RJ Eskow has a set of 15 questions he wants us "militant atheists" to answer. Apparently, we've been blaming every problem in the universe on religion and religion alone, and we need to eradicate faith in order to inaugurate our new world order of peace, prosperity, and reason. That isn't really hyperbole: his questions really are exercises in the obvious. Here's one, for instance (no, I'm not going to waste my time with all 15):
Where the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion—as many experts in the field suggest? Or is the truth somewhere in between?
Religion was one factor among many. Was that so hard? All of his questions are along this line—all they do is demand that the answerer recognize nuance and complexity, and Eskow gets to pat himself on the back and act as if he has been shown to be right. But again, this is a fellow ranting against a nonexistent position, trying to tar atheists with the intolerance he is inventing.
I'll make it simple for him. I'm a militant atheist, whatever that means. I do not believe that religion is the root of all evil, and I don't know any atheists who do. If religion vanished overnight, we would still have the same wars, the same petty differences inflated into reasons to destroy those who are different, the same tribalism. We would not usher in an atheist utopia (or as some are fond of whining, dystopia). These problems are built on human follies, of which religion is just one.
My gripe with religion is two-fold.
-
We have been sold a bill of goods. If the best utilitarian argument for religion is that if we got rid of it, we'd still be fighting, that's awfully tepid support. Religion is supposed to be this force for goodness and unity and morality, remember, but it sure doesn't seem to do anything along those lines. This is the false dichotomy with which we are so familiar in creationist arguments: that apologists for faith can argue that atheism is not an automatic love-and-peace generator (and that atheists agree) does not mean that religion therefore is. You don't get to argue for religion by complaining about atheism, especially when all the evidence indicates that religion is one factor that does contribute to discord. Or would Eskow like to claim that religion played absolutely no role in the Crusades?
-
My other complaint is that is that the position of the defenders of religion has become inherently cynical and anti-Enlightenment. I do not believe that abandoning superstition is all it takes to make a better world, but sweet jebus, demanding reason and evidence and questioning those glib old dogmas is certainly part of the answer, and I think people are capable of it. This is the start, the foundation, not the complete solution, but people like Eskow demand that we must build on lies, superstition, and naive belief. He pretends that he's demanding rigor, but I think it's clear that religion is a failed paradigm, and making excuses for it is an exercise in futility.
Eskow cloaks all this in a plea that we join forces to fight fundamentalism. I'm all for that, and I think it's a fine idea to oppose the most malignant eruptions of religious thinking. However, I don't think it's enough to fight the nastiest symptoms while pretending the underlying disease is a beautiful thing. Sure, I'll join moderate Christians in arguing against the excess of fundamentalism, but that doesn't mean I have to retire from arguing against the inanity of faith; it's that lack of critical thought at the core of religious belief that allows fundamentalism to flourish. So why is it that the first thing defenders of moderate superstition demand is a suspension of criticism?
- Log in to post comments
Oh, but the comments to Eskow's post are so amusing. "You're an idiot," "Just trying to read your post was excruciating," "What a bloatedly long post," and so on.
(in an aggrieved tone, with many sighs):
You know what, PZ? You're right. I'm one of the moderately superstitious myself, I guess. One of the values that I hold is personal liberty of conscience, which (if not derived from religion) is certainly consonant with some formulations of religion.
Personal liberty of conscience tends to promote free speech and definitely seems incompatible with any attempt to suppress dissent, even that dissent which targets cherished notions. At the end of the day, if you value liberty, then you must acknowledge that there are no privileged beliefs.
Many of my moderately superstitious fellows profess the same conviction, but when push comes to shove (as you have said) they demand a suspension of criticism. As Keith Douglas said elsewhere on this blog, this smacks of hypocrisy.
Amen, PZ.
I especially like your statement that: "However, I don't think it's enough to fight the nastiest symptoms while pretending the underlying disease is a beautiful thing."
PZ,
Do you think anything will change for the better, to some degree, when cultivated gullibility and hero worship in society subsides after the fall of religion?
For example, the superstitious horde will no longer exist to lobby congress and elect presidents that refuse to fund stem cell research(no one will think there are voodoo souls out there at conception anymore). That's a big plus, isn't it?
I mean, I agree that utopia will not immediately follow when people back up their ideas with evidence instead of faithing their way through life; there will still be those that are homicidally greedy and just plain crazy, etc.
But aren't there clear and numerous benefits to a much more rational society?
1. Where the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion - as many experts in the field suggest? Or is the truth somewhere in between?
Wikipedia: The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom, with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
Sounds primarily religious to me.
I believe religion is just a part of human nature. It seems to be human nature to divide people in groups or tribes and religion seems to be one good way to do this. I believe that is why so many religions have very conspicuous symbols they make their follower wear or do, to distinguish them from people who don't belong to that group.
P.Z. is right, if religion ceased to exist we would still have the same wars and problems that we've always had. Maybe people will divide up between sports teams or something.
Yes, and I thought that's what I said. Eskow thinks it's telling that we can't say that society would be instantly utopian if we got rid of religion, but that's not what anyone has been arguing. Acquiring a rational god-free society is just the start of a difficult process.
I like to point out that even though religion is only one of many primary and proximate causes of just about every war in history and perhaps it cannot be alone be blamed, it's still obvious that religious belief is a fine lubricant for that behavior. Nothing like believing your enemy is going to burn in hell for some trivial reason anyways to make his death in itself trivial. And God does more killing than any human being ever has. Clearly he's not against it!
2. Historically, has terrorism been driven primarily by religion - or by other forces? (See Robert Pape's work on the subject.)
From Terrorism Reaserch:
Terror in Antiquity: 1st -14th Century AD
The earliest known organization that exhibited aspects of a modern terrorist organization was the Zealots of Judea. Known to the Romans as sicarii, or dagger-men , they carried on an underground campaign of assassination of Roman occupation forces, as well as any Jews they felt had collaborated with the Romans. Their motive was an uncompromising belief that they could not remain faithful to the dictates of Judaism while living as Roman subjects. Eventually, the Zealot revolt became open, and they were finally besieged and committed mass suicide at the fortification of Masada.
http://www.terrorism-research.com/history/early.php
Looks like early terrorism was driven primarily by religious motives.
I don't have to answer Eskow's questions. They aren't addressed to far more nuanced, sophisticated form of militant atheism I practice. I think Eskow needs to study far more atheism before he can expect people to take his opinions on it seriously.
Where reasoned discourse fails and one or more points are held inviolate of mention, then all hopes of rationality are lost.
What I have observed in all my years is that no one wants to leave a thing unlabelled and will label a thing with what they know, rather than create a new one.
I have been called an Atheist (which *is* a belief... the belief that God does *not* exist). I have been called an Agnostic (which is the belief that Gods "Plan" is unknowable, not disbelief in God). I have been called a wishy-washy believer because I refuse to deny or acknowledge the existence of God. (the latter, curiously, seems to excite more wrath from the "True Believers" than Atheism does).
*No* one can either prove or disprove the existence of God. Except God. If He exists. And, given our present state, I doubt he would... if He exists.
So, I live by the Platinum rules: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Don't let others do unto you what you don't want them to. Don't let others do unto others what common sense says you should not.
Quoth George: "Wikipedia: The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by Christians from 1095-1291, usually sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom, with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.
Sounds primarily religious to me."
It helps to delve past the glib summary into the details. Look at that 'originally launched' section again. The Seljuqs were invading the Byzantine Empire, but not because they were Muslims and the Byzantines were Christians. It was a fairly typical case of territorial aggression. (The Seljuqs converted to Islam only after they had conquered the Arabs, then continued on their rampage with very little pause.) The Byzantine emperor and the Pope had been mending political fences for some time, but the historical friction between Constantinople and Rome made it very unlikely that the pontiff could convince other Western political leaders to commit to providing direct military aid, or that if they did, to Constantinople not ending up being their target rather than the beneficiary (as indeed happened in a later crusade). But a crusade to take Jerusalem would help the Byzantines indirectly by engaging the Seljuqs' flank, and could easily be sold on religious grounds.
Religion wasn't a primary cause of the fighting, it just provided a handy bit of leverage to engage popular support for it. As, one might well add, usual ...
Another irritating statement in Eskow's piece is this:
Followed later by:
Say what? The "stereotyping and mocking of Muslims" he decries is a province of right-wing Christians.
@Ryu
*No* one can either prove or disprove the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Except The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You insensitive clod!
Ramen
The End of Faith is not going to be cataclysmic event and future historians will be identifying trends rather than treaties in order to determine how the transaction will come about.
And there will continue to be wars over economic, territorial and xenphobic human fears. What will end will be phoney justifications for persecution based on "God's Will."
Where[sic]the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion--as many experts in the field suggest?
one could just as easily say that much of the structure of organized religion itself stems from the same factors.
the problem still lies with the organized religion itself wrt to the "wars oft cited by militants".
nobody expects the spanish inquisition...
3. Does the historical experience of nontheistic countries challenge the notion that religion is a major factor in causing internal oppression or external military conflict? (Note: I'm not suggesting that nontheistic countries went to war to defend nontheism," as one atheist writer characterized the argument. The question is: Does the absence of religion as a motivator reduce the likelihood of war, as the militants suggest - or not? Suggested countries of study: Cambodia, China/Tibet, USSR.)
The keys to reducing the likelihood of war: commitment to non-violence, aversion to bellicose leaders (the Bushes, Hitlers, and Stalins of the world), and sanctions against aggressive behavior.
From PeacefulSocieties.org:
"... social scientists have convincingly described at least 25 societies around the world in which there is very little internal violence or external warfare."
FACTORS THAT FOSTER PEACEFULNESS
Sociocultural systems. The psychological and social structures, mythologies, beliefs, religious convictions, and worldviews held by the peaceful societies strengthen their daily nonviolent lives. Many of the peaceful societies have social patterns that foster and reinforce nonviolence. For instance, while some of the peaceful societies have political leaders, they tend to not glorify leadership. Not surprisingly, the leaders of peaceful societies (those that have leaders) are generally not as bellicose as some of our contemporary world leaders.
Sanctions. Some peaceful societies maintain their internal nonviolence through effective sanctions against deviant or aggressive behavior. Nonviolent punishments such as ostracism may help enforce social norms in some societies.
Isolation. Some of the peaceful societies are able to maintain their nonviolence because they live in very isolated locations--islands, remote deserts, or dense forests. However, isolation is not the only factor. Many also have strong convictions that peacefulness is something that is very important to them. Some of them feel that nonviolence works, for them: it is a very practical way for them to exist in the world that they experience. Others feel that nonviolence is the way that God ordains them to live. For others, they have always lived that way and their belief system reinforces the ways they feel people should coexist.
Flight and Separation. Some of the peaceful societies maintain their nonviolence by fleeing at the slightest hint of aggressiveness by outsiders. Furthermore, people in many of the societies break apart into new groups whenever internal strife or tensions threaten to disrupt the peacefulness of normal daily life.
http://www.peacefulsocieties.org/facts.html
He should have let it rest with the line:
"Remember, I'm not making any statements of fact."
Utterly incoherent.
That was a slick bit of ad hominem at the beginning there, eh? "Before I go on to criticize the atheism typified by Richard Dawkins, let me link to three people who think he's a poopy-head too. After all, you're more likely to agree with my baseless ranting if I prejudice you towards Dawkins."
Dawkins's critics always like to point out that he hasn't studied theology, and thus has no grounds for criticizing religion. Eskow's bio:
How is this guy qualified to defend religion?
"I have been called an Atheist (which *is* a belief... the belief that God does *not* exist)."
Nope. I am an atheist, because I am not a theist. I am an atheist because I do not have a belief in a god. Why is that so hard?
Maybe I have a belief that there is NOT a god, or maybe don;t have that belief and instead just think its wildly improbable given what we know, but in either case I am an atheist.
Being an atheist does NOT require belief, it is the absence of belief.
I like that 90% of the comments call him on his BS.
But I'd like to answer some of these questions.
1-2: Religion is used as a justification for these atrocious acts. Of course, the people in power don't really believe the religious nonsense they spout. But, the minions that do believe it feel fully justified in killing and dying for their god.
3: Is a poorly worded and ambiguous question. But religion has been used to justify oppression. I'm thinking of pre-enlightenment Europe and most of the history of the USA. Religion has been used to justify slavery and persecution of Jews and Gays.
4: Pointless question. I thought he was trying to challenge militant atheists, not just ask people to do his research for him.
5: No, Judaism and other religions did that long before Islam existed. Hell, my genitals were mutilated by Christians for no good reason.
6: I think elimination of religion would end most genital mutliation, especially, the rampant ritual infant genital mutilation called circumcision, which is unnecessary because of soap.
7: Moderate religion also advocates circumcision. I've heard many "moderate" (at least mainstream) religionists advocate all kinds of horrible things.
9: Both, obviously. Organized religious activity is caused by individual religious belief and vice versa. You can't have much of one without the other.
10: All religious activity is harmful to some degree. I can't think of any beneficial delusions.
11: Eh, maybe. Don't know enough about Buddhism.
12: Of course. If there were no religion to begin with, how could you have fundamentalists?
13: Whether mild or militant, persuasion must be unrelenting, just like the preachers of religion, there must be "preachers" against it. Rational arguments must be constantly made against the delusions of religion. The best way is the way that works in a particular situation.
14: The extremist usually is the one saying what is actually on everyone else's mind. The "moderates" are just the chickenhawks of religion. They want the extremist footsoldier to do their dirtywork.
15: Um, no. If anything more people would go into science and medicine. Less people would be duped by faith healers and religion masquerading as quack science.
I love this piece of stupidity in his "update":
Good god. Your point hinges on the actual existence of "fundamentalist atheists," thus you have no point.
More blind stupidity:
What part of "atheists don't believe in gods because there is no evidence" leads you to say that atheists believe something without evidence? And if that definition of fundamentalist is right, then every religious person is a fundamentalist. How would we do research that would please you? Eliminate religion and see what happens? Sounds good to me.
Oh, a truly idiotic comment:
No deary. People cannot choose their skin color (except Michael Jackson) or their gender (except drag queens) or their sexual orientation (except Exodus graduates), but religion is completely a personal choice, no surgery required. I'll attack any opinion I like, because people CAN help what religion they are, if any.
4. What is the extent of religion's role in creating individual discontent and unhappiness through ostracism, sexual repression, prejudice, etc. in various world cultures? (I suspect it's substantial, but I'd like more data.)
I'd be terribly unhappy if I had to follow this Christian pastor's advice:
"The apostles told us repeatedly that Jesus forbids lust, since sex is for baby-making, not anxiety release," continued Pastor. "We are to 'abstain from fleshly lusts' (1 Peter 2:11) and 'flee also youthful lusts' (2 Timothy 2:22), for lust 'bringeth forth death' (James 1:15). And more to the point for those debauched divorcees, Matthew told us that 'whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart' (Matthew 5:28). This means that masturbation of an erect organ can occur only if the erection is naturally-induced, such as by the morning sun or an overfilled bladder." Pastor Deacon Fred then concluded, "The only way to masturbate without lust is to keep your mind on Christ at all times."
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/masturbation.html
George, you know about Landover, right? (I assume you're being facetious) Still, look hard enough, and you'll find an actual pastor saying things not too far from that.
Say what? The "stereotyping and mocking of Muslims" he decries is a province of right-wing Christians.
Not entirely. Sam Harris has an entire chapter in "The End of Faith" called "The Problem with Islam," and plenty of lines like "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death" and "Ask yourself where the Palestinian Christian suicide bombers are."
Still, yes, most Islamophobia is concentrated in the religious right. And it's amusing to see this just after Sam Schulman complained that atheists suck because they don't attack Islam enough:
"Naturally, the atheists focus their peevishness not on Muslim extremists (who advertise their hatred and violent intentions) but on the old-time Christian religion.("Wisdom dwells with prudence," the Good Book teaches.)"
"religion is completely a personal choice... because people CAN help what religion they are, if any"
Well, they can control their behavior. But beliefs? Can any of us atheists really choose to become Christian? Certainly religion is more changeable than race or sexuality, but if someone believes they have a personal relationship with Jesus that's not going to go away at the drop of a hat.
"CAN help", yeah. "completely a personal choice", not quite; that upbringing can matter, and it's not as easy a choice as what to wear.
Yes, curtailing religion is "just the start of a difficult process" (PZM) but of all of the different possibilities, it is probably in the top three in potential effectiveness.
I think it may be possible to treat religion as any sort of recreation, and the arguments about it follow this model. For instance, snow mobiles are a great form of recreation, according to many people (not me, but lots of other people). So let people have them, and make paths for them to use. Within the world of snowmobilers, there seems to be a widely held belief that the rule should simply be: If you have a snow mobile, you can go anywhere with it any time irregardless of the consequences or effects on others." That of course is idiotic, and society rules differently.
Religion often comes with a self-aggrandizing philosophy. It is that part of religion that gives it much of it's strength, as well as much of it's obnoxious flavor, and I think, what many atheists react to. most strongly.
What I propose is that, at the very least, religion simply be placed in the same category as any other behavior that is sometimes benign, or if it has negative effects, it is at worst a victim-less crime, but at other times not at all benign, and in fact, quite dangerous or at least obnoxious.
Religion, gun ownership, snow mobiles, satanic ritual in your own basement among friends, whatever. These are all things that should probably be allowed but regulated....
I actually sat down and answered each of the questions on my own blog, and found it an only moderately satisfying experience. Many of his questions are the same thing being asked over and over again, and the main point seems to be: "Since you can't blame religion for every bad thing, then just leave it alone." Imagine that as a defense in a court of law. "Hey, I'm not as bad as Jeffry Dahmer ... I only killed and ate a couple of people.... "
Ryu wrote:
I have been called an Atheist (which *is* a belief... the belief that God does *not* exist). I have been called an Agnostic (which is the belief that Gods "Plan" is unknowable, not disbelief in God).
You really should invest in a dictionary. Atheism is not a belief, any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is non-belief in any of innumerable gods. As for agnostic, I can't imagine how you came up with a definition involving God's "Plan", since any mainstream dictionary will give you something like,
"one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
RYU:I have been called an Atheist (which *is* a belief... the belief that God does *not* exist).
This might be correct in the sense that one often uses the phrase "belief" in language, but since we're talking about belief as a specific practice, I think it has to be defined more clearly.
An Atheist typically is someone who has figured out that there is no evidence supporting religious belief. That is not the same thing as believing in something. It is explicitly qualitatively different.
It's not religion per se, that we need to get rid of. It is the sort of uncritical thinking that lets religion and other belief systems flourish. If there were no religion, then there would still be people who would believe it when a charismatic leader says, "we have to make war on those guys because they are [evil|immoral|dirty|fat|ugly|?]". If "those guys" have something we want, it's easy to get people to "believe" what ever is said about them. Be they capitalists, communists, muslims, christians or what ever label you put on them, gullible, uncritically thinking people will buy it and act on it.
Very good PZ. But I strongly disagree that without religion, "we would still have the same wars". Not that there would never be any, but that certainly without the divisiveness and bigotry of religion there would be a whole lot less reason to do battle against some "other" tribe. Not to mention eliminating that psychotic resolve of the fighting masses to die as a slave for one's particular sky-daddy. Indeed, many of the wars we see today would be wholly without reason among the warriors to continue the fight, and certainly without motive to sacrifice their life.
To intrude a personal note, a small irony about all this from viewpoint is that I don't consider myself a "militant atheist" at all. I have a starting point of metaphysical naturalism, but the issues that usually concern me - and which I deal with in my own blog and elsewhere - are quite different. I do applaud Dawkins for saying, in public and in a forthright way, things that I often think about the evil done by religion, but that would have been as far as it went.
What has stirred me up a bit, just lately, is all this rather nasty backlash against Dawkins, who is essentially speaking the truth. In particular, I'm dismayed by the hurry of so many non-religious people to distance themselves from him. That phenomenon has made me feel like standing up in his support. I'm feeling a fair bit more "militant" as a result of the Dawkins bashing that's going on. I wonder if I'm the only one who feels like this.
A thought experiment: Recently, Dawkins did a series of interviews, or instance on NPR and Science Friday, promoting his book.
This thought occured to me: What if Ira Flatow (host of Science Friday) or the host of Mid Morning (NPR) etc. happen to be atheists? And what if they "admitted" this publicly during the interview with Dawkins?
Can you be a mainstream radio talk show host and be an "outed" atheist? I suspect not. Am I being paranoid?
The fact, if indeed it is a fact, that this is so is itself reason to drive one radical, IMHO.
"Yes, curtailing religion is "just the start of a difficult process" (PZM) but of all of the different possibilities, it is probably in the top three in potential effectiveness."
Effectiveness in doing what? The 20th Century had two large clinical trials, with millions of subjects, and in these group studies "curtailing religion" was at the top of the experiment. As the world watched and awaited the outcome, because these tests were performed behind closed doors, a group of "China Watchers" sat in Hong Kong cafes and mused about Mao creating the "socialist new man" who would revolutionize humankind. Stalin too eradicated religion and created a nation that traded its religion for bottles of vodka. And now that both clinical trials have been completed and the results are in, I just wonder if they are included in today's history classes.
PZ writes: I do not believe that abandoning superstition is all it takes to make a better world, but sweet jebus, demanding reason and evidence and questioning those glib old dogmas is certainly part of the answer, and I think people are capable of it. This is the start, the foundation, not the complete solution...
Okay, that sounds to me like a scientific claim. Is there really any evidence for it?
It seems to me that you have it exactly backwards. A peaceful sane world governed by sweet reason is the end of a long process, not the beginning. What do I think the starting point ought to be?
I think there are two main pillars, two points of agreement to work towards: (1) When making decisions that will affect the lives of many people, we agree to use the best science available; we agree to be guided by the scientific method. (2) When it comes to the big philosophical questions about the nature of the universe, the existence of god, whether Elvis is still alive, etc. we agree to practice the virtue of tolerance. What people believe is their own business, except to the extent when their beliefs conflict with pillar number (1).
It is possible to get people (many people, anyway) to agree to use the best science available when it comes to policy decisions even when they don't have a completely scientific worldview...Even if they are superstitious or religious about the nature of the world. As to the second pillar, while religion may be a contributing factor in many wars, certainly intolerance is proximate cause in most cases.
In my opinion, getting people to agree to these two pillars will, in the long run, cause religion to "wither away". If Jews and Christians and Muslims and atheists all tolerate each other, you'll have mixed marriages and you'll have children being allowed to choose which religion (or lack thereof) they want to practice, and it will eventually become just another lifestyle choice of no more significance than choosing Coke over Pepsi. At that point, society is effectively atheist, except for stray, meaningless touches such as putting up a menorah or a manger scene at various times of the year.
I think the drift from liberal theist to atheist is pretty predictable. The only thing that prevents the process from running to completion is recruitment by intolerant theists. Fighting intolerance is the way to go.
Greg,
Ira Glass, of "This American Life" (which is one of my all-time favorite radio programs) is an atheist.
Figures. And in his particular case, outing himself may actually be a benefit.
Quoth Russell Blackford:
No, you're not. :-/
My feelings over the continuing kerfluffle have to an extent been tempered by the knowledge that the Internet has always been full of stupid loud people, and I'm constantly surprised by the subtle and learned responses flickering through the blogoweb (not least because the people making them are doing so for free). The signal/noise ratio is much higher than my cynicism would lead me to expect, and like Mr. Universe says, "You can't stop the signal."
All that said, the inflamed rhetoric coming from the trained experts has not, to put it mildly, filled me with esteem for the theological profession. The pains to which nonreligious folk have gone to distance themselves from the rabid, fire-breathing, etc. Dawkins also leave me, what's the word, nonplussed.
You can't stop the signal, but you can drown it in noise; you can hide it in nonsense; you can obscure it with banter and cant and dogma and popular conceptions.
Russell,
I'm in agreement, I'm a pretty mild atheist. I'd heard about Dawkin's before I read anything he wrote and assumed he is a histrionic blow hard. However, seeing him interviewed a couple of times I see him as a well reasoned, well spoken man. The distance between the reality and the criticisms made is amazing. To me I take it that it is a sign that ID is dead, Creationism is becoming a spent force and the theism/atheism debate is the one we should be having.
I find the "militant atheist" labeling somewhat parallel to the "militant breastfeeder" label I earned a few years ago, at least in my case. Both started out as something I really would rather not discuss, that I didn't think was a big deal, at least nothing that should be of interest to anyone else minding their own business, nothing I'd even want to make a case out of. However, in both situations, people can't seem to help but intrude themselves in a very pushy negative manner.
"You can't do that in the dressing room." "You're still doing that?" "How can you stand it?" "Why won't he drink milk?" "What, you have something against formula?" "So, I suppose you think I'm a bad mother because I don't?" One can only take so much prodding before lashing back, and even when managing to avoid being rude in reply, one tends to develop a very hardened attitude about the whole thing. This is entirely reactive, not an inevitable condition. If people would just leave well enough alone, they'd notice no militance. I see the same thing with atheism. If people would stop saying we're evil, and stop trying to legislate their own religion, and quit trying to get religion in schools, and stop making a big deal out of, well, everything, there wouldn't be militant atheists, either. At least not so many of them. They've made their own enemy.
Ahhh, the "what we really meant when we said" defense.
The gripe and the questions are a demand that the usual suspects quit talking and writing like there aren't nuances involved, as though "everybody gets what we're really saying when we say this thing or that thing" instead of making blanket statements they handwave away later.
Bro. Bartleby:
I presume by 'clinical trials' you refer to the official atheism practiced in Soviet Russia and Communist China.
Well, look, I'm a believer, so I have no atheistic ax to grind here. But I think it is really a mistake to conflate the principled non-belief of many skeptics with the sort of state-sponsored atheism that feeds itself by criminalizing religion.
I feel that the latter is in itself a belief system! Since that's the case, the 'clinical trials' you refer to are just another example of faith-based persecution; in this case, faith in Communist doctrine about the evils of religion.
Amen Carlie, I too was a "militant breastfeeder". Talk about social pressure, sheesh. This whole militant atheist thing is just an effort to make athiests be quiet and get back in line. It's like uppity women and uppity black people. They are fine as long as they know their place.
A Militant Athiest is any Athiest that stands up for themselves at all.
Just an observation that I think is original with me. First, I hate this bickering. I've always considered atheists, liberal Christians, liberal Jews, liberal Buddhists, etc. to be basically comrades-in-arms fighting for tolerance, civil rights, environmental protection, education, etc. Sowing conflict among these groups seems to me to be helping out our common nemeses: intolerance, bigotry, repression, etc.
But it occurred to me that maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if the discussion has shifted from people declaring "I'm a Christian, but I'm not that kind of Christian" to people declaring "I'm an atheist, but I'm not that kind of atheist", then some kind of progress has been made.
Who wants to lay odds that the Brayton's of the world ignore this and still act like PZ wants to ban religion to form a utopia (as they are so fond of saying)?
But great post. Couldn't have wrote it better myself.
Daryl McCullough wrote:
I doubt this observation is original with you, since it might well be the position of many sensible folk, at least some of which must have said it for the record. Personally, I suspect that a good part of the current double-double-toil-and-trouble seething and surging through the Blogotubes comes from bitterness, the anger that atheists have felt due to "liberal Christians" not keeping their part of the bargain defending against outright lies. When the organized Protestant denominations of America issue stern condemnations of the immoral tactics used to propagate the stupid, vile mind-poison known as "creationism" and "Intelligent Design", then we'll have made progress.
You have expressed, in my opinion, a good and kind sentiment. Now, let's everybody live up to it!
It's not religion per se, that we need to get rid of. It is the sort of uncritical thinking that lets religion and other belief systems flourish. If there were no religion, then there would still be people who would believe it when a charismatic leader says, "we have to make war on those guys because they are [evil|immoral|dirty|fat|ugly|?]".
...and that's certainly nothing new.
http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg
Blake,
That wasn't my observation, that was just background about how I feel about it. My observation was the second paragraph.
PZ - You accuse me of creating straw men, and then you set up one of your own. I never said any atheists (much less all of them) believe religion is the "root of all evil." I said two of them were suggesting that humanity's social ills would decrease if all religion were eliminated. And I said that I don't find the arguments in favor of this position convincing, given that religion has provided benefit as well as harm.
You write "I do not believe that religion is the root of all evil, and I don't know any atheists who do." Me neither, and I never said so. And while my list of questions may seem self-serving and rhetorical to you, there is an unending stream of atheists who defend their position by saying: "Oh, yeah? What about the Crusades?"
Of course religion contributed to conflicts such as the Crusades, as I've always acknowledged. That's why I wrote that I suspect organized religion has caused more harm than good, although I can't prove it any more than Richard Dawkins can. Still, the ills caused by organized religion may be caused more by the organization part than by the belief part.
But if you don't know any atheists who argue that - philosophical arguments aside - society's problems would be reduced without religion in any form, I can point you to a few who do.
I suspect that's not true, and that's what I wrote.
Do you even know the history of Marxism's atheism? Because if you don't, you're not really qualified to talk on this point.
Marxism's atheism is a holdover from it's anarchist roots. The anarchist philosophers of the 19th century felt that religion (as they understood it at the time, i.e. Christianity/Judaism/Islam) was inherently harmful because it accustomed people to accepting authoritarianism and hindered their ability to function is a truly free environment. (Mikhail Bakunin: "If there were a God, it would be necessary to destroy him.") Furthermore, the church was viewed similarly to the state, as a coercive power structure that wielded illegitimate authority; thus religion was considered to have no place in a society free from coercive force.
Ultimately, Marx split from the anarchists over "irreconcilable differences." Marx felt that, following the revolution, there would need to be some form of intermediate government to guide the proletariat's transition to a condition of true and complete liberty. The anarchists, who felt that all state authority was oppressive and invalid, argued that such an interim government, regardless of the purposes behind it's creation, would inevitably become itself oppressive. From the anarchist point of view, atheism is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for true liberty and equality.
The excesses of the communist states of the 20th century had nothing to do with their atheism; they were the inevitable result of power acting in it's own interests.
The "militant atheist thing" is an attempt to get practicing militants to engage in socially responsible interaction, not silence them or their positions.
The term "militant" is usually applied to members of a specific self-identifying group who have not learned how to interact with others to get their way without violence and aggression (often verbal and social, sometimes physical), and who justifies those negative (and unproductive) social behaviors as necessary, as productive, as correct and righteous in the pursuit of their goal.
That such behavior is not necessary is borne out by the example of individuals who stand up for themselves successfully without resorting to militancy. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a militant race activist (whereas the Black Panthers were militant race activists). Ghandi is another example of a non-militant social rights activist; as is the Dalai Lama.
When you learn to treat others with the respect you want to be treated with, and that a person can stand up for their rights (even to a rude prick) without being a jerk, you will find not only that people listen more deeply and are more considerate of your position than when you are spitting on them and striking them, but they will start to stand up for you. (All which holds to my own experience as an ex-militant.)
So, when Blake says, as have others:
One must realize that the first step towards achieving that is rooting militant atheism and its associated negative behaviors -- the use of insults and pejoratives, the us vs. them rhetoric, the snide and superior attitudes, etc. -- out of the atheist community. Otherwise, the majority is not going to stand up for you (for obvious reasons).
...like Mr. Universe says, "You can't stop the signal."
Oooh - a Firefly/Serenity reference? The checkmarks just keep piling up in the plus column of Mr. Stacey's balance sheet.
-K. (who is now too tired to say anything more intelligent than "good night".)
One must realize that the first step towards achieving that is rooting militant atheism and its associated negative behaviors -- the use of insults and pejoratives, the us vs. them rhetoric, the snide and superior attitudes, etc. -- out of the atheist community.
sorry, Rev, but what you are seeing in the "atheist community" is, if anything, merely reactionary to the dipolarization and hyperbole used by regligious fundamentalists to begin with.
I can think of NO scientist who arbitrarily got fed up with religious creobots and started yelling profanities. It took a lot of poking and prodding from the ignorant and intolerant before a reaction was provoked.
If you think a more tolerant approach is warranted, you'd have to explain why it didn't work to begin with.
Religion is just another ideology.
...and one of my favorite aphorisms by the ex-East German author Gerhard Zwerenz is "Ideologie ist Denkfaulheit" (Ideology is mental laziness...)
The Russians have the same kind of messianic element in their national consciousness as many Americans do who are into "American Exceptionalism"...American messianism comes wrapped in God, flag, country, baseball & apple pie, while in the former Soviet Union, it was transfered to The Party, Lenin, World Proletarian Revolution, etc...old wine in new bottle...both out to "save" the world, with the rest of the world wishing both giant bullies and their swaggering egos would just go away and leave them the f*ck alone.
That's what Che thought, anyway, and why his Bolivian adventure became a suicide(d) mission.
My fellow Americans who are still locked in Cold War patterns of thought would mostly still probably want to tell me to go to Russia for my views...but in the ex-USSR I probably would've been denounced as a Titoist or a Trotskyite.
There are a few Russian writers I admire who were dissidents before the USSR broke up and have remained dissidents in the "New" Russia.
The problem of religion is only going to get worse with falling literacy, collapsing & crumbling educational systems, etc. Reason & science, yes, but only for the "responsible" children of the elites who can "handle it", not the rabble...seems to be the way things are going, at any rate.
Yes, there were ulterior motives for the crusades--trade routes, conquest, usual things...but Religion was the ideology du jour that kept the enterprise glued together.
Today (cruel twist of fate) it's "promoting Democracy and Freedom" (tm) and "Free Markets", but Religion still has its uses even today...General Boykin and the like...Christian Zionism, etc. The Neocons are all good Straussians and know that very well...they may not believe it themselves, but it's very useful to discipline and rally the herd with it.
I wish religion would go away, but until educational and literacy standards are raised world-wide (and that won't happen because those on top benefit from the existing inequalities--thrive on it), not a chance. It is just possible that there was so much atheism in the former USSR because the USSR also had, despite its limitations and ideological blinders, a very high degree of universal literacy and educational attainment, quite apart from "official atheism" and anti-religious propoganda & persecution...which was wrong, I agree...the Soviets were a little too fond of psycho-pharmacological "remedies" to such "problem" people. Heavy handed, and certainly unnecessary. If anything the active persecution probably ensured religious sects would survive and thrive underground and outlive the USSR...benign neglect might have made for better policy; Ah well...like I've said before, the Soviets made the mistake of turning their Marxism into a kind of non-theistic religion...no god, fine, but no less "religious" because of it...witness Lyshenko, etc. And as Anne Lynne Gaylor of FFRF once pointed out, Stalin was educated in a seminary.
Dawkins I agree with 100%; Sam Harris has flashes of brilliance but is otherwise an apologist for Empire, much like Christopher Hitchens, who, like a broken clock, is still sometimes right, but mostly not, anymore.
But my disputes with them are over politics, not the desirability of atheism and rationality being more widespread as a general condition.
Anyhow, great post PZ!
REV:The "militant atheist thing" is an attempt to get practicing militants to engage in socially responsible interaction, not silence them or their positions.
The thing is, I don't think there are very many, or possibly any, militant atheists. Atheists are pretty much dead in the middle of where everyone should be, so why should they be militant anyway?
A friend of mine was almost murdered when she was about 11 (my daughter's current age). Other kids her age, who were evangelical fundamentalists, heard that she was an atheist and plotted to smother her to death during the night at summer camp. It's pretty much a fluke that she happen to be rescued.
She, my friend, remains an atheist, but she never became militant. She simply refuses to accept any sort of bullshit whatsoever.
What I do see occasionally is a measured yet strong, and fully appropriate reaction to insanity cloaked in sanctimony and given credence by threats and bullying.
I have yet to meet a militant atheist. Seriously.
Russell Blackford mused: I wonder if I'm the only one who feels like this.
Blake Stacey seems to have the same sentiment. So does Michael J.
Add me to that list.
Rev. Raven claimed: The "militant atheist thing" is an attempt to get practicing militants to engage in socially responsible interaction, not silence them or their positions.
This is what is technically called "crap." And it's time to "cut the crap."
The "militant" label is a pathetic attempt to conflate "vocal critics" with looting rioters and suicide bombers. That label may please the cry babies amongst believers, but it reinforces my conviction that my (usually private and quiet) atheism needs to be aired much more vigorously and frequently.
As for this comment: -- the use of insults and pejoratives, the us vs. them rhetoric, the snide and superior attitudes, etc. --
Has been used utilized exclusively by the fundy and literalist Christian side.
Carlie and Yiela: Thank you for sharing your insights.
Boy did my editing & proof reading skills tank out when I said: Has been used utilized exclusively by the fundy and literalist Christian side.
What I thought I had typed was:
Has been used utilized almost exclusively by the fundy and literalist Christian side.
Sorry about that.
And still I did not remove the redunant word, did I?
I'd better stop while I'm behind!
This migraine is making me see things...and not see things, too.
However, I don't think it's enough to fight the nastiest symptoms while pretending the underlying disease is a beautiful thing."
Ahem******
I need to pick up my jaw now. I think you have no idea that you have just quantified everything that made me NOT believe - and I thank you. (insert copious tears here)
I won't go into much detail, but when I went through a family illness, the whole time we dealt with the insurance agency, we were bombarded with the psychosocial model of illness. So, damage to the body was more able to spontaneously heal itself if you went to church and had a strong spiritual background. WTF????? This was proven in diagrams that had a circle divided up like a pie, which included family friends spirituality work and physical factors. That there was a dearth of belief was counted as a bad thing.
This bodily damage, that is inoperable and will never go away, was used as an OPPORTUNITY when a job was lost. "When one door closes, another opens" was actually said to us by an employment counsellor who was maybe all of 22. This was a way of being able to make a change. No matter that there was no reason (except injury) to make this change. Which meant having no job, and no way to feed our family except a very meagre income after the benevolent insurer kicked us off their rolls, and all.
Because of their claims that one could heal cancer with their mind, and reading their horrible research papers that even I could tell their was something wrong with, and I am no math whiz, and because of this mindless fuck enthusiasm that was perpetuated constantly in that organization.... I gave up on the whole idea of a god (who I never believed was a tooth fairy, anyways) , and began to look at what science offered in the way of medical possibilities. THese of course were rejected by the insurer as ONLY EXPERIMENTAL.... even though many therapies are actually being used in the USA and Europe. Not only that, but their pet therapies were either out and out woo, or drugs that were contra indicated with other meds (oops!!!) or just plain WRONG.
There may be no cure for what has happened to us, but even better there is no cure for stupid other than using your brain. I could not be part of what caused so many of these blind and foolish people to shut off what makes them human in exchange for a paycheque.
Oh, and did I mention this is SUPPOSED to be a secular organization??? Yeah.
Thank You Professor Myers
IP
that organization
er, which company's literature do I want to use to wipe my ass with again?
holy crap.
literally.
Basically it seems to boil down to the old apological argument of "Religion is just misused".
Well, that IS the point, isn't it? My main objective against religion is exactly that it can be so easily misused, due to the suspension of reason and critical thinking.
Trying to apologize Religion with "it's just misused", when the main criticism is, that it is so easily misused, is like trying to defend Heroin with "it's just misused, it really is a good painkiller, you know?".`
Well, that it might be, but the "misusability" by far overshadows it's benefits.
Besides the fact that Eskow disqualified himself from criticizing, he has one point; the claims about religions (sometimes rather selfevident) harmful effects should always be scrutinized and backed up.
But for the rest he is awfully off, making such observational claims a definition of fundamentalism, or providing a list with inconsequential details of a larger and easy to access phenomena. Most off is he when he claims all vocal atheists haven't experienced religion. Dawkins is of course one prime example against.
As noted, Eskow isn't qualified to judge the finer points of atheism. :-)
That is a natural result of the polarizing that religious and chamberlain groups initiated instead of engaging in a serious discussion. But the quality (read: near non-existence) of their arguments, especially the misrepresentation of Dawkins and both open and assertive atheism, is also provoking. So I don't think you are alone in this feeling.
Prove that. :-)
But it is not only a jest. Science doesn't let us know a priori what we can or can't know. And if it happens that we can show that all interventionist god concepts doesn't work, the non-interventionist gods are gone as well reasonably being limits of these imagined disappearing interactions, simply occam in another and stronger setting. (Gods-in-gaps has always been it's own worst enemy. Really.) Then claiming otherwise would lack a model as basis.
But disregarding those nitpicks that is not what is claimed here. It is simply that gods are improbable. Not from an exact probability, but observing that lack of evidence, lack of consistence, all other religions, existence of natural answers makes any god not probable. Gods is a concept that can be debunked. (Debunk that! :-)
"it's own worst enemy" - been its own worst enemy. Bad spelling has also always been its own worst enemy.
I'll make a deal with anybody on this. A simple quid pro quo: I'll stop being rude and snide towards your religious beliefs, or non-beliefs as the case may be, when you stop claiming that my religious beliefs or lack thereof entail a 'spiritual emptiness' or a 'lack of humanity' or any other such nonsense. In other words, I'll stop being snide and rude when you return that favour.
This is what really pisses me off about the whole 'militant atheist' bovine manure: The 'moderate' or 'mainstream' religious people and their fellow travellers are quite willing to label an atheist 'militant' or 'fundamentalist' or 'extremist' for saying that religion is stupid or absurd, but are utterly unwilling to likewise condemn as fundamentalist, militant or extremist religious people who makes derogratory statements against atheism and atheists.
But perhaps this is because religious militants, extremists and fundamentalists actually exist, and those on the theist side of the fence who 'merely' engage in mockery and rudeness can be compared and contrasted with the real extremists. Or perhaps it is simply a failure to realise that claims of inheirent moral or human superiority on account of theism is as insulting to atheists as - say - drawing cartoons is to Muslims.
Regardless, there is this saying about the log in your own eye and the splinter in your brother's...
- JS
Definition of a militant atheist - someone who's decided it's as well to be hanged for whole flock of sheep as a single lamb.
You can start with this study.
And for every theologian who lambasts Dawkins for not understanding what religion is "really about", there are thousands of followers of religion who think their faith is about performing a set of silly rituals, believing in fairy tales and condemning the non-believers. It's dishonest to define religion normatively, then compare it to an analytical definition of atheism.
I'll let Robert Ingersoll say it:
Is there any evidence society's problems would be reduced without religion? Maybe not convincing evidence (the study I link to above notwithstanding--I recognize its limitations). But we would be more likely to deal with society's problems in a rational manner and not through the use of fairy tales, obfuscation, and willful ignorance.
Let's put it this way. If we eliminated smoking and air pollutants, we'd drastically reduce rates of lung cancer. Would we eliminate all forms of cancer? Of course not. But we'd have done a good thing, yes?
JS...umm. OK. It's a deal. I apologize if I have ever said or implied the things you say Christians say of atheists at any time in my Christian life. I can say pretty confidently that I haven't said any of that in the last probably ten years. It helps that I have friends who are atheists whose lives don't match the stereotype. So, I'll continue to keep up my end of the deal. I hope you reciprocate.
I think I just found my new hobby. Anyone care to join me in a little aphilatelism? It's even a hobby I can persue full time while at work...
And where exactly is the difference between "religion" and "ideology"? "Scientific socialism" my ass.
-----------------
Daryl McCullough has correctly predicted the current state of Europe.
Actually the best defense of religion is still Pascal's Wager -- and that's genuinely pathetic.
Oh, and actually here's a rejoinder to another of his cretinous questions.
Nope. There were Buddhist jihads as well.
And then there's this fresh little nugget:
It'd be nice if he could do a little research. Buddhism is officially nontheistic, and thus a philosophy that isn't wholly incompatible with atheism -- and it explicitly teaches that there is no such thing as a soul. Pretty strange dogma for a "religion", I'd think.
Russell said: I'm feeling a fair bit more "militant" as a result of the Dawkins bashing that's going on. I wonder if I'm the only one who feels like this.
Oh no. I considered myself a pretty mellow atheist, and hadn't really had a serious discussion about religion in years. Frankly, it had gotten boring through not hearing anything new. The attacks on Dawkins piss me off, and it's not like he's my hero. I had read a few of his books, and I no doubt would disagree with him on much, were we to talk at length, as any two thinking people will. But the attacks on him are so shallow, and the characterizations of his personality so off-base (as any view of him speaking in person would attests), that it's made me want to begin conversations with "Hi, I'm Mark, and I'm an atheist" just to get the conversation started. I've resisted however.
Blake Stacey said: All that said, the inflamed rhetoric coming from the trained experts has not, to put it mildly, filled me with esteem for the theological profession.
Megadittos on that one. They have been completely undiscernable, in form and substance, from your average crystal healer.
Carlie said: If people would stop saying we're evil, and stop trying to legislate their own religion, and quit trying to get religion in schools, and stop making a big deal out of, well, everything, there wouldn't be militant atheists, either. At least not so many of them. They've made their own enemy.
Amen sister Carlie. I've had many a Christian express disbelief when I tell them that I don't think about gods at all, ever, unless I see a character in a movie, or someone else brings up the subject. Otherwise I carry on in my blissful atheism worrying about everything else the Christians worry about, the bills, whether it's to cold to go jogging, and how the damned Eagles and Ravens better not make the Super Bowl - ugh! I don't make atheism an issue - they do.
Re: the Buddhism and violence thing, there's a case to be made that violence is most likely to erupt at the boundaries, when one religion or culture rubs up against another. (If you have good enough data, you can even play psychohistorian and make predictions quantitatively, as some of my colleagues have done with the former Yugoslavia.) When you lay national boundaries across this map, some of them more arbitrary than others — just think of Iraq! — then you can get interesting situations where the raw percentages become deceptive.
How many of the countries mentioned — Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Laos, Japan, and Vietnam — overlie boundaries between clashing cultures? (That's not a rhetorical question; I'm genuinely curious.)
Re: Rev. Raven Daegmorgan on the "militant atheist thing".
Look, if PZ, Dawkins, Harris, et al. start stockpiling weapons and advocating armed resistance/violent revolution, sure. Otherwise, maybe you'd want to go with 'vigorous,' 'assertive,' 'confrontational,' 'partisan,' 'rude,' 'strident,' or whatever else floats your boat?
"For example, Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a militant race activist"
Yes, but - what you're missing is that the nonviolent tactics of the Civil Rights movement were *incredibly* offensive and threatening to many whites in the racist communities & society in which they took place. In fact, that was one part of the point (if I understand correctly?), contrasting acts of dignified and peaceful conviction with reactions of ugly, irrational, and violent - verbal, social, and most definitely physical - hatred.
Now, of course, the (blech) 'new atheism' bears almost no resemblance to the struggles of the civil rights movement, and there is a lot I disagree with in its methods and arguments (although like some folks here, I find myself being pushed towards it out of exasperation) . . . but c'mon . . .
Calls for civility can be an important part of harmonious and socially responsible interaction, certainly, but they can *also* be part of a partisan/sectarian/etc. attempt to marginalize groups and views by declaring them beyond the social pale. Politeness is power. If someone starts braying loudly: 'Hey, the -ing emperor is -ing nekkid, all you folks are -ing morons for -ing buying this, and look, he has a -ing teeny wee-wee!', well, ok, this might well be deemed needlessly offensive, mean to people, entirely disrespectful of the social and emotional context, horribly dismissive of sophisticated views - but all the pearl-clutching and horrified shushes *also* have a different aspect. Someone quietly saying 'I hate to say it, and I don't want to be disrespectful, and I could be wrong, but doesn't it seem that the Emperor's garments are a bit skimpy today?'- well, that's a different thing, and far less distressing - or more convenient - for some.
And yes, that is setting up a false dilemma . . .
See also the sudden frantic calls for civility and bipartisanship, and indeed the recent political uses of these things in general.
Judging whether something is pointless rudeness, confident and challenging self-assertion, principled civility, or pointless timidity - well, that might be tough, especially since there's no reason they won't be variously mixed in one person or position.
The fact that there is an explicit choice to challenge the privilege of civility (whether correctly targeted or not) makes it all the more difficult . . .
____________________________________
Without suggesting(ludicrously and offensively) that the issues are in any real sense similar, just as a framework barely better than the WWII nonsense . .. maybe discuss:
"[Booker T. Washington's]1895 Atlanta Compromise address, given at the Cotton States and International Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, sparked a controversy wherein he was cast as an accommodationist among those who heeded Frederick Douglass' call to "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate" for social change. A public debate soon began between those such as Washington, who valued the so-called "industrial" education and those who, like W.E.B. DuBois, supported the idea of a "classical" education among African-Americans (top 10% theory). Both sides sought to define the best means to improve the conditions of the post-Civil War African-American community. Washington's advice to African-Americans to "compromise" and accept segregation, incensed other activists of the time, such as DuBois, who labeled him "The Great Accommodator". It should be noted, however, that despite not condemning Jim Crow laws and the inhumanity of lynching publicly, Washington privately contributed funds for legal challenges against segregation and disfranchisement, such as his support in the case of Giles v. Harris, which went before the United States Supreme Court in 1903.
Oh yeah, and I'm not trying to saying religion is racism .. . durn analogies . . .
Eskow's delusion that we are Militant is lock step with the real militancy of the religious. For anyone paying attention it is obvious. Go to a school board meeting and out yourself as an atheist. See then who is the most militant. In other words see then who gives the death threats.
I do not have any atheist friends who are militant. I do have atheist friends who are becoming assertive. And for good reason. Oh wait I used that word, reason. Maybe Eskow should have used a bit of reason before he wrote this nonsense.
While the conductors of the major wars were probably not motivated by religion, that at least was the "opiate of the masses". Leaders have consistently used religious rhetoric to mobilize the public toward violence. Without such a tool, the war pigs might have to ground their arguments for invasion in reason. In the light of logic, much of the killing in humanity's past may well have been averted.
"...philosophical arguments aside..."
Well, Mr. Eskrow, isn't that convenient. Just do little more than baldly assert that the empirical questions are currently unanswerable, and then prompltly excuse yourself from those damned pesky philsophical arguments.
My advice to you: Keep running for as long as you want, but those arguments are bound to catch up with you one day, and bite you in the ass I might add. I mean, just look at what happened here.
Note to self: Don't bother answering any of Eskrow's silly little questions.
"Hi, I'm Mark, and I'm an atheist" just to get the conversation started. I've resisted however.
which makes me ask the question:
why not; why have you resisted doing so?
I think the answer to that question might actually enlighten some as to why atheists feel pressed upon.
I've certainly met folks who have no qualms essentially starting any greeting in analogous fashion from a religious standpoint, and rarely receive any stigma from doing so.
for those who've seen it, I've often thought the reaction when claiming you're an atheist right off in the general populace in the US is rather like that of the "replacements" in the modern version of the movie "body snatchers" (the one with Donald Sutherland), when they realize you aren't "one of them".
For those who can bear reading (no link provided), Eskow is back with a response on Huffington Post. I myself can't take reading it after seeing the headline, but maybe some of you have stronger stomachs.
you mean the "update", or is there yet another whole contribution?
the first line of his "update" speaks volumes:
My opponents on this topic either complain that I don't back up my statements, or - when I offer detailed counter arguments - that I'm too long-winded. I'm sorry some of you found the piece difficult to read,
It's at the same time: condescending, deflectory to the actual points made, and just flat-out wrong.
I suppose there is little point in paying this guy any mind in the future.
Warren, thanks for the information on Zen and Japanese imperialism. I had no idea...
Most kinds of it.
That's where it comes from. It does contain all manner of supernatural entities, though; just none of them is considered a person.
Then what is it that gets reborn or enters Nirvana? ~:-|
JamesR:Eskow's delusion that we are Militant is lock step with the real militancy of the religious. For anyone paying attention it is obvious. Go to a school board meeting and out yourself as an atheist. See then who is the most militant. In other words see then who gives the death threats.
I agree completely. I can't think of a single example of either atheists or more generally evolutionists going into the non-secular area and making trouble. Even something like Dawkin's recent book is a reaction to militancy among the fervent evangelicals and anti-evolutionists.
Icthyic -
Dunno if it's new or an update, I just saw the headline in a HuffPo ad. It looked to be a response to Cenk Uygur's response to his original. One dose of Eskow is enough fatuity for me this week. Just to be clear, here's how it looked in the ad:
* RJ Eskow: Dear Cenk Uygur: Don't Let Them Use Atheism To Divide Us
Considering his first post, I really don't care to know who "them" refers to. I'd rather keep my teeth than grind them to dust while reading another false characterization.
I don't understand Eskow's whole line of reasoning. Atheists think religion is false. That's more than enough to think it's also bad idea. You know, you could leave the bolts on a ferris wheel loose, and it might run smoother, need less oil, spin faster, and provide more entertainment at a lower cost, but you're still guilty of negligence. Religious belief is intellectual negligence. If you promote false beliefs you're doing something that is bad. End of story.
Who put Eskow's name up in lights? Another lame excuse for a news and information well called the Huffington Post did of course. Eskow sucks the behind of some one at Huffpo and he gets some rope with which to hang himself in public and does. Who notices or cares and why? Its an internet equivalent check-out rag for Christ's sake. The premise posed in the first paragraph of his little stool sample was ridiculous enough to leave it go; but to then pursue his questions and other mealy points as if they had some weight ... well, he must be pleased.
While the conductors of the major wars were probably not motivated by religion, that at least was the "opiate of the masses". Leaders have consistently used religious rhetoric to mobilize the public toward violence.
Jesus, if you'll pardon my choice of swearing.
Look Marx's complete quotation up sometime. He was using it more in the sense of a pain-killer, not as a means of doping the masses.
I've been watching "Elizabeth" on Masterpiece Theatre, a miniseries about Elizabeth I of England, and I was struck by the constant conflict between the Church of England and the Catholics - particularly the scene where Elizabeth exhorts her armies to fight against "the enemies of God", the French and Spanish.
One of the best examples of how religion is a tool of statescraft.
Stalin too eradicated religion and created a nation that traded its religion for bottles of vodka.
Really? So there was no religion around at the time his successor, Krushchev, was allowing government planes to fly Muslims from certain regions (like Central Asia and the Caucasus) to Mecca for the hajj? One wonders, then, what the point was.
Not to mention all those nonexistent Orthodox icons which are not to be found painted on the walls of homes.
Having state control of the religious apparatus is not the same as having no religion. Ironically, by appointing heads of religions subservient to the state, they re-created what merely existed for centuries, and was one of the misuses of religion (to prop up state hegemony) that Marx railed against.
And now that both clinical trials have been completed and the results are in, I just wonder if they are included in today's history classes.
You wonder if China and the Soviet Union are taught about in history classes? No wonder you have problems with basic facts about those two countries.
For example, Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a militant race activist (whereas the Black Panthers were militant race activists). Ghandi is another example of a non-militant social rights activist; as is the Dalai Lama.
The Dalai Lama is living in exile, and so is hardly a sterling example for the effectiveness of non-militant resistance.
Furthermore, I would argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhiji were themselves largely ineffective, and that absent the background of militant resistance movements, they wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as they did. Gandhiji, for his part, disliked Bhagat Singh and his growing popularity and regarded him as a rival for his political relevance, which is why Gandhiji, despite an outcry, refused to make clemency for Bhagat Singh a necessary precondition of the Gandhiji-Irwin Pact. Gandhiji's fame is largely due to his ability at political positioning, historical revisionism (which he encouraged) portraying him as the inheritor of the Indian nationalist trend from Tilak and Gokhale, and a fortuitous assassination.
Likewise, the only effective social change effected by Martin Luther King, Jr. came from the Montgomery Bus Boycott, for which he was not initially responsible. He was just a young minister with a gift for rhetoric. The rest of it simply didn't make any difference. Mass mobilization simply does nothing when the government holds all the cards. MLK just provided some convenient cover for the government which didn't want to be seen "giving in" to radicals like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. And because of this cover, which MLK was happy to provide, the government could continue on its covert campaign of smears, intimidation, false imprisonment, and outright murder. Thanks a lot, MLK!
Mass mobilization simply does nothing when the government holds all the cards.
I guess you didn't actually live in the 60's then.
Oh yes, it does work, from time to time.
alternatively, maybe you could ask Eta how effective a purely militant stance has been over the last 30 years in creating progress between the spanish gov. and the Basque seperatists.
*shrug*
bottom line, I think you are making some rather gross overgeneralizations about the effectiveness of mass protest.
Or maybe you are narrowing your perspective to a mostly unrealistic case scenario, as any particular gov. rarely holds "all" the cards.
Don't work no more. The '60s style of social change has been branded and marketed and co-opted into meaninglessness.
New tactics for a new era. And government holds most of the cards. The rest, incidentally, are held by christianist demagogues and big business fat cats. (guess who are all allied against liberty...oh right...)
Don't work no more. The '60s style of social change has been branded and marketed and co-opted into meaninglessness.
*sigh*
million mom march ring a bell?
perhaps it's just mass media coverage of these events that has caused you to think they have no effect?
sad.
I rather think that this generation has stopped thinking these things CAN work, simply as a result of a constant barrage of negative government undertakings, combined with a successful revisionist spin making the entire mass movements of the 60's look like some drug induced madness.
"Hippies" are almost always looked at in a negative context in the US, and that image has been carefully fostered by conservatives over the years, mostly to put the kibosh on anybody who would think to try it again.
New tactics for a new era.
and what makes you think this is a "new" era, pray tell?
what specifics can you give that would indicate it is so different from 20, 30, 40 years ago?
hmm.
maybe you might consider that you hold more cards than you think you do.
Actually, no, it doesn't ring a bell.
As for the new era, the Intar-tubes, maybe?
Look, I've protested. I've marched. Etc, etc, no one gives a damn. Maybe on the noon broadcast on a slow news day.
I agree with Tristram Shandy on this one: the neo-con's rebranding effort of the past 35 years worked, and hippies are ignored. Protest is nothing without the spectre of an uprising.
meh, the intarweb is just the latest media distribution outlet.
you CAN however see the effect of mass protest even here though.
perhaps you recall the sony attempt to put a digital rights software on their CD's a couple years back?
the shitstorm that started was mostly contained to mass protest on the internet, yet it most certainly had an effect.
Perhaps you're right about the neocon media machine having an effect as well.
that doesn't mean it's anything more than spin.
You really never heard of the million mom march? goes back quite a ways.
they even have chapters now.
although largely ineffectual in the long run, all the evidence suggests the brady bill was signed mostly as a result of mass protest via one of the million mom marches.
I still think you should re-examine your perceptions of the effectiveness of protest in light of exactly what you said... the past 35 years of neocon mass media efforts.
again i say, maybe you hold more cards than you think.
Those interested in questions like this about religion should really take a look at Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking the Spell." I'm 1/2 way through it now, and it provides a unique perspective on how to approach these questions about religion.
I see variations on the "but he hit me first" and "but he stuck his tongue out at me" defense my kids use when they fight...because you can't be an adult when someone else is being an ass?
Then there is the "being considerate and polite is being a wuss" aka the "politeness is unassertive" argument...because the only alternative to using pejoratives and violence is to bend over and take it?
An acquaintance of mine said recently (about atheists talking about atheism): "The external thrust really should be about what atheism means in society and how one can offer and receive respect from the world at large who have not reached the same conclusions..."
Then notes: "...but at least to my experience, it really is all about the superstitious monkeys, and at it's most generous it condescends to assume that people with faith just don't get it."
And he is sadly correct.
Perhaps some of you know what Othering is?
A whole lot of it happens in the atheist community -- and yes, a whole lot happens in Christian communities too, no doubt; it is standard fare there as well, as elsewhere -- but Othering doesn't serve the agenda of any social rights group except to demonize outsiders or "the opposition": it is a classic rhetorical trick to help build up a sense of internal cohesion in a group.
Groups are usually absolutely blind to the Othering they engage in, and usually defend it strenuously as necessary or right for various reasons, when what they are doing on an unconscious level is defending the group cohesion and self-view the Othering process helps create.
This latter bit is also what leads to the claim that those who call the group on their uncivil behavior are just trying to silence them (rather than defend themselves from hate-rhetoric) -- and while that is sometimes the case, check yourself and see if you are: how would you sound to yourself if you were on their side? Have you used perjoratives, insults, stereotypes, no matter how strongly you think them to be true?
See it in action: go talk to a group of vocal fundamentalist Christians, as an atheist, and try to point their behaviors out to them: how they talk about and treat atheists (or any non-Christian). Watch the defense and denial of such behavior flow forth, the claims about "what you're really trying to do" with such -- then realize as well that trying to do it as a member of the group will also get you branded a traitor.
You'll have a great snapshot of the psychology underlying this at work.
Ultimately, if a group isn't going to act any different than their oppressors, they should not expect anyone to consider them any differently from such. And they won't.
I see variations on the "but he hit me first" and "but he stuck his tongue out at me" defense my kids use when they fight...because you can't be an adult when someone else is being an ass?
then you are projecting from experience with your kids, because that's simply not the case.
Moreover, you STILL haven't answered the question:
if a null response was the best defense against creobots, then why didn't it work?
Othering would be a legit argument... if both sides had legitimate points, but you KNOW that isn't true when it comes to the "challenges" creationists bring to the table.
you sound more and more like someone who has overthought the issue.
This latter bit is also what leads to the claim that those who call the group on their uncivil behavior are just trying to silence them (rather than defend themselves from hate-rhetoric)
no... THAT is the rhetorical tactic. scientists certainly don't claim creobots are trying to silence them in church now, do they. Rather it's ALWAYS the creobots who claim to be silenced. It's nonsense, and you damn well know it.
your whole argument reeks of trying to force balance where there is none.
I would highly suggest you take a step back and rethink the value of your argument, and whether it is even based in reality.
for example:
Ultimately, if a group isn't going to act any different than their oppressors, they should not expect anyone to consider them any differently from such. And they won't.
and who, in reality, is being "opressed"?
you keep presenting your argument as if both sides were arguing tangents to the same thing, and if we all just sat down and "listened" we'd be able to work things out, when in reality, it's nothing like that at all.
I suggest, for your learning pleasure, you try reading this thread to get a better understanding of how the fundy represents his position, and why your argument falls flat:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=45a47203…
TomDunlap et al: It is important to also realize that many social factors influence the popularity of religion (and other superstitions). For example, people are more religious where there is more poverty and the like. Religion's critics would be well advised to consider what Marx said here. Not all believers use religion as a opiate, but many do, and in order to reduce the influence religion has on folks one has to work to better other aspects of their lives, besides just their thinking processes. (Being hungry, or subject to exploitation, etc. does literally affect how one thinks, after all.)
Bro. Bartleby: As has been told to you repeatedly, what good is replacing one totalitarian system with another?
JJR: You really shouldn't say you agree with someone 100%. People hear me criticize other philosophers and ask "who DO you agree with?" and I reply, "well, sometimes myself, but not even then always!"
I guess you didn't actually live in the 60's then.
Oh yes, it does work, from time to time.
You're right. I didn't live in the sixties. So what did pacifistic mass mobilization accomplish in the sixties, besides Woodstock?
It's the pacifism which I've been addressing. In my opinion, civil rights wouldn't have gotten nearly as far without Malcolm X and the original Panthers, nor would the cause of Indian nationalism gotten anywhere without Bhagat Singh and his fellow militant opponents of British colonialism.
Peter Gelderloos has gone into many more historical examples of the above in his book How Nonviolence Protects the State. I highly recommend it.
It would be much more interesting to discuss Orr's takedown of Dawkins' book (in the NY Review of Books, linked in the Huffpo column), than the one written by this lightweight Eskow.
Already taken care of:
PZ Myers
Jason Rosenhouse
Sorry.
Jason Rosenhouse
That's what I get for not hitting "Preview".
So what did pacifistic mass mobilization accomplish in the sixties, besides Woodstock?
I think you could probably answer that question with just a little bit of research, if you wanted to.
heck, far be it from me to stop you from pretending you have no chance, however.
I think you could probably answer that question with just a little bit of research, if you wanted to.
I already have, and haven't found any times when unalloyed pacifism has accomplished anything productive from the perspective of those opposed to the state. It's accomplished a lot from the perspective of giving states and large corporations a monopoly on violence, but I'm not on that side.
heck, far be it from me to stop you from pretending you have no chance, however.
I don't think I have no chance, but then I'm not ideologically nor practically committed to pacifism either.
Actually, the men most reponsible for promoting terrorism as a political weapon in modern times were the atheists Bakunin and Lenin.
And yes, they took many of their actins BECAUSE of their atheism. They saw ridding the world of religion as the key solution to ending the class struggle.
You know, dialectical materialism and all that cirucular argument straw man stuff.
Besides the fact that Eskow disqualified himself from criticizing, he has one point; the claims about religions (sometimes rather selfevident) harmful effects should always be scrutinized and backed up.
But for the rest he is awfully off, making such observational claims a definition of fundamentalism, or providing a list with inconsequential details of a larger and easy to access phenomena. Most off is he when he claims all vocal atheists haven't experienced religion. Dawkins is of course one prime example against.
As noted, Eskow isn't qualified to judge the finer points of atheism. :-)
That is a natural result of the polarizing that religious and chamberlain groups initiated instead of engaging in a serious discussion. But the quality (read: near non-existence) of their arguments, especially the misrepresentation of Dawkins and both open and assertive atheism, is also provoking. So I don't think you are alone in this feeling.
Prove that. :-)
But it is not only a jest. Science doesn't let us know a priori what we can or can't know. And if it happens that we can show that all interventionist god concepts doesn't work, the non-interventionist gods are gone as well reasonably being limits of these imagined disappearing interactions, simply occam in another and stronger setting. (Gods-in-gaps has always been it's own worst enemy. Really.) Then claiming otherwise would lack a model as basis.
But disregarding those nitpicks that is not what is claimed here. It is simply that gods are improbable. Not from an exact probability, but observing that lack of evidence, lack of consistence, all other religions, existence of natural answers makes any god not probable. Gods is a concept that can be debunked. (Debunk that! :-)
"it's own worst enemy" - been its own worst enemy. Bad spelling has also always been its own worst enemy.
And where exactly is the difference between "religion" and "ideology"? "Scientific socialism" my ass.
-----------------
Daryl McCullough has correctly predicted the current state of Europe.
Warren, thanks for the information on Zen and Japanese imperialism. I had no idea...
Most kinds of it.
That's where it comes from. It does contain all manner of supernatural entities, though; just none of them is considered a person.
Then what is it that gets reborn or enters Nirvana? ~:-|