Clarity

The old man at the beginning--

Can't... stop.... Laughing... :::Whheeeeeeezzzzee:::

Okay. Now I can

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry. Maybe later.

A lot of the reason for religion is that people have hopes and wishes, and they suppose that they can just catch that these hopes and wishes are true in some hazy manner that the clarity of science just doesn't capture. Well, there's all this beauty, and really, doesn't it need some explanation beyond evolution (the evolution of our aesthetics, that is)? Or, isn't God just beyond reach due to his nature?

So yeah, there's definitely a place for people who will work through the lack of clarity that characterizes so much of religion. The fact that you (typically) can't use reason to dislodge someone from a position that the person never arrived at via reason ought to be argument enough for those sorts.

But sure, some people need to stake out the clarity of the myth-free position, too.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Now who springs to mind when he talks about the obscurantists in love with unclear words and vagueness *cough* Daved B. Hart *cough*?

I know that I was pushed from "catholic lite"/"hopeful deism" to full fledged atheism when I read someone's post talking about the "invisible sky wizard".

In my case, framing religion based on it's inherent absurdity was the real push I needed to open my eyes. However, everyone is different, so it is pointless to try to find the "one best way" to reach the superstitious.

For me, the Dawkins/questioner method seems to be the best.

I really don't see that we will "ever" (let's say for the next 1,000 yrs, at least) be able to remove from people's heads the thought that there is "something out there", something larger than us which we all came from and which we will all return to.

I believe that this really is hardwired into the human brain at the moment, but also that such personally-held ideas about a vague something are harmless.

What we can do within a lifetime is to convince the vast majority of the world's population that they have no need to buy into the lies which organized religions feed them. It's a food which is far too expensive, and not nearly nourishing enough.

All civilized countries need to immediately withdraw tax-free status from the liars, pedophiles and murderers. Make them pay their fucking taxes which go to support and defend their believers from actual, genuine harm (other humans, for example, or viruses. Not some imagined harm which will only affect them after their bodies become lifeless bags of clotted blood and soggy brain).

http://wac.osu.edu/tutorials/images/calvin-writing.gif

Calvin may have bright future in theology.

Australia Australia Australia we love you amen...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

You can view the entire talk here: http://fora.tv/2010/03/01/Meet_The_Author_Richard_Dawkins#fullprogram

“There are people who are actually threatened by clarity.”

That’s an astute observation. Clarity of mind leads to understanding, and in spite of the endless assertions of the religious that “the truth will set you free,” facing facts would devastate their worldview. Better to let “god work in mysterious ways” for best crowd control.

"Threatened by clarity": ah, yes, indeed. When the king is naked and little children are not afraid to say so, then, the courtiers must feel very foolish and unsure of their future!

Why are all the older atheists in Australia? One would be extremely hard-pressed to find an elderly man holding opinions like that delightful Australian, in the entire country of America.

I've been in a months-long online discussion with a very learned religious friend from college (and that's been quite a while ago). Nothing I say is good enough for his deeply analytical mind: have I considered what (name of theologian) or (name of other theologian) said? Is not my atheism simply a product of my social context? And occasionally: Isn't science just another religion?

Look, you can talk about the nature of God and the number of angels on the head of a pin and so forth after you establish that god exists. He skipped over that question a long time ago and really hates revisiting it. Almost as if all the complicated stuff beyond it confirms it: we couldn't have all these intricate thoughts about God if there wasn't one, could we?

Sigh...

As I was reading this post, the ad on the right hand side of the page was extolling the virtues of MaxClarity and its acne-fighting VersaFoam. So clarity is good for your skin as well as for your brain......

Clarity. Yes, I like that.

SaintStephen:

Why are all the older atheists in Australia? One would be extremely hard-pressed to find an elderly man holding opinions like that delightful Australian, in the entire country of America.

Now, now, some of us old atheists are to be found in America.

I grew up with people who were trained to not do much investigating. Clarity of mind was not something you strove for; it was something you believed you already had because you had faith. It was perfectly acceptable for you to use your reason, but only to prove to yourself — using logic spoonfed to you — that god exists and that Jesus is the only thing that makes sense.

We were told often, in many ways, that “Doubting Thomases” were people of a low order who didn’t get the prize. And what a golden, gleaming prize it was. Jesus took away all strife—all of it.

It’s only after you break free from that mentality that you come to utterly despise it.

@ #14 Caine, Fleur du mal:

Okay, one down, but I have nine fingers (and ten toes) remaining...

;-P

SaintStephen, include myself, 'Tis, ARIDS, JackC?, Patricia, SteveM?, and LeePicton with Caine, Deadly Flower, just to name a few. I'm sure other regulars can have you counting on other body parts in nothing flat.

I don't see what would be unclear about that "load of bullshit" think (the guy really made me laugh) but I don't think people interested by theology may be also interested about clarity.

I am having an extended email dialog with a college educated (CS type), intelligent creationist. He tossed out the old trope that "it takes more faith to believe we came out of nothing than to believe God created it. How can you believe that?" When I responded there is apparently good evidence to indicate God isn't required to create a universe, but indeed, the thinking is speculative and nobody is claiming to have the answer.

His response wasn't to respect the scientific lack of certainty (although that is what he was expecting from me). No, he mocked me: "What! You think that 'we aren't entirely sure' is good enough? I *know* how it happened, and you are stuck with 'perhaps maybe this is how it happened.'"

The exchange only reinforced the idea that otherwise smart people can have logical blind spots the size of the Marianas trench when the Bible gets into the mix.

Of course clarity of thought is threatening to individual religious believers and to organised religion.

It threatens individual religious believers with the absurdity of their beliefs and the possibility that they have lived their lives to date according to a ridiculous, and often harmful, fantasy. Worse, it confronts them with the inevitable fact of their own mortality, with no magic 'get out of death free' card. It points out that the foundations of their life are built on intellectual sand, and that a massive and pianful act of self-transformation is the only way to free themselves from their delusions. Most would simply rather not bother, and would prefer that no one inconsiderately challemge their bronze age mythology with a dose of reality.

It threatens organised religions because the charlatans, whether priest, vicar or imam, all predicate their social and religious authority (and in some csases political power) on the basis that god talks to them and so they are special and should be obeyed. When someone comes along and says "you expect me to respect and obey you because you talk to your imaginary friend in the sky? Yeah, right", it undermines the entire basis of the authority of the clergy, all the more so if they are the type that claims god smites unbelievers, only to discover that god has a few 'potency' problems in the area of smiting that no quantity of little blue pills can fix.

Clarity of thought is anathema to religion and the religious, which is why so many religious institutions have expended so much effort down the centuries in trying to stamp out dissent with warfare and torture, and indeed many religions are still trying to do it, whether their preferred methods are oppressive and foolish laws sponsored by the religious Right or suicide bombings and stonings, the intent is the same - quash all dissent and mask the fundamentally ludicrous nature of belief in an invisible sky fairy in a scientific age.

What a thoroughly nice bloke. I hope someone bough him a beer.

Now, now, some of us old atheists are to be found in America.

Twenty-one isn't old.

Twenty one is ancient if you're seven...*grin*

SaintStephen, count myself and Naughty Marvin as older atheists. And, we're clear about it.

Is 48 old yet?

I don't feel old.

My husband also says I don't feel old.

Sili, The Unknown Virgin:

Twenty-one isn't old.

You're adorable, you are. :D

Well, if Patricia gets to include Naughty Marvin, I can include the Redhead, who also doesn't feel old...

Aquaria young lady, wait until you can get your AARP card. Then you are officially a Senior, and have the card to prove it, no matter how young you feel. Discounts (say $5-10/night off motels) if you travel.

"it takes more faith to believe we came out of nothing than to believe God created it

No it doesn't. All it takes is that science be more honest than religion, and that's not a hard ask.

Nerd of Redhead, OM:

Well, if Patricia gets to include Naughty Marvin, I can include the Redhead, who also doesn't feel old...

Well, then I get to include Mr. Fleur du mal. Atheist and young of heart and brain. (I'm about 27 in my head, he's about 16 and holding...)

This reminds me of a saying I ran across (via Chris Hallquist): "To explain apologetics is to refute it".

Since he was reviewing something by William Lane Craig at the time, he added "To explain Craig's argument is to parody it".

Personally, I can't keep "humoring" my religious friends/relatives. I refuse to continue to coddle them in their delusion. I NOW tell them the truth (finally at 53 yrs old and a lifetime of unbelief) there are no god/s, so get over it....

Sunday. Huxley held atheist meetings in Hyde Park.

"At the temple of St. Sophia the women's entrance stone steps are worn completely through by the bare feet of the worshipers." (think I read that)

The challenge, in part, if churches are to be displaced in the U.S. from nefarious policies, is that other places and events are still to be invented where women in them can meet with other women, and be accepted, and talk. As for men's places, also, similar but different in character, where men in them can take a position of leadership of some kind, this year or the next, and be, or feel, important. They usher and take up the offering, seen by all, you know.

In France there are 30,000 communes. 30,000 each with a mayor and a council. In France the women not working see each other at the market or the school, every day. France also has local pub cultures. In the U.S., much larger, our social construction is varied across the nation [see the old Democracy in Jonesville or The Talk in Vandalia]. The churches, however, are the largest in number of social constructs, I think. [Depends on where you are, see below.] Men can achieve leadership in politics, as can women, in service clubs such as Rotary, Elks, Civitan, Knights of Columbus, American Legion, VFW, Toastmasters, Jaycees, Junior Chamber, Masonic Lodge, Knights of Pythias, etc. etc. etc. If you go into elective politics in U.S., to identify all such groups and run strong in them is helpful or essential.

In some parts, Wisconsin and the northeast for example, there is a thriving pub culture in which you can become somebody, an accepted regular. There is no such pub culture in the south, or in many rural areas of the U.S., and the churches serve the same social function.

So I am saying that a good part, don't know percentage, high, of church membership in the U.S. is not made up of true believers at all. They know you are right, it's clear, but won't say so or acknowledge because it would be impolite and socially self-destructive. Their intellectual counterpoint would be something like Weatherhead's frustration book, The Christian Agnostic but they don't need intellect, they need a place of acceptance. Meanwhile, many, but not all, are immune to clarity.

Could Facebook and MySpace fill the void? Don't know. In the 1950's when TV became popular church membership dropped as a new social construct, TV, became widespread. Teabaggers that I see are in that group. But the churches recovered from TV, joined it, got huge funds, got Oral Roberts' University, got televangelists, Robertson and Falwell and a Christian network. The Catholics got Bishop Vincent Sheen, and no one to replace him up to now. This physically getting together is called "fellowship." TV can claim it but not have it except by delusion.

Am I the only one who thinks along those lines? I doubt it. The old writer Max Lerner in Democracy in America saw some of the same constructs. A labor leader told me, "You've got to run strong in those sons of bitches."

So atheists would do well to get together. Internet fine. But is someone on the internet going to give you a job, or let you make money by sending you business, as in church, if you fit in? You see the challenge going further, for the U.S. at least. The alternative is to change the character of the churches from the outside, as with a world war in Europe where clerics favored authoritarian policies, saying "They are Christians too."

Now for those of you sharp as a tack, or who feel like pouncing today, I can't prove all that I've said above, it's my opinion, a generalization, where all the citations are in soft science or anecdotal, but not all generalized opinions are worth the same. Like you, I think mine is worth more than some others.

SaintStephen, what qualifies one as “old”?

I certainly don’t think of myself as old, but I”m sure I’m closer to that gentleman’s age than I am to PZ’s freshly-graduated daughter.

And what about The Amazing himself, James Randi? He ain’t no spring chicken. Professor Dawkins is past retirement age, if I recall correctly, and Dan Dennet is about the same age I think. Christopher Hitchens is probably a bit younger, but not much.

And, well…PZ wasn’t exactly born yesterday, either.

So, that leaves…Sam Harris? Arianna Sherine?

Atheism may well be popular amongst the young ’uns, but it’s the geezers who’re molding, boring, loading, aiming, and firing the cannons, for the most part.

Cheers,

b&

Sorry but this is wrong. irksome.infidel has informed us that this approach works 0% of the time. Not some of the time, not for some people. But for no-one ever!

@kel, om

I assume you are addressing my comment.

There are two approaches raging on the blogosphere. I'm not for the framing one. I'm for the confrontation.

However, there is a social element not addressed by either.

I know that I was pushed from "catholic lite"/"hopeful deism" to full fledged atheism when I read someone's post talking about the "invisible sky wizard"...

... and I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it here before on occasion, but honestly, I may owe my now being able openly to call religious BS what it so very obviously is at least in part to a (clearly very uncivil) high school friend, who said, of religion, more or less, at one point, while I was still involved in the church: 'I seriously don't get how anyone with half a brain could take any of this bullshit seriously...'

I don't know what the stats are on such reactions as I had to that (and, mind you, it was a slow one... it simmered some years). Dunno even if there are any. And I don't, personally, so much need such statistics nor anecdotes like mine or maddogdelta's to justify calling bullshit bullshit; I call it that simply just because it happens to be such a thing, and I have this thing about trying keep things simple at least halfway honest, myself, so much as I can, when I can. Call it how you see it, unless you've a really good reason not to, generally, I'd say...

Regardless, I do take this much home, at least: it's bullshit also, when people say that kind of directness never works. Because clearly, on occasion, it does.

(/I'd add: said 'uncivil' friend said as much some twenty five years ago... long before the 'shrill new atheist' smear was even a glimmer in some numbnuts Guardian columnist's eye. Only thing 'new' about this, again, is there's a few too many of us, and too many people reading some of the same, for certain folk entirely to ignore it.)

Am still curious about how many atheists are afraid to offend the religious, and to show their stand.
Of course it is easier to be forthright in the countries I am/have been residing, Norway, Australia, and Canada, because there godbothering isn't really considered a particularly desirable trait either, but also because the issue about believing is more seldom raised. At least in Norway and Australia it is generally considered somewhat offensive also when somebody say they will pray for you. Normal response is 'Get fucked!' or thereabouts.
But somehow religion doesn't become so bothersome as it obviously is in the US. And hopefully the xian taliban will lose some of the grip they have on US society.

re 17:

SaintStephen, include myself, 'Tis, ARIDS, JackC?, Patricia, SteveM?, and LeePicton with Caine, Deadly Flower, just to name a few. I'm sure other regulars can have you counting on other body parts in nothing flat.

SaintStephen used the word "elderly", at 52 I'm definitely "older", but I think hardly "elderly".
So do I count? (oh, definitely American, BTW).

Man, I really need to stop following those videos back to Youtube. I guess I'm a masochist. I always pick the suggested video that I know is going to have the highest density of morons, and I always look at the comments, and I always get pissed off.

I've seen the idiotic 747 argument like 2 dozen times in 20 minutes, my blood pressure inching up every time. I think I'd like to strangle whoever implanted that into the minds of the theoparrots.

Nerd of Redhead, OM @ # 26: ... wait until you can get your AARP card. Then you are officially a Senior...

As one who absolutely and stridently refuses to join AARP (though technically qualified), then I'll never reach senior status!

Clarity is is especially lethal to those theists who believe, very strongly, in belief. You can freeze them like deer in the headlights by demanding a real definition, something specific enough that it can't pass for something that isn't God. Turns out they don't know what they mean by God, exactly -- it's not an invisible spirit above us, that's a metaphor, it's not love, that's an emotion, it's not the universe, that's not enough -- oh, who cares what it is? It's just terribly, terribly important to be the kind of person who believes in God, by not having to be so damn precise all the time.

Can you see hope under a microscope? Can you measure meaning with a ruler? Can you mix up concepts from different categories? If you can do that last one, then you, too, can believe in God. Whatever God is.

The obscurantists actually see vagueness, self-contradiction, and incoherence as a virtue. As an argument for the existence of God. Look, if God existed, it would have to be something so great, so far above us, so Other, that one could not contemplate it with any clarity. So -- do I babble nonsense? Thank you. Bully for me. It means I'm humble before Greatness and Mystery. Look how close I am to understanding God.

And look how far away arrogant Mr. Clarity is.

StStephen #11 wrote:

One would be extremely hard-pressed to find an elderly man holding opinions like that delightful Australian, in the entire country of America.

This made me laugh, and wipe a tear of mirth away. It was not long ago, my child -- no, not even as you measure time -- that the #1 major complaint about all the atheist, humanist, and skeptic spokespeople, and all the groups, was that they were uniformly filled with nothing but gray-haired old men, and, here and there, an occasional woman of mature years. Where o where are all the young atheists? was the universal cry. They seemingly have no public presence, anywhere.

Thank God for the internet. So to speak.

SainStephen et al, the majority us of Australians in the speaker's age group (I'm roughly the same age) and younger would consider religion as totally irrelevant.
We have about a 10% church attendance rate, and that includes children taken there by their parents.

Glan Davidson @#2: That's a pretty hot-shit argument embedded in there. Thank you.

Sorry, Glen.

Aquaria asked and answered, "Is 48 old? I don't feel old."

Well, then, there you go, dear.

Age is not the accumulation of time, it is the accumulation of wear and tear and associated damage, mostly to the body but also affecting those other parts of us that seem distinct from the body.

Mind, mainly, but also the fuzzy parts that are troublesome to define. The take home point is that you really are as old as you feel and you are free to ignore the calendar at will.

I didn't feel old at 48 either and I continued to not feel old for a few more years. On the other hand I can clearly recall feeling very, very old and feeble more than once in the distant past.

then I'll never reach senior status!

Read what I said. If you can get...You are a senior, whether you admit it or not...

It just occurred to me that the story "Nightfall" by Isaac Asimov describes a behavior quite similar to the fear of clarity displayed by many of the faithful.

The story takes place on a planet with six suns resulting in at least one sun being above the horizon at any given moment. Night is unknown and the people of this planet, Lagash, have never seen any stars beyond these six. They have never developed an astronomical science because it was plain to anyone what was in the sky. It was also plain to see that Lagash was in the center of a sphere of light and always illuminated, suggesting that it was somehow favored.

Legendary tales, however, told of a catastrophe that seemed to recur at regular intervals and according to the legend the next occurrence is at hand.

That's the moment that all of the suns, by virtue of the subtleties of orbital mechanics, are all eclipsed at once. Revealed then is the rest of the universe spread out in all its breadth and width and depth and clarity before the good people of Lagash.

It drives them insane. Mayhem descends and the slaughter begins. Again.

He is great, as always.

re 46:
It drives them insane. Mayhem descends and the slaughter begins. Again.

And who do they blame (and slaughter) for the coming of night, the astronomer who predicted the event and prepared to examine the dark sky.

Perhaps there are no more 'older' athiests in Australia than the US. Athiests don't get the bad press in australia as they appear to in the US. This may allow aussie athiests to speak their mind without fear or favour...perhaps.

His response wasn't to respect the scientific lack of certainty (although that is what he was expecting from me). No, he mocked me: "What! You think that 'we aren't entirely sure' is good enough? I *know* how it happened, and you are stuck with 'perhaps maybe this is how it happened.'"

I think an appropriate response would be "Yes, we aren't entirely sure is good enough, because it's true. You "know how it happened" is not true, you simply believe it to be true.

People believe all kinds of things. This does not make them true.

Lithified Detritus

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the ratio of "Old" atheists to "New" is likely reflected in actuarial tables? That is, old atheists, like old mechanics and old jockeys and old timers probably die off at similar rates, after having adjusted for other risk factors.

If so, then the ratio of old to new atheists is simply a number that has some value at some point in time. As demographics change and influence the actuarial tables some variation in the ratio may be observed.

I suppose that one could argue that classicists and progressives should be in some perfect ratio or that the number of basketball fans is always the number of baseball fans multiplied by an arcane factor. The problem is that when prescription like explanations of complex change in populations are offered to the general public, brevity and politeness enjoy a higher regard than clarity.

The resulting confusion is fascinating to behold. Equal parts wishful thinking and disciplined observation existing in a whirlwind. That balance has been maintained (to greater or lesser degree depending upon the times) for millennia is the chief miracle. That it shows signs of gradual progress is astounding.

His response wasn't to respect the scientific lack of certainty (although that is what he was expecting from me). No, he mocked me: "What! You think that 'we aren't entirely sure' is good enough? I *know* how it happened, and you are stuck with 'perhaps maybe this is how it happened.'"

I think an appropriate response would be "Yes, we aren't entirely sure is good enough, because it's true. You "know how it happened" is not ,true, you simply believe it to be true.

People believe all kinds of things. This does not make them true.

Lithified Detritus

Isn't this ideological warfare? Religion contributed to the development of science and, hundreds of mutations later, they're at each other's throat. But on this point Dawkins is right, clarity is the best tool of attack from either side.

One big thing to keep in mind about the "bad cop" approach is that it's not just meant for the ostensible immediate listener.

That is, if Thelma the Theist makes a claim, and Alice the Atheist says "That's bullshit", perhaps Thelma is indeed turned off and pushed further into fundamentalist murk and/or New Age woo, out of backlash. But Alice may nonetheless gain deconverts from the bystanders who are paying attention and subconsciously thikning, "Huh, I didn't know it was culturally/philosophically possible to say that. Apparently there are others who have been thinking like I have."

Certainly, that's a part of what helped me feel like I was really an atheist and not just a nonbeliever. (My childhood background included next to zero religion, however, so I'm not the best example.)

These are social tools which can be used for good or ill, of course. (For example, consider gossip at its most complex: social systems that involve verbal-punishing-for-not-verbally-punishing. This can lead to viral schoolyard bullying, or to the maintenance of useful honor systems. In the case of atheism, I don't think things have to go to that level — like Dawkins in the video, I personally tolerate those who are tolerant of tolerance.)

If an ideology is badmouthed enough, the result is usually a diminishing of that ideology, not an increase of its numbers out of spite against the bad-mouthers.

Why, yes it is ideological warfare, Cheirios.

That religion contributed something to science, chiefly literacy and obsessive record keeping, is simply the reciprocal of science contributing to religion. Printing presses come to mind. So do small radio transceivers as Randi is notorious for pointing out.

Again, there is this strange balance between the rational and the unrational. (Hmm. FireFox spell checker doesn't recognize "unrational" Perhaps I can convince it to by clicking thusly! There. A new term exists.;)

Slanted science said "I really don't see that we will "ever" (let's say for the next 1,000 yrs, at least) be able to remove from people's heads the thought that there is "something out there", something larger than us which we all came from and which we will all return to."
I am busy and read kinda slow so I skipped ahead to speak to that.

All you have to do is look up out side of your own mind to see that there is a vast amount of "something out there". We have just begun to see how very much there is out there.
The more we look the more we can see that we are directly connected to all of it. Our very atoms were "created" inside of stars, We change them on a regular basis. We are directly connected physically to the first life on earth in an unbroken line all the way back.
When we stop living our atoms continue to exist for a while the only thing that changes is the event of our life. Nothing is for ever everything is just an event in time light, atoms, the universe and ourselves just events in time
The only thing we will change or can in regards to the above statement is the definitions. While it may be painful for some to do the change it is not as hard as you would think as many here would attest. Our religious ideas are so small our gods are so useless but they die slowly until they are gone. I doubt it will be any 1000 years

uncle frogy

Crudely Wrott -
Sorry, rhetorical question. But thanks for the confirmation. I was writing with Feyerabend on the brain, which I hope excuses the skeptical tone. Incidentally a great article on him here:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/10/how_not_to_feyerabend…

StStephen, when I joined my local Secular Humanist group, I was, at age 52, the youngest member by at least 15 years. We have two 96 year old members and about five between 75 and 85. This is in the mountains of Virginia, too!

It truly has been wonderful to learn at the feet of these retired academics, military officers and CEO's. Yes, they all have a high degree of education in common, which tells a lot.

I was fortunate enough to have my Grandfather say to me, at 12, "Religion is bullshit". Although he also told me that sometimes you have to "crow like a crow".

Holy Toledo! I get back and the place is overrun with godless grey-haired people!

Okay, okay! I was wrong about the lack of old atheists. It warms me heart, truth be told.

Put on some Fats Domino, and let's have an atheist sock-hop, or something...

No apology necessary, Cheirios. Rhetorical questions deserve reply as much as any other kind. In fact it's probably a good idea to ask them and to answer them as one is able; it keeps information in an agitated state and helps to prevent it from forming clumps that gum up the works.

Feyerabend is reasonably good theater in his attempt to find a way to meet reality head on; not so good at practical application. Some part of each of us wants to pierce the mystery of existence and Feyerabend represents a nice try. I admire his spirit and dadacation, oops, that should be dedication.

As we all potentially can do, he helped us all to take another step along the way. I still like the idea of simplicity. It's so elegant.

Well my 80 year old Daddy decided religion was bullshit when he was about 10. And I am no spring chicken myself.

Well I am a spring chicken. Just not this spring . . .

One would be extremely hard-pressed to find an elderly man holding opinions like that delightful Australian, in the entire country of America.

Are you yet another poster who thinks I'm a nerdy, snarky young man?

If so, you'd be wrong on both the "young" and "man."

I saved this from another discussion, on a forum some years ago. A great definition of clarity, as it relates to this discussion - - -

Clarity means being welded by gravity to a hurtling rock in the limitless dark. Clarity is a vast and indifferent universe. Clarity is the inexorable tick of our organic clocks, the lit fuse of our metabolic progress toward oblivion. Clarity is that everything about us will be erased in the course of human time, and everything human will be erased in the course of cosmic time. Clarity hurts. Clarity can injure or destroy the unprepared mind, and the symptoms of such injury are the source of the world's frantic instability.

To assume that, with clarity, all will be well is naive. Accepting the reality of the human condition is a tall order, requiring great maturity of mind.

---- PyotrZ, from the Bright's Forum, minor edits by K E Decilon

That kind of clarity is unavailable to people of quaint religious beliefs. The very thought of it scares the hell out of them, and sends them scurrying back to their cognitive dissonance.

@Crudely Wrott #46, ScottM #48
You missed the punchline/tragedy:
After the sight of the night sky drives them mad, they burn their civilization to the ground fueling the fires to bring the light back!

Looking back on it, that story had a lot more relevance than I gave it credit for. Unfortunately.

I think Dawkins' term "seducers" should be adopted immediately, in contrast to the "bullshit!" faction. I agree with Dawkins that there is a role for both methods. And "seducer" sounds so much more delicious than the slightly derisive "framer" label. There's somethign very Dark Side about it... You need both your Darth Vaders and your Emperor Palpatines.

I'm of the "it's bullshit" crowd because that's the most clear I can be. I won't be mean about it, and I will discuss the subject as best I can, but I won't stop saying something is bullshit if that's what it is.

All for clarity.

Agree that there are many audiences & that bluntness can be a blunt tool, so to speak.

Even so, I have often unintentionally offended believers by restating their beliefs in my words to get them clear.

Believers can find clarity blasphemous in their terms because, as others have pointed out, most if not all religious beliefs look absurd ("a load of bullshit") when restated in plain rather than holy language.

On atheists in Australia, my impression is there is a higher proportion of apatheists & atheists here compared with the US.

As an Australian visitor to the US I found myself having to practice a bit of cultural courtesy & not respond to the surprisingly frequent ( to me) references to god & prayer & god bless & so on from otherwise very nice & reasonable people. Such talk is considered a bit weird in most circles here.

But we are going backwards here in Australia. In the 1980s we had a popular prime minister, Bob Hawke, who was an atheist. Our current prime minister does door stop interviews outside church on Sundays & the leader of the opposition, our alternative prime minister, is known variously as "Captain Catholic" or "The Mad Monk".

That is, old atheists, like old mechanics and old jockeys and old timers probably die off at similar rates

What?! You mean we aren't God's chosen people, destined to live eternally?!

You suck.

I guess as with rational thinking, clarity(not to be confused with bluntness) does not come natural to people just because they don't believe in gods.It's something you need to work on and practice all your life.

To quote Roger Bacon: the causes of error are authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of real ignorance with pretence of knowledge. This last error is the most dangerous and is in a sense the cause of all the others.

Religion contributed to the development of science (cheirios)

...like infectious and metastatic diseases contributed to the development of medicine?

or like US institutions of higher learning contribute to professional sports? (or vice versa)

Doesn't make us natural allies, really.

I met that old guy in Melbourne airport on the way home to Adelaide after the rise of atheist convention. He was a legend. I bought some darwin cubes from him which he invented. Its a mathematical game and came in a cool box. He was embarrased about taking my money. In truth it was some dice, some plastic cups and some rules, but kudos. He invented something. He told me about his question to Dawkins. Real cool guy.

After the sight of the night sky drives them mad, they burn their civilization to the ground fueling the fires to bring the light back!

I think I read Nightfall when I was just getting into sci-fi. That would be about 35 years ago. The story is coming back to me now. I like the bit where the archaeologist discovers pretty much global layers of ash deposited at regular intervals in the geologic strata...

I'm another SteveM, BTW. A 54-year old Yank from NJ but living in Ireland for the past 25 years. So as not to be confused with our SteveM here, I changed my handle to the one I use to author websites.

Wow. Clarity = threat. I never thought of it this way. Really an eye-opener!

I think some people are threatened by clarity, while others find it a sign of simple-mindedness. To them, the possibility that "It's all bullshit" could be an appropriate response to centuries of theological thought and thousands of hours of sermons is incomprehensible. Their attitude is kind of like the Courtier in the Courtier's Reply.

There really is a place for the New Atheist approach. Not all flies can be caught with honey, as it turns out.

They only want you when you're seventeen
When you're twenty-one
You're no fun
They take a polaroid and let you go
Say they'll let you know
So come on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncl7New1czM

Crudely Wrott,

The 2000 version of the film "Nightfall" is pretty good.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249840/

If we're talking about 12 year olds, there might be a way to approach this without telling them it's bullshit. I have a couple of cousins who are raised by a strict catholic family, and it's sad to watch.
I have an idea, that if I'm feeling bold, I might consider trying out. I want to ask them (because I don't know to ruin it for them) what they got from Santa Claus last Christmas. If they respond something like, "He's not real," this is exactly what I'd hope for. Then moving on, ask something like, how much did you get from the tooth fairy, easter bunny, etc... hoping they'll respond in a similar way to the last question.
So, then when all this is being discussed, ask them something about god. I can't think of how to phrase it exactly, but ask something like: "Is god answering your prayers?" or something referring to god. Maybe it'll click, because they'll have it fresh in their heads that their parents have been lying to them about all the other imaginary things in their lives. I can just see the look on their faces! I just hope that it'll actually work. I think that's reasonable.
But I also think they'll go straight to their parents and ask about it. Then proceed to be told that questioning god is the devil working, etc. But maybe it'll show them they should be skeptical in the future, and not to believe everything their family tells them because they'll been fooled so many times before.

"There really is a place for the New Atheist approach. Not all flies can be caught with honey, as it turns out."

In this metaphor if we're talking about the religions, I feel it's relevant to point out that flies tend to be more attracted to bull shit to honey.

#77 charley: This.

When using terms like "clarity", it can be helpful to remember that of course the Other Side doesn't see things like that. They don't literally say (or think) "I prefer obscurantism to the truth!" They don't say "I know the Emperor is naked, but I like pretending."

That's why I personally like sticking to terms that people really do wrestle over. For example, lots of people really do proudly declare that there's more to knowledge than evidence. That's one good epistemological turf for the debate to visit, because it's a context in which theists can start to see the silliness of their very own ideas. ("Tell me, why do you value A's revelations over those of B? If the answer is 'faith', why should anyone else reach the same conclusion?")

I was there, and the weather was a little hot & muggy, so the wrinklies & the frail preferentially occupied seats under cover.
Those who were standing or squatting on the grassy knolls in the sun were much younger, in general.
(It was not unlike the mythical "sermon on the mount", as the tent was surrounded by a grassed amphitheatre, and possibly thousands of eager listeners, many with glasses of fine wine in hand! No fishes, though.)

This guy was brilliant, but his approach is how most of my friends speak about religion. Although he held back on the 4 letter words!

Michael Gray, South Australia

After wrestling with the merits of both approaches, I realized that I don't want to bluntly confront my friends, family, co-workers and assorted others I must live with on a daily basis. Sort of an extension of the "granny principle". (For the sake of family harmony, you don't argue at the Thanksgiving table with your 87 year old granny about her creationist beliefs.) So I am an accommodationist with them.
But the leaders who are prostituting science, debasing science education and lying through their teeth, deserve the no holds barred, take down approach. The pious idjuts (Ham & Hovind) deserve mockery. The "scientists" who sign dissent documents or who shill lies for the Discotute should know better and deserve to be called ignorant, liars and worse.
Check out PZ's debate with Simmons - Simmons is a slimebag and PZ was far too courteous to him. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6850624687498691777#

(Why is Simmons a slimebag? Besides the very bad way that PZ was treated (they set up the debate with PZ weeks ahead, then changed the topic 45 minutes before PZ went on the air, obviously to accommodate Simmons); Simmons wrote a book called "Billions of Missing Links" but was totally ignorant of the whale fossil finds coming from China in the last 20 years! Hey, anyone might miss some new piece of data - but to claim enough science expertise to write a book that is trying to undermine the integrity of science yet be totally uninformed of your subject makes one a fraud & liar in my opinion.)

After reading my post in the cool light of morning, I think I went too far in calling Simmons a slimebag & liar. I am making an assumption I cannot substantiate - that Simmons was responsible for the screw-up in the debate and not the hosts of the program, who claimed responsibility.
Using the word "slimebag" was a cheap, ad hominum attack against someone and is beneath me.
I apologize to Dr Simmons for insulting him and his integrity in this way.