Miriam Burstein points out the historical antecedents of the "Atheist Two-Step" discussed by Adam Kotsko and Brandon at Siris. This also ties in nicely with Fred Clark on sectarian atheists, as previously mentioned.
Also, speaking of historical screeds by Protestant preachers, Jerry Fallwell is dead. I really don't have anything to say about that, other than that I'm sorry for his family and friends.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Really, I don't read Debbie Schlussel's blog—a reader sent me a link, so I put on the waders and gas mask and climbed down into the sewer. I'm now completely baffled; why is this insane and deeply stupid person ever put on television? Her response to the CNN complaints is illustrative, and even if…
Mitt Romney's "Mormons are Christians -- really!" speech ("I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."), also established that non-believers are not Americans -- really!
And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in…
I'm late to the party again; only because Hilzoy mentioned it did I see this hilariously inane article by Michael Medved. I don't know what Medved's qualifications are; he seems to be the Clever Hans of the Right Wing chattering classes, the guy who doesn't actually have a functioning mind but is…
The NY Times has a decent summary of the Dobrich case—the families in the Indian River school district of Delaware who are suing to end the state sponsorship of sectarian religion that is running amuck there. Most of the residents there don't seem to get it—I wish people would stop calling this a…
From the Siris post:
1. Someone points out that the particular religious belief disproven by the doctrinaire atheist is not really held by anyone as stated.
2. The doctrinaire atheist then says that religion is so obviously stupid and pernicious that one can't be held accountable for detailed knowledge of it.
The thing about this is it just doesn't happen like that. The standard case is that someone will point out that a particular religious belief is not held by anyone with a Theology degree. Then the 'doctrinaire atheist' replies, quite rightly, that the specialised views of theologians are massively different from the views held by the vast majority of religious believers.
Ask your average man on the street (or in church) what he believes god is and you'll get a very different answer from a theologian. The majority of the current wave of atheist books are simply not engaging with the theologians, rather they are tackling popular religion, the religious views held by the majority.
Also, the comment on 'detailed knowledge' has been addressed many times before. The questions of what god is made of, what he thinks, where he lives or what kind of shoes he wears are irrelevant. The question being asked is "Does he exist?". Once those with 'detailed knowledge' can provide some convincing evidence in the positive then we'll recognise the other questions as actually having some merit
This 'atheist two-step' is nothing more than a poor attempt by the religious to dodge the question.
You could probably work on an analogy between 'reasonable' atheists who think it's important to study theology: nasty polemical atheists who just argue with the idea of God, and theologians who believe in a subtly defined God who barely interacts with the world: the mass of religious believers who think God listens to their prayers, grants wishes, and is waiting to judge them after they die.
Except you don't often see the theologians scolding the populace for their lack of subtlety.
1> Hear hear. It can also go something like this. Atheist shows something stated unequivocally in the Bible is either contradicted by observed reality or something else stated in the Bible. Xian claims quoted passage is "metaphorical" or was incorrectly interpreted by Atheist. Or "Jesus' sacrifice made that unnecessary."
Then there is the also important point that Dawkins does not speak for all atheists any more than Pinter speaks for all theists. Disproving some point of Dawkins, therefore, does not disprove the claims of all atheists.
The reply that follows is that the beliefs of atheists are so obviously stupid and pernicious that one can't be held accountable for detailed knowledge of them.
But anybody could have seen that coming from a mile off.