MLK on fighting the fight

Great catch!

PZ, would you care to elucidate your point?

You can't possibly be saying, in the context of the Reverend Dr. King's letter from Birmingham jail, that the "progressive Christian community" eschews the "confrontation and forthright expression" advocated by freethinkers, in favor of "weak appeasement by a minority to an oblivious majority".

So what *are* you trying to say?

Well, it's not "ha-ha funny." Try this: "And WHAT'S the DEAL with white moderates?"

Well, when various politicians, starting with Bush's father, have called for the disenfranchise of nonbelievers, I don't recall any outcry from Christian progressives. Perhaps it's because it wasn't their particular ox being gored, but now that the fundies are getting closer to ruling the roost perhaps it should start to sink in that the line between non-belief in God and non-belief in the rigid fundamentalist orthodoxy is easily erased.

Wow, it sounds just like what i keep getting told as a woman in science... the direct action, the timetable, the convenient season...

But that's what makes someone like Martin Luther King so universal and so important - his words and his approach and attitude speak to the situation of minorities in any situation.

Sadly, I think if Martin were alive today, he's be horrified by the US on a lot of levels...

Exactly. It's a common refrain: every minority interest is told that the way to get ahead is to avoid rocking the boat, to try and make the majority comfortable with you, to avoid confrontation and be a good little accommodationist.

It's a lie.

You've got to fight for everything, you've got to make your position and your values known, even if it annoys the majority. That's what King is talking about -- the great middle that obliviously expects that the way a minority will find their place in society is if they completely abandon their identity.

As much as I enjoy the science that comes out of Pharngula, this one takes the cake on demanding that everyone come to your worldview of athiesm.

That you could not even "forgive" Dr. King for being a Christian, despite the fact that his crusade for justice was based largely from his religious beliefs, tells me you truly cannot be objective (or purely rational) about Christians.

I can respect you all day long for believing that I'm an idiot for believing in God. I read your blog because the science is good, and I'm just as frustrated with the creationists and IDers as the next person that enjoy science.

But attacking everyone just for being Christian, and nothing else, is flat out uncalled for.

I'm sure this comment comment will take a good thrashing, but I'm glad I said it.

PZ, I still don't quite get it. Are progressive Christians the minority who are meekly appeasing their more-numerous conservative counterparts?

If so, I agree with Ocellated.

Well, when various politicians, starting with Bush's father, have called for the disenfranchise of nonbelievers, I don't recall any outcry from Christian progressives.

What, seriously?

Ocellated... what on Earth are you talking about?

Interesting that a couple of people are determinedly, and in a hostile manner, not getting it. PZ's point seems quite clear to me. The majority of society (probably any society) are great big wet blankets (old-fashioned English idiom) being generally suppressive of change, especially if it rocks their boat and disturbs their own comfy existence - and even if, when pressed on the matter, they know the other person is in the right.

In this case, the US majority of wet people happen to be white Christians of no extreme position - having themselves only progressed in morals and technology by generally going with the flow of everyone else. So the term "progressive" as applied to these Christians is something of a misnomer, wrongly implying that they ever actively fought for anything much. They only look progressive in comparison with the ones desperately swimming backwards into the dark ages or bronze age.

... and now over to PZ to tell me I didn't get it either ...

Ocellated, PZ can defend himself I'm sure, but I think you might be doing him an injustice here. (It all depends on what he means by 'progressive Christians'.) He makes no secret of his disdain for Christianity as an institution and system of belief. But I have never seen him be anything other than respectful of progressive Christians like Jeanne d'Arc. (And, though it's a different issue, he hardly demands that his religious fellow-scientists at the fore against IDism -- e.g., the Ks Miller, the monk Ayala etc. -- reject their theistic beliefs before they are worthy of kicking creationists in the throat. I have no idea whether any of these people are 'progressive' in the broader political sense, but then that is irrelevant to the scientific issue at hand.)

PZ's main complaint against progeressive Christians seems to be that, with some honourable exceptions, they do not raise their voices loudly enough against the fundamentalist, ostensibly Christian right. Now, there are of course some mitigating factors at play here. (For one thing, for some bizarre reason sensible Christians don't get much funding from Ahmanson or Mellon Scaife.) But, as a Christian, I have to say there's a lot of truth to PZ's complaint.

BTW, one reason for the 'softly, softly' approach might not be readily apparent to the non-Christian. Christians (progressive or not) who take seriously the scripture on which they base their beliefs are going to be very reluctant to publicly attack people claiming to be their fellow-Christians. I can understand them taking this instruction seriously, but I think they are mistaken. I think that for a number of reasons, but primarily this one: Robertson, Falwell, Dobson etc. are not our fellow-Christians. Their religion is an Americanised version of State Shinto with a thin coat of Christianoid whitewash on top (call it Red-State Shinto.) Their religion is, in the end, not at all unlike mainstream mediaeval 'Christianity': a flimsy Christian veneer over a ragbag mix of superstitions, pagan survivals and sheer invention, all in the service of the ruling aristocracy. It's a different aristocracy today; it's also a different (and to my mind much inferior) aesthetic. Otherwise, the game is the same thing it has always been.

I have to say, I'm still not quite getting it...

The fact is that most *people* of any political or religious belief are not outspoken advocates for their beliefs -- atheists as well as believers.

But if PZ wants to tag "the progressive Christian community" as being particularly accomodationist, well, I'd suspect that people like Dr. King, the Berrigan brothers, Jim Wallis, Sister Helen Prejean, and let's not forget Rev. Barry Lynn, the director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and an ordained UCC minister, serve as examples to the contrary.

SEF gets it, Ocellated does not. What makes you think I'm attacking King? I think he was an admirable man and I respect his work a great deal.

There is a kind of blindness to an overwhelming majority. They think that, well, of course the goal of the minority is to be just like us, and the generous and well-meaning will then try to make a little room at the table for them. What they don't appreciate is that the goal of the minority is to retain their identity -- not to meekly accept the table scraps, but to stand independent and to carve out their own space.

I've seen the blithe and patronizing attitude of the progressive Christian community often enough. Be quiet, they say, don't alienate all those good Christians; they're working towards the same general goals you are, so just go along with it. Don't call Christianity a "superstition", that's too offensive. Hey, why don't you join one of the less dogmatic churches -- you don't need to believe, you'll just get the benefits of the community.

PZ don't do that.

Well, yes, PZ; but then in what way was Dr King himself not a member of the progressive Christian community?

If you and SEF want to use the term 'progressive Christians' when what you mean is 'vaguely well-meaning liberal-and-water mainstream suburban cultural protestants', then you have made a good argument, but a poor terminological choice. Alex R names a few people, none of whom falls comfortably within the bounds of your complaint, and all of whom would have to be called, by any sane defintion, 'progressive Christians'. I should note that I don't agree with all the (political or theological) positions all these people take; but I certainly respect them for understanding that it's pretty pointless to be a Christian if you're not prepared to pay a price for it. (Alex names only Americans; in other places the price can be steeper, as Abp. Romero learnt; a man, BTW, with whom I'd disagree very strongly as to theology but whom I nonetheless respect immensely for calling evil 'evil' when it would have been safer to be polite about it.)

I am happy, though, that you won't join some non-dogmatic denomination despite a lack of belief for the benefits of community. I wish more people thought like that. Fellowship and social acceptance are nice, but have nothing to do with belief. It would be a good thing if people who've joined Christian congregations because it provides fellowship and seems like the socially acceptable thing to do would join a bowling club instead.

SEF gets it, Ocellated does not. What makes you think I'm attacking King? I think he was an admirable man and I respect his work a great deal.

I had the same reading on your post as Ocellated did. Why did he - we - think you were attacking King? Because you start off your commentary by saying that you'd toss a statement back in his face. How else are we supposed to read that but as confrontational at least? If not actually attacking him?

The way the post looked to me, you were saying that King criticized "lukewarm acceptance" on racial issues, while at the same time (because he was a progressive Christian) he practiced it in religious issues. Maybe I misinterpreted your post, but apparently I'm not the only one.

Or they could join a Unitarian church.

(Clarification- my previous comment was in response to Mrs. Tilton.)

It was an "attack" on King only in the same sense that King was "attacking" the white majority; if you think it was a call to go all Mau Mau on the enemy, I don't think you've interpreted either King or me correctly.

Steve,

you probably meant that as a joke, but I'd still be unhappy to see people signing on to unitarianism just for the social fellowship. Everybody jokes about the unitarians ('people who believe in at most one god', etc.), but the thing is, they do believe something, even if they're not dogmatic about it. If somebody believes what unitarians believe -- generally liberal, strong emphasis on tolerance and social justice, universalist as opposed to exclusivist view of other faiths (and lack-of-faith), disdain for the 'mystic' elements of religion but openness towards the meaningfulness of the religious element -- they might well want to think of joining the Unitarian Church. They shouldn't join for any other reason. PZ and people like him might share some of those positions; but not all of them. Unitarianism might be less distasteful to somebody like PZ than most other brands of religion, but from everything he has written, I'd think him crazy (or dishonest) if he became a unitarian; so far as I can tell he is neither of those things.[FN1]

I'm very serious when I say I wish more people thought like PZ does. If you think Christianity (or some other religion) true, well great, then join that religion. If you would consider joining for any other reason at all, do yourself and them a favour, and find something better to do with your time.

[FN1] On reviewing this post prior to transmitting, it occurs to me that this sentence echoes the infamous Lewisian 'trilemma'. That was entirely unintentional. In any event, as my third alternative is not that PZ is God, I think the sentence is nonetheless valid.

Why did he - we - think you were attacking King? Because you start off your commentary by saying that you'd toss a statement back in his face. How else are we supposed to read that but as confrontational at least? If not actually attacking him?

Having been in situations where I've had to come face to face with, as PZ puts it so well, "the blithe and patronizing attitude of the progressive Christian community," I found his comments about King's letter perfectly understandable.

From my experience, when given an opportunity to come face-to-face with the militant, coming-to-take-over Christian in an on-the-street, out in front of the clinic or City Hall type situation, the so-called "progressive" Christian (let me include Unitarians in this observation) tended to do one or more of the following: wait for approval of unnamed authorities to bless their participation; come to watch once, if at all, and run screaming; set up various counter-events far from the actual confrontation; stand at a distance and hold non-confrontational, self-assertive signs that deny that a conflict exists; and generally avoid conflict while setting up the illusion of motion and action.

Robertson, Falwell, Dobson etc. are not our fellow-Christians. Their religion is an Americanised version of State Shinto with a thin coat of Christianoid whitewash on top...

This kind of discussion always seems to attract this kind of response, which is about as worthwhile as a minor trademark dispute, an exercise in Christian brand management.

No, what Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and all the other usual suspects demonstrate is that their kind demonstrate what Christianity truly is, though it may lie somewhat dormant and seemingly benign for centuries at a stretch. It simply expresses certain things that have always been there, that surface from time to time but particularly when it's in the middle of a wealthy nation that clings to the transitory, supremacist notion that it's the best nation on the planet and will forever remain so. Christianity, fueled by wealth, cheap travel, cheap communications bandwith, and the cultural acceptability of a supremacist ideology simply looks like this, and it is the so-called "progressives" that are out of step, while being almost completely irrelevant, invisible, and outspent. All I need to do is turn on my satellite TV (eight channels of Christian nastiness 24/7) or drive past the local new megachurch that opened this month (that brags it's growing at 26% a year for the past six years while selling all the usual political positions) to see that so-called "progressive" Christians are simply irrelevant, powerless, and ineffective at countering all those other Christians who are just doing what comes naturally after years of being conditioned to a certain set of social norms.

Mrs Tilton, I attended Unitarian Universalist churches for years, and I can tell you that historically the denomination was quite friendly to non-supernatural-believing humanists, who in fact made up one of the more important strands in the UU movement. (Perhaps it was different in England?) In recent years there has come to be more emphasis on a variety of different kinds of (bogus IMHO) "spirtuality" (which in fact is one of the reasons why I lost interest)- but even so, someone like PZ, if he so desired, could still attend a Unitarian church without any tinge of hypocrisy. There remains no common core of belief, whatsover, to which all UUs are expected subscribe. UU Principles and Purposes

That's odd, the href command superfically appears to work in that the enclosed text turns blue, but there is actually no working link! So: http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

Steve,

I am aware that the UU Church itself is quite comfortable with members who lack a traditional belief in the supernatural. Still, it deals with 'spiritual' aspects that a forthright atheist like our host would find incorrect, unnecessary and undesirable.

I can't say much about English unitarianism. In Ireland, though, the unitarians are, believe it or not, an offshoot of presbyterianism.

Mike,

it looks as though I am simply going to have to disagree with you, and with Robertson, Falwell, Dobson et al., as to whether Robertson, Falwell, Dobson et al. represent the true face of Christianity. I agree with you unreservedly that progressive Christians are outspent by, and largely ineffective in the face of, R.F.D. & Co., though that should certainly not come as a surprise.

Just an atheist-UU Myers-lover here to chime in with Steve.

All three prongs of Mrs. Tilton's "PZ UU Trilemma" fail: PZ would need to be neither liar, lunatic nor Lord to be a part of a UU community. In such a community Dr. Myers would no doubt run into folks who (along much the same lines of the critical commenters here) don't appreciate the way he goes after some beliefs he objects to--but I'm not aware of a single ideal or (non)belief of our host's that is incompatible with UUism.

Of course, quite possibly PZ would (for perfectly understandable reasons) not feel comfortable within the UU fold; if so, that's a pretty solid reason for him not to be a UU.

Steve is also correct that nonbelievers' position within UUism has gotten somewhat dicier within the past few years--I sporadically maintain a blog devoted to precisely that issue. And, to my understanding, Steve is also correct that Unitarianism is "different in England."

Still, it deals with 'spiritual' aspects that a forthright atheist like our host would find incorrect, unnecessary and undesirable.

Not my Unitarian Universalism, ma'am. There are unquestionably many people within UU communities who find "the spiritual" central to their lives and ideals. But--at this point in time, anyway--such a perspective is neither mandatory nor expected.

Some of us UU atheists fear that UUism is indeed becoming the mandatory-"spiritual" entity you describe. But we're doing what we can to preserve a place for nonbelievers who find certain ideas just as "incorrect, unnecessary and undesirable" as PZ does.

Rieux,

I stand corrected. As I say, though, I'm aware the UUs would (subject to the recent developments that have you worried) welcome somebody who thinks as PZ does, or indeed as you do. But I can't pretend to understand why somebody who thinks that way would want to join even as non-dogmatic a church as the UUs; but then variety is the spice of life and, sure, wouldn't it be an awful thing altogether if everything depended on my understanding it.

You should note, BTW, that I love PZ too. More's the pity, then, that he will roast for all eternity in the unending torment of everlasting hellfire.[FN1]

[FN1] The real pity is that it might be necessary or at least prudent to add that I do not in fact believe that.

"What do you want?" Mr Morden, Babylon 5

I would ask of PZ and other atheists: you regard all religions - as I do - as superstition which, in the hands of right-wing demagogues, can be twisted to justify the worst excesses of prejudice, cruelty and oppression, so is it your hope and intention that all religious belief be expunged from human culture at some point in the future?

To the various believers here: presumably you believe your faiths to be ultimate truth in some form so is it your hope and intention that, at some point in the future, all other human beings - for their own good, of course - shall be converted to your beliefs?

I would argue that both sides, if they are true to their beliefs, have no choice but to answer 'yes' to their respective questions and, in so doing, demonstrate that their positions are irreconcilable.

That being the case, the future of the human race could be somewhat bleak.

Ian, the whole point of a liberal (in the classical sense) political order is that we can live together peacefully despite such irreconcilable differences. All that's necessary is that atheists and religionists disclaim any interest in using coercion rather than persuasion in the attempt to reach their respective goals. Now, neither PZ nor any other atheist that I'm aware of, myself included, has any problem at all with that proviso. And, let us not forget, despite the noise made by a minority of fundamentalists, neither do most religionists. (Even the numerous religionists who are a bit obtuse about the concept of freedom from religion mostly don't really mean any serious harm.) So I don't think things are really all that bleak.

Mrs. T, thanks for the kind response.

But I can't pretend to understand why somebody who thinks that way would want to join even as non-dogmatic a church as the UUs....

As you no doubt understand, much depends upon what "that way" denotes. If it means things like (a) dogged devotion to science as our trustworthy method of understanding the natural universe or (b) strongly held dissent from (even liberal strains of) Christianity and related religions, I contend that there is and should be no conflict with UUism and "that way."

But if "that way" means a deeply felt discomfort with, say, (c) gathering for church-y events on Sunday mornings or (d) taking part in things that are frequently seen (by many insiders and many outsiders) as "religion," "spirituality," "faith," etc.--then UUism is likely not a good fit.

To me, the upside of (a) and (b) is currently worth the downside of (c) and (d). Other atheists' mileage varies--and justifiably so.

Here's another possibility, neither redemptive (ooh, there's that word) nor damning (and that one too).

There's a significant number of people who are progressive Christians who are not regularly self-identifying as Christians, because the very attitude displayed here means that they know that on the left there's a (justified to a certain, fairly large extent) pre-loaded bias and distrust of anything done by "Christianity."

Just as the simplest example, when I was volunteering for John Kerry (fat lot of good, not to mention less of two evils), I wasn't proselytizing at the same time; and yet it is because of the beliefs which I was brought up with - progressive Christian beliefs, in my case - that led me to support Kerry - well, oppose Bush - in the first place.

Sorry if us progressive christians haven't been on your radar screen fighting the good fight but we've been a little busy protesting the war in Iraq, building Habitat houses, feeding the homeless, and - oh yeah - fighting the fundamentalist conservative forces of darkness for control of our denominations. Sheesh - give it rest.

Just as the simplest example, when I was volunteering for John Kerry (fat lot of good, not to mention less of two evils), I wasn't proselytizing at the same time
But apparently you would consider that to be appropriate if you anticipated a less hostile reception. And you don't understand why some people would be offended? There's a time and place for everything.
and yet it is because of the beliefs which I was brought up with - progressive Christian beliefs, in my case - that led me to support Kerry - well, oppose Bush - in the first place.
Unless your fellow volunteers were personal friends or otherwise had reason to be interested in your pesonal history, so what? In a common effort the focus needs to be on the common goals, not on each person's private journey towards embracing those goals. Is your support for progressive values somehow supposed to be worth more because it's religiously motivated? If you're not saying that, then what's you're beef?

That's "your" beef- sorry for the inadvertant bit of illiteracy!

"Having been in situations where I've had to come face to face with, as PZ puts it so well, "the blithe and patronizing attitude of the progressive Christian community," I found his comments about King's letter perfectly understandable.

From my experience, when given an opportunity to come face-to-face with the militant, coming-to-take-over Christian in an on-the-street, out in front of the clinic or City Hall type situation, the so-called "progressive" Christian (let me include Unitarians in this observation) tended to do one or more of the following: wait for approval of unnamed authorities to bless their participation; come to watch once, if at all, and run screaming; set up various counter-events far from the actual confrontation; stand at a distance and hold non-confrontational, self-assertive signs that deny that a conflict exists; and generally avoid conflict while setting up the illusion of motion and action."

As for what you're saying here, I don't disagree with you that this happens, I just don't see why it's relevant or fair to apply to progressive Christians in particular. When faced unwittingly with a vocal crowd of people that [are believed to] speak for the majority of the country, most progressive Christians would wimp out and not stand up for their principles. You're right. Then again, the same could be said of progressive Jews, conservative Jews, progressive Muslims, atheists, and so on. People who are able to walk through peer pressure and mob mentalities completely unfazed are rare in general. "Spontaneous counter-protesting" is an oxymoron.

And PZ:
"It was an "attack" on King only in the same sense that King was "attacking" the white majority; if you think it was a call to go all Mau Mau on the enemy, I don't think you've interpreted either King or me correctly."

Yes, I did think King was attacking the white majority, or rather the soi-disant progressives among them who contributed nothing to racial equality. "I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is [the white moderate.]" That doesn't look like praise to me. Are we just quibbling over the word "attack" here? No, he wasn't exhorting blacks to take up arms against whites, but King was obviously being critical of white moderates.

Here's what I got out of PZ's post: One would expect the theocratic branch of Christians to loudly and ignorantly attack freethinkers -- no surprises there. What's disheartening is constantly being told by progressive Christians ("Many of my best friends are atheists, and they're good, moral people!") that we atheists, agnostics, and general freethinkers should pipe down, play nice, and not be in such a hurry for a seat at the table.

Right on cue, that's exactly what several posters here proceeded to do.

Reality check: Christians are ~85% percent of the population, compared to well under 5% freethinkers. Christians have a stranglehold on political power in this country. Do the math, and ask yourself if you really need to put a Superman band-aid on that little boo-boo PZ gave you.

thekeez:
"Sorry if us progressive christians haven't been on your radar screen fighting the good fight but we've been a little busy protesting the war in Iraq, building Habitat houses, feeding the homeless, and - oh yeah - fighting the fundamentalist conservative forces of darkness for control of our denominations. Sheesh - give it rest."

Let's not forget that every one of those "Habitat houses" comes with a Bible. Proselytization is always built into whatever allegedly "humanitarian" acts such Christians undertake, and again, since they are dominant in all ways that matter and will continue to be so, that proselytization, no matter who's doing it, will disproportionally benefit those "forces of darkness."

Cyrus:
"As for what you're saying here, I don't disagree with you that this happens, I just don't see why it's relevant or fair to apply to progressive Christians in particular. When faced unwittingly with a vocal crowd of people that [are believed to] speak for the majority of the country, most progressive Christians would wimp out and not stand up for their principles."

I'm not talking about "most progressive Christians." I'm talking specifically about that small subset of progressive Christians that fancies itself to be the activists, who think they are actually doing something, and they avoided conflict at every possible opportunity.

I would ask of PZ and other atheists: you regard all religions - as I do - as superstition which, in the hands of right-wing demagogues, can be twisted to justify the worst excesses of prejudice, cruelty and oppression, so is it your hope and intention that all religious belief be expunged from human culture at some point in the future?

I can only speak for myself, not all the atheists here, but I don't hope to get rid of all religions. The possible misuses of religion? Science gets misused all the time, and art and other stuff. Social Darwinism is not a good reason to get rid of Darwinism, any more than the Inquisition is a good reason to get rid of Christianity. Superstition? Superstition can be fun. Looking for patterns where none exist - numerology, astrology, generally looking at coincidences and wondering if they mean something - can give hope or just a little "magic" to an otherwise boring routine.

We are not Vulcans.

To the various believers here: presumably you believe your faiths to be ultimate truth in some form so is it your hope and intention that, at some point in the future, all other human beings - for their own good, of course - shall be converted to your beliefs?

Again, I can't speak for anyone, but a devout Catholic friend of mine, for example, believes that his faith is the "ultimate truth", but he also believes that knowing that truth is not the first, last and only measure of a person. Catholic doctrine supposedly rejects justification through faith alone, after all. I don't know if hopes for Catholicism becoming universal, but I know he doesn't intend it. And more generally, there are lots of religions that don't believe in proselytizing (sp?).

I would argue that both sides, if they are true to their beliefs, have no choice but to answer 'yes' to their respective questions and, in so doing, demonstrate that their positions are irreconcilable.

I would dispute that argument. There are some beliefs to which it is possible to be true without being a close-minded fanatic. And some but not all of those beliefs would be called "religions".

Mike,
I'm not talking about "most progressive Christians." I'm talking specifically about that small subset of progressive Christians that fancies itself to be the activists, who think they are actually doing something, and they avoided conflict at every possible opportunity.

On that, I can agree with you. I don't have the personal experience with this that you apparently do, but I know I wouldn't appreciate this behavior much either. Maybe I've just been talking about something different than you and PZ through all this.

I would like to have a little more detail on PZ and others brief against the progressive Christian community: Exactly which "progressive Christians" have been telling atheists to "Be quiet, they say, don't alienate all those good Christians..."?

I've seen plenty of calls for atheists to at least *consider* the possibility that believing in God does not automatically make one a raving lunatic. But, at least among "progressive" Christians (whoever they are, exactly) I've seen relatively few requests that freethinkers shouldn't proclaim their own beliefs. The closest thing I can think of would be during election time, when those inclined to political strategizing may have suggested that "more atheistic than thou" was not an election-winning strategy -- but even this was not a demand that "atheists, agnostics, and general freethinkers should pipe down, play nice, and not be in such a hurry for a seat at the table.", to quote HP. But many of those "strategists" were not even particularly religious themselves -- you can't pin their requests on the "progressive Christian" community.

So: Serious question here folks: Who are the "progressive Christians" that PZ is complaining about?

Alex, the ubiquitous, and to me intensely irritating, Jim Wallis comes immediately to mind. It's Jim who doesn't get it, not "the left". The GOP's God-talk cements its Christian right base but it isn't what has allowed them to make inroads among voters elsewhere on the political spectrum. As careful analysis of polls have shown, and contrary to stupid media talk after the 2004 election about "values voters", they have accomplished the latter largely by lying and scaring people about national "security". And there's even a parallel moral there about the futility of "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" tactics- that Rethug strategy has has worked only because so few Democrats have had the cojones to openly call those lies by their right name.

"Superstition can be fun. Looking for patterns where none exist - numerology, astrology, generally looking at coincidences and wondering if they mean something - can give hope or just a little "magic" to an otherwise boring routine."

But some of us can have fun without thinking it's real. I play Dungeons & Dragons, but I don't think elves and wizards are real. Christians aren't playing for fun. They think that stuff is for real.

Ian,

for the reasons Steve sets out (and with which I concur 100%), the bleak future you prophesy is (thankfully) not as inevitable as all that. From the believers' side I'd add that, though I believe that what I believe is the truth, I also believe I have neither a perfect grasp of, nor a monopoly on, truth; and anybody who says he has the one or the other is very dangerous and to be avoided.

Rieux,

thanks for clarifying that. Your criterion (a), of course, is hardly limited to atheists, UU or otherwise.

HP,

why do you think all this is about 'boo boos' inflicted by PZ Myers? More importantly, why do you think we are telling you to pipe down, play nice and not demand a place at the table? I can't speak for anybody else, but I hope I would never tell you to act thus. And, though I may have missed it, I don't see any of the other believers here telling you to act that way.

Steve LaBonne wrote

Ian, the whole point of a liberal (in the classical sense) political order is that we can live together peacefully despite such irreconcilable differences. All that's necessary is that atheists and religionists disclaim any interest in using coercion rather than persuasion in the attempt to reach their respective goals. Now, neither PZ nor any other atheist that I'm aware of, myself included, has any problem at all with that proviso.

I agree that both sides, with some notable exceptions, practice an admirable and civilized tolerance of the other's views. But they can only do so at the expense of strict honesty.

If atheists really believe all religion is not only rank superstition but - as Dawkins argues - a source of child abuse and sectarian violence then they are bound to believe we are better off without it. If they argue the case but really have no intention of doing anything about it then all they are offering is the sort of ineffectual bluster and posturing of which PZ was accusing moderates.

My own view, as an agnostic, is that the real target is not religion but absolutism, whether religious, political or philosophical. Where people believe they are in possession of an ultimate truth, which both compels and justifies any act in its furtherance, is where the source of so much suffering and death is to be found.

Ian- Dawkins, for example, is doing what one can do in a liberal society- speaking out and trying to persuade. His writings on religion seem to me quite honest and the opposite of posturing- he pulls no punches, and he does not at all shy away from wading into quite specific political controversies in the UK, such as those over government support of religious schools. What more would you expect him to do?

Dawkins and your average fundamentalist minister can perfectly well coexist in a free society as long as both are free to denounce each other as vigorously as they like- but not free to attempt to coerce one another. Now, this kind of "negative liberty", as Isaiah Berlin would call it, has always seemed wan and unsatisfying to many people. The thing is- as Churchill said of democracy- all the alternatives are worse.

Ian,

a Dawkinsian atheist who argues the case is not 'not doing anything about it'; what he is doing about it is arguing the case. (Same rules apply, mutatis mutandis, for a non-Dawkinsian non-atheist.) That's not at the expense of strict honesty; it's at the expense of strict efficacy at any cost, which is not the same thing. It's not ineffectual posturing and bluffing. It's accepting that in many cases, the maximum acceptable force that may be used is the force of reason and rhetoric. If you believe that abandoning theistic belief is necessary for full freedom, and you do in fact actually value freedom, then you will see that you can only invite people to be free, you cannot compel them.

You final sentence is spot on, though. And it's a sentence that I daresay Steve LaBonne (who, so far as I can tell, is an atheist) and I (who am not) would agree with completely, and for the same reason.

I've seen plenty of calls for atheists to at least *consider* the possibility that believing in God does not automatically make one a raving lunatic.

By people that all too often a) assume that atheists all think that and b) usually have almost no clue at all what atheists in general do think, beyond not believing in their favorite religion, or worse c) intentionally to obfuscate their own intolerance, but claiming atheists are even more intolerant than them. What you don't see is the same people saying, "I believe all priests should be more open to science and critical thinking." If anything, your more likely to hear the same people complaining about the intolerance of atheist saying two sentences later than they should support their local priest, who while he never ran a book burning, does want removed from schools because it maybe mentions tits in one sentence. The fact that the moron that brought it to his attention might have a 4th grade reading ability, the books was talking about the birds, not human anatomy, and 50 people, including the priest, all started screaming about it anyway (having never read it), doesn't seem to matter much.

That is the second problem with "progressive Christians". When they do get behind something, they often do so with the assumption that because a lot of other people are against it, they don't need to bother making sure that what they are protesting even makes any bloody sense. The Bible is right about one thing. People in large congregations act like sheep. Scare them, and they all run in the same direction or freeze up, dangle something interesting in front of their noses and they will follow you right into the slaughter house. Most never think when it comes to their religion, past the initial decision of whether the threat seems vaguely credible or the carrot looks sufficiently appatizing. They might be someone that has to apply the most careful, well thought out and verified plan possible, to make a project work, or keep people alive, and do that extremely well. Give the same person something that they believe personally is a moral crisis, or just make one up and sell it well enough, and they will be out on the street with 10,000 other people, that have no real clue what the situation is, waving a sign. Its like there is a giant off switch in their heads, or some crazy program code:

if Moral_Crisis
Disable_Logic();
else
Enable_Logic();

And again. This isn't the case of "all" of them, just *way* too many. While its human nature to have such things. Most are localized to the individuals perceptions. The religion disconnect can be a small as personal morality, to something so vast it functions like a mental black hole, which nothing can escape. Pat Robertson being the obvious later extreme. One thing common to all such things though is that the most junk you stack in the pile of things that fit, the harder it is to dislodge any one item and reclassify it as something else. Traditional religion tends to teach that one should not only not bother to reclassify anything, but spend huge amounts of time and energy finding excuses to add everything to the same pile. This is imho 'precisely' why people that learn to do this a) avoid things they don't know how to classify and b) often dive in whole heartedly, once someone else "misclassifies" an idea/item to fit the right pile.

If there is any one indictment of the Biblical idea of having a sheppard lead a flock, it is the simple fact that once people learn to think like sheep, its just as easy to lead them over a cliff as to a better pasture. And yet, this concept is and will likely remain central to the vision of Christianity for most Christians. Its that which personally makes me nervous about that religion specifically, and others in general. In a very real sense, this is a form of insanity. Just as is depression, compulsive disorders and a mirriad of other things people can survive with, when not extreme.

Its not necessary to believe in dreams or magic to dream them, but what you start to believe in can get you a rubber room, or a TV special.

Yup, count me in!

I wasn't proselytizing at the same time
But apparently you would consider that to be appropriate if you anticipated a less hostile reception. And you don't understand why some people would be offended? There's a time and place for everything.

Where did I say I would? It's PZ and others that are asking that progressive Christians self-identify whenever they act progressively, and yet self-identification would be offensive.

I asked what?

You've got it backwards. I want them to act progressively, and stop making their religion an issue.

Cyrus wrote

I can only speak for myself, not all the atheists here, but I don't hope to get rid of all religions. ...Superstition can be fun. Looking for patterns where none exist - numerology, astrology, generally looking at coincidences and wondering if they mean something - can give hope or just a little "magic" to an otherwise boring routine.

You seem to be treating religion as some sort of harmless entertainment, which would be fine if it were really harmless. But it sounds like being an atheist in the US is equivalent to being a communist in the McCarthy era; it can cost you your job and almost certainly bar you from being elected to any public office.

We are not Vulcans.

Sadly, no, but we can try. (You are talking to a Trekkie here.)

Sorry, PZ, that was a thought interrupted by Augustlet before I could really edit it the way I wanted to.

I was responding to someone who seemed to be saying that my not making religion an issue was only because it wasn't welcomed, but my original comment about not making religion an issue was in response to the apparent perception that progressive Christians don't speak up enough. To wit:

Is your support for progressive values somehow supposed to be worth more because it's religiously motivated? If you're not saying that, then what's you're beef?

No. My beef is the perception that progressives who are Christians don't spend enough time fighting "establishment Christianity" is informed by the fact that we properly don't spend time identifying as progressive Christians, but as progressives.

Perhaps, for me as well, it's also a limitation of perception. Maybe I'm feeling that this thread is aimed at progressive Christians like me, who as a rule don't self-identify, when it's really only aimed at progressive Christians like MLK, who do/did. Maybe I don't perceive the difference because I don't have the frame of reference as an atheist, and maybe that was your point.

But this comment thread has run the length and breadth of what progressive Christians "should" do, and I think I've begun to conflate all those points of view. My apologies.

Steve LaBonne wrote

Ian- Dawkins, for example, is doing what one can do in a liberal society- speaking out and trying to persuade. His writings on religion seem to me quite honest and the opposite of posturing- he pulls no punches, and he does not at all shy away from wading into quite specific political controversies in the UK, such as those over government support of religious schools. What more would you expect him to do?

I think Dawkins is honest about his beliefs, so much so that he would follow them through to their logical conclusion. I think that if he had some - dare I say it - God-like power to eradicate all religious belief he would use it. I also think there are many on the other side who would, if they had the power, convert us all to their religion.

That said, how much of our tolerance of other views is therefore due to civilized and liberal forebearance and how much is due to the fact that we lack the power to do anything else? How many of us, if we had such power, could resist using it to prevent the emergence of National Socialism in Germany or communism in Russia or Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia? And should we?

Mrs Tilton wrote

for the reasons Steve sets out (and with which I concur 100%), the bleak future you prophesy is (thankfully) not as inevitable as all that. From the believers' side I'd add that, though I believe that what I believe is the truth, I also believe I have neither a perfect grasp of, nor a monopoly on, truth; and anybody who says he has the one or the other is very dangerous and to be avoided.

I certainly hope the "bleak future" can be avoided and I believe that a recognition of human weakness and imperfections, the Christian virtue of humility and the agnostic's embrace of doubt could go some way towards that.

a Dawkinsian atheist who argues the case is not 'not doing anything about it'; what he is doing about it is arguing the case. (Same rules apply, mutatis mutandis, for a non-Dawkinsian non-atheist.) That's not at the expense of strict honesty; it's at the expense of strict efficacy at any cost, which is not the same thing. It's not ineffectual posturing and bluffing. It's accepting that in many cases, the maximum acceptable force that may be used is the force of reason and rhetoric. If you believe that abandoning theistic belief is necessary for full freedom, and you do in fact actually value freedom, then you will see that you can only invite people to be free, you cannot compel them.

But what of the cases where the Dawkinsian atheist believes that theistic belief is demonstrably harmful and that indoctrinating in a particular faith children who are far to young to be able to judge themslves is a form of abuse? Is mere criticism enough?

But what of the cases where the Dawkinsian atheist believes that theistic belief is demonstrably harmful and that indoctrinating in a particular faith children who are far to young to be able to judge themslves is a form of abuse? Is mere criticism enough?

In a pluralistic liberal society, it's going to have to be enough. And that's not a bad thing. My inability to impose my beliefs or way of life (whatever those may be) on you isn't good only for you. It's good for me as well; if nothing else, that prohibition is also what preserves my freedom from you imposing your beliefs/way of life on me. (Which is not to lose sight of the fact that pluralism and tolerance are goods not merely negative but positive as well.)

Even a pluralistic liberal society has to draw the line somewhere, of course. And if the society exhibits that third quality I think important, namely that it is democratic, it will draw that line through an (admittedly indirect, imperfect and probably rather hamfisted) national discussion. If your Dawkinsian atheist believes theistic belief demonstrably harmful, fine; let him demonstrate that harm to his fellow-citizens. If he persuades enough of them, then yes, conveying theistic beliefs to children will be placed on the side of the line that contains (e.g.) beating them with a red-hot coathanger as punishment rather than (e.g.) sending them off to bed without their pudding.

But to the extent your Dawkinsian atheist couldn't demonstrate actual harm (which certainly does occur -- Jehovah's Witnesses forbidding their children life-saving blood-transplants, for example), I'd find his concerns about religious-instruction-as-child-abuse a bit overheated. Dawkins himself wrote of a small girl he knew and loved, the daughter of a friend. The girl was, against the friend's wishes, receiving Roman Catholic religious instruction. 'What chance', asked Dawkins, 'could she possibly have?' I infer what Dawkins is asking is, 'What chance does she have to become a brave free "bright" atheist like myself rather than a pathetic cringing believer in God?' In that case, assuming Dawkins himself did not receive a strict atheist upbringing, my answer would be, 'About the same chance you had, Richard me old china. Have a lie-down until you feel a bit calmer'. Mind you I don't know how Dawkins was raised -- statistically speaking, probably nominal-C-of-E, but who knows? So let me prudently amend my answer to: 'the same chance as PZ Myers, who somehow managed against all odds to overcome that ghastly form of child abuse known as Lutheran Sunday school'.

As for Dawkins's anecdote, BTW, reading between the lines it's clear that the father, for whatever reason (most likely divorce) no longer has the right to decide as to whether or how the girl will receive religious instruction, and that somebody else (most likely the mother) has that right and has plumped for RCism. Unless the two ex-spouses reached that arrangement via mutual agreement (which seems unlikely), it will have been imposed by a court. And that court will have reached its decision based on what it considered, after weighing all factors, to be in the child's best interests. As it happens I would be as upset as Dawkins to learn that a child I cared about was being raised RC (and for reasons not entirely dissimilar to his); but unless the court's decision were corrupt or manifestly in error, that's just the way it would have to be. It's more important that matters be decided in a lawful and just manner than that they be decided in accordance with my own preferences.

Mind you, if the court in question viewed the father's (presumed) atheism vs. the mother's Christianity as a deciding factor in determining the child's best interests, I'd be pretty pissed off, for all that I am not an atheist.

"I think Dawkins is honest about his beliefs, so much so that he would follow them through to their logical conclusion. I think that if he had some - dare I say it - God-like power to eradicate all religious belief he would use it."

I'm not Dawkins, but invested with godlike power I would eradicate religion for the same reason I'd eradicate poverty, cancer, nationalism, and AIDS. Being omnipotent, I would do this without any violence at all. I'd just make the already-obvious problems with faith undeniable and impossible to rationalize or compartmentalize.

Then I would watch the golden age begin. It would be immoral not to do this.

I'm not Dawkins, but invested with godlike power I would eradicate religion for the same reason I'd eradicate poverty, cancer, nationalism, and AIDS. Being omnipotent, I would do this without any violence at all. I'd just make the already-obvious problems with faith undeniable and impossible to rationalize or compartmentalize.

If you were invested with godlike power, there wouldn't be any more "obvious problems" with faith.

Dogma, sure. Faith, no.

"If you were invested with godlike power, there wouldn't be any more "obvious problems" with faith."

If I were a godlike power (presuming I'm the only one) I wouldn't play games with people. Faith would be (and this presumes that I somehow fail in making it impossible to maintain) superfluous and pointless.