in with Rick Warren.
Tulse & Blondin:
As both an engineer and a Buddhist I "bracket" the supernatural.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | December 8, 2009 5:43 PM
Strictly OT, the reading material in the "Jesus & Mo" comics is oftentimes hilarious all on its own.
In one of the recent comics, Jesus was holding a magazine titled "Christian Persecution News", with a top headline that read:
MAN ASKED "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?"
Posted by: Eric | December 8, 2009 5:52 PM
Excellent post, PZ. It summarily defeated the opposition. I have to say that in my empathetic nature I flirted with the idea of accomodation several times, but it really comes back to the idea of necessary evidence.
Well said!
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 5:53 PM
Wow Torrie
Since when was Dawkins ever a 'militant' atheist?
Outside of any of the flatly wrong opinion pieces that end up in the papers on both sides of the pond I've never seen him as militant or in any way unready to speak with people who have faith. Okay, for the creationists he sees it as a waste of time and will only debate with scholars or people with an official position in a religion because it's boring to explain the euthiphro or anthropic principle for the thousandth time.
I could possibly see him as an evangelist for atheism but as a militant? You'll have to explain this one.
B
Posted by: Brock | December 8, 2009 5:54 PM
I for one HATE all those old Atheism 1.0 farts. What a bunch of jerks! I'm glad 2.0 broke off from them.
Er, wait, are they all dead? That's not putting up much of a fight. So the separating factor is... some arbitrary span of time? Huh. So shouldn't the supposed 3.0 folks have to wait until I'm dead?
Maybe we should just call ourselves NEW UNCUT REMASTERED ATHEIST PROFESSIONAL XTREME DELUXE LIMITED EDITION, 10.0 FINAL DIRECTOR'S CUT WITH DELETED BONUS SCENES :p
At least then we'd have an excuse to package the deal with a collector's edition beer mug and squid hat.
Posted by: Mumon | December 8, 2009 5:54 PM
John Morales:
Perhaps you can instead tell where in the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path that a supernatural belief is necessary.
'Cause I don't see any.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 5:55 PM
Mumon:
1. Good for you.
2. So, do you think religion is a good and desirable thing?
Posted by: uppity cracka | December 8, 2009 5:55 PM
that closing paragraph is badass.
Posted by: CTC | December 8, 2009 5:57 PM
I keep picturing Robert Wright stuck in a Chinatown loop as Profs. Myers & Coyne smack him to and fro: "My sister! My daughter! New Atheism! Three-Point-Oh!" Is that wrong? Should I not do that? I don't think Rick Warren would like it much if my life were driven by the purpose of amusing myself with such thoughts.
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
December 8, 2009 5:57 PM
Atheism minus Irreligion = Atheism 3.0.
Atheism plus Irreligion = Atheism 1.0 (the only atheism you will ever need)
Posted by: BenW
|
December 8, 2009 5:58 PM
Perhaps by going out of the way to be nice, it means you sell more books. I see no reason to reject it being a simple profit motive to be more palatable to the media to gain exposure and get lots of cash, preferably in burlap sacks with dollar signs painted on the side.
Posted by: vertalio | December 8, 2009 5:58 PM
All these diminutives are just that, dimunitives. Attempts to cut Atheism down to size. 2.0? 3.0? New? But? Sod all that.
We are Atheists.
Posted by: Geral | December 8, 2009 5:59 PM
Some of the people who promote these "new" brands of atheism only seek to make the atheist movement look relatively new and not something that has been around for ages. It's easier to dismiss it when they see it as a new fad.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 8, 2009 5:59 PM
2. So, do you think religion is a good and desirable thing?
If you think that homosexuals should not be allowed to live (Uganda's "Kill The Gays" Bill), it can be a very useful thing.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | December 8, 2009 6:00 PM
'dat you cracka?
Posted by: vertalio | December 8, 2009 6:00 PM
And we know how to spell 'diminutives', except when Satan intercedes.
Posted by: Mumon | December 8, 2009 6:04 PM
John Morales:
So, do you think religion is a good and desirable thing?
I think it's inherently useful that we try to live life peacefully on earth, and try to be generous, compassionate, and free from ignorance, and I think it's inherently useful to do this in a disciplined way.
Now you might or might not call that a religion.
I do, but on the other hand, you could just as well not call that a religion - but it does fit at least some definitions of the word.
Posted by: Stewart | December 8, 2009 6:06 PM
Trying to take a step back, my guess is this is simply the media's way of reacting to the New Atheists no longer being so new. Rather than go back, they go what they think is forward (what/who can replace them/cut them down to size?). In other words, my gut tells me it's less about all these people suddenly wanting to tell the world the New Atheists have gone too far than it is about journalists looking for and making column inches, air time and cyberspace free for people who will tell the public something along those lines.
That, plus Templeton, of course.
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
December 8, 2009 6:06 PM
From the 3.0 article: "While no one expects the God debate to end anytime soon, perhaps people can agree to disagree a little more agreeably, the new New Atheists argue."
The debate ended a long time ago. And the god idiots lost. Dozens and dozens of threads on this blog attest to that fact.
Posted by: steve | December 8, 2009 6:08 PM
Speaking of babble, from Acts 17 (the bablical passage the J&M cartoon refers to):
And some said, What will this babbler say?
...
For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would know therefore what these things mean.
Looks like the new atheism versus Atheism But issue has been around for a while ...
Posted by: Big Ugly Jim | December 8, 2009 6:10 PM
I was pretty annoyed by one thing from Robert Wright's post around placating the souther baptist pappy and felt the need to put a bit of a fume on my blog about it.
http://www.meddlingkids.org/2009/12/facepalmatheist30/
However, what I didn't address was the fact that religions are intollerant only when they are attacked. It's very true. When they are not attacked they are merely parasitic. They send their missionaries and emissaries anywhere they can find people at their weakest, like a virus seeking out a weakened immune system, and they infect.
The louder the faith, the less likely it is that anyone will EVER find tolerance to be one of their guiding principals. Remember, these tolerant loving Christians are refusing gays the right to marry, imposing their Right-To-Life faith on pregnant girls, and at one time in America thought owning black people was just good clean fun.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 8, 2009 6:11 PM
Regarding the Atheism 3.0...
Well, if you have auto-updates on and downloaded the latest Service Pack (I think it's SP2), you should be ok.
Posted by: frog | December 8, 2009 6:11 PM
All the great religions have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility when their adherents don't feel threatened or disrespected.
That is the most a-historical pile of crap I've ever read. The great religions have shown time and again that they are capable of civility and tolerance -- when they are forced to show civility and tolerance. Judaism has been most tolerant when it has been a stateless minority religion. Christianity has been most tolerant when it has lost control of the state and lives on the sufferance of secular authorities. Islam has shown the most tolerance when it has been a colonial religion at the edges of the Uma, depending on a population that belongs to multiple religions for its economic success.
Wright is clearly a moran or a liar.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 8, 2009 6:11 PM
You have to remember that adherence to a religion entitles a believer to redefine words to mean whatever it suits them to mean. For them 'militant' can be used when someone is simply vocal about something - regardless of the fact the real meaning of the word implies a disposition toward warfare.
Some other examples of words often redefined under religiuous privilege: 'evidence', 'knowledge', 'evil', 'history', 'science' and - hilariously - 'atheism'.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 8, 2009 6:11 PM
When did the great religions' adherents not feel threatened or disrespected?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 8, 2009 6:14 PM
A. Fucking. Men.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
December 8, 2009 6:14 PM
Uh, yeah. Just read that part of Epstein's book today at lunch. He definitely is NOT praising Rick Warren. In fact, he pretty much demonizes him.
Saying that someone is a bestseller (which is factual) and that he said something you can agree with is not praising him.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 8, 2009 6:15 PM
Of the innumerable times I've heard "god says this, god says that, god told me this, god told me that" - guess what? 100% of the time it wasn't god, it was some other human saying it, but silly people hear that god told someone else and they parrot "god told ME" - how's that for a perverse game of "grapevine"?
Posted by: DaveW | December 8, 2009 6:16 PM
Mumon,
How do pull off reincarnation without some supernatural slieght of hand?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
December 8, 2009 6:18 PM
By the way, I'll give you less than a week before this gets totally pulled out of context and splashed across some fundie website as an example of how you're trying to turn kids into atheists:
Boy, quote mining sure is "fun"...
Posted by: MadScientist | December 8, 2009 6:19 PM
@Greg Fish #19: Yes, but we don't have to use the same words. Personally I prefer "homeopatheist" - you know, the more you dilute the atheism the more powerful it becomes. Someone else suggested "muzzle-ems" but that sounds too much like a specific religion.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 6:20 PM
Mumon, you really have no belief in the supernatural?
You don't buy into Karma, or Samsāra/Nirvana?
If so, how then are you a Buddhist, as you claim?
I call that a philosophy; see #14 for a good definition of religion.
I'm quite in agreement with those sentiments, other than such should be done in "a disciplined way" — either you do so, or you do not (apologies to Yoda).
Posted by: UXO | December 8, 2009 6:20 PM
PZ, if I weren't married, hetero, and male, I'd offer to have your babies on the strength of this post alone. Bravo, sir.
Posted by: Torrie | December 8, 2009 6:22 PM
Posted by: Bribase #44
Well, Bribase, you are wrong. And, if you were right, it would take the wind out of my sails. Thank God for Richard Dawkins! It is because of his militant atheism and the out campaign that I am standing up and am not afraid anymore. I can't thank him enough for setting the groundwork for so many of us.
You use militant to describe people who believe in something very strongly and are active in trying to bring about political or social change, often in extreme ways that other people find unacceptable. http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en%7Cen&hl=en&q=militant
Ted Talks
Richard Dawkins on militant atheism
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
quote from video, "let's all stop being so damn respectful"
He is a prominent critic of religion, and has been described as a militant atheist.[38][39][40]
Dawkins has been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler", by analogy with English biologist T. H. Huxley, who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog" for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's evolutionary ideas.[9][10][11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
December 8, 2009 6:22 PM
I haven't yet read Epstein's book, but if he does reject Warren, good work...it just means the source I linked to is abusing Epstein.
Posted by: M31 | December 8, 2009 6:22 PM
PZ, Word on Word 5.
I used 5.1a until I absolutely had to stop (I think when OSX wouldn't even pretend to do OS 9 any more). The best thing Microsoft ever did, actually.
The dumbassery that is current Word, however, refuses to read Word 5 files. WTF? Oh well. It's an excuse to boot up some ancient Mac and play Zork. "You are trapped in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike"
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | December 8, 2009 6:22 PM
In Atheism 6.2
The features that we add for you
Revise the changes we’d begun
In 5.5 through 6.1
In 5.5 through 5.7
Metaphors of hell and heaven
Were allowed, but pearly gates
Were strictly seen as 5.8’s
You must remember 5.9,
In which we said communion wine
Was for the first time “good to go”
(We took it back in 6.0.)
But frankly, wine was lots of fun,
So just as quickly, 6.1
Restored the wine, now 6.2
Allows us cheese and crackers, too.
But wine and crackers, even cheeses
Are not blood, nor flesh of Jesus,
(Once, of course, we called it true,
But that was version 4.2.)
Accomodationism maths
Makes some folks mad as psychopaths
They rant and rave like total jerks
And say “The beta version works!”
It has no bugs; it needs no mods,
It’s simply “no belief in gods”
But whiny people soon complained,
So changes soon were entertained
The purists say it came undone
As early on as 1.1
Which left believers free to claim
That “God” was “Nature’s other name”
Before you knew it, 1.3
Included “spirituality”
From there, by pieces, fits, and starts,
The later versions hit the charts
I wonder, what could be in store
For 6.3 and 6.4.
So pick your fave, and start a schism.
One thing it’s not… is atheism.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/12/atheism-62.html
Posted by: Jim | December 8, 2009 6:24 PM
This is even more annoying than the media referring to "Generation Y" and "Generation Z". Shall we re-brand the Baby Boomers as "Generation W"?
Posted by: Mumon | December 8, 2009 6:25 PM
Mumon, you really have no belief in the supernatural?
You don't buy into Karma, or Samsāra/Nirvana?
At its core, "Karma" is the interdependency of all objects and beings, and "dependent origination." One can glean that from observation.
As far as Samsāra/Nirvana, it ought to be evident that there are ways to infer endless ignorance, the condition of being alive, and the condition of not being bothered by it all without recourse to supernatural concepts.
I for one do believe in the cultivation of skill.
Posted by: Mike | December 8, 2009 6:26 PM
Surely the term New Atheist refers to us being outspoken about atheism, right? Well if Atheism 3.0 is about being conciliatory towards religion, then surely they're more Old Atheist than we are! Where the hell do they get off making out they're newer than new?
Posted by: Mumon | December 8, 2009 6:27 PM
P.S., don't get me wrong. I think most religions, especially the monotheist ones, are problematic.
I'll let Taoists and Jains speak for themselves.
Posted by: David B
|
December 8, 2009 6:28 PM
Re Frog's post 63 above.
'Wright is clearly a moran or a liar.'
I trust that you use the word 'or' in the inclusive sense of the word.
David B
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
December 8, 2009 6:29 PM
What condescending bullshit. The idea of having "a purpose in life" is not a lesson we have to crib from empty theistic platitudes, least of all those delivered by an ignorant, bigoted theocrat.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | December 8, 2009 6:30 PM
stsmith@16: Nicely done. Earlier this year at some other blog (I think Jerry Coyne's), some faitheist was pining for the days of the good Old Atheists who were nice and civil and respectful of religion. The guys he named had actually said some pretty harsh things about religion that would have fit right in with "New" Atheism. PZ's Random Quotes contain some pretty good ones in this category.
Of course, the real reason why faitheists and God, Buts prefer the Old Atheists is that they have the redeeming quality of being dead and therefore not publishing or saying any more criticisms of religion. The cardinal rule of this crowd is, "if you can't say something nice about religion, don't say anything at all. No, really. We mean it. Don't say anything at all!"
Posted by: Naked Monkey Guy TM | December 8, 2009 6:31 PM
From the 3.0 article: " 'If they privatize faith, they also won’t be able to criticize it,' Dacey said of the New Atheists"
Why not? I don't see why privatized faith can't be criticized, questioned,or even mocked. (Though I might be less likely to mock it if I wasn't tripping over it all the time.)
And "While no one expects the God debate to end anytime soon, perhaps people can agree to disagree a little more agreeably, the new New Atheists argue."
hmm, the new New Atheists (3.0) sound just like the accommodationists
Posted by: Rick R | December 8, 2009 6:32 PM
"All my programs are being rejected by this new Atheism 3.0 operating system. I'm afraid that I'm just going to have to wipe the hard drive of that useless tripe and reinstall the old New system."
I know. Luckily, I cloned my New Atheism™ to a firewire 800 drive, so I only need to do a restore and everything should be fine.
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 6:36 PM
Mumon @79, seems to me you'd get along famously with Karen Armstrong; you redefine Buddhism much as she does Christianity. :)
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 8, 2009 6:36 PM
Cuttlefish, your rhyme and wit make me feel unworthy to even touch a keyboard.
As usual, bravo.
Posted by: Mumon | December 8, 2009 6:36 PM
W Dave:
How do pull off reincarnation without some supernatural slieght of hand?
Buddhism doesn't have the concept of an inherent essential self, so what can possibly be reincarnated?
Now true, you read all the time about the Dalai Lama being the reincarnation of a Boddhisattva and all that, but that's not a claim that most Buddhists recognize, and certainly not in any supernatural sense.
The Dalai Lama also talks to oracles as well, something that makes all the rest of the Buddhists of the world furrow their brows.
But again most of the Buddhist world (the American ones being exceptions, it seems) don't really consider the Dalai Lama as anything other than the exiled head of Tibet.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
December 8, 2009 6:39 PM
Wow, Cuttlefish, wow. When you die, can we pickle and slice your brain to plumb its secrets?
I'm on the fence about these Atheist 3.0s. Are they sure handing Dawkins over to the theists will sate the creationist desire for lebensraum?
Posted by: eddyline | December 8, 2009 6:40 PM
Cuttlefish FTW!
Posted by: Chayanov | December 8, 2009 6:40 PM
I think this is the first time I've seen a "No true Buddhist" argument.
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 6:43 PM
Wowbagger
I was reffering to Torrie's post there. It just seemed odd that he/she was pretty much saying something like:
'the obvious missrepresentation/ missleading redefinition of what professor Dawkins' views: those are my views!'
We should all keep in mind that atheism only means not believing in God or gods. People are atheists for bad reasons and good ones.
Personally, like many, I feel that there isn't enough evidence to believe. On top of that I feel that religiousity is often a force for lots of negative and divisive affects on the world, so it's prudent not to believe in any God. I also feel that all theories, notions, constructs and hypotheses about the world need to be held up to the light of evidence in order to decide if they are true or not, including religion. This has nothing to do with atheism, that's just the view I have. Atheism is simply one thing, you can be active or passive in your non beleif, vociferous or Socratic in your discussions but they say nothing about atheism itself.
Atheism is only one thing, non belief.
B
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 8, 2009 6:49 PM
What Christians seem to want is a return to the 'good old days' where atheists knew their place - i.e. even if they didn't believe in the Christian god, they'd be jolly decent and keep that to themselves, or (better yet) lie about it when asked politely - by which I mean when faced with the threat of having themselves and their children murdered and their houses burnt to the ground (not necessarily in that order).
For us atheists to find that unreasonable is, apparently, what makes us 'militant', 'obnoxious', 'reactionary' and 'hurtful to the cause'.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 8, 2009 6:50 PM
Atheism 3.0?
No thanks, I already went through that new editions crap with D&D.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 8, 2009 6:50 PM
I'll do what I usually do with upgrades. Let other people test it out, and see if it is worth anything to upgrade. Sometimes all it means is new and buggy. I suspect that this is the case.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 8, 2009 6:53 PM
I can haz Buddhism, hold teh Rebirth?
Posted by: Mike Daniels | December 8, 2009 6:54 PM
@#7, Croweps - Can you provide a reference for Warren's unwillingness to take sides on the Uganda "Kill the Queers" law?
I'm not questioning you at all, I just want to quote him! :)
Cuttlefish, love your poem . . .
Personally, I'm one of those atheists who really doesn't care what someone else believes, as long as those beliefs do not impact public policy, or cause harm to people other than the believer.
Unfortunately, I have yet to find a religion which would not, if the majority religion, be the basis for public policy decisions and be used to infringe upon the rights of those with other beliefs . . . or be the basis of abuse of children. After all, the whole point of religion is to use people's ignorance about the origins of the universe to obtain social control.
Posted by: J_w23 | December 8, 2009 6:55 PM
Great post PZ! And I agree: Kudo +1
Posted by: Nebula99 | December 8, 2009 6:56 PM
Some of my relatives are God Buts, who believe that religion should get a free pass because it gives people purpose and inspires them to good deeds, so I know first hand how annoying it can be. Just because religion produces some small amount of good does not let it off the hook for its wars, intolerance, enforcement of ignorance, and holding back of human progress. As for purpose, my life is more full of purpose and meaning than the lives of many theists appear to be. I care about science and about helping my fellow humans, and I believe that this life is the only life I have in which to do that.
Posted by: Craig | December 8, 2009 6:58 PM
I don't know, these version numbers are coming too fast for me to keep up.
I think we should try to live more on the bleeding edge and give ourselves project names. We could generate lots of marketing material without ever stabilizing on an actual release. Sort of like how Windows NT 5 was called 'Cairo' and then 'Longhorn' and then just disappeared into the ether.
Or, instead of version numbers, we could categorize ourselves by the feature sets we support. Maybe 'Atheism 2009 - Strident Edition', or something like that.
Posted by: Celeste | December 8, 2009 6:58 PM
So, being an atheist, I found it humorously ironic that after reading the entire blog entry, the first words that went through my mind were "Amen and Hallelujah PZ!"
Posted by: tsg | December 8, 2009 7:02 PM
Nah. I'm sticking with "uppity", or possibly "flaming" depending on my mood.
The whole "New Atheist" bullshit is a bunch of idiots who can't shut up about their god for two seconds complaining about how we dare mention we're tired of having it shoved down our throats. "I wouldn't mind if they just weren't so vocal about it" -- This from people who think evangelizing is A Good ThingTM.
Posted by: CJO | December 8, 2009 7:04 PM
Whatevs. How many versions has Christianity been through now? and why does every Christian I talk to claim that those other (so-called) Christians are still running the beta?
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 7:04 PM
Okay, I think you got me there Torrie
It looks like lately that Dawkins has embraced the term 'militant' lately. But it's always seemed like a perjorative to me. One could just as easily say 'outspoken' or 'active' in his atheism. We can almost singularly thank him for reinvigorating the discussion between believers and unbelievers.
It just starts to feel like when you say something like 'I'm like Dawkins' it begins to feel like there's an orthodoxy to unbelief. One that entails, in your mind, not speaking to people that have a religion.
One of the main reasons that I follow the discussions surrounding atheism along with PZ's blog among others is that I find the whole thing very interesting (as well as terrifying, alarming and depressing). Part of that interest is following the arguments of the theists, however ad hominem, ad naseum or straw man they end up being.
B
Posted by: Mumon | December 8, 2009 7:07 PM
Chayanov:
Didn't think it was a true Scotsman argument.
What I believe said was roughly the Buddhist equivalent of "Most Christians do not think the Pope is the vicar of Christ."
I don't get to say who's a true this or that.
Heck, Sam Harris is said to be a "new atheist," and he's pretty close to me, Buddhistly speaking.
I like Dawkins better though.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 8, 2009 7:09 PM
The Duck Has Become Man
Posted by: brian paget | December 8, 2009 7:12 PM
Anyone using version and release numbering in a lame attempt to look blisteringly contemporary, and promoting what is little more than apologia, is indulging in Wank 1.0 and should be shot with Shit 2.0.
If you had to though, you could sum 'Atheism 3.0' in one word: appeasement.
Posted by: Slaughter | December 8, 2009 7:15 PM
Cuttlefish, you've outdone yourself! And that's saying something.
I don't go for Atheism 3.0. Sometimes I wish I had Atheism .30-.06, though.
Posted by: Zarquon | December 8, 2009 7:19 PM
So Wright is really Dennis Markuze?
Posted by: artfulD | December 8, 2009 7:19 PM
How about the atheist but agnostic crowd - where do they stand numerically?
Example of the genre:
http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 8, 2009 7:20 PM
1. Has the "New Gays" movement started yet? Because I want to get out in front of that.
2. I attended a student group "Ask an Atheist" panel last night, and ran into the strangest Unitarian* that I have ever met. He identifies as Christian, believes in God, but doesn't believe that Jesus was divine. He just claimed that he "lived according to the message of Jesus". What I find unbelievable was that anyone sane enough to reject the divinity of Jesus could also infer a coherent message from the teachings of Jesus. Strangely enough, several atheists also identified as Christians in the sense of having respect for the message of Jesus, but rejecting his divinity.
Given, much of the canon is redacted, and given, we have very little reliable information of what Jesus might have said or done. I DEFY anyone to interpret a coherent worldview from this mess. Just bitching here, but it was fucked up.
*He didn't sit on the panel...just asked some questions.
Posted by: Eidolon | December 8, 2009 7:22 PM
What Wowbagger @94 said!
Religions play nice except when challenged...wata crock! "Militant", "New" and the rest of the adjectives - they all refer to atheists who do NOT STFU!
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
December 8, 2009 7:28 PM
"It will, or the teachers are doing it wrong."
That's the one place I disagree. It's not the teachers' job to challenge religion, and I'm sure that's not what PZ meant. The idea is that what they learn about evolution will challenge their religious beliefs. This is, of course, true to an extent, but only for those students who are bright enough or thoughtful enough or inquisitive enough to make the connection. I suspect that most students will cheerfully continue believing the same religious myths, even if they understand the science, simply because their thoughts about science and their thoughts about religion never overlap.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 8, 2009 7:30 PM
Mumon,
Seriously, what is Rebirth if it isn't reincarnation?
Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | December 8, 2009 7:31 PM
This development means nothing to me, not least because I have been aggressive, rude and uncompromising in my atheism and anti-theism since I was about seventeen - and that was a long, long time before anyone started calling people like me "New Atheists".
This is a transparent attempt by the apologists to simply grab the zeitgeist, since they have been taking such a severe kicking when attempting to actually argue their case. They hope to make themselves fashionable by suggesting their piss-blooded, forelock-touching, gutless accomodationism represents the next exciting stage in atheism. They're fucking imbeciles, the whole sorry, whining lot of them, and it won't work. All it will do is highlight their impotence.
Posted by: The Naturalist | December 8, 2009 7:33 PM
Warren's book is a well designed meme propagation manual. See how carefully it is designed to fill the readers mind with the virus of Christianity. My brother gave me one and after studying it, I put it were I would put other viruses, in the garbage.
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 7:37 PM
artfulD
aren't we all agnostic? Theist and athiests alike? To be agnostic just means without knowledge, in this case in refference to god or gods. You can hold the position of agnostic atheist easily.
It's just the old 'is the absence of evidence, evidence of absence' question. Applying to people that live their lives as atheists and theists alike. Neither of them with knowledge one way or the other.
B
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
December 8, 2009 7:41 PM
On the theme of very bad software updates, how about:
"Atheism Vista"
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 8, 2009 7:47 PM
Yes. That's why it's an almost completely irrelevant term.
However, it seems to be the one the theists prefer atheists use in an attempt to win some kind of epistemological higher ground - 'we're allowed to say we know our god exists but you can't say you know that our god doesn't exist; therefore, you can't say you're atheist, you have to say you're agnostic.'
Which is a fascinating double-standard on their part, since they don't possess any actual 'knowledge' of their god or (if we allow them the assertion that any gods exist) what its qualities or intentions are - since, despite what they might claim, the bible is an unverified source.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
December 8, 2009 7:51 PM
Ah, the faitheists again, looking for a nifty new name. Idiots.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
December 8, 2009 7:51 PM
Mumon said:
That's a fantastic description of Humanism.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
December 8, 2009 7:53 PM
I would’ve gone all day today without wearing a big silly grin on my face even once if it hadn’t been for Cuttlefish.
Posted by: rwtwm | December 8, 2009 7:54 PM
Magnificent PZ!
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 7:56 PM
Wowbagger @120, I can't quite agree.
Gnosis is considered to be a valid form of knowledge by adherents (i.e. non-epistemological (intuitive) knowledge), oxymoronic as it might seem to us rationalists.
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 8:06 PM
Damn right wowbagger
I have a long and rambling philosophical rebuttle to that argument that I've been working on for that, try and follow this one:
If your god is a god and by definition capable of anything. By that definition your god can posess any and all qualities of any god, ones worshipped or ones not even concieved of yet. Therefore the probability of a god having the qualities that you believe and being the one that exists is:
Infinity to one
So the probability of any god existing is effectively infinty to one meaning the chance of god existing is zero.
B
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
December 8, 2009 8:10 PM
By the way, here're Epstein's words about Warren, straight from the book:
So, yeah. Really, the only positive things he has to say about Warren are that he's a best-selling author (which is true) and he tries to sound inspiring.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
December 8, 2009 8:14 PM
Bribase:
Hate to disagree, but that's a huge non-sequitur. "The chances of the god that exists being the one you believe" is not the same as "the chances that any god exists." In fact, your proposition (the one with the "infinity to one" probability) is based entirely on the assumption that there is a god that exists.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 8, 2009 8:14 PM
John Morales wrote:
Well, the moment that anyone adhering to that particular theory is capable of demonstrating that such knowledge exists and that they possess it then I'll happily retract my statement decrying it.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 8, 2009 8:21 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Chances are good that it has been mentioned above. I haven't read through all the posts. ahem:
That last bit is obviously snark but I hear no difference in atheist tone today compared to what I heard decades ago. What has changed is simply the ability of atheists to have better means of communication and the tools to form a more united and consistent voice. NB, these means and tools are put to use by everyone these days including those who shudder when considering that we are somehow, magically, "New."
Sorry, no. Not new. Same old shit*, different day. 21st Century and all that.
Well, OK, there is one thing new. A new harmonic. It's generated by the growing realization that our voice is being heard more often and widely than before. And it is pricking up ears and causing concern and starting arguments. This, we feel, bodes well. I suggest we keep it up.
Also, it is continuously gratifying to note the conduct of atheists; I've yet to hear of atheists condemning believers to eternal suffering and rejection from the universe of the living. Something else we should keep up.
Thanks, y'all.
*"But it's really great shit, Missus Presky!"
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 8:24 PM
you're right there Mike. I shouldn't have used the 'chances of god existing' for effect and should have stopped it with something like 'yours being the right one'.
Otherwise it ends up like the old 'rock so heavy that he cannot lift' or 'burrito so hot...' questions.
B
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 8:28 PM
Crudely Wrott,
The internet.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 8, 2009 8:37 PM
I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand I don't actually care that much about what people believe just as long as they keep it to themselves. Yet when I see this kind of doublespeak, it shits me off to know end. It's bringing concepts to the incomprehensible, to the utterly meaningless, and that makes it incredibly hard to have an honest conversation. It's goalpost shifting to protect the sacred nature of a word by making the word essentially useless.
The big problem for this position? It's nothing more than atheism dressed up to sound religious. Notice that the religious aren't biting this non-anthropomorphic non-interventionist non-real abstract one still wants to call God...
Posted by: truthspeaker | December 8, 2009 8:43 PM
I'm still running the old Diagoros of Melos kernel, and it's working just fine.
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 8:48 PM
Crudely
I think that a big part of the current ground swell behind the 'new' atheism isn't down to reaction to 9/11 or the four horsemen's increased publicity but down to increased interest in science and the public's access to it through the internet.
In the last century the theist crowd were very happy to see that many of the greatest thinkers in atheism were miserable nihilists. The kind of thoughts that, however honest they were, are impossible to build a persons ideology around.
The theists are very angry with the idea that there is a growing crowd of people that are happy to embrace the collosal majesty of the entire cosmos, understand that we're an enormously insignificant part of it, not believe that there is anything beyond it, and still be able to live meaningful lives.
It seems perplexing for so many of them. They have some kind of cosmic agoraphobia.
B
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
December 8, 2009 8:53 PM
... so's I figured this one called fer an official response.
(/Almost went with 'sod off...', but it seemed a little too gentle, really.)
Posted by: John Morales | December 8, 2009 8:55 PM
Bribase @135, nice!
Posted by: Daffyd ap Morgen | December 8, 2009 9:01 PM
So some quasi-religious squeck is going to walk up to me and tell me what my atheism is? That I have to dress it up in nice terms (which they'll gladly provide for me) whenever I speak about them? Oh yes, and remember the "pie-with-a-fork" manners and dress it up nice (and they'll provide the suit and tie also) so it can walk into their religious squawk-squawks and not embarrass everyone?
Well, my jeans and t-shirt atheism will do just fine for me, thank you. And don't let the confessional door slam you in the ass when you leave, hear?
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 8, 2009 9:08 PM
"Atheism 3.0"? Whoever made that up better shut up. I mean like, right now. Nothing good could possibly come out of a mind that thought "Atheism 3.0" is a good or clever idea. I shouldn't even have to tell anyone how asinine that is.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 8, 2009 9:20 PM
@ John Morales, #132:
Precisely. Availability of the InnerTubes engenders new (there's that word again) and imaginative ways to use it. To communicate.
@ Bribase, #135:
Communication needs some forum, some kind of instrument with which to organize and dispense whatever knowledge and insight might be at hand. For a very large portion of history churches, temples, oracles, shrines, oracles and such filled that niche. Printed books and broadsheets raised hell with that system and the fur hadn't finished flying before the telegraph and wireless. I suppose it was the telephone that broke the camel's back. When people widely separated by geography can converse over wire as easily as when seated at a common table knowledge and insight travel at a faster and, interestingly, less controlled manner. Tip the curve toward the vertical with faxes, cell phones, email, instant messaging (!) and (gasp!) blogs and the more traditional dispensaries of knowledge and insight have good reason for concern over their relevancy and, ah, permanence.
Posted by: CRS | December 8, 2009 9:28 PM
@ 12
Antiochus Epiphanes,
Actually it's unusual for the 21st century (I assume). Not so much pre-Nicene. At least one major (and possibly original) sect of Christianity flat-out rejected the divinity of Christ. Others allowed for a divine-by-adoption when he was baptized. It was a cause for some of the worst in-fighting during the early Xtian era.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 8, 2009 9:33 PM
Agree with this. It seems that there is the expectation at the very least that atheism be nihilistic theism. That is to say God is dead and we should all be crying over the realisation.Recently I just finished reading Bruce Hood's wonderful book Supersense so I'm feeling pretty sympathetic right now to the notion of the sacred.
So maybe while God is unnecessary for us, what we are doing is not casting aside the notion of an anthropomorphic deity but casting away the sacred that just happens to express itself in the notion of God.
The likes of Sagan or Dawkins might say that this reality is enough. It seems that many agree but are uncomfortable to express such things. Hence we have a hollowed-out shell of God that is indistinguishable to not being there, yet it keeps that sense of the sacred.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 8, 2009 9:45 PM
Who were both miserable and nihilists?
Posted by: tsg | December 8, 2009 9:54 PM
In terms of agnostic meaning "without knowledge", I disagree. Having looked for thousands of years and not found anything is a kind of knowledge. Whenever the disprovable claims are, in fact, disproven and the believers move the goalposts, that is also a kind of knowledge. And that we have never needed god to explain anything in nature is also a kind of knowledge.
Beyond that, we only ever say "agnostic" when we're talking about god. We're not agnostic about Santa Claus, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. Saying we're agnostic about god and not about these other things is putting god into a separate, untouchable category which many of us became atheists by refusing to do.
And beyond that, the term "agnostic" has connotations of existence versus non-existence being equally likely when it is not even close.
And that's not even getting into the agnostic as "unknowable" which begs the question, "if it's unknowable, where did you even get the idea from to give the name 'god'?"
So, no, I don't consider myself agnostic at all.
Posted by: No BS | December 8, 2009 10:01 PM
Has anyone seen/read "Asterix and the Soothsayer",
where Asterix pits his wits against a lying conniving shaman? Probably would make a good stocking stuffer for the kids. Plus you can show it to religious offspring hanging around your kids.
Plant those seeds of scepticism early.
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 10:05 PM
Kel
I think I understand where you're coming from but you need to define sacred a little better for me.
Posted by: ej | December 8, 2009 10:19 PM
Re: The part about evolution and its implications:
Any advice on how to bridge that gap as a high school science teacher without breaking a law,ethics or policy or jeopardizing tenure (which I have yet to attain)?
I address preconceptions/misconceptions of evolution with a survey from the ENSI at Indiana University...It's from Texas originally...Would love to cross the boundary and blow religious faith out of the water, but...
Well, at least I hear kids muttering amongst themselves that they are atheists...
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 8, 2009 10:20 PM
In the context I'm using it, I'll take the following definitons from Collins English Dictionary:2. worthy of or regarded with reverence, awe, or respect.
3. protected by superstition or piety from irreligious actions.
Or to put it another way, it's like we are taking a young child's attachment object and destroying it. Imagine a small child who has an irreplacable possession, a toy or security blanket perhaps. We can understand the consequences for the loss of said item. My brother for instance had a blanket he had since he was a baby. Used it until he was a teenager, and only did it stop because it accidently set on fire. He was devestated, it was a huge thing to lose that blanket.
So in that sense, I can understand why people get so upset at those who rally against God. It's destroying what is important to them. Then again, this new version of God is like a parent saying that the toy has been put in storage to protect it forever, when really the kid lost it at the park a week ago. The toy is gone, why pretend otherwise?
Posted by: Todd | December 8, 2009 10:38 PM
I wiped New Atheism off my hard drive and installed GNU Atheism.
Posted by: efrique | December 8, 2009 10:38 PM
Atheists 3.0 == accommodationists
Very OLD, very much not NEW and very much no thanks
I'm not setting out to offend people of religion because they're people of religion - I was a theist once, I know what its like.
I'm out to fight evil morons in what ways I think I can, and I'm not always going out of my way to avoid offense while I am at it. If bystanders also feel offended while I am busy with that, I'm sorry about that but I'm damn well not shutting up. Deal.
Applauding smarmy evil bastards like Rick Warren is not "nice", it's just encouraging smarmy evilness. Fuck that.
Either tell the Rick Warrens of the world to go fuck themselves, or get out of the damn way.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | December 8, 2009 10:38 PM
@Brownian #90--
The truth is, if people pay attention to my wishes,
My brain will be donated to the dept. of cuttlefishology here,
and paraded around to intro students each semester. On the off chance I get advance notice of my eventual demise, I will narrate and film a guide to my own gyri and sulci.
I want to continue to freak people out after death.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
December 8, 2009 10:40 PM
You know, only one word after the colon is actually needed here.
Posted by: BoxNDox
|
December 8, 2009 10:47 PM
#112 - Actually, rejecting the concept of a holy trinity is the main difference between Unitarianism and other Xian sects. (Unitary god - see?) The specific variety of Unitarianism you ran into is the so-called "rationalist" branch, which asserts that Jesus was a man, not a god, among other things.
#79 - It's been a long time since I studied this stuff, but I seem to recall that Karma is based not on action but intent. The notion that the universe is somehow assessing actions based on intent strikes me a fairly supernatural in nature.
More generally, however, you certainly can skim the "philosophical cream" off the top of the large pile of woo that constitutes Buddhism. (You can do the same to pretty much any religion, although the structure of, say, the Koran may make it more difficult.) The question is whether the result is still Buddhism, or whether you have instead moved into "no true Scotsman" territory. I'm sorry to have to say that I believe it's the latter.
Posted by: Bribase | December 8, 2009 10:52 PM
Kel
I was guessing that those two points would characterise sacred for us. And in that case I would say no, there is nothing sacred about the universe. I revel in the fact that the cosmos doesn't care at all about how much we respect it, or whether we exist at all. If I thought it did all I would be doing is to anthropomorphise it, turning it into god.
I think that the very notion of sacred carries much too much baggage to use as a term for non-believers. Personally I think the best thing that we can do is to orientate ourselves in the cosmos but to revere it would be to deify it.
Of course there are many things that one could hold as subjectively sacred. But to think that to maintain the sense of the sacred simply because the sacred is important still doesn't sit right with me.
B
Posted by: Joel
|
December 8, 2009 10:56 PM
Some great counter labels in there PZ. You have a bit of an inner poet I think.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 8, 2009 11:03 PM
The most dear and mysterious Cuttlefish at #151 says
Yes, my friend, you probably will, and good on you.
You will also inspire and amuse and challenge and inform.
Way to go.
*can you teach me how to do that?*
Posted by: Rutee | December 8, 2009 11:10 PM
...Am I to understand that we're supposed to be Atheist Missionaries? Because as long as the Religious aren't actively irritating, I don't see why we can't leave them alone. They're wrong, they don't get to set policy, and they don't have any evidence proving them right, so from a strict logical position they're no better off worshipping God, Lakshmi, or whatever else then they are the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But their legal right to worship fluffy cloud god is predicated on a philosophical one, isn't it? Do we really have to proselytize?
Posted by: tsg | December 8, 2009 11:15 PM
But they are. That's the point.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 8, 2009 11:17 PM
Because as long as the Religious aren't actively irritating, I don't see why we can't leave them alone.
That is the problem, there are many who actively try to dictate how we should life our lives. Or do you think that Uganda's Kill The Gays bill came from no where?
Posted by: Torrie | December 8, 2009 11:19 PM
Posted by: Bribase #93
That's pretty damn rude. It is you who didn't have your facts, yet you write a nasty statement like that. I didn't mislead anyone. Dawkins is a militant Atheist and at heart he always has been. In more recent times, he has expessed it more. Militant doesn't have a bad connotation. To me, it means he stands up for Atheism and he doesn't back down.
Posted by: Bribase #105
Sorry about your luck.
Quit arguing sematics and quit attacking fellow Atheists. You could have googled before telling me I was full of shit.
That's because he's millitant.
I have NO f-ing clue what you mean by that. I probably am better off not knowing.
Back off, Jesus H Christ!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 8, 2009 11:21 PM
After reading some of the recent comments about agnosticism, and after some small moment of reflection, it appears that, concerning agnosticism, there is not much to be said.
That is, given that an agnostic point of view admits up front that it does not know, then any description of itself offered up by an agnostic is without, you know, anything to really bite into.
In balance, there is no practical way to challenge agnosticism, since it makes no claims.
Can we put this baby to bed?
*no*
Posted by: Rutee | December 8, 2009 11:27 PM
@158:
If you can not tolerate their existence, I don't see why I should consider you as better. You're inheriting the worst parts of Religiousness.
@159
Mike Huckabee screws up governorship and lets a guy off because he's a sucker for Religion (Note: I'm aware other stuff happened): Being annoying.
All Kill the Gays/Gay Rights bills: Being annoying.
But what about going to church every week, say "Sure, Evolution happened", and don't vote based on their religion, because hey, that's exactly what Jesus said to do.
That's what I don't get. I don't get why I have to go out of my way to smack down /the inoffensive/. Because a lot of people, in real life, just aren't.
Posted by: Torrie | December 8, 2009 11:32 PM
Posted by: Rutee #157
No, we don't have to be anything. Organizing Atheists is like herding cats. Two reasons for being an Activist Atheist is one, we don't want Christians taking over and sending our country back even further into the dark ages. Plus, all the wars now are over religion and we, as tax payers, pay for it. and secondly, as richard dawkins believes, it is better for people to know the truth so they can enjoy the beauty of the earth and not lead the miserable lives that religion promotes. Granted, not all religious folk think they are miserable, but they are certainly delusional. I agree with Dawkins and others that the truth based on evidence is just better. And, it doesn't have a control issue behind it. If you become Atheist, you don't have to join any cult that tells you how to act and feel and promises you everlasting life. It's a much better deal. Some might feel that it's better to stay delusional so one doesn't get depressed over our death, but logic dictates our natural world, so it stands to reason that logic should dictate our social world as well.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
December 8, 2009 11:35 PM
Damn. I was beaten to it!
Make mine an Atheism .38-55. Oldschool.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 8, 2009 11:35 PM
All Kill the Gays/Gay Rights bills: Being annoying.
Tell that to the GLBT people of Uganda and the people who will not turn them in to the government. This is not just annoying.
Oh, and thank you for telling my the the fight for my rights is annoying to you.
You are the fucking gold standard of humans.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 8, 2009 11:39 PM
Come to think of it, agnosticism is quite closely aligned with contemporary Christianity. In both cases little is known of content, intent or resolution. Guesswork is equally productive and guesswork is frequently observed.
Funny how a similar uncertainty exists in both extremes . . .
Perhaps this indicates a more profitable way to invest effort and funds and intent. In search not of certainty but of further clues . . .
Posted by: truthspeaker | December 8, 2009 11:46 PM
Who's smacking them down? We're just saying they're wrong.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 8, 2009 11:47 PM
@141, 153: My point (#112) wasn't that rejecting the divinity of Jesus was surprising. My point was that Jesus has very little else going for him other than divinity.
There is nothing coherent in his message as it appears in either the canon or deuterocanon. There is not much cream to skim. Christians always say that if the resurrection is a lie, then Christianity is a meaningless doctrine. I tend to agree with them.
Posted by: Katharine | December 8, 2009 11:47 PM
Has anyone compared this 'Atheism 3.0' to those Jews for Jeebus people yet?
Is 'Atheism 3.0' anything akin to an 'Atheists for Theocracy' organization?
Posted by: tsg | December 8, 2009 11:51 PM
@Rutee #162
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 8, 2009 11:59 PM
No.
And the religious are in fact constantly irritating. Constantly in the faces of the nonreligious.
This should be ignored? Countenanced? Subtly dealt with? Eaten?
*the struggle continues because it cannot stop, yet, I guess*
Posted by: Rutee | December 9, 2009 12:01 AM
@163:
"And, it doesn't have a control issue behind it. If you become Atheist, you don't have to join any cult that tells you how to act and feel and promises you everlasting life."
Except it /does/ have a control issue, if you incite atheists to proselytize. "You can't have a religion because you're wrong."
@165:
What what whaaaaaaat!?
Are you confused on what I said? Because I'm lesbian; I have something of a problem with anti-gay legislation. I was using that as an example of when opposing the religious strikes me as justified; When they try to set down their moral code as law. If religion is being used as an excuse for racism, or actual social wrongs, shoot it down them too.
What I don't get is why we have to be Jehovah's Witnesses for Atheism. Sure, Atheism requires less invention, and is probably correct, based on Occam's Razor. But even /then/, it still doesn't disprove, say, that we are bound to the world, and if we strive towards inner peace, using the Eightfold Path, we can achieve Nirvana. Have the buddhists proven the accuracy of their claims? Maybe, if you accept a complete lack of embellishment from the various boddhisatvas who confirmed Tenzin Gyatso (Very unlikely).
Do I think we shouldn't teach proper critical thinking, evolution, and otherwise excellent science? Of course. Do I also agree with the addition of the Establishment Clause? Yes! But I also agree with the one that follows it, that we shouldn't prohibit the practice of religion either, merely ensure it doesn't pollute the laws for the rest of us.
@167:
"Who's smacking them down? We're just saying they're wrong"
There's where I'm trying to narrow things down.
Are we knocking on doors and being assholes about it?
Am I morally obligated to ask my coworkers "Have you heard there's no God?"
Or do we only act when directly faced with someone proselytizing? Or when someone tries to legislate their belief system so that the rest of us are bound to it?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 9, 2009 12:07 AM
ZeaLitY #14, I agree. Buddhism takes a nonscientific, irrational approach to reality just as much as the Abrahamic religions do.
And Buddhism has a significant amount of dogma to its name with a large collection of fiction they try to pass of as "historical non-fiction" and plenty of authorities to peddle the nonsense.
You can technically be an atheist Buddhist if you don't happen to deify Buddhism's cast of characters (let's not forget there are Christian atheists who don't believe in God or Jesus Christ while revering the Bible and practicing Christianity), but Buddhism remains a religion.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 9, 2009 12:16 AM
That's just it though. It's not that we've discarded the holiest of holies, but that we should feel terrible because of it. This whole positivity that comes in the face of existential nihilism? Well that's just not on.Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 9, 2009 12:19 AM
Rutree, you are not morally obligated to much of anything at all if you chose not to have much to do with your fellow humans.
If you do have much to do with them you have obviously (or hopefully) realized that their impression of you has much to do with your impression of them. Specifically, what you would like, overall, is similar to what most everyone else would like.
You said, "What I don't get is why we have to be Jehovah's Witnesses for Atheism."
We don't. We can't. There is no way to do it.
That's why not everyone tries to convert others. Also it is the basis for friendship between believers and atheists. Such rewarding relationships do exist.
Posted by: John Morales | December 9, 2009 12:27 AM
Rutee, let me quote PZ:
You don't want to? Fine.
You think that's a problem? Well, yeah, but it's your problem. :)
That's the so-called "new atheism", in a nutshell.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | December 9, 2009 12:36 AM
What John Morales said. And let it be said that the "new" in "new atheism" is not the operative word. (see #130)
I have to be in two places at once tomorrow. G'night.
Posted by: Wirelizard | December 9, 2009 1:10 AM
In response to someone somewhere upthread talking about Unitarians:
"Unitarians are people who believe in at most one god."
There's UUs in my immediate family who'd go for that description. That Trinity nonsense seems like nonsense to UUs too, mostly, but most of them are fatheists aside from that.
I'm moderately pleased to note I've (mildly, UUs do most things mildly) offended at least one UU minister with purebred atheist talk. Was fun.
Posted by: wiley | December 9, 2009 1:38 AM
Just commenting on the 'toon strip; Islam is in bed with Christianity now? You Atheists are stark raving nuts! Jihadists overran former Christian territories in Syria, Egypt & Spain within 100 years of Muhammad's death, finally meeting defeat in France at the Battle of Poitiers in 732. The jihad in the east continued til it seemed likely that the Byzantine Empire might fall, which is when Pope Urban 2 called the 1st Crusade (1095). The jihad continued and Constantinople fell in 1452, and it wasn't til 1682 that the advance of Islam into central Europe was halted by Sobrieski at the Gates of Vienna.
It continues to this day; Christians really are persecuted under Sharia law in Islamic lands, and 9/11 and Fort Worth were acts of jihad too, of course, but clueless atheshits perceive/portray Islam & Christianity in bed together? Hopeless!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 9, 2009 1:42 AM
What? That's "Jesus" and "Mo," not "Islam" and "Christianity."
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
December 9, 2009 1:48 AM
They've been sleeping in the same bed together for along time now. If I recall, it was Christian fanatics who help fund those Mujahadeen Moslems because they were afriad of Godless* Russians.
*you say godless now, but when trying to use appeal to authority or population you'll add those Russian Orthadoxs to your stats.
Posted by: John Morales | December 9, 2009 2:06 AM
The wiley-thing reminds me of this oldie-but-goodie: Maps of War: History of Religion.
In bed together? Well...
Posted by: Fred | December 9, 2009 3:47 AM
"All the Atheist Buts and God Buts are missing the key point, too. We don't care if you think religion is good for you, or if you love your faith, or if you think rituals are lovely, or if believers have done good in history, or if a lack of praise for Jesus irritates the Baptists. That's not the issue. The central, fundamental question is whether anyone has any reasonable evidence for the existence of any gods, especially the gods that everyone is so busy propitiating. You haven't got any? Then we'll continue pointing out that you're chasing leprechauns, no matter how annoying you find it. It's the truth. Argue against that with evidence — anything else is fluff and noise."
I'm sorry, PZ, but for once I highly disagree with you. I still believe that it is important to publicly debate matters of truth, but it should also be important for us to consider why people need their faith because it would help them transition to a non-theistic or non-religious lifestyle. Providing a positive (humanism or naturalism perhaps?) is as important as arguing for the negative (for atheism).
Posted by: wiley | December 9, 2009 5:00 AM
What Fred said: 'I still believe that it is important to publicly debate matters of truth, but it should also be important for us to consider why people need their faith because it would help them transition to a non-theistic or non-religious lifestyle.'
There's an underlying 'counter-truth' at play here, which I would argue for (if I were not Christian), and that would be that there is an 'evolutionary' advantage in believing, not only in the mere existence of God, but also that he is on your side. Its an avantage that Atheists can never have, and possibly explains why no Atheist regime has lasted even 100 lousy years.
Posted by: John Morales | December 9, 2009 5:27 AM
wiley @184, you would argue it, would you? Ah, but you're a Christian, so you won't — instead you assert without a supporting argument. Typical.
PS I'm amused by your scare quotes around evolutionary... does this mean that, were you to argue such, you'd be arguing on the basis of something you disbelieve? Heh.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 9, 2009 5:31 AM
Maybe that's because "Atheist regime" is an oxymoron.Posted by: Rorschach | December 9, 2009 5:43 AM
It sounds plausible only to people and in countries where teaching and learning history is not high on the agenda.Well, high, I should say, not required reading at all.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 9, 2009 6:08 AM
My inbuilt virus/bullshit detector went off, so Atheism 3.0 got instantly deleted. Can't be too careful these days.
Just as we known that the whites showed tolerance and civility to black folks till they got uppity and wanted rights and things.
I'm a happily grumpy old atheist 1.0 and Epstein should get off my fucking lawn and stop shitting all over it.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 9, 2009 6:17 AM
Oh and Wiley, you forgot about the protestant christians picking on the catholic christians...and vice versa...
You should be grateful that these days christians don't have to make their own persecution... like the old days. After all, whats a christian without a persecution complex?
and of course christian fundamentalists working with muslim fundies to combat atheism is all just talk of course...at the moment.
Oh, and if you read Jesus and Mo, you would get the context. I suggest you do, it is quite a funny set of comics.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 9, 2009 6:37 AM
Now, to be fair they did put aside their differences and came together to gay bash when there was a Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 9, 2009 6:52 AM
"If you're a Midwestern American, fighting to keep Darwin in the public schools and intelligent design out, the case you make to conservative Christians is that teaching evolution won't turn their children into atheists."
If we're talking conservative Christians, well, it's almost certain that their answer will be "Yes it will". So why bother trying to persuade them anyway?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 9, 2009 7:01 AM
"... and possibly explains why no Atheist regime has lasted even 100 lousy years."
Atheist regime? Like, Soviet communism? Where people were mocked, harrassed, imprisoned, beaten to a pulp, their churches turned into warehouses, their literature seized? Hmm, I can see some problems with this approach. I can see why people (including atheists) wouldn't want to live under it. Additionnally, it proved to be an absolutely counter-productive way to fight against religion.
A true "atheist regime" is simply a secular one. Atheists can't dream of anything better than this. No religious view (belief or unbelief) is forbidden, none is imposed, none is sanctioned or financed by government. That's one thing can can last for quite a long time.
Posted by: Rutee | December 9, 2009 7:06 AM
@176:
"You don't want to? Fine.
You think that's a problem? Well, yeah, but it's your problem. :)
That's the so-called "new atheism", in a nutshell."
I don't follow the intent of the second line at all, I'm afraid. That's what's bugging me. What constitutes "Accommodationism"? Because if it's respecting the clause directly after the Establishment Clause in spirit*, and not just by the letter, well, I'm going to accommodate.
@181: "They've been sleeping in the same bed together for along time now. If I recall, it was Christian fanatics who help fund those Mujahadeen Moslems because they were afriad of Godless* Russians."
...It was? I was under the distinct impression it was "Pretty much any Merikan", because communists sucked to basically everyone. Either way, it would be more accurate to say "They /were/ sleeping in the same bed." They're.. certainly not now.
"*you say godless now, but when trying to use appeal to authority or population you'll add those Russian Orthadoxs to your stats."
That's not a contradiction, considering the Soviets did indeed destroy their own churches too. The Soviets aren't in charge now.
*This isn't actually why I feel this way, but it is a quick reference to how I feel on the matter.
@184: "There's an underlying 'counter-truth' at play here, which I would argue for (if I were not Christian), and that would be that there is an 'evolutionary' advantage in believing, not only in the mere existence of God, but also that he is on your side. Its an avantage that Atheists can never have, and possibly explains why no Atheist regime has lasted even 100 lousy years."
Europe's been pretty secular for around 70 years, to the best of my knowledge..
Other then that, well. Rational thought didn't get the huge kickstart it has til at its most charitable, the Renaissance. It took Christianity 5 and a half centuries to /get/ a country, and that only because Constantine figured he could get a good glue for the Empire. It probably wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as it has without Constantine browbeating Christians into setting down the standard the Catholics used, and making it the state church of an enormous empire.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 9, 2009 7:34 AM
hadn't been here for a year, does this Wiley fellow often come up with this kind of pompous combination of oxymorons, half truths, and mind-boggingly stupid hypotheses ?
Posted by: wasd | December 9, 2009 7:48 AM
You have to spend a lot of time studying the sales tactics of quacks to come up with the idea of selling nothing 3.0
The new and improved void, now with less sugar
...they are gonna make millions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 9, 2009 7:55 AM
Wiley's only been here a few weeks. He is mind numbingly stupid, and thinks he is clever (not). He's just a nuisance, saying nothing cogent, with an occasional copypasta since he can't think. So far, he hasn't been a big enough pest for PZ to plonk him.Posted by: tsg
|
December 9, 2009 8:42 AM
No. Usually it's less-than-half truths.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
December 9, 2009 8:44 AM
Accommodationism has nothing to do with the US constitution.
An accommodationist is someone who, whilst claiming to be an atheist, is critical of other atheists who point out that religious belief (other than the most mild mild forms of deism) encourages irrational thinking. They tend to concentrate on the evolution/creationism issue and regard criticism of religious believers who accept evolution as likely to alienate such believers. They refuse to produce any evidence to support this claim. They are also incredibly patronising to religious believers, seemingly thinking them incapable of agreeing to work with people who are critical of religion in general to solve certain specific problems. The fact that Richard Dawkins has worked with Catholic, Anglican and Jewish leaders to fight attempts to have creationism taught in the UK escapes their notice.
Posted by: kopd
|
December 9, 2009 11:20 AM
The problem is, they feel threatened by reality.
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 9, 2009 12:48 PM
There's a lot of overlap between categories, of course. A mild-mannered New Atheist will be far more tolerant of people themselves, than a grumpy Faitheist. The intellectual position doesn't necessarily define a person's style or personality.
It's not all about attitude. One of the characteristics which set off the creation of the term "new atheism" was a very scientific approach to religion. The existence of God (and/or the supernatural) is considered and treated as, a hypothesis about the nature of reality. It's open to rational and scientific scrutiny and analysis. And religion (and spirituality) are defined by asserting this hypothesis. It is what makes them unique.
The accomodationists or faitheists try to disagree, by blurring distinctions. What if we just treat "God" as if it were like an expression of emotion, or a moral impulse, or a life philosophy, or a deeply-held personal value? Then we can say that 'science can't say anything about it, one way or the other.' What if we define religion not by its supernatural claims, but by its sense of community, or its ethics, or its ability to give meaning to people's lives? If we do that, then we can find a nice place in the middle ground with the reasonable theists, and everything will be lovely.
We don't have to emphasize that we think they're wrong; there are so many things that are still right.
Well, sure ... but there's a problem with that middle ground. Even the kings and queens of the aether buy into the importance of having faith. And the real enemy of the so-called new atheists isn't God, or religion -- it's the concept of religious faith. In religion, believing on insufficient evidence is supposed to be considered a positive virtue, instead of an error -- and it's supposed to bring in untestable supernatural assumptions, as a sign of being open, instead of being closed.
The liberal, tolerant theists agree that God can't be demonstrated through reason, or science, or by empirical evidence. They agree that the atheists have a better case than theism, if that's what you go by.
And then they explain that the difference lies in the heart. Theists have hope, and love, and meaning. Faith involves an openness of spirit, rich wisdom, and depth of feeling. Theists foster their curiosity and wonder, along with a life-and-love affirming ability to reach out and accept. Unlike the atheists, who lack all this.
But please, don't take that the wrong way! They're not judging us! They mean it in the nicest way possible, really. They're not fundamentalists, they accept all. Even the crippled in spirit.
Uh huh. And this is the group which the faitheists think is soooo important to make common cause with, and join together with, because we're all so sympatico on the science stuff -- as long as we leave out God. They're supposed to be a big improvement on the traditionalists and fundamentalists, because they're willing to work with us - as long as we don't make them question their belief in the value of faith.
And they assure us that faith can be kept in check.
Posted by: Anri
|
December 9, 2009 1:23 PM
wiley sez:
Ok, wiley, please demonstrate how that can be construed as evidence for theism.
Make certain to explain how belief in one particular god (yours) is demonstrably superior to all others.
Show your work.
Thanks in advance.
(BTW, speaking as an atheist, I believe that governments should be strictly agnostic, not atheist. The idea of Congress ruling one way or the other on the existence of a deity being somehow relevant to the actual existence of that deity is as laughable as the Imperial Roman senate voting to make Ceasar a demigod - just plain silly.)
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
December 9, 2009 2:46 PM
Re Buddhism,
As far as I know, most Buddhists do believe in supernatural stuff.
I'm no expert on it, and it's been a long time, so anybody should feel free to correct me about any of the following points:
1. The majority sect of Buddhism is lamaism, i.e., "Tibetan" Buddhism. (Which is Tibetan in the sense that Roman Catholicism is Roman. It's worldwide, but headquarted in Tibet, except that the leader is in exile.)
2. Tibetan Buddhism, like Catholicism, has a very rich supernaturalist belief system full of basically Hindu or pagan nonsense, which has little to do with what the Buddha taught.
(The Buddha said "I'm not here to tell you about an afterlife. I'm here to tell you how to avoid suffering in this life." But since he didn't say all that stuff was silly superstition that should be junked, there was an orgy of syncretism after his death.)
3. Most Tibetan Buddhists believe at least some of that stuff, just as most Catholics believe that Jesus was literally God incarnate, even if not literall born of a virgin. The majority is very clearly religious, believing in stuff like karma and reincarnation, and usually the especially divine nature of the Buddha and the Dalai Lama.
4. Non-lamaist sects of Buddhism (like Zen) mostly have a lot less of that supernatural stuff, but most non-lamaist Buddhists do believe in something supernatural, even if they don't recognize it as supernatural and think it's consistent with science. (Such as chi energy, or a vitalist life force, or something resembling The Force that you can intuit like Luke Skywalker, and it reveals some kind of truth or something.)
5. I think the bottom line is that there's a big spectrum in both Tibetan and non-Tibetan Buddhism, but most buddhists of either kind believe in at least something supernatural, and integrate it with their Buddhism in a way that is clearly religious---i.e. it's a non-naturalist philosophy.
In lamaism, the distribution is more heavily weighted toward orthodoxy, and the orthodoxy is more heavily freighted with a zoo of supernatural entities and phenomena. Tibetan Buddhist cosmology is bizarre.
6. Popular forms of Buddhism are not as compatible with science as a lot of people think, including Buddhists. Most only think it's compatible because they don't realize there's good scientific evidence against things like chi.
(Minds and bodies just don't really work that way, it turns out---any more than than life is a matter of being animated by a life force---even if visualizing things that way might help you do martial arts.)
7. Tibetan Buddhism in particular is a lot uglier and less progressive, by our standards, than many people in the West would have you believe. It's actually pretty regressive.
For example, the Dalai lama says that the law of karma is real, and that (for example) retarded people did something bad in a former life to deserve it.
That kind of insane crap is one of the things grafted into majority Buddhism from Hinduism almost from the start. As in Hinduism (and Calvinism) it has often served the function of justifying social injustice such as caste and class systems, by blaming the victims.
(You're supposed to be "compassionate" on the one hand, but on the other hand, those people deserve their lot in life, so you can't be expected to do a whole lot to make it better.)
In Tibet, before the Communist takeover, 20 percent of the population was monks and nuns, and they ran the show---it was a theocracy. The other 80 percent paid tribute to support those people. If you look at the religious monoculture and ancient theocracy there, and guess that it must have been pretty regressive and oppressive by our standards... well, you are not wrong.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
December 9, 2009 3:47 PM
The stupid, it burns.
Does Wright honestly think the way to promote acceptance of science is to LIE? Does Wright think honestly at all?
Personally I think Dawkins had the right approach in TGSOE; just talk about the science, address the lies where applicable, but don't pick any fights about religion. Problem is, religion often brings the fights to us. Think we should just cower and let them cut our heads off? Fuck. That. Noise.
Bwahahahahahaha! This just might be my new "think about it whenever I need a giggle" line!
The great religions have shown time and again that they're capable of tolerance and civility when their adherents don't get a chance to develop a ridiculous sense of entitlement about their beliefs. Whenever a religion gets above a certain level of political or cultural power, its adherents start feeling threatened and disrespected by anyone who says, "Nope, sorry, that doesn't work for me."
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
December 9, 2009 3:55 PM
I think the tactic is to point at Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Robert Bakker, etc. then quote the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury - show the kiddies that Darwin need not be a threat to religious belief. Even fundieDawkins (like ZombieJesus) works with the Anglican Church to help promote evolution teaching, I even remember a recent interview with him where he explicitly told people to go talk with their pastor / priest about the issue. (OMG accommodationist!)I like Jerry Coyne's take on the matter, it's not up to science to define religion for the children, hence it is not the role of science educators to teach compatibility.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 9, 2009 3:57 PM
1. You are wrong here. Despite being point 1, this is not very indicative of the rest. Vajrayana is actually the minority. I think at best, it has the most following amongst non-asians, but I wouldn't bet on it. If I recall correctly, Mahayana is the majority Buddhist sect.
2. This is true. There is, at least, a set of Boddhisatvas; People who attained enlightenment, but opted to continue evolving, to help others reach nirvana.
3. Pretty sure most of them believe in all of it. There were tears of sadness at the suggestion that the Dalai Lama was imperfect.
4. They generally share a belief in reincarnation, which is indeed supernatural. Aside from the basic tenets of the Four Noble Truths (Any rationalist should be a fan of the Eightfold Path, or a good chunk of it) and the Eightfold Path, or variants of either, they also share Skillful Means; The idea of alterring the less central aspects of the religion to help others understanding it.
5. Would agree, though it's cracking me up to keep seeing this idea of lamaist as the majority. IT's hilariously wrong.
6. Actually, there's good medical evidence for Chi. We can't explain it, which makes it difficult for us to replicate, but there's pretty solidly documented cases of acupuncture treatment assisting more then placebos or western medicine in given cases. Of course, they weren't laboratory tested, and the researcher was obviously biased, and double blinding this would be a bitch, so it doesn't stand up to modern science. But there is hard evidence that SOMETHING is up, and might actually work, at least as it applies to the medicinal applications of Chi.
That said, you fail at Buddhism on this point. The Eightfold Path is actually fairly compatible with Science, and the Four Noble Truths are philosophical and subjective. They aren't against Science, or at least not in full. True, they don't follow the Scientific Method to get there, but hey. The four most scientific words on the planet are "I might be wrong", because they evoke the criticism, even of the self, that are so necessary.
7. Dude, I hate to tell you this, but if it sounds oppressive, well, it does sound oppressive. The amazing thing is how much the Tibetans have /sought/ the rulership of their religious leaders, and opt to keep them when given a free vote. Democracy doesn't stop counting just because you disagree with the result. Dude, you're thinking of Tibet when it was isolated; When you have no contact with new ideas, there's not a lot of room to grow, sorry.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 9, 2009 4:01 PM
I should also add that given Skillful Means, it is not outside the realm of possibility for Buddhists to adapt their doctrine to a truly atheistic version. Of course, at that point you're still seeking Inner Peace for its own sake, but it's still a derived philosophy.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 9, 2009 4:12 PM
Gao. #205 is based on #202
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
December 9, 2009 4:24 PM
And that's true -- it need not be a threat.
I think that should be especially emphasized when the theists make the implicit or direct accusation that evolutionists just want to "deny God".
I forgot to to this in responding to Regina on the zombie New Scientist thread, but David Marjanović remembered.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
December 9, 2009 7:08 PM
It having been over 50 comments since anyone here mentioned Rick (boo! hiss!) Warren, here's my humble attempt to re-rail the thread:
Warren is one of the two* most famous followers of Peter Wagner, whose "New Apostolic Reformation" project is the most explicit and fastest-growing campaign to impose theocracy on the US and the world.
*The other one is named Sarah Heath Palin.
Posted by: ngong
|
December 9, 2009 7:28 PM
Paul...
I practiced Vajrayana for more than 10 years. There's plenty of woo, but there's also the understanding that some of the woo gets dropped at some along the path. In the lower Yanas, you pray to a deity; later you identify with the deity; later you drop the deity altogether.
Likewise, if you read the tantras from a Christian/atheist perspective, you'll be aghast that anyone could buy into this cosmology. You do the visualization, which might place Mt. Meru at the center of the universe, but then you dissolve it. Nobody I've met (and that includes Tibetans, not just Westerners tying themselves in knots trying to rationalize stuff like karma and reincarnation) sees the "bizarre cosmology" as scientific truth. This isn't the Bible or Koran, which are supposed to be inerrant in every sense. So much Western baggage...
Last I saw, the Nchirens were the dominant Buddhists in the states.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
December 9, 2009 7:28 PM
Oh yes, forgot something.
Welcome back, negentropyeater!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
December 9, 2009 7:51 PM
uh, this is Wrong.
First, replicable effects are replicable whether we can explain them or not. Second, there are plenty of controlled studies of acupuncture (though double-blinding is probably impossible), and overall the results are not impressive. Orac has lots of posts on this. Third, and most important, even if a replicable effect of acupuncture were to be demonstrated, this would not be evidence for the existence of something called "Chi."
Posted by: speedweasel
|
December 9, 2009 8:20 PM
Emphasis mine.
Dude, did you even read that after you wrote it? Read it again now, I'll wait...
Now review some acupuncture studies, there is *hard evidence* for the existence of the placebo effect and poor trial design. Nothing more.
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
December 9, 2009 8:40 PM
Rutee,
Thanks for the correction on #1. I think I was conflating the Tibetan/not distinction with the Mahayana/Theravada (major branch) distinction.
My bad.
I seem to recall that Mahayana is the majority branch of the two big branches, and that it is the more supernaturalist and with a more complicated orthodoxy.
I could have that wrong, too... but it sounds like we're in agreement that the common American impression of typical (popular) Buddhism is wrong---for the large majority of Buddhists, it's a clearly supernaturalist religion, and for most of the rest it's often somewhat supernaturalist.
I disagree with you about the evidence for Chi, for the reasons others are giving here.
There's been a number of blind studies that failed to show effects of acupuncture above placebo levels. (Including one where they didn't actually pierce people with needles at all, and held the "needles"---really just handles---in place with tape "to stabilize them". That worked as well as actually poking people.)
I think there's even been double blind studies, where you have a practitioner trained to do the poking and twiddling with needles, but not to know where to stick them to get what effect. Then they had the practitioner unknowingly poke people in the right places, or in the wrong places, under different variant ideas about meridians etc. I'm really not sure about that, though.
IIRC, there's actually substiantial disagreement about exactly where the meridians are and where to poke to fix what problem, and studies have been done to compare different schools of acupuncture, but they all worked about as well as each other and random poking, on average.
And as others have said, even if acupuncture does work, that doesn't mean that Chi is real; there are much more plausible mechanisms in light of modern neuroscience, endorphins, etc.
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
December 9, 2009 8:57 PM
By the way, one reason why scientists find the basic idea of acupuncture somewhat plausible (stripped of the supernaturalist baggage) is that you really can do funny things to the perception of pain by screwing with seemingly unrelated stuff and getting unexpected interference.
(E.g., giving somebody a minor pain proximal pain can interfere with the perception of a major distal one, or something like that, so that the total pain is substantially reduced.)
So as I understand it, Western medicine hasn't ruled out acupuncture a priori---not at all; as a technology it's reasonably plausible for some purposes. But Western medical researchers have looked for useful stuff in acupuncture and repeatedly failed to find it.
I for one think it's certainly still possible that certain experts in China can do acupuncture well---who knows?---but that others in China suck and practitioners in the west generally suck.
I would also not be surprised if some of the strikingly "successful" examples of acupuncture in China in the 1970's were faked by the communist Chinese for propaganda purposes. (Including internal propaganda. Placebos are better than a clearly inadequate medical care.) I recall watching credulous American network news coverage of amazing surgery with no anaesthatic except acupuncture. (And, I confess, I was quite credulous myself.) Now, I'm guessing it was just faked. :-(
We can't rule acupuncture completely out, but I think it's pretty clear that most acupuncture in the US and Europe, at least, is snake oil one way or another.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
December 9, 2009 9:51 PM
@215: "We can't rule acupuncture completely out, but I think it's pretty clear that most acupuncture in the US and Europe, at least, is snake oil one way or another."
That is actually the understanding I have. And if the cases are faked, well, I won't be surprised. To say the least, I'm pretty sure we're not going to be able to use double blind and placebo for a while.
Also the "We can't write it off yet, but the claims of even some chinese acupuncturists line up" bit, for understanding I have >.>
Posted by: Paul W., OM
|
December 9, 2009 10:35 PM
ngong,
My impression is that in religions where you drop the merely-humanly-understandable anthropomorphic woo along your path to transcendence, it's generally replaced by woo that you (allegedly) can't speak about in human terms---but that it's still woo.
So, for example, in Eastern religions where things like avatars are "persons" that manifest gods that are aspects of the godhead... maybe the deep reality isn't suppposed to be so person-like---that's just a crutch to help you focus or whatever---but it's also NOT supposed to be just mythic fiction, or the brainwashing equivalent of a drug that just helps you get to an altered state of consciousness.
In general, religions imply that whatever the hecke it is you understand or get in touch with, it's real, and it's not just "a way of looking at," much less just "a way of feeling about," the same old reality we normally inhabit.
My understanding is that one of the ways that science threatens Eastern religion as well as Western monotheism is that all of it seems to be a confluence of brainfarts.
Mystical states, as well as popular delusions, are explainable in terms of brain science, without any assumption that there's a deeper underlying reality that you actually get in touch with through religious practice.
Posted by: ngong
|
December 10, 2009 1:50 AM
Mystical states, as well as popular delusions, are explainable in terms of brain science, without any assumption that there's a deeper underlying reality that you actually get in touch with through religious practice.
Some Buddhists wouldn't have problems with that.
But they might question whether the "real", ego-focused state that reifies self/emotions/thoughts isn't worth deconstructing a bit.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
December 10, 2009 11:24 AM
If you want investigate claims of chi, acupuncture may be the exact wrong place to start: the attendant medical issues bring in complications by the bargeload.
Chi-related phenomena are invoked in predictable, hypothetically measurable ways by other practices, such as tai chi chuan and aikido. Has anybody done scientific research on those?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/PbW94bQ7hfDDpgZIW3U_hMjFlIlrQRqxDkwdPxjeJX9Bt9yQZ6yJi6Qwhij8ldlG#35d13
|
December 10, 2009 12:07 PM
those not against you are with you
Hi PZ...if you stick with a science based atheism, you'll overlook a more encompassing version as ruthless or more ruthless than a "scientistic" one. Philosophy was kicking tires on the god machine 600 years BCE (before the xman).
You might take some time to lookup Xenophanes. (Followed by Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius -- without ancient materialistic naturalism there would be no modern science.)
But, more to the point, you're a professional biologist yet an amateur in history and philosophy which many responders to this site also neglect. That's why their responses are so often either infantile mockery or ill-formed philosophizing.
One French philosopher Michel Onfray went you one better three years ago!
• His book, Atheist Manifesto (2006) is a short, clear, critique of the big-3 monotheisms and an overview of what a philosophical substitute for xianity would look like.
His proposal perforce destroys those compromisers who hate religion but love Jesus' so-called ethics, a class which includes far more than the 3.0 folks.
A scientific critique of all religions, though absolutely necessary, will not be sufficient to de-deify Western culture because: (1) the sciences too are overloaded with misleading teleological language and purpose-driven metaphors and (2) the ultimate failures of religion are logical and conceptual, not factual and empirical.
Hence my motto:
The de-deification of western culture (including the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
the anti_supernaturalist
Posted by: Sastra
|
December 10, 2009 12:21 PM
https, etc. #220 wrote:
A "science-based" atheism would be included under philosophical attacks, since the methods and assumptions behind science would be found in philosophy. It's not an either/or approach. Nor is there only one approach -- though they may all be connected at a more basic level.
So I wouldn't assume that PZ (or his minions) are philosophically naive. Keep in mind that definitions of God run all over the board; depending on what we're dealing with, one can often get to the conceptual problems, through the empirical ones.
(By the way, do you think you can change your nickname to something a little less unwieldy?)
Posted by: Paula Kirby
|
December 11, 2009 10:48 AM
Superb article: give me a genuine believer over these ridiculous believers-in-belief any day. I just disagree on one thing: I LOVE the label of New Atheist. There IS an important difference between us and the Old Atheists, and that is that the Old Atheists generally kept their mouths shut and didn't rock the religious boat. Well, we WON'T keep our mouths shut, and frankly, we don't care how much that boat rocks either. Gone are the days when religion got a free pass by default - and it's the New Atheists who have brought that about. I'm a New Atheist and proud of it!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
December 11, 2009 2:13 PM
No, that's not a purpose. It's merely what will happen if we'll happen (…or choose…) to have children.
That's misotheism, not atheism.
Sobieski.
"Of course"?
Seems to me they were acts of nationalism with just enough religious overtones for TV. Some of the 19 hijackers were fundamentalists who scraped the icing off muffins because it might contain pig fat, others drank wine.
Cārvāka.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
December 11, 2009 4:18 PM
Actually, I kind of agree with this (#220)
Many times on this forum (and in the original post above) one will see calls for theists to procure evidence that their god exists. I find this to be an unfair demand because most concepts of "god" are so vacuous that it isn't clear what evidence might actually falsify the idea. IMO, such a concept begs the meaning of the word "existence" in the first place. Its not even meaningful enough to require scrutiny other than as a cultural phenomenon. In this sense I also disagree with Dawkin's presentation of God as a "hypothesis", because a hypothesis has logical implications about the real universe; it makes some predictions and precludes others. Most conceptions of god don't do this...this makes them metaphysical statements, rather than scientific statements.
My point is that you can reject the idea of God without invoking empiricism.
Posted by: Peter Magellan
|
December 11, 2009 4:42 PM
This whole New Atheist/Atheist 3.0/Atheist But thing is why I prefer to call myself a rationalist. Plus it defines me in terms of what I do believe in rather than what I don't.
Posted by: zhu-wuneng
|
December 13, 2009 12:09 AM
I just want to comment on all the "Buddhism can exclude the supernatural" nonsense above; you cannot exclude the supernatural from Buddhism without being really, really intellectually dishonest. The earliest records we have of Buddhism (the Pali records, which are almost as historically suspect as the Christian gospels) include very clear references to the supernatural right alongside the four truths, eightfold path, and so on. Reincarnation is referred to repeatedly and clearly, as is the ability to gain mystic powers. The Victorians discovered Buddhism and projected their own desire for a "rational" religion onto it, which has influenced Western Buddhism to this day. The vast, vast majority of the world's Buddhists practice a religion that is most definitely incompatible with reason. A comparative handful of white guys who practice Zen and Vipassana can use the No True Scotsman fallacy to argue that I'm wrong and that real Buddhism can do this, but they'll find no support from the original Buddhist texts to do so, only their own wishful thinking. I would argue that there are ethical and psychological insights in Buddhism worth exploring; and I like Buddhist mythology from a storytelling standpoint. But the weird idea of true Buddhism that crops up among rationalists is insulting and quasi-racist; what, do you think Asians were too dumb to figure out their own scriptures and it took white people to understand what they were really saying? Please. There is no major Buddhist sect that does not accept the supernatural in some way. The supposed atheism of Buddhism (when in fact it is almost always effectively theistic) doesn't negate this at all.
Posted by: oldfuzz
|
December 16, 2009 8:47 PM
I find the identification of atheists by versions--1.0, 2.0, 3.0--enlightening, informative if your object to enlightenment. In the real world there would be interim releases between new versions, but I digress.
Theists prefer names; e.g., God, Allah, YHWH, etc.
Does this suggest to others, as it does to me, that a key difference between them is left-brain versus right-brain dominance?
I try to be a middle-brainer which is a no-brainer for me.
Posted by: Bruce Sheiman | January 1, 2010 12:44 PM
Myers and Company:
You guys have gotten it all wrong. And I am disappointed that you neglected me -- I wrote a book all about Atheism 3.0. Specifically, "An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity Is Better Off with Religion than without It." And the distinction between the old "New Atheism" and the new "New Atheism" or Atheism 3.0 is a difference of attitude, orientation, perspective, intention, and purpose. We believe that religion has much to offer humankind, even if I cannot bring myself to believe in God. See my website and blog.
Another distinction between your atheism and mine: I am a writer of substance, not frills and thrills. I am a philosopher, not a superficial polemicist. And I have much to say about PZ Myers. The two blogs are: "The Schism Within: Distinguishing Between Militant 'Hard' Atheism and Humanistic 'Soft' Atheism" and "Can We Be Good Without God? A Challenge to the 'New Atheism.'" I would love to hear your response to any of my critiques, not mere insults and offensive remarks.
Bruce Sheiman
Posted by: Owlmirror | January 1, 2010 1:10 PM
Your self-importance is so noted.
Deep Rifts !!
If God doesn't exist, then everyone who is good, is good without God.
This is Pharyngula. You may very well get all of the above, quite possibly in the same comment.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
January 1, 2010 1:25 PM
Oh, great. We have yet an other person who knows he does not need a god. But the rabble, they need to believe a lie. Just an other variation of the souls made with bronze, silver and gold. I am not interested.
Posted by: Ken Cope | January 1, 2010 2:12 PM
Nothing like having a Straussian asshole, drunk-blog-whoring on New Years Eve, to mock.