Speaking out is the new zealotry

Brooker's review made me laugh out loud - he is a great writer. Maybe I'll start leaving smocks and turnips on the doorsteps of neighborhood fundies...

Beautiful baby!

So, all people who pray are undifferentially idiots and cretins deserving of contemptuous mockery? And that isn't "imagined religious others"?

Lynch reminds me of a 2-year-old who, observing a cow for the first time, points and says "Doggie!"

Apparently, huge differences escape him. If the two things under study are in ANY way similar, they must be the same.

Atheists = evangelicals. Yeah, right.

The next time someone tells me unbelief is a religion, I want a tax-free house to live in. A big one, with a steeple and loud bells, and a large hall where I can preach my message. Maybe a few statues of Dawkins and Darwin that, once a year on Easter Sunday, weep real tears.

Atheists go to the toilet
evangelists go to the toilet
therefore atheism equals evangelism.
Sounds like a shitty argument to me

The Guardian, like Salon and probably every other news-site likes to run continual pro-religion/atheist opinion pieces. It never fails to generate 100's of comments and lots of page-clicks.

I'm not sure that we're not just playing into their little game by joining in. We're in no danger of running out of these pieces anytime soon.

"So, all people who pray are undifferentially idiots and cretins deserving of contemptuous mockery?"

Nope. All people who pray are engaging in an undifferentially idiotic activity and said activity is deserving of contemptuous mockery. If people take it personally, that's not my problem.

What does two plus two equal? Let's take the "twos" from the tenets of this kind of discourse:

First "two": "Religion should be respected and never mocked or questioned. That is hateful."

Second "two": "Atheism is a religion."

So, two plus two equals... er... Well, anything but four, it seems.

You've really touched a nerve PZ. I used to just let it pass when (intelligent) friends opined, "Well, atheism is just another religion." Or worse, to me, "Well, SCIENCE is just another religion." I don't let the comments pass now--I'm always like, "Oh, do tell!" Which inevitably trips them up. And annoys them. But makes the bastards at least think.

Though I worry what with this and slamming urban legends, I'm probably becoming the World's Most Annoying Friend. Ah well. I guess I can blame a crazy science professor in Minnesota now, hahaha....

Especially when the only "harm" they manage to document is that atheists are mobilizing to make their message heard using modern media.

Mobilizing and making the message of atheism heard in the media isn't the harm he's referring to. Remember, it's assumed (presumably on "faith") that more wide-spread atheism will lead to direct physical harm.

Unfortunately there are people who really seem to want to encourage the idea that atheism is a religion. The other day some friends were telling me about some guys that dress up just like mormons and go door to door telling people about Darwin. While i do find that sorta funny i just kept thinking "great, more excuses to compare us to some religious group".

Tyler:

All people who pray are engaging in an undifferentially idiotic activity and said activity is deserving of contemptuous mockery.

Quite separate and apart from the truth of that claim, that defense of Brooker's screed doesn't fly unless you disassociate yourself from the claim that the people who pray are all idiots and cretins, not just people who are engaged in idiotic activity. The problem Lynch was pointing to (although I thought he overstated it -- perhaps not as much as I would have liked) is that this is in group/out group formation that bears little relationship to the parties who are shoved into those groups.

If people take it personally, that's not my problem.

So, why should it be any problem when the religious people do the same thing to atheists? ... other than that they greatly outnumber atheists, that is?

The first quote could be read as a compliment: "the atheist minority is getting media-savvy in spreading their message. Kudos." Until you get to the false equivalency part.

"Quite separate and apart from the truth of that claim, that defense of Brooker's screed doesn't fly unless you disassociate yourself from the claim that the people who pray are all idiots and cretins, not just people who are engaged in idiotic activity."

I don't feel particularly compelled to defend Brooker's claims in his review. I was only stating my own opinion on the matter. For the record, I think his claim is way overblown and a bit naive. Stupid things aren't only done by slavering idiots, they are often done by smart, intelligent and educated people. Minimizing that fact only distracts from the severity of the situation regarding religion and New Age woo-woo.

"So, why should it be any problem when the religious people do the same thing to atheists? ... other than that they greatly outnumber atheists, that is?"

Because when religious people do the same thing to atheists they are making a claim that is either demonstrably false (atheists can't be moral) or completely unevidenced (atheists really just hate god(s). The problem is that prayer doesn't work, or at least is not any more likely to work than rain dances or healing with crystals.

oh yeah, fundies and atheists both eat and shit, too. Let's not forget these important similiarities.

Brooker's piece is, of course, humour.

What does two plus two equal? Let's take a couple of "twos" from this kind of discourse.

First "two": "All religions deserve respect and shouldn't be questioned or mocked, as this is hateful."

Second "two": "Atheism is a religion."

So, two plus two equals... er... Anything but four, it seems.

(My comments keep getting lost. If this one appears more than once, I apologize.)

Tyler:

Because when religious people do the same thing to atheists they are making a claim that is either demonstrably false (atheists can't be moral) or completely unevidenced (atheists really just hate god(s).

Which is, as I think you agree, no more demonstrably false than Brooker's claim (and PZ's endorsement of it) about the religious all being idiots. Which was the point I think Lynch was trying to make. There is a tendency to adopt extreme positions in response to perceived threats -- the more extreme the threat, the more extreme the response. But if atheists want to claim the high ground of reason and intelligence, that all the more reason they should resist the temptation.

Society is falling apart and i'ts our fault!

One more person trying to squash atheism just as it begins to make headway in the culture.

Booooo!

Thank God (pun intended) for YouTube! Without it, most of us would never be able to see shows like this. Hopefully networks in the US will wake up to the fact that there is a market for these type of shows.

Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com

Maybe you've put your faith in spiritual claptrap because our random, narrative-free universe terrifies you. But that's no solution. If you want comforting, suck your thumb. Buy a pillow. Don't make up a load of floaty blah about energy or destiny. This is the real world, stupid. We should be solving problems, not sticking our fingers in our ears and singing about fairies.

That is awesome. I like this guy.

Is it worth considering that quotes of someone instructing people who use language you don't like to maim themselves contributes to people thinking that hardcore atheists are problematic somehow?

I've described myself as "spiritual but opposed to organized religion" and things like that. If anyone thinks that means I deserve self-inflicted mayhem, my reaction is to think that that person is an opinionated prick, whether they're an evangelical christian or a sarcastic atheist biologist.

The fact that I'm reluctant to even post this lest I get flamed is, perhaps, indicative of why there are some reasonable moderate potential allies who think the PZ/Dawkins/Harris fan clubs act just as much like a high-school clique as the evangelicals do...

I don't particularly want to start a flamewar or defend why I've described myself as "spiritual", nor do I actually give an expletive if Charlie Brooker wants me to beat on myself. My only point in this is that a "yer either with us or agin us" attitude tends to rally the close-minded at the expense of alienating the sympathetic.

The critical part of the Brooker review that everyone seems to be missing is this one:

Dawkins has softened his style somewhat since his previous series, The Root of All Evil, in which he toured the globe interviewing religious extremists. Trouble was, their views made him so uppity, he occasionally came off worst. They remained eerily calm, while he huffed furiously. And because he looks and sounds precisely like Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss, the end effect was often unintentional hilarity.

In The Enemies of Reason he's still angry - how couldn't he be? - but this time round Dawkins controls his temper, focusing it like a laser beam, taking on spirituality and superstition in all its forms. The overall tone is less hectoring, more persuasive, and occasionally outright playful. It's more likely to win people over.

I don't know who Yaffle from Bagpuss is, but it sure seems like Brooker is not being particularly deferential to Dawkins. The fact that the new series has less vitriol and takes a more measured tone seems to have been completely lost on Lynch, who like many religious people probably reacts to any level of skepticism as hateful personal attacks.

I would love to see a show that puts religion on the same footing as astrology or aura reading.

Dr. David Carlin (no relation to George, I presume) of the Community College of Rhode Island published an article this summer on the importance of fighting the rising tide of atheism by raising the level of Catholic education. He was particularly concerned that Dawkins and others had penned bestsellers critical of religious faith. That's unfair, you see. Atheists aren't supposed to attack religion because it's impolite! (How's that for an argument?) It's okay, however, for believers to attack atheism. That, you see, is traditional, so it's all right.

Frankly, I'm all in favor of raising education levels. I don't think the results will be what Carlin is hoping for. On the other hand, perhaps what he really means is raising the level of indoctrination in Catholic schools. That's not the same, is it? [Link]

I think the the take-home here is that atheism has become a subculture. This is pretty clear to anyone who reads Pharyngula very often.

This hasn't much to do with the media used, but rather the fact that atheism has become a cherished identity for some folks, with its own heroes, catch-phrases, rituals yada yada yada. The media is the necessary media through which all this travels, but its the other stuff that really matters.

And--please, everyone, the world does not need another "atheism is not a religion" post--the subculture bears some similarities to Christian believers (and other more philosophically-oriented) subcultures. I think any fair-minded sociologist would look at this site or Dawkins's and observe a community that is driven by issues of identity--who am I? who are the good guys? who is the enemy? who is a concern troll? how do we expose and discredit the heretics?--not one driven by, say, a love of ideas.

This happens in all kinds of online communities--music sites, political sites, what have you. But it's rather more a shame to see it happen on sites that could be having a greater effect on some important social and cultural issues.

Cultural studies programs were completely fascinated by subcultures for a while. Lots of good reading out there on the phenomenon. However, what a subculture is and how they work aren't very easy to convey in the context of a tv-series review, hence the vague reference to media-saviness. I'd imagine a sociologist of religion would know better.

But the general point is worth thinking about.

The fact that the new series has less vitriol and takes a more measured tone seems to have been completely lost on Lynch, who like many religious people probably reacts to any level of skepticism as hateful personal attacks.

I'm sorry, how do we know Lynch is religious?

link

Yes? And this is news?

It is entirely true that some of us are trying to build a somewhat more institutionalized framework for atheism (but even there, we're dealing with a very independent population, and we know it). Dawkins himself says it in The God Delusion, where he notes that we are a significant minority that ought to have a little more political influence than we currently do.

It's a long way from that to claiming that atheism is a religion driven by hate, however.

Monty,
You are certainly entitled to have your own thoughts and opinions concerning spirituality. However, I'll bet the next time you start to describe yourself as "spiritual", you will have second thoughts. And if you're reminded enough times about how anti-intellectual "spirituality" really is, and if you are an intelligent person, you will start to re-think your philosophies. Or not. In which case the world will have gotten dumber by one person.

It's a long way from that to claiming that atheism is a religion driven by hate, however.

It is a long way. But who says "atheism is a religion driven by hate?" I don't think Lynch says that does he? he mentions the importance of hatred as an important motivating force in the recent surge of atheism. Hatred is central to a lot of subcultures, and Lynch doesn't seem altogether convinced that he ought to worry about it in the case of atheists.

"It is a long way. But who says "atheism is a religion driven by hate?" I don't think Lynch says that does he? he mentions the importance of hatred as an important motivating force in the recent surge of atheism."

So in other words, he says atheism is driven by hate, but doesn't really. Or something. I dunno.

POMO lit crit at it's finest, apparently.

BTW: it is NOT a good sign for the future of atheism's political influence that it is beginning to look a lot like a subculture. Very much the opposite.

The culture identities that coalesce into subcultures tend to be hopelessly and/or voluntarily disenfranchised. Subculture is more or less a creative voluntary exile from mainstream politics.

[I'm being pretty fast and loose here, so someone will no doubt produce a counter example presently.]

Bagpuss and Professor Yaffle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70kUVZWokm4

The same animator did the Clangers, and there is serious animation addiction there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HArUmqqiL0s

You have been warned.

"It is a long way. But who says "atheism is a religion driven by hate?" I don't think Lynch says that does he? he mentions the importance of hatred as an important motivating force in the recent surge of atheism."

Yes, Tyler, it must be either black or white. No nuance or subtlety of meaning permitted. No need for precision: With us or against us.

Were you raised in a evangelical household?

"Yes, Tyler, it must be either black or white. No nuance or subtlety of meaning permitted. No need for precision: With us or against us."

Give me a break. The only feasible difference between "Atheism is a religion driven by hate" and "hate is an important motivating factor in the upsurge of atheism" is the "religion" detail. The "hate" detail is clearly the more important one, and one which Lynch clearly emphasizes. Your Clintonian hair-splitting notwithstanding.

"Were you raised in a evangelical household?"

Nope, I was raised completely areligiously. Nice cheap shot, though.

Tyler, btw the distinction would be between saying "atheism is a religion driven by hatred" and saying atheism is "an identity" for which hatred of believers is troublingly important.

The second statement does not imply that hatred is the be-all and end-all of atheism, or that the acting on that hatred is the point of atheism, as the first statement seems to imply.

Lynch is clearly criticizing atheists. But what he says doesn't boil down into PZ's dramatic phrase very easily. If you can't see this distinction, I think you become exhibit one in Lynch's case against the new atheist subculture.

hate is an important motivating factor in the upsurge of atheism

Tyler, that's my paraphrase. I'd suggest you read Lynch's review before defending PZ's interpretation of it.

"The second statement does not imply that hatred is the be-all and end-all of atheism, or that the acting on that hatred is the point of atheism, as the first statement seems to imply."

Nor can such plausibly be stated about evangelicalism, so what's the point? Lynch is attempting to render an equivalence between atheism and evangelicalism. Saying "yes, there's more to it than hate" doesn't absolve him of that.

"I'd suggest you read Lynch's review before defending PZ's interpretation of it."

PZ's interpretation of it is spot on, unless of course you consider flailing about the "cohesion of our societies" something outside of a clear implication that those hateful, spiteful atheists are a threat to it.

Thank you (I think) for that clip, Lunar. I hate to say it, but Brooker's Yaffle comparison was, as Dawkins himself might put it, spot-on: "This is a serious question!" Now I want to see a animated animal version of Hitchens, perhaps as a disgruntled teddy bear.

Lynch is attempting to render an equivalence between atheism and evangelicalism.

He compares certain evangelical subcultures and a certain brand of atheism--not atheism as a whole. Mutual hatred is important to them both.

This, by the way, is not hair-splitting. This is called the life of the mind. If reading carefully, thinking and making fine distinctions doesn't suit you, you should consider something more along your lines. Perhaps a position in the Bush administration. They have a quite similar impatience with nuance and preciseness.

"He compares certain evangelical subcultures and a certain brand of atheism--not atheism as a whole. Mutual hatred is important to them both."

So a generally adversarial relationship is enough to impugn someone or class of someones for their "hatred"? If so, this principle extends farther than you probably want it to. How about all the mainstream liberal blogs and discussion fora where conservatives are routinely decried as "wingnuts" and Christian fundamentalists as "godbags" or "fundies"? Should we also flail about their threat to the "cohesion of our societies"? Lynch is only unfairly denigrating atheists for doing something many cultural minorities (e.g., feminists, gays, etc.) have done before.

PZ says :
"Dawkins himself says it in The God Delusion, where he notes that we are a significant minority that ought to have a little more political influence than we currently do."

Well, in the USA especially, what's needed is for Science to have more political influence.

I would prefer if neither Atheists nor Theists had any influence whatsoever.

The question for me is wether the current method employed by PZ/Dawkins/Harris is helping the cause of science.

It's not so clear anymore.

I wanted to thank you for expressing articulately things that I would have liked to say as well. Generally speaking, I mean.

With respect to the sub-culture aspects of atheism brought up by Oran, I've been an atheist (but humanist) since primary school, and I have not to date felt a part of a sub-culture in this respect. It is a welcome relief to land among a group of people who are not trying to proselytize, but I generally find sufficient differences in belief systems to not want to band together simply on the basis of what we commonly *don't* believe in.

For one thing, I certainly don't hate people for whom religion is an important part of their lives. I am good friends with another atheist who is much more disparaging (more in line with Dawkins), but I don't see the point in trying to shake people out of their superstitions unless they have made it clear they are open to learning another way. On a smaller level, just try it with someone who is convinced that trace homeopathic levels of arsenic represent effective medicine. Or that vast quantities of vitamin C are beneficial (that was, by the way, my "rabid" atheist friend). Conversion by force doesn't work. We are all subject to our share of superstitions, and the only way to avoid it is to keep one's eyes open.

Know thyself. I refuse to leave that wisdom only to the believers in God.

Compare, for example, Richard Dawkins and his bestselling book The God Delusion with the celebrity Evangelical pastor Rick Warren, whose book The Purpose-Driven Life has sold nearly 25m copies.

Yes, lets.

On one hand, you have a guy claiming to have the secrets to happiness and such, and all you need to do is follow these instructions. On the other hand, you have a guy saying "Boy, do these people who claim to have all the answers talk a bunch of shite or what?"

Yeah, that's exactly the same thing.

In both instances, their books take on a greater cultural significance than simply being texts that transmit particular ideas and arguments: they become symbols of particular cultural identities, beliefs and lifestyles;

A situation that has nothing to do with the media constantly acting like "The God Delusion" is the atheist Torah. No siree, that happened all by itself. 'Twas like that when I got here, honest.

The high public profile (and sales) of recent books by Dawkins, Richard Dennett, AC Grayling, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens suggests growing numbers of people may be being drawn to identifying themselves in opposition to religion.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Atheist != Anti-theist. All that being an atheist tells you about someone is what they don't believe in. Nothing more.

Dawkins's declared interest in making atheism more publicly acceptable - exemplified by the sale of 'A for atheism' T-shirts on his website - demonstrates that this phenomenon is not simply about philosophical debates concerning the existence of God.

Yes, it's also about making it OK to be publicly Atheist without being subject to discrimination.

This emerging atheist movement may have some way to go before it matches the social and cultural influence of evangelicalism, though: it lacks the social networks that evangelicalism has in congregations and other special-interest organisations (including missionary organisations and NGO's); it lacks the regular rituals and special festivals at which evangelicals gather to rehearse their faith and identity; and it lacks the popular resources of evangelicalism (including the oft-derided practices of contemporary evangelical worship), which offer a powerful cultural technology for shaping mind, body and emotion in line with evangelical perspectives.

But aside from all those differences, it's exactly the same. Kinda sorta.

Why "denigrating"?

If, as you say, there's nothing particularly special about what he is observing about (certain) atheists, why the acute sensitivity?

If so, this principle extends farther than you probably want it to. How about all the mainstream liberal blogs and discussion fora where conservatives are routinely decried as "wingnuts" and Christian fundamentalists as "godbags" or "fundies"? Should we also flail about their threat to the "cohesion of our societies"?

And as to Lynch's concern about the mutual hostility (flailing in your terminology) that's nothing special either: There's been reams and reams written on the red/blue split and how deep it is and whatever it may mean.

Is it handwringing? Maybe, but still the interesting point is, there is a developing atheist subculture.

Is this news? No, I and others were bitching about it in these pages a few weeks ago when we had the t-shirt discussion.

The activism that comes out of the subculture is cool: it helps turn over the engine. But where is the mainstream of the movement? I think it ought to be somebody like Dawkins (handsome, accomplished, articulate, on many other topics able to be reasonable and unpetty), but now he's willingly become the center for a personality subcult.

Which makes me suspect that the problem here is that the only atheists who can really be organized into the current "atheist movement" are folks who want a subcultural identity--those who like being the voices crying out in the wilderness--not those who truly care about influencing and participating in society at large.

In an effort to nitpick and derail the comments I would like to make a note of this line:
"Not also how we're going to label Islam, Dominionists, Fundamentalists, Christian Separatists, hardline Zionists, and all the other flavors of fanatical religion: "alternative spiritualities"."

Now, why does Judeaism and Christianity get the luxury of being only having its most radical elements highlighted while Islam gets a blanket "fanatical" around its name. Not all (not even a majority) of Islam is "fanatical" by any means. So what gives?

Where for the love of Pete is this "personality subcult" centering around Dawkins? There may be a few folks around who sort of could be described as "worshipping" him, but I've never met any, and couldn't name any if you threatened to waterboard me.

If there are such people, all it proves is that any group of human beings is likely to have at least a few members who are a little unbalanced, and no one would deny that some atheists fit that description. You could say the same thing about chess players or stamp collectors or drivers of Chevrolets. Are they a threat to civilization?

People who worry about the "threat of organized atheism" are nothing more than the same old crowd who subscribe to the notions that atheism destroys morality (because of course only believers in God--insert the name of your favorite god here--can be moral). How many times do we have to shoot that tired old clay pidgeon down?

And by the way, pointing with pride to the fact that not all atheists are perfect rational philosophers doesn't mean anything anyway. Who ever expected them to be? Is atheism a club that only pipe-smoking, tweed-jacket-with-elbow-patches Ph. D.s can join? Of course some atheists will get rowdy and throw some undisciplined language around now and then. That's because they have strong, passionate beliefs. Does that make theism true?

Oran Kelley said:

And--please, everyone, the world does not need another "atheism is not a religion" post--the subculture bears some similarities to Christian believers (and other more philosophically-oriented) subcultures.

Just because it looks like a religion, doesn't mean it is one. (Just because something looks designed, doesn't mean it was designed.)

But it's a good point - a lot of what goes on at RD.net appears to be like-minded people reinforcing each other's ideas and condemning those in the out-group. Not that anything can be done about it, I fear; it's what people do.

Any crowd of people can be compared to any other crowd of people, but to paraphrase one of the commenters from an earlier post: Saying atheists are a religious group is like saying people who don't believe in astrology are a religious group.

But Atheists can be brought together: Atheists who really doesn't want to get blown up in some myth-fabricated Armageddon; atheists who are getting really tired of seeing science textbooks sabotaged with religious mythology; the kind who are seeing the country being railroaded towards a theocracy.

The so called "New Atheists" aren't necessarily banding together merely to clamor and harangue the superstitious, or be groupies to anybody, we are being forced to unite--usually reluctantly--because expediency demands that some action be taken against irrationalism in a crowded world, and a united front is generally more productive.

Getting a bunch of free thinkers into a cohesive unit is problematical but the fact that it is slowly happening does not presuppose that we are driven by the same mindset as that which we criticize.

PZ, any chance you can put a word in with Richard to have his series made available on iTunes?

>So, all people who pray are undifferentially
>idiots and cretins deserving of contemptuous mockery?

Pretty much, yep. Unless they're talking to imaginary people because they have some kind of neurological disorder or are schizophrenic -- in which case it's not a "lifestyle choice" -- it's a disease and they deserve pity.

mjr.

The word "hate" has been appropriated by Christians, including Lynch and Tyler, to mean "heresy" which in the 21st century they apparently can no longer say in public with a straight face.

If you use that translation it all makes a twisted sort of sense.

"You'll burn in hell for eternity" isn't really hateful, see? But gently and rationally explaining that God is a delusion is.

Where for the love of Pete is this "personality subcult" centering around Dawkins? There may be a few folks around who sort of could be described as "worshipping" him, but I've never met any, and couldn't name any if you threatened to waterboard me.

I could be wrong about this--it's a feeling I pick up from Dawkins's site and the discussion that goes on there; and from the folks who will brook no criticism whatsoever of The God Delusion; and the speculative answers I get when I try to puzzle out the general line of rhetoric and posturing taken up by Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker. There is a strong whiff of pandering to the undergraduates about it. Looking for that love.

I can't recall meeting any Dawkins worshipers, either. But I'm kinda ornery.

You could say the same thing about chess players or stamp collectors or drivers of Chevrolets. Are they a threat to civilization?

Well the difference would be that the vast majority of people don't give a damn about stamps or about whether Calvin is pissing on a Chevy logo or a Ford. Religion, on the other hand, can be a fighting matter for a lot of people. So it would seem more reasonable to wonder about divisiveness and hatred around this topic. As Dawkins hardly ever tires of pointing out, wars have been fought over religion. But if you were to say: Lynch is overblowing this threat, I wouldn't argue with you about it. I'm just saying it's not completely unreasonable to express concern.

People who worry about the "threat of organized atheism" are nothing more than the same old crowd who subscribe to the notions that atheism destroys morality (because of course only believers in God--insert the name of your favorite god here--can be moral). How many times do we have to shoot that tired old clay pidgeon down?

If you think giving some examples of atheists who were fine fellows or of more-or-less post-Christian societies that seem to be holding together alright at the moment as shooting the pigeon down, then you'll be shooting quite a bit more. The point isn't that "only believers in God--insert the name of your favorite god here--can be moral" and until you understand that, you're not addressing the issue.

The question is "What makes for a stable and well-accepted moral system in a society over a long period of time? How do you generate the sort of social consensus that makes such a thing possible? How do you preserve that consensus?" Personally, I do not believe that religion is necessary for such a consensus to exist, but to claim, as so many atheist activist seem to, that religion has no and never has had any role in establishing and preserving moral order is . . . curiously incurious. I think an honest effort should be made to hash out those questions.

Does that make theism true?

Who is saying theism is true? The way the existence/non-existence of God crops up in inappropriate places, it is sometimes hard to believe that some atheists aren't hearing voices.

As I've said before, why are people so worried about a bit of cultural and political organisation?

This claim that any degree of organisation makes you like a religion is absurd. Religion at its heart is about belief in one or more supernatural beings or principles, and about organising your life around that belief (complete with a detailed moral code, etc.).

What makes the organisation of religion so dangerous, at least when religion takes any but the most benign and moderate form, is that it gives power to an irrational and potentially totalitarian belief system. Often the moral code associated with that system is miserable and puritanical. What's more, religionists typically want to impose it on others.

If science fiction readers, or opera lovers, or metal fans organise, there is no such danger - it's just fun. If a bunch of rationalists organise, it's positively beneficial. What matters isn't that there is some organisation. What matters is the value of the ideas around which the organisation takes place.

"If, as you say, there's nothing particularly special about what he is observing about (certain) atheists, why the acute sensitivity?"

I really hope this was a bad attempt at humor and not a serious argument. The article above targets atheists for doing something completely ordinary in American cultural life. In fact, multiple things: seeking out like-minded people, expressing discontent with the prevalence of certain cultural presumptions, and adopting public faces as representative of their movement. Feminists don't threaten "the cohesion of our society", gays don't threaten the "cohesion of our society". But for some reason, in the mind of Lynch and his ilk, atheists are a special threat.

In case my conclusion isn't clear: we're not, he's full of shit, and his piece tells us more about his own prejudices than any real or even potential cultural trend.

"The question is "What makes for a stable and well-accepted moral system in a society over a long period of time? How do you generate the sort of social consensus that makes such a thing possible? How do you preserve that consensus?"

Why do you even want to preserve the consensus? If we preserved the consensus on morality we'd likely still consider women property and darker skinned people inferior, as well as both unfit to legally entitled to vote.

Morals are the way they are primarily because reasoned away the received moral "truths" that were inculcated over generations by religion. Moral reasoning and conversation, along with a healthy helping of natural empathy and compassion, are thus a much better way of establishing a moral consensus than relying on static theological systems.

On atheism as elitism.

For starters I'd say that atheists are a sort of elite. No, you don't need leather elbow patches, but I think we should be able to operate with the assumption that the bulk of us are fairly clever people.

I don't think that by playing our worst motives--tribalism, essentially--that anything is gained either for us or for society at large.

Somebody like Dawkins should have written a book on religion and irreligion that could have stood proudly next to The Selfish Gene. Instead he writes a shallow book where he often comes across as a hateful, showboating boor.

I really don't think good scholarship and eyes-open politics is too much to ask for. I don't think appealing to the best in us, not the worst, is too much to ask for.

Brooker's piece seems to indicate that Dawkins may be trying to do a little more. I look forward to seeing the series myself.

Oran Kelley finally got to the point with:

"Which makes me suspect that the problem here is that the only atheists who can really be organized into the current "atheist movement" are folks who want a subcultural identity--those who like being the voices crying out in the wilderness--not those who truly care about influencing and participating in society at large."

Thank you for finally revealing the fullness of your socio-bullshit.

Wow! After spending years of my adult life voting, talking issues with people, reading new books and seeking out new ideas while advocating the ones I agreed with, disbelieving in god and the usefulness of religion the whole time while still living in reasonable harmony among the religious, after all that, it certainly comes as a surprise to find out that I don't exist!

The really sad thing is that Professor Lynch peddles this rubbish as being the sociology of religion. So for all those that were trying hard to change public opinion about sociology not being a pseudo-science, well I'm afraid you'll have to start over.

Feminists don't threaten "the cohesion of our society", gays don't threaten the "cohesion of our society". But for some reason, in the mind of Lynch and his ilk, atheists are a special threat.

Both feminism and the gay liberation movement were big, multifaceted movements with huge differences in strategies and tactics. Using them as examples is meaningless in this context: Lynch identifies a pretty particular stream of atheism, you speak in airy generalities about "feminism."

And did feminism, say, threaten the cohesion of our society? I think a fair number of feminists would answer "Yes, when done properly." I know some gay activists who would also answer yes to that question. But it doesn't matter anyhow, because we're not talking about feminism or gay activism.

If you read closely Lynch says the mutual hatred between evangelicals and atheists threatens cohesion:

. . . so future conflict between militant atheists and religious conservatives may have the rest of us ducking in the crossfire. In this sense, while Dawkins's intentions are doubtless well meant, the rise of the atheist movement he symbolises could do more than the alternative spiritualities he disparages to threaten the fragile cohesion of our societies.

So he's not targeting atheists, he's playing with a nightmare scenario in which the conflict between believers and anti-believers becomes socially disruptive. Personally, I think he overstates things, and that the offense you are taking (or pretending to take) at this is pretty absurd.

Lynch's "special threat" is conflict over religion. The same special threat that Dawkins goes on for pages and pages about. I think they're both wrong. I also think there's mor ehere than the last couple of paragraphs.

Wow! After spending years of my adult life voting, talking issues with people, reading new books and seeking out new ideas while advocating the ones I agreed with, disbelieving in god and the usefulness of religion the whole time while still living in reasonable harmony among the religious, after all that, it certainly comes as a surprise to find out that I don't exist!

Well so far, you show little evidence of thinking, so from a Cartesian point of view, I'd say your existence is still open to question.

Why do you even want to preserve the consensus? If we preserved the consensus on morality we'd likely still consider women property and darker skinned people inferior, as well as both unfit to legally entitled to vote.

Consensus doesn't mean stasis. All the changes you indicate were arrived at through consensus building.

If there is not a consensus, say, that greenish slips of paper with the Secretary of Treasury's signature are worth something, the monetary system collapses.

If there is not a general consensus that certain things should not be done and certain obligations must be fulfilled, even if there is no one present forcing one to comply, then the social order begins to break down. Agreeing with/to these strictures and feeling that the majority of your compatriots also agree with/to them is essential for a society/societies like the West's to operate.

How that consensus gets made and what religion may have to do with it is the issue--the issue to be addressed whether or not you agree with Lynch's perception of risk.

"Both feminism and the gay liberation movement were big, multifaceted movements with huge differences in strategies and tactics. Using them as examples is meaningless in this context: Lynch identifies a pretty particular stream of atheism, you speak in airy generalities about "feminism."

Lynch's "stream of atheism" is an imaginary boogeyman that atheist detractors seem to have garnered a certain fondness for. Speaking of "airy generalities", neither you nor Lynch have yet given us any concrete example of the mindless zealotry, tribalism and hatred you've been accusing us of over and over again.

"And did feminism, say, threaten the cohesion of our society? I think a fair number of feminists would answer "Yes, when done properly." I know some gay activists who would also answer yes to that question."

And I'm willing to bet that was a facetious way of saying that they were dislodging certain cultural presumptions that permeated their societies, making this completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

"But it doesn't matter anyhow, because we're not talking about feminism or gay activism."

LOL. So can I now handwave away analogy I don't like by saying "we're not talking about that"? It sure makes things a lot easier.

"If you read closely Lynch says the mutual hatred between evangelicals and atheists threatens cohesion."

And, like you, he's yet to justify his claim that this phenomenon even exists or is the exclusive pedigree of the adversarial relationship between evangelicalism and atheism. Anyone can talk about their "perceptions", backing them up is a whole other (and more difficult) ballgame.

My opinion is all the rhetoric from both sides is harmful. It doesn't bother me if atheists want to find each other and form social groups. Believers and nonbelievers cooperate every day in activities such as fundraisers for the humane society, meals on wheels, Race for the Cure, building habitat homes etc. etc. Hatred of one group for another comes when they are segregated and stereotyped. Playing up what we have in common is more helpful.

And I'm willing to bet that was a facetious way of saying that they were dislodging certain cultural presumptions that permeated their societies, making this completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

You obviously know very little about feminism.

LOL. So can I now handwave away analogy I don't like by saying "we're not talking about that"? It sure makes things a lot easier.

Essentially, you're trying to hide behind well-thought of civil rights movements, much the way evangelicals hide behind them with all of their lawsuits.

As much as you'd like to have the mantle of those earlier movements, you can't have it just by making airy and badly informed comparisons.

Is that easier?

"How that consensus gets made and what religion may have to do with it is the issue--the issue to be addressed whether or not you agree with Lynch's perception of risk."

The consensus is made regardless of religion. Social cohesion can exist in both repressive societies and open societies, and both of those broader categories feature more secular and more religious societies. If someone thinks that religion is required for "social cohesion", they can provide some actual evidence that that's the case. They might find that such evidence conflicts with their imagined version of how this process takes place. Once again, anyone can expound their "perceptions" of something or other, backing them up is what separates truth from self-important wankery.

"You obviously know very little about feminism."

Whatever obscure, contrarian version you're familiar with, perhaps.

"Essentially, you're trying to hide behind well-thought of civil rights movements, much the way evangelicals hide behind them with all of their lawsuits."

And essentially, you're trying to distract from the fact that your ill-informed generalizations about atheism and those who see value in Dawkins lack merit.

Wheeee! This is fun!

Once again, anyone can expound their "perceptions" of something or other, backing them up is what separates truth from self-important wankery.

Well, lay some truth on us! Tell us how you know that consensus formation has nothing to do with religion?

As Lynch points out in another piece on this general topic, there are entire fields of study dedicated to the question of what the function of religion might be. Since you have so little time for self-important wankery, one wonders if you've spend any time reading up on the literature in the sociology or anthropology of religion.

I don't think pointing to the Netherlands cuts much ice in these fields.

Shorter Oran Kelley(and Gordon Lynch): "Those meanie atheists are talking publically about not believing in the sky-father! How heretical!"

Having now read Lynch's short article, I can see where his comments would inflame the hearts of atheists, especially those eager to grapple with the forces of American evangelicalism. But that's just Lynch's point - there seem to be rising numbers of atheists who are not content to be in a rational minority, but want to aggressively take on religiosity. And I think Lynch may be right that it's partly a response to evangelicalism's deep boring into the heartwood of our country, as well as the spontaneous detonation of some forms of Islam around the globe. He does seem to bemoan militant atheism, it's true. But when he simply observes and reports, he seems to be onto something. The backlash against evangelicalism is stronger than anyone would have thought possible a few years ago, especially in a time and nation where strong religious faith is almost synonymous with patriotism. That creates, in Lynch's mind, yet another tiresome split in the fabric of society. We seem today to be a nation of human polaroid, unable to pass any light that doesn't resonate our way. We gather together as far as possible from "the enemy", rally our forces, and come out fighting. It's happening in Washington, in state governments, in churches, and even on Little League fields among parents. For many years, atheists were among the most civil of dissenters, but atheism does seem to have mounted unprecedentedly vigorous attacks of late. To me, this is neither bad nor good, merely inevitable. Rampant evangelicalism must be stopped somehow before it permeates government so thoroughly that we risk becoming Medieval Russia. Milder Christianity has shown no interest in rooting out our own Republican Rasputins, the Democrats have descended into cowardice, and the electorate appears stunned. It appears that few people are willing to denounce faith-based government to its face. Prominent and combative atheists have stepped forward into that breach, which both seems to surprise and dismay Lynch. I'm puzzled as to why he is either.

your ill-informed generalizations about atheism

Can you supply me with a single generalization I've made about atheism? I don't think I've made any.

Disputation can be fun, but it's more fun if you don't try to argue my side for me.

there seem to be rising numbers of atheists who are not content to be in a rational minority, but want to aggressively take on religiosity.

The batshit insane are swarming over the walls of modernity, guns a'blazing, intent on razing civilization and salting the fields. And moderate christianity is smugly standing to the side or silently cheering them on. If you're not willing to at least shout your opposition to the cosmos(to say nothing of marching on Washington or running for office yourself or donating heavily to the ACLU), you're a little bit complicit.

And blah blah blah, some moderate christians feel bad about what the batshit insane are doing with 'their' religion. But they're still babbling nonsense to an imaginary friend. Forgive me if I roll my eyes at their crazy.

Societal reaction to atheism is really fascinating.

Our culture is so brainwashed, so steeped in superstitious cult mentality that the very idea of not being preoccupied with some dominating supernatural figurehead causes panic in people. And most people don't even question it!

When I was growing up, we would chuckle over the false beliefs of the heathen, the Jews, Catholics, etc. but atheists did not inspire humor. Atheists were serious business. Atheists were loathed. Those who believed in false gods were seen as being more normal, more humane and moral than those who believed in "nothing at all." Sure, they were all going to hell, too, but at least they had the humanity to be subservient.

It's mind boggling that people in our culture have been trained to be docile and submissive to invisible beings, and to turn on those who aren't. To live in a world of play pretend and to be suspicious and intolerant of anybody who doesn't!

We're living in a damn insane asylum! And we all suffer for this insanity. We are never going to be allowed to join The Galactic Federation if we keep demonstrating this primitive, backwards behavior!

As a recent arrival to atheism, I have some concerns about the direction of discussion of "what atheists should do".

IF atheists are to claim that the moderate religious somehow enable and legitimize the radical religious, then it is not unreasonable for someone to claim that the moderate atheists somehow enable and legitimize the radical atheists. And if atheists claim that the moderates should make it their business to "reel in" the radicals, then the similar requirement that moderate atheists "reel in" radical atheists is not unreasonable, either.

Now yes, I understand that a radical religious nut will murder abortion providers or small children (if they are possessed) while a radial atheist will, at most, move books in a bookstore or wear a T-shirt with an atheist slogan, but the DEGREE is not the point here.

When I was a believer, I was appalled at the atrocities that people could commit in the name of religion. But frankly, there really is very little I could have done about it; they were, after all, in a DIFFERENT FAITH, than mine. We were the Good Guys; moderate, rational. Now I find myself in the same position with other atheists.

Now I gotta tell you, I have no desire to tell radical atheists what to do. I was under the impression that one basic atheist value was "leave other people alone".

To me, the very nature of atheism does not lend itself to any organizing principle. Many atheists find themselves together in some common cause (defense of secular rights, for example, or defense of science education) but this does not mean they are there BECAUSE of their atheism. It is coincidental, not causal. There are, after all, many believers who also defend secular rights, and many believers who fight for integrity in science education. It disturbs me to see atheists seeking out a logo or a symbol, because it is a manifestation of the same "us-them" crap that gives us religion and other forms of tribalism.

Yes, I know that no one is REQUIRED to wear the symbol. Well, hey, no believer is REQUIRED to wear a crucifix either; it is done voluntarily, to announce your belief to the world. If atheists end up with a successful symbol, it will just give ammo to those who maintain that atheism is just another religion.

I am conflicted about this, and still trying to sort out how to think about it.

On the one hand, it really shouldn't matter to any atheist what another atheist believes or does not believe. If you wish to be a "strong" atheist; one who is confrontational and challenging to religious believers, well good for you. And if you wish to be a "weak" atheist, one who thinks that so long as a religious believer does not proselytize, then that believer should be left alone, well good for you, too.

On the other hand, to me, the single most repulsive human behavior is to insist that other people should "do as I say" - the urge to change others because, well, just because. This behavior is not monopolized by the religious. And it is just as repellent in an atheist as it is in a theist.

Joe the Ordinary Guy,

With regards to the blame game (i.e. moderates are to blame for the fanatics), the moderates are responsible for representing themselves. If the fanatics imply that they are supported by the moderates and the moderates do no object ... then the moderates have behaved irresponsible and should be held accountable.

Based upon your effort in posting, I don't think you qualify as one who remains silent when others speak for you. I wish there were more like you ... and if there were a god, I wish he'd speak for himself and punish those who claim to speak for him.

I realized a better example for my comment (#22) that there may be something to the criticism that the "new atheist's club" comes across as offensive to some:

Sam Harris uses the term spiritual in the last chapter of The End of Faith-- would it be good for atheism for him to hit himself in the throat until his apologist words are silenced? He's such an apologist, after all. Of course, I'm also continually amazed that Gould gets lambasted as an apologist, too, although I admittedly haven't read that Rock of Ages book that Dawkins despises.

Duff says:

Monty,
You are certainly entitled to have your own thoughts and opinions concerning spirituality. However, I'll bet the next time you start to describe yourself as "spiritual", you will have second thoughts. And if you're reminded enough times about how anti-intellectual "spirituality" really is, and if you are an intelligent person, you will start to re-think your philosophies. Or not. In which case the world will have gotten dumber by one person.

as I said, I neither want to defend why I call myself spiritual (and what I mean by that) nor start a flamewar, which limits my responses to this. That said, the notion that anyone who doesn't come around to your point of view will make the world dumber by one person is pretty much guaranteed to offend anyone, and quite likely to move them toward the "a lot of people with that point of view are assholes" camp, I'd think... at least that's the effect it has on me. As it happens, I actually like the "unenlightenment" description in the first paragraph PZ quoted from the Brooker review, so I was on board for a bit, but from about halfway through that paragraph, I got more of a message that he scorns anyone who doesn't buy into some shallow linguistic representation of his worldview, apparently including me... and all I really want to point out is that if that's the impact it has on me, as a largely sympathetic if a bit contrarian atheist-leaning agnostic type, then perhaps it's an example of why atheists are getting a reputation for sounding similar to obnoxious religious zealots. But I could be convinced that I'm an outlying data point... lord knows [sic] I'm weird enough in plenty of other ways...

For what it's worth, I also tend to like Oran's description of atheism, or some subset of it, as a subculture (#25 up there)

"Tell us how you know that consensus formation has nothing to do with religion?"

I would probably be compelled to tell you how if I ever said such a thing. What I said was that consensus is built regardless of whether or not the society is predominantly religious.

"Disputation can be fun, but it's more fun if you don't try to argue my side for me."

I don't doubt that you're having a lot of fun building strawmen of your opponents and blasting away at them. It's tempting to flail imaginary versions of what your opponents say, Oran, but it doesn't really help your case very much.

militant atheists and religious conservatives

As rituals seems to be a vague and long-standing phenomena in social animals, it is probably very hard to distinguish religion. And observationally impossible to distinguish refusal to partake.

But while it has in most cases not been organized, it is likely that individual atheists have been along as long as organized religion. For these reasons it is really twisted to label vocal (mostly unorganized) atheists as "militant" while labeling vocal (mostly organized) theists as "conservative". Depending on issue the shoe is mostly on the other foot.

Oran Kelley:

after all that, it certainly comes as a surprise to find out that I don't exist!

Well so far, you show little evidence of thinking,

It would be interesting to discuss what constitutes a subculture, but it seems that you aren't up to this.

But FWIW I don't think rituals are necessary to define a subculture, since subcultures of gamers et cetera doesn't necessarily have it. (I would argue that the game doesn't constitute a ritual but is a communication over a shared procedure.)

And atheists don't have rituals - in an analogy of gamers, we can't agree on the rules! A subculture is "a set of people with a set of behaviors and beliefs, culture, which could be distinct or hidden, that differentiate them from the larger culture to which they belong".

The problem as always is that atheists are disparate and without a common behavior or belief. Some can't reject religion, some can. Most can tolerate all religions, but so can most religious, and respect is an individual characteristic. There are some common venues and organizations instead, communication but still patchy.

As PZ I think we are trying to build a recognizable framework or organization, but unfortunately there is still a long way to go. And I doubt that framework can ever be recognized as a firm subculture as per the definition above. An interest organization is the extent I can see.

"Can you supply me with a single generalization I've made about atheism? I don't think I've made any."

Okay, I know it's bad netiquette to admit fault in the middle of a flamewar. But I was imprecise in this statement; I should have said "atheists who find value in Dawkins". And if you want an example, here:

"I could be wrong about this--it's a feeling I pick up from Dawkins's site and the discussion that goes on there; and from the folks who will brook no criticism whatsoever of The God Delusion; and the speculative answers I get when I try to puzzle out the general line of rhetoric and posturing taken up by Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker. There is a strong whiff of pandering to the undergraduates about it. Looking for that love."

I've never met any atheist of this variety, especially postulated by the bolded text.

I do think this "moderate religionists enable the fanatics" idea had never been invented. It lacks rigour and creates unnecessary conflicts. I think that pomo-ish secular thinkers do just as much to enable the fanatics.

I have no terrible problem with genuinely moderate religionists. To the extent that I do have a problem with them at all, I also have it with secular thinkers who believe in belief or imagine that faith is a virtue. There are a lot of people, religionists or not, who seem to be unable to distinguish between (1) the idea that there are good political reasons to tolerate all but the most intolerant kinds of religious faith and (2) the idea that having some sort of religious faith is actually virtuous.

Er, "wish", not "think", in the first line of the above.

Moderate theists do have an influence on how the more radical forms of religion get discussed. As of late, the so-called moderates seem to want to claim that the atheists or so-called "new atheists" are equivilent to the radical theists in that they are equally extreme. Then they claim that the atheists are ignoring or putting off potential allies with their talk.

But really, as a discussion about how we describe the world, the moderate theists and the more radical theists have much more in common. They make claims that are not backed up by reproducible evidence. And, I have to say, I don't think the moderates have much right to make claims about the radicals because of just that position. This all comes down to "revealed truths" that influence dogma and whatnot. The moderates cannot show, in any way outside of theological argument, which cannot really be confirmed in any way outside of its own little world, that the radicals are wrong.

They may be able to make political claims about them. They may be able to make ethical claims derived from other sources that can be discussed in a rational manner. But their claims founded on revealed truths are not any stronger than the radicals' claim.

And this, I suggest, is how the moderate theists give cover to the radical theists.

phat

Phat, I actually understand and accept all of that. Well, probably all of it. However, it doesn't really add up to that much, IMHO.

Thing is, the worst of what the moderate religionists do is really very little different from what pomo secularists like Stanley Fish are also doing. Yes, we can say that, in the senses you mention, moderate theists are "giving cover" to fundamentalists and other loons, but it becomes a pretty complicated argumment. It doesn't change the fact that some of the moderates are also strong in defending science, the separation of church and state, and modern approaches to morality, women's rights, etc. Nor does it change the fact that, at the same time, much of the really annoying "cover giving" actually comes from secular thinkers who don't "get" the problems associated with religion.

In short, I don't think it is genuinely moderate religionists in particular who are providing the cover.

One of the big lessons from the last nine months, or whatever, since The God Delusion was published, is that a lot of the cover for religion of all kinds is actually coming from elsewhere, including sources that we wouldn't necessarily have expected - e.g., I had no idea that Terry Eagleton and Stanley Fish would come out the way they did with their attacks on Dawkins. I guess it should have been predictable, but I didn't see it coming.

I'd like to offer an odd take on this problem. Let's start off by stepping way back and looking at homo sapiens as a species. Don't think in terms of believers, spirituality, or atheism -- just think in terms of homo sapiens as a species that developed under a variety of evolutionary pressures. Think of modern, civilized people as hunter-gatherers who are playing a gigantic role-playing game. "We're supposed to act civilized, so we'll wear these clothes and comb our hair and speak with great refinement. Won't that be jolly!"

So we're really all just hunter-gatherers playing like we're intellectual creatures -- which we aren't. Thinking of it this way, it seems much more understandable that members of this species would engage in all manner of superstitions.

Now, we'd all like to believe that, with education, homo sapiens can rise above these ancient barbarisms. But it's just a veneer. Deep down inside, our males still want to copulate with the maximum number of females, our young men want to have power, our women want to secure maximum material wealth for their offspring, and so on. Men still place lots of importance on upper body strength, which was important when you were throwing rocks to bring down prey, but not very relevant these days. Men still go for women with large breasts and big hips, even though the reproductive benefits of these bodily traits are no longer of much significance.

So here we are, a Pleistocene species optimized for hunter-gatherer lifestyles, only we've been diverted into this radically different environmental niche that we're just not well-suited for. Homo sapiens with modern science is like a Neanderthal confronting an electronic calculator -- we really don't know what the hell we're doing.

Yes, atheism is more rational, better-suited to the technology-intensive environmental niche we've made for ourselves. Religion is a vestige of our hunter-gatherer past, a set of feet on a swimming mammal, a tail on a biped. Yes, we'd be better off without it. But aren't we already way past our design limits? Isn't it already too late to be worrying about our evolutionary impedimenta? The base design platform on which we are working is hopelessly ill-suited for the modern environment. Even if we do solve this problem, eliminating religion from the minds of these poor creatures, won't we just bump into yet another problem arising from our basic hunter-gatherer minds? Only, the next time around, the issue will be larger and more will be at stake. Aren't we doomed to extinction anyway -- and rather soon?

I'm not trying to push any particular point here -- I'm musing aloud late at night when I really should be asleep. I recently read a delightful book whose title I cannot recall. It was a set of nature-book illustrations of hypothetical animals. Beautiful drawings in the style of the great nature-artists. The premise of the book is that humankind wipes out itself and many other species, and that mammalian life recovers around two basic lines: rabbits and rats, who, after 50 million years, radiate out in all the basic ecological niches. Imagine rabbit-like deer or rodent-like canines. Beautiful stuff.

But the point here is that homo sapiens WILL eventually go extinct. Would it be better for us to go sooner rather than later, so that we do less damage to the biosphere?

On that charming little thought, I shall retire. Sweet dreams!

er, guys know the conversation has drifted, but Charilie Brooker is a comic who is well known in the UK for his vicious over blown rhetoric, and this is no more violent than his screed about reality television, or his bitterness about how the process of comissioning tv means that most of the innovative intelligent stuff is turned into dross. (i think that one included his idea getting anally raped, but i cannot be sure..)

but yeah, he does rock...

That was an amusing pontification you made regarding Monty, Duff. (#28) You brought him full circle, in the space of five sentences, from being entitled to his "...own thoughts and opinions concerning spirituality" to finding himself suddenly on the precipice of dumbness. How "...anti-intelligent..." is that? Have you read any good philosophy books yourself, lately?

Duff (#28) : "And if you're reminded enough times about how anti-intellectual "spirituality" really is,..."

Just wondering, what is the scientific basis of the underlying claim, ie "spirituality" is "anti-intellectual".

I always thought that "spirituality" is a product of the intellect, but maybe Duff has some other interesting take on this.

The program is a great idea.

It helps eliminate the last pretense that Dawkins is actually doing science, just as this blog does for PZ.

And I hope it catches on. The work of Dawkins, Hitchens, PZ, and the like will insure that atheists will never be elected to political office.

Kyle Laughlin: Then by all means, promote the program--actively.

Torbjörn Larsson:

I am not absolutely current on the issue of subcultures, but last I looked it seemed to me the definition was still subject to some dispute. The locus classicus for my area of study was Dick Hebdige's Subculture.

What I can tell you is that no one that I know of claims atheism as a whole to be a subculture. Subcultures are social entities, not philosophical ones, so they have to be defined socially. You have to describe an identifiable group, their interactions, practices, identities, etc., etc.

This is clearly impossible for a group defined simply by a shared belief. But lynch is being a lot more specific than that: he's saying that in places like Dawkins's website, he sees a developing subculture.

Gaming subculture gets loosely called a subculture in the press, but to what extent it really is a subculture I don't know. Are there rituals? You'd really have to do some field work or read some field work to find out.

And, of course, the classic definitions of subculture are based on face-to-face interaction, and clearly another paradigm has to be adopted for online-based subcultures, if such a thing can be said to exist (I'd say yes).

As to the strength of Lynch's specific observation--it seems to me to explain a lot. At the moment I don't really have time to go trolling through thousands of postings to provide specific examples, but there are behaviors here I would identify as ritualistic: piling on the believer would be one. But anyhow, I am perfectly well aware that you may interpret things differently.

So, all people who pray are undifferentially idiots and cretins deserving of contemptuous mockery?

Yes!

And that isn't "imagined religious others"?

No!

poke, how do you prove it ?

"But the point here is that homo sapiens WILL eventually go extinct. Would it be better for us to go sooner rather than later, so that we do less damage to the biosphere?"

Yikes! What residual evolutionary trait is responsible for fatalism?

Here's another thought: We become the first species to consciously evolve new traits.

sailor writes:

"Atheists go to the toilet
evangelists go to the toilet
therefore atheism equals evangelism.
Sounds like a shitty argument to me"

Yes, but if you ask the evangelist, they will point out that although both use the toilet, the evangelists' shit doesn't stink.

Silly stuff. We all know it's the other way around. ,-)

OEJ

The work of Dawkins, Hitchens, PZ, and the like will insure that atheists will never be elected to political office.

Assuming you count the US congress as political office, I'm afraid you're a bit late.

The program is a great idea.

I'm looking forward to it also.

Something tells me (hey, could I be psychic?) it's going to be a lot of fun!

Feeling a little under the weather? No worries! Just swallow your saliva smile!

"Smile your very best smile, swallow the smile with some saliva into the heart and let the heart smile back at you... and the golden glow that comes from the heart, comes from a golden flower and use the gold light from the centre of the flower like a sunbeam and beam it on to those petals and wake them up..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/05/newage1…

Mmmmmm. Sa-li-va.

James Randi and Richard Dawkins.

In which Randi explains that he would happily give up a million dollars to see some new aspect of reality demonstrated. Right on!

But to saliva swallowers? Ewww...

poke, how do you prove it ?

"Everybody who prays is an idiot" is a lot like "all bachelors are unmarried."

My angel therapist told my inner crystal child not to listen to all the negativity pervading this web site. I'm sensing a bad aura emanating from a town in Minnesota. I may have to perform some pychic surgery to heal this PZ fellow.

You all need to go to these web sites, give Doreen some love, and stop with the negativity.

Angel Therapy:
Angel Therapy is a non-denominational spiritual healing method that involves working with a person's guardian angels and archangels, to heal and harmonize every aspect of life. Angel Therapy also helps you to more clearly receive Divine Guidance from the Creator and angels.

http://www.angeltherapy.com/

Crystal Children:
The first thing most people notice about Crystal Children is their eyes large, penetrating, and wise beyond their years. Their eyes lock on and hypnotize you, while you realize your soul is being laid bare for the child to see. Perhaps you've noticed this special new "breed" of children rapidly populating our planet. They are happy, delightful, and forgiving. This generation of new lightworkers, roughly ages 0 through 7, are like no previous generation. Ideal in many ways, they are the pointers for where humanity is headed . . . and it's a good direction!

http://www.thecrystalchildren.com/

Help them, Doreen! Angel therapy, stat!

I want to clear something up here that may or may not be topical but.

One of the things that Christians trot out whenever this discussion comes up is how much charitable giving Christians do.

First off, everyone had heard the statistic that believers are more likely to give, or give more, then non believers. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 40% (Here's one source: http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/025880.html But not many agree)

However, the important part left out of these statistics is that _GIVING TO A CHURCH COUNTS AS CHARITABLE GIVING_. Even if it goes to pay the pastor, staff, building, organ, anything, it's still 'charitable'.

So, from http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=161

#9: In 1998, donating households gave 60.1 percent of their contributions to religious organizations, 9.0 percent to human services, 6.5 percent to health, 6.4 percent to education, 3.3 percent to arts, culture, and humanities, and 3.2 percent to environment.

That statistic is old, but it's trending up, not down.

According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 75% of America is Christian (including Catholic) 5% is made up by 'other' religions, leaving about 20% Claiming no religion.

We can pretty much assume that only religious people give to religious organizations (I know this is a large assumption, however...). Which means that the 60% of donations going to are made up for by the 80% of America claiming religion. Or so.

Depending on the assumptions you make, and how close these statistics are, it seems to boil down to that when it comes to non-religious giving, believers and non believers are at least equal.

"This generation of new lightworkers, roughly ages 0 through 7, are like no previous generation. Ideal in many ways, they are the pointers for where humanity is headed . . . and it's a good direction!"

Aha! The eradication of evolutionary impedimenta has begun! We will reach the stars!

Gulp!

I always thought that "spirituality" is a product of the intellect

That really depends on your definition of "spirituality" and "intellect". For the definitions that I use, it's definitely not based on intellect, because my definitions involve "spirits" and "thinking" for those terms, respectively. Spinoza's God is not a "spiritual" god using my definitions, if that helps.

The religious giving issue still seems to be a disputed one. Arthur Brooks (Who Really Cares) clearly has a conservative agenda, but I haven't really seen anything that disputes the general drift of his research: that religious folks are generally more charitable than secular folks. I think the gap is big enough to account for paying for prosteletizing.

Anyone else seen anything on this?

thx calgeorge, guess I really need some angel theraphy...

No, the question I ask, is, why is there so much of this "spiritual" stuff going on? Is it a growing trend ? Is it complementary to religious faith or supplemantary ? is it some form of behavioral adaptation ?
I guess you can call these people "stupid" or "moron", but does that mean the % of stupid is rising ? Is this a natural by-product of the evolution of faith to a more rational, scientifically driven type of intelligence ?

What do you think ?

I'd like to jump in with a comment about faith and intelligence.

Atheists do themselves a disservice when they confuse the two, or assume a causal connection between the two.

I was a believer (Roman Catholic) for FIFTY YEARS! I reasoned my way out of faith at age 52. For the entire time I was a believer, people considered me "smart"; I scored highly on tests, I could hold my own in a discussion, I could use polysyllabic words in compound sentences. My powers of reasoning were NOT weak, and I was clearly NOT stupid. I was a smart person who was also a believer.

This suggests to me that "faith" and "intelligence" are not ALWAYS closely related in an individual. If you get to a child early enough, you can make a believer of him, regardless of his intelligence. The existence of competent scientists who are also believers supports this conclusion.

Perhaps faith occupies a different place in the mind than does reason. It is possible (just look around) for people to keep both in their heads with no great difficulty. Maybe this will someday come to be seen as an amazing resiliency of the human mind. Or not.

If you are an atheist, you are probably "smart". But please try not to give in to the easy ego-stroking that comes from calling others "dumb". Believers are not (necessarily) dumb; they are just believers. Some of them can beat your ass at Scrabble, or Math or almost anything else you may think you're good at.

Joe the Ordinary Guy: Just a thought--You were smart enough to score well on tests, but you were intelligent enough to reason your way out of faith.

Oh crap, now I have to continue to complete this thought.

Many religious people think that we atheists become atheists because we get our slide rulers calculators out and demonstrate scientifically that there is no God. Some truth to that, sure, but at least for me, this isn't the path that brought me to my current view of the world. My atheism is driven by reason in the sense that it is reasonable to want to be able to distinguish when one is sensing reality and when one is imagining things and playing pretend. It is reasonable to apply mental energy toward this end in order to be as perceptive as possible. Being smart is generic, even the most deluded can be clever, but intelligence is truth-seeking.

(I guess this doesn't really address the matte of why some atheists have to be such assholes though, does it? :- )

All I can say is, I think the world would be a far less colorful place without PZ and his kind.

Insults like "idiot" are rarely used to mean "absolutely everything you do is idiotic" or even "the majority of things you do are idiotic." A single glaring example of idiocy will usually suffice. I don't think we should start exorcising the English language of all nuance just because a few concern trolls confuse being finicky with having an argument.

Kyle writes,

"It helps eliminate the last pretense that Dawkins is actually doing science, just as this blog does for PZ."

The reasoning here is that political activity by a person obviates that person's actions in other fields. By this reasoning we should conclude that any religious person who comments on politics is not truly religious.

PZ Myers:

Dawkins has sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million copies, while Warren has sold almost 25 million. But the important thing is ... they both have published books. The Da Vinci Code has sold about 40 million copies, to put those in perspective.

Considered all together, the Calvin and Hobbes books have sold somewhere in excess of 30 million copies.

And hey, Calvin's tyrannosaurs never ate coconuts.

re: #111

And hey, Calvin's tyrannosaurs never ate coconuts.

But they did fly F-14s!

-- CV

If you want to see this outside of the UK, there's always bit torrent - that's how I'm a year ahead of most Americans with Doctor Who :)

Oran Kelley:

Sorry for the delay.

last I looked it seemed to me the definition was still subject to some dispute.

I can understand that. It is a problem like defining subspecies. And clearly you have studied this more than me.

But, as you note, we need a differentiation larger than sharing a common opinion in a question, otherwise it would be a weaker characteristic than the unorganized voters for a political party that usually shares a great deal of opinions.

I am perfectly well aware that you may interpret things differently.

Agreed. Maybe Lynch is specific in his definition, but he isn't making a case.

piling on the believer

I think that would be an expected consequence of having an opinion and a venue to share it in. Not enough to distinguish a subculture, I think.

I'm not sure field work would contribute as IMO we are discussing an interest organization, no more. But it would certainly not harm either, it could turn out to become a subculture even though it currently doesn't feel like one for us opinionists. (Wouldn't that be a sign, btw - self identification?)

Chris Crawford: Just for your future reference, the book (thrilling, thought-provoking masterpiece) you mention is "After Man: A Zoology of the Future" by paleontologist Dougal Dixon. He's done some other stuff along the same lines - something about aliens, one predicated on the dinosaurs not going extinct, and a TV show and book called "The Future Is Wild". TFIW's the only one I've personally checked out so far, in both forms. I found it pretty terrible next to "After Man", but still look forward to exploring the rest of his stuff at some point.

The Unlightenment???

Damn!! I've been saying that for years!! I KNEW I should've trademarked it!!

What does two plus two equal? Let's take the "twos" from the tenets of this kind of discourse:

First "two": "Religion should be respected and never mocked or questioned. That is hateful."

Second "two": "Atheism is a religion."

So, two plus two equals... er... Well, anything but four, it seems.

What does two plus two equal? Let's take a couple of "twos" from this kind of discourse.

First "two": "All religions deserve respect and shouldn't be questioned or mocked, as this is hateful."

Second "two": "Atheism is a religion."

So, two plus two equals... er... Anything but four, it seems.

(My comments keep getting lost. If this one appears more than once, I apologize.)

militant atheists and religious conservatives

As rituals seems to be a vague and long-standing phenomena in social animals, it is probably very hard to distinguish religion. And observationally impossible to distinguish refusal to partake.

But while it has in most cases not been organized, it is likely that individual atheists have been along as long as organized religion. For these reasons it is really twisted to label vocal (mostly unorganized) atheists as "militant" while labeling vocal (mostly organized) theists as "conservative". Depending on issue the shoe is mostly on the other foot.

Oran Kelley:

after all that, it certainly comes as a surprise to find out that I don't exist!

Well so far, you show little evidence of thinking,

It would be interesting to discuss what constitutes a subculture, but it seems that you aren't up to this.

But FWIW I don't think rituals are necessary to define a subculture, since subcultures of gamers et cetera doesn't necessarily have it. (I would argue that the game doesn't constitute a ritual but is a communication over a shared procedure.)

And atheists don't have rituals - in an analogy of gamers, we can't agree on the rules! A subculture is "a set of people with a set of behaviors and beliefs, culture, which could be distinct or hidden, that differentiate them from the larger culture to which they belong".

The problem as always is that atheists are disparate and without a common behavior or belief. Some can't reject religion, some can. Most can tolerate all religions, but so can most religious, and respect is an individual characteristic. There are some common venues and organizations instead, communication but still patchy.

As PZ I think we are trying to build a recognizable framework or organization, but unfortunately there is still a long way to go. And I doubt that framework can ever be recognized as a firm subculture as per the definition above. An interest organization is the extent I can see.

Oran Kelley:

Sorry for the delay.

last I looked it seemed to me the definition was still subject to some dispute.

I can understand that. It is a problem like defining subspecies. And clearly you have studied this more than me.

But, as you note, we need a differentiation larger than sharing a common opinion in a question, otherwise it would be a weaker characteristic than the unorganized voters for a political party that usually shares a great deal of opinions.

I am perfectly well aware that you may interpret things differently.

Agreed. Maybe Lynch is specific in his definition, but he isn't making a case.

piling on the believer

I think that would be an expected consequence of having an opinion and a venue to share it in. Not enough to distinguish a subculture, I think.

I'm not sure field work would contribute as IMO we are discussing an interest organization, no more. But it would certainly not harm either, it could turn out to become a subculture even though it currently doesn't feel like one for us opinionists. (Wouldn't that be a sign, btw - self identification?)