I was interviewed by humanistischer pressedienst about the New Atheism and American politics and religion. I am amazingly erudite auf Deutsch, so much so that I can only read what I said with considerable effort.
OK, I confess—the interview was in English, and it's the fluency of the interviewer we ought to praise. I've put the original text below the fold for those of us who'd rather not read slowly with the aid of a dictionary.
1. You received quite a number of threads, even death threads, for mistreating a cracker that supposedly contained the body of Jesus. You never really made the impression of having any real fear of fanatical catholics on your blog. Is that true and if so, why?
I have a very optimistic view of the fundamental decency of my fellow human beings -- and I also have a cynical view of their likely laziness. It's very easy for them to make threats while sitting on their ass in front of a computer, but highly unlikely that any will try anything violent in the real world.
2. The style of your blog entries is often very polemical. Whom and what are you trying to reach with this rhetorical choice - or are you merely speaking your mind without using any particular strategy?
A little of both. A blog is a rather stream-of-consciousness kind of medium, and I simply write what I think. However, there is also a method to the madness: it unites and inspires people on my side of the arguments to get out and speak out, too.
3. In public speeches and discussions you are far less polemical than you are in your blog. Are you doing this on purpose or is it related to the medium?
Yes to both. A blog post is often a case of taking a strong position, and inviting discussion. Trying to soften the argument by being initially accommodating would blunt the effect. A public discussion with a group or an individual is a very different phenomenon -- in that case, we're trying to negotiate a bit, and figure out what each other are saying.
4. The United States were founded as a secular nation, yet it turned out to be the most religious of all western democracies. What, do you think, are the main causes of that development?
Europe tossed out its craziest and most extreme and most religious elements, and sent them abroad. From our founding, we've been built of disparate colonies that were often initially established to shelter religious oddballs.
We also have a constitution that guarantees protection of religious belief, broadly defined. It meant that this was an environment in which the wildest ideas could be expressed and sheltered by the government, so we've actually had the opportunity for a little natural selection of religious ideas, and the most extreme have done relatively well.
5. How worried are you about the future of secularism in the United States?
Very. I think we're at a tipping point here; we could correct the slide into irrationality and become an Enlightenment state once again, or if the crazies succeed in demolishing our educational system, we could be on a one-way slide to third-world status in the next few generations.
6. How would you evaluate the importance of directly critisising religion compared to a more "educational" approach (teaching about science).
They are two different things. Both are important, and we can do both.
7. What, do you think, is the main success of the "New Atheists"?
Mainly, in opening up the discussion and getting people to argue about it. Atheism in the US was either ignored (or blindly associated with Communism), and now at least people are talking and becoming aware.
8. Is science in any way compatible with religion? And: Do atheists tend to be better scientists than religious people?
No to both. Science is a tool for obtaining knowledge using empirical evidence, skepticism and criticism, and constant testing. Religion is a tool for encouraging a false sense of certainty, of stirring up tribalism, and all it has to offer is mysticism and dogma. They are the antithesis of one another.
There are atheists who are bad scientists and theists who are good scientists. All that tells us is that people are quite capable of holding mutually contradictory ideas together in their heads. For instance, Dennis Rader, the BTK serial killer, was both a brutal murderer and a devout member of the Christ Lutheran Church. We do not use that fact to claim that torture-murder is compatible with Christianity, or that Christians are better murderers than atheists. Similarly, pointing out the existence of individual scientists are practicing church goers says nothing about the compatibility in a practical, consistent sense of religion and science.
9. How do you evaluate the threat of Islam compared to Christianity?
I'm an American. Islam is a very low proximate threat to us; the rare, high-profile terrorist act does nothing to threaten the core of our culture. It is an absurdity that rational people should oppose, but I'm very remote from it.
- Log in to post comments
I tend to agree with you on the remoteness of the Muslim threat in regards to our proximity to them, however I believe them to be much much more motivated than your average cracker-enraged Catholic. Lacking any true WMD or threat of huge scale catastophe does little to make me feel comfortable that our government won't go completely to shit if some Arab tosses a firecracker on the White House lawn.
Enjoy.
What do you do with all the death threads you receive, PZ? Do you use them to darn your death socks?
If a murderer claims to be religious, he's just lying.
If a scientist is religious, that proves how the two are, in fact, compatible.
Your assumption that this is not so is just based on logic (which means you think it's like that), and thus, you're utterly wrong.
Tim,
I agree that the Muslim fanaticism of today is greater than any other sect around, but its remoteness to me is quite apparent. For one, in the time that I've had my blog and YouTube channel, I have only ever received one death threat (or is that thread) and that was from an Hispanic Catholic. Not to mention that even moderate Muslims are powerless to change the law of this nation.
I'd guess that the question of whether atheists make better scientists depends upon how broadly you consider their status as scientists.
In their specialty, the religious person may do very well, but then, speaking as a scientist, the same person may spout a bunch of nonsense about matters outside of their expertise. Collins, and even Miller to a degree.
IOW, cross-disciplinary science is more to be trusted to the non-believer, I think. This isn't to say that no religious scientist would be reliable across the disciplines, it's a matter of probabilities.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
PZ,
not to be pedantic, but as a German atheist who visits it's site rather often...it's "Humanistischer Pressedienst", not "humanister pressedienst".
Aside from that - thanks for taking the time to talk to the hpd... they truly are a valuable source of information.
Although the general public in Germany cares far, far less about religion than the US populace - the situation concerning religious freedom in Germany is far worse than in the US...
How about this for example: There's religious education in schools - taught be people who have to be approved by the churches. You can opt out of it yourself once your 14... before then, your parents decide whether you attend religious education or ethics/philosophy. Oh, and did I mention that the religious education isn't comparative - it's decidedly indoctrinary (by law).
That shock you? I hope so. How about the fact that the Bavarian constitution lists "Reverence for God" as the highest goal of education?
...
If you'd like to know more about the injustice against your fellow atheists, agnostics, secularists and whatnot in Germany - I've written a blog-entry about this.
I think PZ ought to know about this as well... to spread the word. Maybe some day enlightened people from around the world will demand that Germany abolish religious discrimination...
Here's the link:
The Violation of Religious Freedom in Germany
He dyes them greed and makes little elfin booties.
;)
@ your response to question 8:
I wouldn't argue that "There are atheists who are bad scientists and theists who are good scientists." However, I'm sure you could make a statistical statement as to the correlation between those two variables. Of course measuring what constitutes a "good" scientist and how theistic one is may be subjective. In this sense I am not satisfied with your statement about "pointing out the existence of individual scientists are practicing church goers" since the question wasn't about individuals, but about tendencies.
"it unites and inspires people on my side of the arguments to get out and speak out, too"
P.Z.: Hear, hear!!
Yet somehow, it's okay for you to make such assumptions?
I wonder how many devoutly religious people throughout history have murdered, and fervently believed they were justified in doing so because of some old book?
MPhil: Interesting link. You discuss the de facto establishment of religions in German states but not restrictions on free practice. How do you feel about the laws restricting the Scientologists and such?
'If a murderer claims to be religious, he's just lying.
If a scientist is religious, that proves how the two are, in fact, compatible.
Your assumption that this is not so is just based on logic (which means you think it's like that), and thus, you're utterly wrong.'
Huh?
MPhil [#6] says:
and then:
I suspect that these are not unconnected phenomena. Forcibly teaching kids about something in school, seems to me the surest possible way to give them a profound dislike (or at least boredom) for the subject. All in all, I think I'm OK with mandatory religion classes, as long as there is no religious test for the teachers who don't teach religion. It looks like it might be the best way to encourage the students to look at religion with a jaundiced eye.
Similarly, I'm not so sure that elementary-school science classes really help science education much. I missed most of the science classes in elementary school (because that was the time when those of us with speech impediments went to see the school's speech therapist), and I kept my strong interest in science while all my classmates were getting any interest they might have had stomped out of them.
@ #3 - Burning Umbrella
"If a murderer claims to be religious, he's just lying."
It may shock you to hear this, but there are many very popular religious texts that contain explicit commands to kill others.
There are certainly some that followers of are far, FAR less likely to kill their fellow man(eg: Jainism), but those are more the exception than the rule. As the Abrahamic faiths are most talked of in the west, please do note that God personally, and through prophets commands the killing of huge numbers of people. The individual who links all these together, Abraham himself, was quite willing to kill his son Isaac(Ishmael for the muslim adherents) because God commanded it. I find the assertion that he wasn't religious to be absurd.
---------------------
"If a scientist is religious, that proves how the two are, in fact, compatible."
It shows that people are able to compartmentalize their cognitions. In fact, it seems that people are superbly skilled at this sort of thing, in many areas of life(not just religion).
However they don't typically use both methods simultaneously to investigate a single thing, they switch back and forth from one to the other, depending on what their needs are. As an example, I present two extreme cases of the above effect:
'Is this a scenario where I want to be reassured, and where actually finding out the Truth is not critical?'
- Use religion.
'Is this a scenario where finding out what's probably really going on is of utmost importance, and where my child will die if I choose wrongly?'
- Use science.
@#3 Burning Umbrella
You've made it too easy, buddy:
"If a murderer claims to be religious, he's just lying.
If a scientist is religious, that proves how the two are, in fact, compatible."
Your assumption that this is so is just based on logic (which means you think it's like that), and thus, you're utterly wrong.
Wait! Am I th eonly person who sees #3 as really transparent Poe?
Mims@#12: You lost me. Where did you get those quotes?
Nevermind. DOH ! I skipped Burning Umbrella's logic torture exhibition.
From Burning Umbrell #3.
Some type of godbot from those post.
"Your assumption that this is not so is just based on logic (which means you think it's like that), and thus, you're utterly wrong."
That's just too stupid.
I call Poe's Law on #3..
Yeah, but it's really hit or miss as to whether it is funny, profound or clever; I can tell you what its becoming - tedious.
So, I read what "Burning Umbrella" [#3] wrote, and it looks to me like the comment is positively dripping with sarcasm. And then, a bunch of people reply that evidently thought he was perfectly serious, and treat him like a religious loon.
So, which is it? Am I giving credit for sarcasm where none exists, or do a lot of commenters need to recalibrate their sarcasm detectors?
Either one is possible tceisele, as some people above commented, it's possible that this is just a case of Poe's law in action.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe's_Law
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe's+Law
"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."
Hey, Umbrella moron:
Osama bin Laden is not religious?
What kind of idiocy pollutes your pathetic excuse for a mind?
Matt Heath@16. No, I had the same impression. Though as Poe's law states, there will indeed by theists capable of producing such a claim in earnest. The giveaway was the total absence of spelling or grammar errors.
Burning Umbrella has been posting here a couple of days. I really haven't followed him/her closely, but I have the sense that it is one of the repubs who came to visit just prior/during/after the election. There were several. I could be wrong.
Burning Umbrella: Sorry if my criticism came off as a bit too harsh. I've been combatting the freakin' wingnuts (read as racist, zealous, pious, ignorant, etc.) who can baldly utter a statement like that and never catch the irony (or the illogic).
Burning Umbrella made it clear yesterday that he's a joker. At least #3 was a bit more obvious than yesterday's.
@ #21
i think david st. hubbins said it best:
"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever."
Yeah, I may have remembered the attempted joke, but not the resolution. It's been a long week, but not as bad as crackergate.
Oh my--PZ, your German's not that good after all!
First Sentence:
Humanist Translation:
Retranslated into English:
Yuck. Not sure if I should go on here.
^_^J.
I wonder how many devoutly religious people throughout history have murdered, and fervently believed they were justified in doing so because of some old book?
Christopher Columbus
I wonder how much knowledge and culture was lost because of the many brutal and fanatic explorers like him who invaded the "New World" and spread carnage for Jesus. (As well as for other reasons, of course.)
I don't know how widespread this practice was (I'm assuming it's true, hey, it's Bertrand..) but it sounds about right.
Matt Heath,
...sorry about the delayed response.
This is certainly a very important question. The answer is contained in the paper I wrote for the seminar on the political philosophy of John Ralws, entitled "The Limits of Religion in a Liberal Society". "liberal society" here means nothing more than "society where Rawls's 'First Principle of Justice' is emobodied'". (The 'First Principle of Justice' states that 'Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive system of equal basic liberty compatible with a similar system for all' (Rawls, 1999b: 220).)
From a position that prioritizes maximum liberty for everyone - I evaluate the role of religion. Where liberty is taken not with explicit agreement from the person it is taken from, and/or where that person is not in a condition to appreciate and evaluate the ramifications of this loss of liberty, it can not be tolerated that it is taken - and that is what the government has to ensure... at least that's one the conclusion of my argument.
I have put a download-link for this paper on my blog as well.
I believe that Burning Umbrella was just being ironic, as last time... stating an absurd and illogical position. but it should come with a "sarcasm off" tag. Tone of voice and rolled eyes don't come across on the Internet.
"If a murderer claims to be religious, he's just lying.
If a scientist is religious, that proves how the two are, in fact, compatible."
Hey, Burning Umbrella - I call bullshit on both. As for the first, ever heard of Paul Hill? Rather difficult to claim he was not religious since that was the motivation for his murdering spree. As to the second, doing science requires reason and rationality. Being religious requires suspension of reason and rationality. Pretty much a textbook case of incompatibility, particularly when they can not be applied to the same issue.
PZ is an atheist speaking in German -- JUST LIKE HITLER!!!!! OMFG!!!!!
Death threads?
Obviously what's needed is a few Dragon Riders.
Thanks for the reply MPhil
Heavens. As a native German speaker, I've got to say that the translation job that these guys did really isn't the greatest - just to give an example, translating stream[s]-of-consciousness as "Bewußtseinsströme" is... urgh.
I think I'll read the original English instead.
Just the fact I heard on the radio that Sarah Palin thought Africa was one country and South Africa an area within it leads me to believe that perhaps our educational system is being dumbed down. At least the American people were smart enough to see the stupidity.
I'm not sure what the heck Bumbershoot was trying to say, let alone whether it was serious. But in response to those who've taken him as meaning that no religious person would ever murder, need I remind you that our own beloved lame-duck prez uttered that very sentiment about the 911 hijackers? It's very commonto brush these sorts of examples off by claiming that they weren't TRULY religious people. And since as any good Christian knows, all other religions are false (and probably secretly atheist), they're automatically not TRULY religious just by being Muslim.
Or Mormon. Or Catholic. Or Episcopalian. Or...
Quick! Someone call the Poe-lice! We have a live one!
I once gave an interview for a magazine where most of my answers were self-deprecating but very dry jokes that, if read literally (like a lot of you are reading Umbrella's obviously sarcastic comment), would make me sound like a self-aggrandizing jackass. Unfortunately, it didn't dawn on me until after they sent me a copy of the issue with the interview in it that, since the magazine was published in Taiwan, my answers were going to be translated into Chinese, most likely by someone who didn't get my humor.
To this day I have no idea if the Taiwanese think I'm a huge jackass.
MPhil at #6:
PZ wrote "humanisticher pressedienst", not "humanister pressedienst". And while it's true that German in general capitalizes nouns, that site...doesn't.
As to the complaints about the translation: It wasn't all that bad in terms of getting the meaning across. If PZ didn't actually say "ich habe auch eine zynische Meinung darüber, wie wahrscheinlich es ist, dass sie verrückt sind", it did sound good and very much like something he might have said. Besides, "crazy" does rhyme with "lazy".
(Fair warning: I'm not a native speaker of German. Those who are and think I'm full of garbage are hereby authorized to hit me over the head with a wet fish. Once.)
The latest internet pastime: once it's been revealed a comment was meant in sarcasm, claiming how obvious it was and chastising those who didn't get it.
It was obvious. I understood his point perfectly on the first reading without the need of it being "revealed", and was legitimately surprised that he was misunderstood in the following comments. I'm not claiming to be special since I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Simple literacy is, after all, fairly prevalent in the industrialized world. But thanks for participating in the oldest internet pastime: trolling.
Case in point.
And yet, many people didn't get it. But, somehow that doesn't figure in.
And now the condescension. Thanks for proving my point.
@gyokusai:
Thank you for pointing out the craziness-laziness-issue. Thou shalt be corrected, thou spoke - and it was.
@Peter Hesselberg:
"it's true that German in general capitalizes nouns, that site...doesn't"
That is because we are so very cool and individual, you know...
"it did sound good and very much like something he might have said"
Just the reason why I misread it. PZ missing a chance to point out the likely craziness of his fellow human beings - who could have expected that? Insofar it had something in common with the Spanish Inquisition.
I do not quite agree with "Muffin" however. A "stream of consciousness" really is a "Bewusstseinsstrom". As shocking and terrible as that might be, there just is no denying it. Only alternative would have been a longer explanation of what PZ meant to say. Yet I wanted to preserve that virtous tradition of ye good olde "in your face"-style.
Schalom,
AM
PZ gets thousands of readers a day. We only have evidence of a handful of people who lashed out at Umbrella's comment. People who did get his point wouldn't have any reason to mention his comment since it was obvious and needed no further comment. Does the term "sample bias" ring a bell. I think you're the one that needs to go back and do some more figurin'.
I'm pretty sure you're the one who started with the condescension, Mr. Snarky Mc"Latest-Internet-Pastime". But thanks for proving my point that you are a troll -- possibly even a... concern troll.
Oh yeah, I went there.
(Actually my original point was two fold: 1) subtle or overly clever humor can be misunderstood 2) especially if you don't know what language it'll be translated into.)
I'm very surprised that people didn't see that Umbrella was being sarcastic too.
You're just saying that to be hip to the new internet pastime I created. What a total poseur!
;) (winky-emoticon required by the People With Humor Disabilities Act of 2003.)
You, BU, are the one who's got it ass up.
Most murderers ARE religious, and there is seldom much in their (un)holy scripts that treat murder as unjustified, depending on WHO is committing the murder.
If a scientist is a proper scientist and religious, you'll usually find that the two ideas are departementalised, one used in scientific context, and the other in social context.
Faux scientists intermingle the two, they usually have a religious agenda, and are often correctly labelled IDiots.
Lastly, logic is NOT that one thinks is so, that is called religion or superstition (different name, same shit).
@jpf #49
1) That's quite an assumption that everyone who didn't comment on it knew it was sarcasm.
2) Continuing to act precisely as I have described isn't helping your argument.
Or they were confined to Italy and the Balkans, combining religious and financial blackmail under two equal branches, The Vatican and the Mafia. Once again different names, but same shit.
shonny at #52: While I do not disagree with your sentiments in general, I do think it's a good idea to read the comment thread (that should perhaps be "comment threat"?) before commenting.
On a somewhat related note, I'm one of those who never entertained the idea that Burning Umbrella at #3 was serious. But that's Poe for you...
@tsg #53
1) The lurkers are on my side!
2) Yet you continue to act precisely like a troll, as I described.
Of course, I could be wrong on point 2. But then what I want to know is: Why do you feel so threatened by the idea that people can easily understand simple, even ham-fisted, sarcasm like Umbrella's that you are driven to start pointless internet feuds with those who merely point out that mundane reality? Was it that you misunderstood him, got your blood angered up, then, upon having it pointed out that he wasn't a member of The Evil, still felt the need to RAGE!!! against someone, anyone? I didn't mean my original comment as a personal attack on your sense of self worth, if that's how you took it. I am, actually, very concerned about your mental well being.
Or should I go back to my original idea that you're merely a troll?
Hei Petter,
Didn't quite get your point in #55.
You expect me to read though the whole thread, and THEN make a comment? Where's the fun in that?
It might make it sound like a deliberate attempt to make sense :^)
And by the time I am at the end of the thread I have forgot where what I wanted to comment on was (or is).
Ha en god jul uansett!
I know what you mean! I came here for no other purpose than to trot out my beloved anecdote about being unknowingly interviewed in Chinese, read through some of the first few comments, then only skimmed the rest when the thread turned into some lame sarcasm-deafness-recrimination fest, but felt the need to incorporate a reference to said fest into the anecdote to make it sound doubly on-topic (instead of merely sounding like a boast about my exciting, jet-set life of international magazine interviews, which is what it really was) and I end up getting trolled by someone with an even more random sounding three-lettered name than mine.
The indignities on this blog never cease!
shonny at #57: There's always the risk that your point has been made several times before -- and then proved wrong another several times.
Men en god jul til deg også. Selv om det tross alt er en stund til...
The atelic argument that since the weight of evidence shows no teleology at work behind natural causes, no god then appears. And since the ignostic-Ockham challenges show either fatuity for Him or no need for Him, talk of Him is quite silly. The presumption of naturalism finds Him not. The hiddenness argument shows Him so hidden that He is not. The problem of Heaven reveals Him as not too bright. And covenant morality building upon the Euthyphro revelas morallity as independent of Him and shows Yahweh as a sociopath.
Yes, PZ , we take the scientific view of Him while Eugenie c. Scott and Michael Ruse take the educational viewpoint and Kenneth Miller and Francisco Jose Ayala take the superstitious viewpoint.
Someone may have said this already, but I would rate the Islamic threat higher than a simple "I don't think they'll cause any terrorist acts in my neighborhood".
Look at Europe: governments there are caving in to Muslims' demands for special treatment, up to the excision of British law in favor of Sharia law. And even in the US, there's some degree of self-censorship about anything that would "offend the Muslims", including muted criticism of asininity like the anti-cartoon riots.
There's more to this threat than just bombings, and it *does* touch upon our core culture.
On a side note, I love how the German ScienceBlogs widget in the upper right corner instead of reading "TOP FIVE/MOST RECOMMENDED" or whatever it is, reads "TOP FIVE/MOST GERMAN". Hee. I enjoy the idea of some blogs being more German than others.
@ tsg and jpf, as an occasional commenter who didn't comment on Burning Umbrella's inanities, I ignored it because generally don't read obvious trolling or engage with it. Unless it speaks to one of my personal obssessions or gives me an opportunity to talk about myself, that is (like in the vegetarian thread). Also it's waaaay at the top of the thread and the box you write in as waaaay down here. Take that as you will.
I never understood why ScinceBlogs puts that "MOST GERMAN" thing. Last time people were so concerned about how "GERMAN" things were...well, it didn't end so good.
On a personal level I feel less threat from Muslims because of their proximity in relation to the Catholics. I see your point in that, but on a societal basis, If a Baptist blows up an abortion clinic it's no big deal. Happens with enough regularity that I can make that statement confidently. It's an irrational terrorist act that we have come to accept from crazy Baptists (e.g.)
If a Muslim blew up a couple targets of similar significance to him (maybe a couple Christian churches) don't you think the response from the government would be draconian? That's the point I'm making about the relative effect of 'threats' to my lifestyle being greater from the Muslims than the Christians (my homosexual friends cannot say the same). My personal safety is much more threatened by local religious nutjobs, of which the South is plentiful.
Dam. Everywhere I look I'm surrounded by religious nutjobs. After seeing Sarah, it became apparent to me that not even remote Alaska is safe from their witchcraft and sorcery.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
@Andreas Mueller
Way better! Say, where's your site's RSS feed? I seem to be unable to find it.
Cheers,
^_^J.
Actually, there is some truth to this, as so many religious fanatics seem to be liars.