Zuska is the kick-ass alter-ego of Suzanne E Franks. When not dispensing Zuska's wisdom, Suzanne can often be found gardening, reading, or having one of her thrice-weekly migraines.
There's a debate going on among my Sciblings about atheism: is it or is it not a civil rights issue? Matthew at Framing Science is of the opinion that it is not, and apparently thinks people like Richard Dawkins are giving atheists a bad name. Jason at Evolutionblog writes the following:
Atheists don't face a public image problem because of the books of Dawkins and Hitchens. They face a public image problem because of the bigotry and ignorance of so many religious people. Not all religious people, certainly, as the strawman version of their arguments would have you believe. But a much higher percentage than people like Matthew care to admit. You do not break through such bigotry by polite discussion. You break through it by being loud and vigorous. That's one of the lessons you learn from the civil rights struggles of the past. Social progress is not made when the downtrodden ask politely for their just due. That women, blacks and gays faced greater oppression than what atheists face today does not alter that fact.
I added the emphasis. Just to, well, emphasize a point that is often a bone of contention here on Thus Spake Zuska.
I say, if not being polite, and using loud and vigorous debate is good enough for Richard Dawkins and the atheists in the campaign for evolution and rationality in science, it's good enough for Zuska in the fight for gender equity and rationality in science and engineering.
Because if we had a little more rationality, we'd have a little less inequity. If I have to get all up in your face to make that point, it's not my fault. I blame the patriarchy.
Comments
yay, zuska!
people mind when you don't ask politely if you're asking for something they are unwilling to give.
Posted by: catswym | June 29, 2007 3:00 PM
Zuska: In my opinion, one thing which the atheists in this discussion keep missing, though, is the concept that 'It's not men, it's the patriarchy,' translated into the religious rights field.
Imagine if you _actually_ espoused the viewpoint, in your heart of hearts, 'Being a man (as opposed to religious) makes you irrational and wrong', as opposed to just concern trolls or Nice Guys thinking that's what you meant. That's an entirely different discussion, with entirely different rules.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 4:16 PM
Translating "it's not the men, it's the patriarchy" into the "religious rights" discussion, I get a statement something like the following: "It's not the people, it's the church". Or, perhaps, "It's not the churchgoers, but the religious culture." Organizations have a harder time shedding their dogma than individuals, one might say.
Actually, I've raised this point many times, of which the most recent is here. People are aware of it.
Furthermore, I suspect there's a false analogy at work here. Religion is a pattern of thought, a mode of behavior. Saying that a person is religious implies something about the way their brain is working. It means, more often than not, that they hold ideas about the physical world which are provably wrong. To my knowledge, the statement "that person is a man" does not carry an equivalent implication.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 4:41 PM
Blake: I realize that's what you _would get_... except that that's not the position that the atheists around here espouse. Look at PZ's constant 'Atheism = Irrational.' Look at the actual meaning of the words 'The God Delusion.' (Religion = CRAZY.) You do know what they do to 'crazy' people in this country, right?
And if religion implies something about the way someone's brain works... does that mean that lack of religion does too? Which means that isms about atheism are okay? Because they're true? Mmm? (I believe it's called Essentialism when people use it about men and women. Generally anti-feminist.)
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 4:52 PM
Dammit, hate when typos get in the way. _THEISM_ = Irrational is PZ's position. Sorry.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 4:54 PM
Mecha, I read your long comment over at Matthew's post and really liked a lot of what you had to say there - it gave me much to think about. I'm not sure if the analogy is entirely perfect, but I think it is one that is worth thinking about. In any case, I am uncomfortable with calling ALL religious people crazy. What does crazy even mean, if you use the word that way? I might at times, in frustration, refer to ultra right evangelical fundamentalists as "nuts" but in a colloquial sense, not a clinical sense. Their beliefs are irrational to me, but within their world-system they are perfectly rational to themselves.
In any case, I am not convinced that the leaders of, e.g., the intelligent design movement, the fomenters, if you will, actually believe the agendas they put forth to the "common people". They find a certain set of ideas and beliefs to be useful in rallying the troops and controlling large voting blocs in order to obtain and maintain political and economic power in the U.S. Whether they actually believe the stuff they are spinning and selling is another question. In the end, I am not sure that things like truth and falsehood matter all that much to them; what is politically expedient is what matters. Arguing about whether they are rational or crazy is sort of irrelevent, in this view. Is it rational, or is it crazy, to spin bullshit in pursuit of power, if doing so works so very well? I think questions of rationality or craziness don't make sense in that context. I think the question is, is it good or is it evil?
Well, this is all very thinking on the fly in this comment, so I may not make complete sense, and I reserve the right to contradict myself later. Like Walt Whitman, I am large, I contain multitudes.
Posted by: Zuska | June 29, 2007 5:35 PM
I wondered if you were going to weigh in on this one Zuska. I thought of you as I angrily wrote my rebuttals to the atheist discrimination deniers. Figured you'd sense the common ground.
BTW, OT, remember my female geologist friend I mentioned in our discussion of discrimination against women scientists? I asked her about it, and she basically told me it was a fact of life, and tossed a book in my lap (whose title I can't recall) she was reading that detailed the problem. Congratulations, you've got a convert.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 29, 2007 5:40 PM
Mecha said: Look at the actual meaning of the words 'The God Delusion.' (Religion = CRAZY.) You do know what they do to 'crazy' people in this country, right?
Come on, this is infantile. One can be delusional on one topic without being entirely delusional. No atheist I've ever read said that religious people are per se completely delusional. Misrepresenting the other side so obviously is very bad framing on your part.
if religion implies something about the way someone's brain works... does that mean that lack of religion does too?
Of course it does. It tends to correlate (imperfectly as with all things) to one's willingness to believe things without evidence, or not.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 29, 2007 5:48 PM
Zuska: I don't know that it's entirely perfect either, but basically nobody but you and I and one friend of mine would give a damn about it the comparison. Hell, I'm not sure if anyone even UNDERSTANDS it but us. So it's hard to get any real discussion of it. Everyone's talking about their own things, and things aren't really coming together, which is giving me a HUGE headache as I talk about it on various threads. I think I'm about done, just because arguing with PZ, being mocked by others because I don't properly treat religious people as irrational immediately (god forbid anyone around here define rational or logical 9_9) and discussing with a third, while talking to you, is a hell of a lot to keep straight. Especially since I do think there's a discrimination factor. The fact that so many people immediately draw back, defensively, to 'But religious people ARE irrational!' is sorta indicitive of how people MUST cling to that frame that anyone who believes in religion is inherently wrong.
And dealing with the people from the Discovery Institute, and people who honestly believe ID, is a completely different argument in my mind. The PR campaign they are running, etc. I don't like it. But it has nothing to do with Nisbet's ongoing argument, thank whatever, so.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 5:55 PM
I had a large rant typed in here, but I just said fuck it.
Scienceavenger, you are on a feminist blog. A feminist which at times criticizes and interprets media. This means that you must at least at some level be willing to interpet media. What is the meaning of the three word phrase. 'The God Delusion?' What would that tell to you if you believed in god? What if someone backed that up by saying that all religious were irrational? Whatever could you believe is the meaning, the _frame_, that is being worked with by those people?
I do not have the energy to fight low level semantics and basic theory. My other posts have hammered this to DEATH. Fuck, I don't even disagree with any of the major viewpoints entirely, PZ and his ilk are just absolutely fucking dominating the discussion! How dare I not take a single easily hatable position! ARGH. I have to leave.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | June 29, 2007 6:13 PM
Mecha, do you have a blog or other resource where I could read more of your ideas? Because I like them and your approach, even if I might disagree on some particulars.
Posted by: thomas robey | June 29, 2007 7:32 PM
Mecha said: What is the meaning of the three word phrase. 'The God Delusion?'
It means God is a delusion.
What would that tell to you if you believed in god?
It would tell me that the person who wrote that thinks my belief in gods is delusional.
What if someone backed that up by saying that all religious were irrational?
Then I would conclude that that someone believes all belief in gods is delusional.
Whatever could you believe is the meaning, the _frame_, that is being worked with by those people?
I'm starting to think this whole "framing" issue is being used in part as an excuse to claim your opponents are really arguing one thing when they are clearly saying something else. It seems especially suspicious when that one thing is so much easier to deal with. You might as well say we are using "code words".
I do not have the energy to fight low level semantics and basic theory.
Then stop, and deal honestly with what people are actually saying and honestly experiencing instead of dismissing it in a framing frenzy.
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 29, 2007 8:27 PM
I'd be all for being loud if there were reason behind it. If the "new atheists" stick to evolution, they've got reason on their side, even if they're missing the point (the issue isn't about the science), but as soon as they start to talk about religion, where they're completely ignorant of the history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology at play, they cease being the side of reason. At this point, I'm not sure which side has reason in its arsenal, really, if either does.
Posted by: Chris | June 30, 2007 2:28 AM
"As soon as they start to talk about religion, where they're completely ignorant of the history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology at play, they cease being the side of reason."
Look at what you've just written. You're saying they're not qualified to comment about God because they need to be more immersed in the words and deeds and psychology of men. Theology is, by definition, the study of God, but in practice, it's the study of the teachings and traditions of men. God Himself does not show up in the real world to be studied or observed or to give any input into religious doctrine. And in His absence, all we have to work with are the socially and psychologically driven perceptions and activities of men.
I think it's entirely reasonable for the "new atheists" to treat God the same way they treat evolution. To say otherwise is to concede that God is not real in the same sense that evolution is real. There's no reason why rational thought cannot inform us regarding the existence of God, except that many people do not like the results obtained when reason is applied to theology.
If the Christian Gospel were true, and God really were all-powerful and all-loving, then the most fundamental and obvious consequence would be that He would show up to pursue, in person, that personal relationship He allegedly wants to have with each of us. He does not do that for any of us, and atheists are no less qualified than anyone else to make that observation.
Posted by: Mark Nutter | June 30, 2007 9:08 AM
"You do not break through such bigotry by polite discussion. You break through it by being loud and vigorous."
Glad to hear that endorsement of my own ongoing fight against the intolerance and bigotry of fundamentalist atheists. . .
Posted by: The Emerson Avenger | June 30, 2007 10:17 AM
I agree with Blake - I think the difference is that all churchgoers are theists and choose to be so; men, on the other hand, is usually defined as "people born with a penis" and I don't think we're all members of the patriarchy the way that all churchgoes are members of a religion.
I advocate loud and vigorous debate for atheism. I also advocate it for gender equality, but I got in some trouble on this blog before when I once said, "I don't think loud and vigorous is correct in this *particular* case". As I consider both, I think the difference for me is that I see the religious debate as very black and white. To me it's so incredibly, almost laughably obvious that theists are simply wrong that I tend to only react angrily to them. Feminism, on the other hand, while something I support, is more gray; it's a social philosophy and as such it's messy, sometimes has competing defitions and goals, and at least as I see it, is usually right but on occasionally I find the thoughts of a few feminists misguided - which is usually when I say, "maybe this one isn't ready for the hostile strategy yet".
Posted by: jeffk | June 30, 2007 11:02 AM
"If the "new atheists" stick to evolution, they've got reason on their side, even if they're missing the point (the issue isn't about the science)."
Stick to evolution? lol, I think it's you that is missing the point when you follow the religionists in equating science to evolution.
"but as soon as they start to talk about religion, where they're completely ignorant of the history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology at play, they cease being the side of reason."
Of course they are; at least that's what you need to keep telling yourself, it's far easier than questioning your own insecurities and dependances.
"At this point, I'm not sure which side has reason in its arsenal, really, if either does."
Nevermind dear, it'll all be over in the blink of an eye!
Posted by: Avon | June 30, 2007 12:07 PM
Avon, nice response. I'll respond to you by not actually addressing anything you said either.
Except this: evolution is the issue that starts this, as any perusal of the "new atheist" blogs or books will show you, as will the fact that so many of the "new atheists" are biologists. And when I say it's not about science, I mean the issue is about ethics and morality, not the science of evolution. But then, since you don't actually have anything to say to my points, clarifying them won't help you.
Mark, you write: "Look at what you've just written. You're saying they're not qualified to comment about God because they need to be more immersed in the words and deeds and psychology of men." Well, no, I'd be happy if they read some of the women, too, as there are plenty. But if you want to play faux-radical and assume that all science, history, psychology, and sociology are by men and about men, that's fine with me. It just makes it easier to ignore you.
Posted by: Chris | June 30, 2007 7:59 PM
I see a different parallel between the new atheists and some equal rights advocates. The harm is not how strong you make the case, but more if you don't solidly research what you say and support opinions with facts you hurt the cause that you are trying to advocate for.
One research I can't stand the work of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens is that they barely make a cursory study of religion and then attempt to attack it all. As a quick example, to even say that Christianity and Judaism are antievolution based on 2 chapters of Genisis ignores millenia of theologins commenting on nonliteral meanings of those verses, some which sound surprisingly like evolution. (For a very cursory description see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis )
When someone puts forward an argument based on easily contradicted statements, it both hurts their argument and others who are trying to make the same argument. Similary with gender equality advocates, if someone frequently jumps to conclusions that turns out to be wrong, it hurts the goal.
When you are right you can be vocal and agressive, but the magnitudes of vocalness should match the magnitude of the confidence that you are right.
Posted by: bsci | June 30, 2007 11:45 PM
That would be a much more convincing argument, bsci, if there weren't countless creationist museums, radio shows, think tanks, printing houses, and other media outlets, all backed by millions of lay believers, espousing the exact literal view of Genesis you seem to be saying is old hat.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | July 1, 2007 4:17 AM
Wow, a one day break, and I'm still annoyed.
Science Avenger, you are clearly talking at cross purposes. You admit that Dawkins' book's title puts forth the idea that religious people are inherently deluded... and yet what? That's okay? That isn't a PR problem? Religious are supposed to go, 'Of course I'm deluded, and I will immediately help you out?'
The fact that you've conceded the basis of my argument makes it hard for me to believe that you can disagree with the outcome of 'Examples such as the title 'The God Delusion' and insistence that religious people are irrational and bad create a mindset in which anyone who is even remotely religious is inherently not on your side, and can never be.' That is a PR problem.
That is the _entirety_ of the argument I put forth here. You're the one who's pulling all sorts of other junk from it. (And the argument I made in your journal was specifically different!) I _disagreed_ with the portrayal of atheists as a non-discriminated group, but apparently you're too busy _attacking framing, which is an established bloody fucking social science theory which has a very helpful wikipedia entry_ to care. Or something. But it's really not dealing with the arguments I have brought up.
If you think I haven't dealt with an argument _YOU_ have brought up in this thread, by all means, restate it. Because you have already stipulated to the basis of my argument. How does calling religious people deluded bring them over to your side?
You, in fact, STIPULATED TO WHAT YOU CALLED INFANTILE. You're the one who says rational is awesome. Please, for the love of humanity, read what you're saying.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 1, 2007 1:18 PM
Thomas: No, I don't have a blog. Commenting tears up enough of my time. A blog would swallow it. ;)
More seriously, I have considered it. But I have yet to figure out how it would work. What kind of space can a male feminist ally set up? What if he's not exclusively talking about feminist issues? How do I bring together my myriad interests? How do I deal with my day job? I haven't figured it out yet.
You can generally find the _majority_ of my public commenting at The Hathor Legacy (http://thehathorlegacy.info) or random places on Scienceblogs. (I'm only plugging because you asked!)
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 1, 2007 1:52 PM
Ebonmuse, I don't get your point. Yes there are creationists and yes they are well funded and well supported, but the atheist argument isn't against creationists. It's against all religion. It's this type of arguement that gives atheistism advocates a bad name:
20% of a population believes X therefore 100% of the population is wrong about everything else they believe. That argument wouldn't stand as part of a science study.
Posted by: bsci | July 1, 2007 3:15 PM
What does any of this have to do what percentage of people believe what? Doesn't it have to do with what's correct and true and what's not? If only 10% of the population of the U.S. are feminists, does that make them wrong? I hate to play the definition game, but if you have beliefs that are not founded on reason, you are irrational (at least in regards to some things, maybe not all), and a delusion is "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact", which, turns out, is also basically the definition of religion.
I assume a good feminist wants to eliminate all patriarchy, not just the most over-the-top examples of it; this atheist wants all religion gone.
Posted by: jeffk | July 1, 2007 9:07 PM
"This atheist wants all religion gone."
And this is exactly what I have been talking about, pointing at, talking about. Atheists, such as jeffk, _have not taken the time to understand what minority theories of various sorts say and mean_. This is the connection between atheism and good, the kind of misperception that equating atheism (not religious freedom) to civil rights causes.
Religious freedom is a civil rights issue. Equal rights is a civil rights issue. Wanting to wipe out all religions is... well, it defines itself.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 1, 2007 9:55 PM
Let me clarify: I want all religions wiped out without compromising religious freedom. I want to grant the freedom, but educate people to the point in which they dipose of their beliefs themselves.
Posted by: jeffk | July 1, 2007 11:34 PM
In fact, let me continue the analogy that is the subject of this post. I'd assume most readers of this blog would like to dispose of the patriarchy without forcing people to not be mysogynists in some kind of thought-police sort of way. Same thing.
Posted by: jeffk | July 1, 2007 11:39 PM
jeffk,
The problem with your logic goes to the phrase, " if you have beliefs that are not founded on reason." You are defining what is or is not founded on reason and anything is isn't, in our own mind, is delusional. Quite a bit of religion is founded on reason. Classic Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim works read like law textbooks deriving facts from first principles. You may not agree with all the first principles, but they do form a system of logic built on reason. (No this doesn't desribe all religious sects, but it does also doesn't descibe many and you'd be hard pressed to show that atheists are inherantly more logical and reasonable people based on their atheism)
Some people may believe that string theory is an accurate description of how the world works while others thinks it's a bunch of math built on unreasonable first princples. Does that mean that string theorists may be delusional? Realize the subjective biases in your own statements.
Posted by: bsci | July 2, 2007 12:30 AM
This is so freaking stupid it's hard to know where to start. Dawkins in particular goes out of his way to say that theologians dance around and cherry pick this and that but the average believer has no knowledge of this material.
Harris speaks directly to the types of people. None of the verses sound anything like evolution at all. The theistic evolution is just as full of holes as is the forms of creationism so often attacked. Comments like the one above only show the commentor has a superficial knowledge of the writes he mentions and an even more superflous idea of their actual arguments.
This comment is even more block headed. Atheism is agianst nothing. It's the abscense of belief, period. The rest of the comment reads like a weak parody of what atheists actually believe and write about and say. An atheist's base positionis you have no evidence. Funny you toss out a scientific study while apparently not applying the same thought process elsewhere.
They may be deluded in this one area. Embrace the delusion it doens't mean its so in every avenue of their life.
Posted by: JimC | July 2, 2007 12:35 AM
You are correct they build a consistent flimsy house on irrational and unreasonable underlying principles. Big deal. They do the same in Star Wars movies. Consistency doesn't mean reasonable just because the system may beconsistent within itself. And it certainly doesn't mean rational.
But your correct that atheists are not necessarily more logical based on their lack of belief in superstition. However they are clearly more so in this one area.
Gosh string theory has become the shipping boy of every person who wants to conflate it with theism. We at least know a universe exists whereas the entire structure of religion has no evidence whatsoever.None. It's a weak analogy at best, pathetic at worst.
Posted by: JimC | July 2, 2007 12:43 AM
Thanks, JimC.
In other words, the argument that all first principles are created equal should be obviously fallacious. History is full of examples where elaborate constructs were built on top of pure ridiculousness. Deciding on first principles is admittedly a tricky philosophical issue, but I sure hope you agree we can do better than "the Bible is the word of God". String Theory may be fairly out there as far as established science goes, but even it has good first principles, which are well-established science and not theological ridiculousness. I'm tired of people who probably describe themselves as agnostics being annoying apologists rather than proponents of rationality.
Posted by: jeffk | July 2, 2007 1:02 AM
Does that mean that string theorists may be delusional?
No, because if we look once again at my handy dictionary.com definition, a delusion is "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact", and since string theorists are physicists - scientists - who may have gotten a bit on the creative side, they would happily denounce their work if it did not line up with observed facts of nature. String theory *does* line up with observed facts of nature or it would be worthless theory - it's just so far ahead of experiment that it's not accepted as being a necessarily accurate description of the way things are.
This sort of obnoxious relativism turns me into a Zuska-eqse firebreathing monster*. As though humanity can make any progress in any way whatsoever if we all just sit back and say, "well, so-and-so thinks this, and I think that, and who the hell are we to decide which is correct? Let's just throw our hands up in the air so nobody gets their feelings hurt".
* A compliment, I swear!
Posted by: jeffk | July 2, 2007 1:08 AM
I've personally heard the Dali Lama say that if empirical evidence proves a tenent of his type of Buddism wrong, then that tenent will be dropped. Does this make his religion rational in your mind? Of course, the tenents don't violate our observations of nature and there are no expriments that can prove or disprove most of them.
Many other religions (or at least many subgroups in religions) have this type of respect for scientific evidence. Even a cursory study of most old religions will show how they've changed over time as empirical evidence challenged various tenents. To say that religious beliefs that are orthogonal to empiricism are wrong because they can't be proven with empirical methods is um... irrational.
I doubt Zuska appreciates being called a monster, but, if she was a monster, I assure you she's spew puke at shoes and not breathe fire.
Posted by: bsci | July 2, 2007 1:57 AM
People who claim that atheists (or any minority) are upsetting because the are "impolite" are really complaining because atheists (or any minority) are not being deferential. Deference is the goal, not politeness.
It is easy to see that this is the problem, if you look at how polite criticism is responded to.
(BTW, I have seen Dawkins on TV, and he always seemed polite to me. Certainly in comparison to people who have a knee-jerk ridicule response.)
Posted by: RickD | July 2, 2007 7:56 AM
I don't get it. Why is it such a bad thing to say that a belief in god is irrational? Virtually all my friends are religious. Most are very intelligent, some are highly succesful in science. None, and I mean none, of them has ever argued with me (atheist) that their belief is rational.
They all understand and agree that a belief in a supernatural god (no matter how that "god" is filled in) is not rational. They don't defend themselves, they don't try to argue out of it. They are not bothered in the slightest by my opinions. Their faith is their thing and they're happy with it. If other people have other opinions, so be it.
There is no way you can ever claim that a belief in god is rational and based on evidence. But just as somebody who believes in god can be perfectly rational in other parts of his life and atheist can be perfectly irrational or deluded in other parts of his life.
I think it dangerous to judge people on one part of the personality. Hey, I even know republicans I like...
Posted by: Mark UK | July 2, 2007 7:58 AM
Sorry, Jeff. You gave up the point, as it were. You don't want religious freedom. You want religious conversion. As long as you say 'I am superior', as long as you say 'Anyone who is religious is deluded, crazy, inferior'... you have blown the metaphor sky high. And you refuse to admit it, because admitting it means that you've lost the moral high ground, that you would have to accept _religious freedom_ as a cause, and not atheism/science. They're two different things.
The comparison does not hold. Being sexist involves perpetuating a power structure which inherently makes women lesser beings. Being religious _may_ involve perpetuating a power structure which makes other religions or atheism lesser beings, but does not necessarily (do Universal Unitarians want to wipe your ass from the planet?) and you're all too fucking busy screaming about wiping out the irrational bad religious peoples' opinions to care.
'I want freedom of speech, as long as it's my speech. I want freedom of religion, as long as it's my religion. I want freedom of choice, as long as it's my choices.' All feminism wants is for us to live up to the ideals of the country and modern thought, of the freedom of all beings, which requires sexism to be given up. You clearly don't. You have given me the argument, Jeffk. I am sorry that you do not understand minority theory enough to _see it_.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 9:13 AM
Wow, could you make a bigger straw man after I very specifically clarified that I have no problem with religious freedom, but I think the world would be a better place if religion was eliminated in a manner that doesn't violate any of our usual tenets of government - free speech and all the rest. Enough education will eventually kill religion.
The way you construct arguments is downright childish. I make a claim and provide some reason and evidence to back it up, you plug your ears and say, 'well, if you're so superior and you're right and everyone else is wrong, you're just a big meanie!' The whole damn point of being in an argument is that I think I'm right and some other people are wrong. Welcome to democratic world. When you enter in an argument, it's basically implied you think you're right, and that doesn't inheritly make you wrong. You also think you're right. Duh. Can we drop this and move on? Did I not point out, I think fairly irrefutably, that the definitions of religious belief and delusion are basically the same? You added on "crazy" and "inferior" yourself. I'm no pscyhologist, but I'd take crazy to mean that someone was in a pretty small minority, or that their beliefs inhibit their day to day functioning, which doesn't describe the average believer, so no, I didn't call anyone crazy. And as far as inferior, well, maybe in the minor sense that I find their religious belief pretty silly, but I don't treat believers differently than anyone else until they start having a negative effect on my life.
Feminism wants ideals of country, modern thought, and freedom? So does atheism.
I've personally heard the Dali Lama say that if empirical evidence proves a tenent of his type of Buddism wrong, then that tenent will be dropped. Does this make his religion rational in your mind?
No. This type of religion is a lesser assault on reason because it doesn't make claims about the natural world which have been specifically disproven. However, it still makes unmotivated claims, or claims which are impossible to prove one way or the other, making them meaningless. Still, I don't waste too much of my frustration with religion on things like Buddism. On the normalized irrationality scale, I suppose Buddists are on my side.
Posted by: jeffk | July 2, 2007 9:36 AM
"but as soon as they start to talk about religion, where they're completely ignorant of the history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology at play, they cease being the side of reason."
So you beleive that all atheist historians, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists etc should be fired because they are completely ignorant about those fields?
Posted by: Graculus | July 2, 2007 10:00 AM
No, Jeff. You blew it. Throwing logical fallacy attacks at me doesn't change that. You do not understand feminist theory, and...
"I very specifically clarified that I have no problem with religious freedom, but I think the world would be a better place if religion was eliminated in a manner that doesn't violate any of our usual tenets of government - free speech and all the rest. Enough education will eventually kill religion."
What if you had said instead, "I very specifically clarified that I have no problem with religious freedom, but I think the world would be a better place if atheism (or some other religion, or all other religions but the speaker's) was eliminated in a manner that doesn't violate any of our usual tenents of government - free speech and all the rest. Enough education will eventually kill (insert religion here.)"
I'm not arguing against a straw person. This is what you believe. You said it yourself. Freedom of religion, as long as it is your religion. Your attempts to equate that to feminism, and gay rights, and black rights, positions which I respect completely, are absolutely sickening to me.
I came into the discussion theorizing that people that think like you might exist. And you proved me right. I wish I could thank you. But that would imply I approve. Sorry.
You want the conversation to be over. Well, it's over from my end. Have the last word or not as you will. You have made your position very, very clear.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 10:15 AM
Freedom of religion is a great thing. If we can reduce and minimize the number of people who believe in supernatural things/gods through education than that is an even better thing.
I fear we will never completely manage to reduce religion to zero percent but we should aim for it. We should aim for a society where reason and rational thinking guide decisions. We should do that through education.
Posted by: Mark UK | July 2, 2007 11:00 AM
Mecha: The feminist equivalent of "being religious is irrational and wrong" would be "being a misogynist is irrational and wrong." I can't imagine there's a feminist who wouldn't agree with that. There's no Essentialism in the statement except that which you added with your false analogy. If someone released a book entitled THE MISOGYNY DELUSION I doubt you'd have a problem with it.
Posted by: poke | July 2, 2007 11:32 AM
A few thoughts:
1. BSCI is right. A Zuska-monster would spew puke on shoes, not breath fire. There's enough flaming in the world (especially on the internet :) ) but a dearth of shoe-puking, when the patriarchy needs it so badly.
2. Jeffk, could I prod you just a little to consider what Mecha is saying? Let me preface this by saying that I consider myself to be an atheist, or at least a life-long recovering Catholic, and that I deplore the damage religion so often seems to do in the world. I often think the world would be a much, much better place with no religion at all. But...
3. I don't want anyone telling me I have to become an evangelical Christian because "with more education, everyone will realize that evangelical Christianity is the only way to be saved" and "I want freedom of religion, and I want to respect the tenents of our government, but I believe the world will be a better place when everyone is an evangelical Christian." This is the problem. I am absolutely sure that my worldview is better than the average evangelical Christian's...but they feel the same way regarding someone like me.
4. So what differentiates the evangelical Christian in #3 above from your viewpoint, Jeffk? You believe the world will be better when everyone is atheist, the EC believes the world will be better when everyone is EC. Freedom of religion is the only thing that protects you both, and freedom of religion, I think, ensures that we will always have religion. I don't think you can educate (all) people out of their desire for authoritarian control, and I sometimes think that's really what religion is more so than delusion or irrationality or superstition. It's submission to authoritarian control. Check out The Authoritarians.
Posted by: Zuska | July 2, 2007 12:45 PM
Mecha trolled: I came into the discussion theorizing that people that think like you [Jeff] might exist. And you proved me right.
Don't feel bad Jeff, he did the same thing to me, and no doubt others. It would be much more accurate to say Mecha comes into the discussion with a very simplistic broad brush assumption of what atheists were saying, and when they say something completely different, he simply ignores them, and keeps repeating his assumptions, because he knows what we really mean, even when we clearly state the opposite.
Congratulations, you've earned your Troll achievement badge, and provided an excellent example of how some people can't handle a rational discussion of the intellectual pros and cons of religious belief.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 2, 2007 12:46 PM
People keep confusing religion with the absence of religion. Keep comparing being a christian with being an atheist... It's the opposite. Being an atheist should mean approaching life rationally. Including the "big questions".
Like they say, if atheism is a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Posted by: Mark UK | July 2, 2007 12:58 PM
Wow. Just... wow. There are not words for how _presumptuous_, insulting and dismissive SA is being.
He accuses me in other places of the 'strawman' of 'activist/radical atheists which want to have no other religion in the world (whether by conversion or not: Screw Jehova's Witnesses, Atheist Witnesses!)' ...And then JeffK and others state it, proving my point. He accuses me of the 'strawman' of bringing up the issue of misusing equality concepts, and then JeffK and others say that 'being religious/religious are equivalent to being a bigot/mysoginy', which is patently false (a non-evangelical religious (say, a Universal Unitarian) who is in no way interested in conversion is _far_ more religious freedom/equality minded than _an atheists who desires the world to be 100% atheist, and actively pursues that goal_, as one of them believes in the live-and-let-live equality of religious freedom, and one believes in making sure everyone learns religion is wrong, but they're 'absolutely free to be wrong.') And yet, I'm the troll.
Nobody is taking on the concept that telling all religious that they're irrational is 'good PR'. People just assume, state, accept, that that's the right way, the truthful way, the only way. I am one of the few, perhaps only, who is examining that assumption at all. Is it any surprise I find it VERY wanting? Especially since the same thing is something that most effective minority advocates _avoid_?
This illogical troll label is an especially fascinating dismissive classification because I am agnostic (considered atheist around here.) It is especially fascinating because I was the _second commenter on Zuska's thread_, early in Nisbet's thread, etc. I _came_ to both agree and disagree, to theorize and discuss, and nobody in control of any scienceblog decided I was a troll. And yet I'm the troll. (It was a mistake to comment on your journal, SA. I had honestly thought you were more interested in ideas and discussion on the topic in that place than you were. I should have picked up the screed tone and let it be. It's why I haven't posted again.)
The folly of tying your entire being to 'I'm rational' is that it is _very tempting_ to assume that anyone who does not agree with you is irrational. Not that they know different things. Not that they've seen different things. Not that they've _studied_ different things. They're irrational. And that is the most silencing, dismissing, and damning thing you can say on science blogs. It's thrown around like a cudgel. You might as well tell me I'm 'shrill' or a 'shrew'.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 2:06 PM
So what differentiates the evangelical Christian in #3 above from your viewpoint, Jeffk
I'm running out of breath. Because my worldview doesn't make unsupported claims, which in many cases are used to make bad public policy. Atheism is NOT a religion; the duality proposed by Mecha and Zuska is false.
Posted by: jeffk | July 2, 2007 2:07 PM
Zuska: Since you might actually be interested in this part of the discussion, this being a feminist blog as opposed to Atheismblog, I reread the Feminism 101 FAQ entry on 'Why do you feminists hate men?' and saw another interesting parallel that I feel highlights the inaccuracies of activist atheism being interested in equality like activist feminists. How does the patriarchy see men? 'Positive', but the vast majority of the social norm is dedicated to portraying and glorifying men as messy horny hungry animals with few emotions and little tact and violent actions and that's how they should be.
How do religious people and religious structures see religious people? Generally good, with a societal norm of 'good', and a lot of what various religions _say and teach_ is even good (or at least neutral) in base, although far too many sub-beliefes/structures portray themselves as what would be considered not so good, generally the most powerful, rigid, and vocal types (Catholic Church, Evangelicals, Etc) who typically believe in inequalities unrelated to the base religious belief itself (abortion, etc.) without a stronger societal norm for _all_ religions (the norm, in the US, is generally considered Judeo-Christian. Hence Middle-Class White Straight Juedo-Christian Privileges.)
So the 'it's not religious people, it's the religious power structure that we want to eliminate' argument seems to not hold as well, especially using conversion language like JeffK does, because not all religious power structures benefit from or exist in a societal norm that gives them power, and radical/activist atheists, even though their assumptions are often (not always) built upon the Judeo-Christian (especially Evangelical) framework, seems to assume that all religion is bad and holds majority over them (see JeffK above) without nearly as much proof as the 'Evangelical and Catholic power structures really don't seem interested in real equality' argument would have. An equality argument would be more willing to work with other less privileged beliefs, or even good members of more privileged beliefs, as most feminists would with gays/blacks and men. Or so I theorize.
The underlying assumption that Judeo-Christian is the Real Religion (and may well be the real power structure enemy), and defines the rest of the religions, seems to permeate _everything_, even to the point that 'The God Delusion' implies Judeo-Christian god in its title, but it is all religions that need to be converted to atheism in its arguments. And that same strange duality seems to be represented in other places in the arguments as well.
Thoughts?
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 2:12 PM
Nobody is taking on the concept that telling all religious that they're irrational is 'good PR'.
Ok. I will.
It is great PR.
You see I don't argue with Creationists becasue I think I will convince them, I argue with them becasue I can convince the "audience". It doesn't matter if Sharpton is not going to convert to non-belief because Hitchens called religion irrational, because eventually Sharpton will die and that problem wiill solve itself. It's the next generation, who will have been exposed to the idea that belief is irrational and uneccessary, that the PR is aimed at.
Posted by: Graculus | July 2, 2007 2:42 PM
Religion is like alternative medicine. A little bit of a homeopathic remedy because you have cold is not that bad. It does no harm. Right? Wrong. It's the first step on a path of illogical thinking and potentially leading to damaging results. Education is key.
Posted by: Mark UK | July 2, 2007 2:56 PM
Graculus: Convince what audience? The audience which consists of mainly religious, who you have called irrational, deluded, crazy? I don't believe you have substantiated the concept that you'd convince them by calling them dumb and irrational. That's pure assumption. Where is _your_ evidence?
I can point out very easily that insulting peoples' intelligence and right to be in society doesn't convince them by itself. Are you going to argue with that, too, say I don't have any 'proof' that people don't like being insulted and that it tends to close their minds? I believe this conversation is proof enough.
Mark: What if you're an irrational atheist? And you teach other irrational atheists? Uh oh. Same problem. Tying religion to being irrational, and atheist to being rational, has everything backwards. That assumption is made commonly around here. If you want reason, teach reason. But that's not what PZ or JeffK is espousing with their words.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 3:16 PM
(It is also worth considering that you conflated 'Creationists' with 'Religious' in this PR movement. Two different things! If you want to promote religious equality, that has nothing to do with creationists. Not what I was arguing. If you wanna take on Creationist lies, be my guest. Different. Arguments.)
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 3:20 PM
Mecha,
This is off the topic, but I wonder if you would reconsider your use of the _emphasis_ underline. My eyesight isn't as good as I'd like, and I find it difficult to follow the sentence structure when you make repeated use of those marks. In some of your comments, I've needed to use a visual aid, like an unsharpened pencil to trace along the line, in order to understand you. I wonder if others who are interested in what you have to say also find the use of those marks to make it more, rather than less, difficult to follow your arguments. If others have no problems with those marks, then please excuse and ignore my comment.
Posted by: JuliaL | July 2, 2007 3:23 PM
jeffk,
Do you not see the irrationality in your own statements
1."String theory *does* line up with observed facts of nature or it would be worthless theory - it's just so far ahead of experiment that it's not accepted as being a necessarily accurate description of the way things are"
2."Because my worldview doesn't make unsupported claims"
The reason I like the string theory example is that the predictive claims ARE unsupported. It's still rational and it's still good science. No, it's not a perfect comparison to religion, but I hope it gets the point across.
Jeffk also was the perfect example of my complaint that people who are loud and incorrect hurt their point of view. He claims to know all about the falseness of religion, but when an example of Buddhism violates his statements he says "This type of religion is a lesser assault on reason because it doesn't make claims about the natural world which have been specifically disproven. " Of course that is true for many religions, but Jeffk is too ignorant or lazy to actually do research and find out about what he is condemning. Frankly people like him hurt the position of legitimate evangelical atheists.
Posted by: bsci | July 2, 2007 3:30 PM
Julia: You know, I just thought about that today when I was doing another post, wondering if they were annoying or not. It's not a particularly good habit. I just think that capitalization has an entirely different meaning in netspeak, generally, so I can't use that for emphasis.
Thanks for telling me. I'll try to keep it in mind and use them more sparingly.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 3:40 PM
Mecha,
You might try bold or an occasional italics. Bold is done by putting B inside angle brackets before the word and /B inside angle brackets after the word. The angle brackets are also used as "less than" and "greater than" signs. Italics are the same, except with I and /I
Now I'll be quiet on this subject, as this is a fascinating thread.
Posted by: JuliaL | July 2, 2007 3:59 PM
Julia: I don't like using HTML tags, because I can't use them in places without HTML tags! As I went through this post and excised all the _s, I was reminded that if I used HTML tags as instinctively as I used _, I'd look really silly in places that didn't handle them, as opposed to just looking silly now. ;)
Poke: But, see, 'Misogyny' and 'Religious Belief' are not the same thing, as far as my analysis goes, and so the comparison falls apart. That was my initial point when talking to Zuska: Not all religious people don't actively believe that atheists are bad/lesser. But all mysoginists do actively believe that women are bad/lesser. (You would have done better to use 'sexists', but the analogy still falls apart IMO because, again, not all religious are truly and necessarily anti-religious freedom, nor is there a proven correlation, nor is there a universal power structure where all religious get to enforce their norms. Some religions are more of a minority than atheists!)
Meanwhile, 'radical atheist activists' such as PZ and JeffK are absolutely certain that all religious people are bad/lesser. Does this make them equivalent? No. Because atheists don't generally have a power structure supporting them. But neither do most non-Judeo-Christians in America. Or non-Muslims in muslim countries. So if drawing a comparison between the two groups, it immediately falls apart due to lack of power structure. But it's not particularly equality minded. Morally, I'd far rather be on the side of true equality. And smacking down the offenses and the power structure.
Remember. For feminists, it's not men, it's the patriarchy. For atheists (and other people who should, theoretically, be _equality_ activists), why not say that it's not religious people, it's the power structure and norms which give religion its normative and social influence and power. The radical atheists specifically do not agree, and have said, in this thread and in other plaecs,that they wish to be rid of all religions and have there be no religious people in the world (I don't really want to use loaded language, but 'I want there to be no religion in the world' doesn't tend to have _good_ single word descriptions.) That is not the same. That is why I made the initial comparison. Don't use the language of equality unless you truly mean it.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 4:22 PM
I realized, on rereading, that 'there is not a proven correlation' needs to be corrected/clarified: No necessary correlation between 'sexism' and 'religious belief' in the metaphor. Just an assumption that all religious people are inherently anti-atheists, regardless of belief. There was a possibility for misunderstanding.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 4:24 PM
Oy. Also a double negative due to a word shift at 'Not all religious people actively believe'. You can tell I'm tired of laying this out again and again. *chuckle*
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 4:38 PM
Normally I don't comment here - but this got a top 5 so I'm out here to say my piece.
Know what "religion" is and define it for discussion purposes - for some people, religion has no definition (in a semester of religious studies we never defined religion, although an absurd number of claims were made about religion).
But as far as I'm concerned, the cornerstone of religious belief is the human power to be crazy. Bottom line: you can't stop the crazy. It's in you :P. Religion is just one manifestation, one memetic sympathy, of many possible.
Posted by: Patness | July 2, 2007 5:07 PM
it was an example, not a conflation.
Posted by: Graculus | July 2, 2007 5:27 PM
You might want to read some of my earlier posts. I said already that you shouldn't judge people on one part of their character. Be that their religion or whatever. Being an atheist does not make you automatically a good person, a nice person or an intelligent person. I know atheists who happily believe in psychic powers.
My point is that religion is not a rational thing. There are many other things that I consider in that way. Be they alternative medicine (most of it), psychic powers and any other pseudo science.
Education in logical thinking and understanding science is the only way to minimize these irrational believes.
Posted by: Mark UK | July 2, 2007 5:38 PM
Mecha: PZ and others are always very careful to state that they're criticizing religious beliefs and not religious believers. They do so frequently and explicitly whether you believe them or not. In that sense they already are criticizing "the power structure and norms which give religion its normative and social influence and power." What you seem to be missing is that the central point of atheist criticism of religion is not that religion does bad things or marginalizes people (although it does) but that it is wrong. Given this belief, it's perfectly compatible to believe that we should only attack the "the power structure and norms which give religion its normative and social influence and power" and that the outcome would be the end of religion (just as one might hope the outcome of feminism would be the end of misogyny).
To make another analogy: Let's say that a new notion of Liberal Misogyny became popular. Liberal Misogynists believe women should have all the same rights as men, should be able to pursue the same careers, have the same education and opportunities, and so on. However, they still claim that women are inferior to men. They are, in fact, quite vocal on this point. Now, imagine that not only did this group of people exist, but that the majority of feminists agreed that Liberal Misogyny would be a far better outcome than simply having no misogyny altogether. Liberal Misogyny does nothing harmful; it merely makes false claims without evidence that are clearly motivated by unfortunate social norms. Does this outcome appeal to you? Does it strike you as a more equitable outcome than simply eliminating misogyny?
Posted by: poke | July 2, 2007 6:07 PM
Poke: You can't realistically say 'I'm just criticizing religious beliefs, and not the believers' in the same breath you say 'holding a relgiious belief makes you crazy.' You know that holding? Yes. Done by a person. They may _say_ they do. But they do not _do_ what they say. See JeffK's above comment.
You're acting like I'm saying atheism is incompatible with rights movement. Which is not what I am saying, nor has it been what the discussion was ever over. It seems as if you're forgetting what this discussion started over. Which was some atheists ('radical', militant, ornrery) which maintain that having religious believes makes you a lesser person, and do so very, very vocally. As well as the false comparison between atheism and various civil rights, making all religious out to be the enemies of atheism and reason. There's a very big difference.
I believe it is completely possible to be an atheist activist and not maintain that religious people are crazy, or illogical, or lesser than atheists. Those positions have been said in this thread by various people, let alone on scienceblogs everywhere else.
But I am not talking about in general. I am talking about a specific subgroup that thinks it's very cool to say religious people are illogical, crazy, etc, that that's not a problem, and that that supports equality. Sorry. That doesn't support equality. Any more than your mythical analogy.
And abou that analogy. Your theoretical analogy completely falls apart. You are constructing a scenario, in which people believe that another group are their lessers, and yet, treats them as equals. By definition, the group cannot consider the women their lessers if they believe in equality. Nor can they believe in equality if they believe they are their lessers. Equality means that the group is inherently not your lesser. As such, I cannot answer your question. It doesn't hold together enough to reason about it. (How would women prosecute rape convictions in this world? They're lesser! Their word is worth less! The rape culture reemerges, and then... you get the point. It doesn't hold. It's completely unrealistic.)
I never said it was impossible for atheists to disagree with religion. That is part of the strawperson which has been applied to me. (A funny strawperson, since most people here would consider me atheist.) The entire discussion, from beginning to end, has been about radical activist atheists who, depending on which one you are thinking of, specifically say and believe, among other things, 1) athiests are better than all religious people 2) the vast majority of religious people are out to make sure everyone knows atheists are worse than them and can't be tolerated 3) atheism and science are tightly bound 4) atheism and reason are tightly bound 5) religious belief and being crazy/irrational are tightly bound 6) atheism has a primary claim to civil rights issues. These views do not hold together. You can't treat atheist concerns as civil rights and maintain that atheists are better than everyone else (destroying the concept that the atheists believe in equality.) You can't go for religious freedom while insisting that a world of atheists is your endgoal. There's a fundamental belief - action disconnect there. It would be like your mythical liberal misogynists. Action and mind go together. Not seperately.
Again. Radical atheist position being discussed: Atheism is reason, and scientist, and good, religion and religious are bad, illogical, crazy. A world without religious, all of them convinced by our superior minds, is a better world. _Religious people cannot be our allies_. (PZ maintains this explicitly.) Feminist and all other equality positions: Men are not bad. The power structures which enforce inequity and create inequity and teach inequity are bad. Men can be our allies.
Is the difference clear yet?
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | July 2, 2007 6:44 PM
The reason that your analogy is invalid is that string theory can in principle be tested. The claims are unsupported, but they are not unsupportable.
It is not unusual for theoretical and exper