How dare you
I wouldn’t want you to think I’ve forgotten the twins. Chris popped his head around the door the other day to say ‘Here’s another favorable review’ (funny how both of them either ignore the bad reviews or pretend they were good reviews). While he was at it he also said ‘and here’s someone who thinks what we think – no actually he said her comment was ‘revealing’ and then said ‘It seems to me that Hannah is our ally in the cause of better public acceptance of science–and I for one, am glad for it.’ In other words, same old thing: keep ignoring what critics say and keep doggedly repeating what the twins say in the hopes that sheer repetition will convince the unconvinced.
Here’s a news flash: it won’t.
Hannah’s comment goes like so (you could write it yourself without even looking):
[A]theists have as much capacity for creating dogma as do religious folks. That is clearly evident in reading comments here. I will say, once again, that it’s insulting to continually read from progressive commenters here and other places that I must be a “crazy” who believes in “fairy tales”, etc. because I am a Christian. For the record, I have a degree in science (from a highly-regarded state university known for its science programs), have worked as a research assistant, am always trying to learn more about the natural world. The Christian denomination I belong to and many others are not like the fundies, and in fact are appalled at what those folks are doing. Many of us speak out against their un-Christian and other actions that harm their children (re education), the country and the world.
So…she thinks it’s insulting to read that she must be a crazy because she believes in fairy tales because she’s a Christian – but she doesn’t mind calling other Christians ‘the fundies’ and ‘un-Christian.’ What, exactly, is the difference? What is the relevant variable here?
Is it whose ox is being gored? Yes; pretty obviously. So she forfeited her moral standing to complain about being insulted.
But more to the point, it’s a silly complaint anyway. Suppose commenters here and there said that people who believe in Santa Claus or Loki or parking angels are crazy. That would be insulting to such people – and that would be just too bad. If you believe fanciful things for no good reason, then you just have to put up with people in the wider world saying those beliefs are silly. Your best friend may humour you, your siblings and colleagues perhaps will too, but you can’t expect all of humanity to oblige. You just can’t. In the public realm, ideas and beliefs have to stand on their merits. If they can’t – then there’s something wrong with them.
This is obvious in the case of beliefs in Santa Claus and parking angels. Generalized discussion of the absurdity of belief in Santa or parking angels doesn’t generally trigger outrage about militant fundamentalist new aclausists. Christian beliefs, like other religious beliefs, are not fundamentally different from other such fantasy-based beliefs, but people in Christian regions think they are because of long habit and social norms. That’s an illusion. It’s an illusion that ought to be patiently chipped away at until it is gone. It’s not an illusion that ought to be cherished and cuddled and pandered to.
“It’s an illusion that ought to be patiently chipped away at until it is gone.” Exactly. If religion is about gods, but there are no gods, then it’s about nothing at all. Some people still hold onto the belief that there’s a core of transcendental truth in there somewhere. They are mistaken.
I was watching a YouTube video of the ‘creation museum’ visit by PZ and the SSA. One SSA visitor was arguing with Dr. Jason Lisle. He’s a ‘creationist astrophysicist,’ with a PhD from the U of Colorado at Boulder. He had apparently argued that those who support the scientific consensus are arguing to authority. Naughty, naughty. When told that his appeal to the Bible was an argument to authority, he claimed that reasoning had to start somewhere. The Bible claims (he said, falsely) to be infallible. You either accept that or reject it. If you reject it, reasoning can’t get started, so accepting the Bible as an infallible authority makes reason possible! Well, you get the picture. Here’s a quote from his AiG biography (the toothpaste twins might be interested):
See how simple it is folks! Even PhD’s from Boulder can do it. I’m not sure that Chris and his sidekick really get the picture. In case they haven’t noticed, there have been and are all sorts of popular science writers: Simon Singh, Richard Dawkins, Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking, Jerry Coyne, De Grasse Tyson, etc. etc. There’s even a great litle series of Time-Life books, ‘Get a grip on evolution, genetics, etc.’ They tell the simplifies story in pictures, cartoons, sidebars, etc. What exactly do the twins want? Exactly how does atheism figure in this – except, of course, that it does seem to make it harder for people to understand?
Really slipped up this time! Was distracted by some guinea pigs! I meant, of course, how does religion figure in this – except, of course, that it does seem to make it harder for people to understand?
Guinea pigs! I picture a herd of them galloping across your desk. Very distracting!
Heehee.
Eric, where they rutting? There’s few things more charming and full or mirth than a male Cavie in the act of separating a not quite receptive female with the end of satisfying his procreative urges. The noise is hilarious. Takes me back to my childhood…..
No, not rutting, just piping happily because they were going to get some salad! My daughter is visiting, and the ‘pigs’ are hers. They’re galloping in a pen just a few feet away. Well, right now they’re sleeping, as I write this.
Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention. The twins are at it again, this time in the Los Angeles Times, in an article entitled “Must science declare a holy war on religion?” They just won’t let up, will they?
“Must science declare a holy war on religion?”
No. Must religion get to say where science cannot shine its light?
(Cue much harrumphing from the fashionable anti-atheist cretins of the soi-disant left and their objective masters in the lying-for-Jesus tendency).
What is the relevant variable here?
“Progressive”. It is all right to insult the ‘other side’:
“It was kinda fun to bash Republicans and the religious right again” (Mooney on Intersection 8/8).
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. But they seem to be completely oblivious to the trouble standard. There’s also something disturbing about how they assume that science exists to serve the interests of the U.S. establishment – as long as Democrats are in charge (who, ironically, are not even turning out to be that progressive). When environmental groups and some scientists criticized the new climate bill for being too weak, Mooney had this to say:
“Why can’t our side have unity and a coherent message for once?”
Well, what if you disagree? Who gets to decide what the message is?
Oh dear sweet fucking Jesus – they’re still pointing and yelling at PZ (and “his readers” for Christ’s sake) – and they’re still whining about Jerry Coyne. They say Jerry “assaulted” the NCSE’s “Faith Project” – “assaulted”! God they are such whiny petulant bedwetting babies – screaming “Mommy she touched me!” every time the sibling comes within ten feet.
Bedwetters!
Ophelia,
Did you pick up in Mooney’s admission on his blog that he enjoyed bashing right-wingers during a TV interview on his visit to LA ?
The quote was: “It was kinda fun to bash Republicans and the religious right again, and here’s the video:”
The original is here.
It’s pretty obviously the Evidence-Based Atheists’ success that rankles with M&K. They’re pissing on Dawkins’s rug because his not-even-published-yet The Greatest Show on Earth is already outselling Mooneybaum’s own bumbling effort on Amazon.
Matt yup I did. I’ve been letting them rest (in hopes that they would rise) lately, but I saw that.
I’ve been giving this a little more thought and it seems to me that Rushdie made an observation in his Satanic Verses that M & K need to wrap their heads around. He said (very rough paraphrase) that you can’t judge the extent of an emotional wound by the size of the physical cause. A tremor that most wouldn’t even notice can still bring an emotional house of cards tumbling down.
The emotional trauma the faithful feel when they realize that large segments of their worldview do not correspond to reality could be just as devastating when prompted by a whisper from a friend as it would be if prompted by the sneering ridicule of some stranger on a blog.
The tone and intent that M & K find so distasteful pales in comparison to the consequences of the message. Learning that the world is not the way you thought it was, and even your method for learning things at all is faulty, will always be a terrifying revelation. No matter how that information is presented.
By focusing only on how the faithful feel angry or threatened by the “new atheists” and assuming that those feelings are a reaction to the tone, not the content of the message, M & K appear to be begging the question. Maybe if they had tried to argue their position a little better, or provided some decent evidence to back up the assertions, this could have been prevented. But until that happens I am going to join the growing chorus of voices and agree that these two can be safely ignored. If someone with more time and patience finds that they do at some point start to engage their critics in a more honest fashion I could be persuaded to give them another chance, but I’m not holding my breath.
Grendel’s Dad, you’ve communicated yourself quite nicely with Rushdie’s quote. I tried to say the same thing in one of the past discussions over M/K, though I was more of a bumbler about it.
Ophelia, I can still post there, do you want me to be your “Intersection” ghostwriter? Maybe you could trick them up by changing your name in a clever way, i.e., Bophelia Enson.
What about “Ensign Bophelia”? Sounds much more official.
@ Ben and Parr – LOL!
How about Ophelia Bobelia. Banana-ana-pho-phelia?
Mee-my-mo-melia?
Cordelia Johnson? Desdemona Wilson?
But of course I assume they filter my IP, not just my name. There’s always the library though…