A name change?
Mooney doesn’t like being called an accommodationist. (Not unlike the way we don’t like being called “the New Atheist noise machine” or “the New Atheist comment machine,” perhaps.) He suggests different words.
I also am tired of the label “accommodationist.” It seems to imply that there is something weak about my view, as if I’m all ready to just cave to some common enemy. On the contrary, I think that I’m being tolerant and pragmatic.
Tolerant of what? Not of overt (explicit, non-apologetic, argumentative, reasoned) atheism, certainly. Tolerant of one side of a dispute that he himself has done a lot to create, so “tolerant” doesn’t really fit. (That’s not a very damning point, in my book – I think the merit of tolerance depends on the merit of what is being tolerated, so I don’t think it’s necessarily a virtue. The self-flattery is a little damning, but only a little.)
And pragmatic about what? That’s the real question. It’s not at all clear what is unpragmatic about explicit atheism. The fact that it annoys people like Mooney? But that’s because Mooney is weirdly phobic about explicit atheism, and it’s not really pragmatic to try to shape one’s thinking to allow for other people’s phobias.
Mooney’s usual way of putting the matter is that explicit atheism is “divisive” and we have to unite in order to tackle important problems. But that’s not adequate, because many things are divisive, and we can’t simply rule them all out in order to unite in tackling important problems. Mooney needs a lot more than that, and he’s never supplied it. So he can’t expect people to call him a pragmatist instead of an accommodationist when we don’t think he’s being particularly pragmatic in campaigning against explicit atheists.
It’s also question-begging. One of the disagreements is about whether there really are compelling pragmatic reasons to 1) hide one’s own atheism and 2) silence atheists in general. If you call yourself a pragmatist on this issue you’re pretending that issue has been decided, in your favor.
“…you’re pretending that issue has been decided, in your favor.”
Doesn’t that pretty much describe everything Mooney says?
I think Jean was recently appealing to one of them polls that show how (American) religious people will side with religion when shown that it’s incompatible with science. I think Jean, Mooney, etc. think this means the issue has been decided, so all that’s left to do is find out how far we can go with being sciency without pissing religious people off.
——–
Anyway, I’ve learned far more than I wanted to about some people in the last few days. I don’t get people who think Polanski’s raping a 13-year old was no big deal, and I don’t get people who think it’s no big deal when one sets up an anonymous blog and devotes it to publicly spitting on a real person, calling her a UPT, among other things. Getting to know people better can be very depressing.
It would be nice if Mooney had suggest an alternative…
His assertion that no accomodationists embrace the label is false. Didn’t Michael Ruse or somebody write a “Proud to be an accomodationist” series? And I have seen other people self-identify as accomodationist.
I understand the objection, and to be honest I’ve always been somewhat uncomfortable using the term because it does have subtle pejorative implications. But it’s a clearly defined position, and we need *some* kind of label to talk about it. Until somebody suggests to me a better label, I’m not sure what else to call it.
And BTW, I feel the same way about the New Atheist appellation. It’s problematic for any number of reasons, but I have so far not heard of a good alternative and, despite objections to the contrary, there is a new wave of vocal explicit atheism that is distinct not so much in philosophy but in social context from what has come before. So it needs a name. And since I haven’t heard any good suggestions (“Bright”? Ugh.) I’ve started to self-identify as a New Atheist and employ the term freely. I sometimes prepend “so-called” to it if I am referring to someone else who I know does not like the term, but even that habit I am gradually dropping.
James, I generally use explicit atheist for the non-pejorative alternative. If accommodationists agree on a new and non-pejorative term, I’ll use it – unless it’s question-begging or otherwise useless. I think “explicit” is reasonably neutral – perhaps even faintly pejorative, because of the tiny hint of porn.
I think Mooney must be getting some kind of kick-back from the irony-meter manufacturers. The *SPOING* is strong in this one.
James, I know of at least one person who refers to himself as an accommodationist: Chris Mooney.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/06/03/do-i-contradict-myself-very-well-then-i-contradict-myself/
I attempted to ask Mooney if he had a preferred term to substitute for ‘accommodationist’ (but discovered I was banned).
As I see it, the core of his position is that we shouldn’t claim that science and religion are incompatible. I therefore wondered whether he would like to be labeled a “compatibilist” (with respect to science and religion).
But now that I think more about it, I suspect that a label for Mooney’s position needs to be more political and less philosophical (since it seems he isn’t willing to argue for the philosophical compatibility of science and religion, but he does want to tell the uppity atheists that they’re not helping). I suppose he wouldn’t like to be called a you’re-not-helping-ist . . .
Personally, I prefer “compatibilist” after the context is made clear.
And of course, a big point of confusion, the type of religion in question is a big part of the context. This is glossed over all too frequently by critics of atheists, who, remarkably, have figured out that many of the criticisms of religion do not apply to their <i>particular</i> brand of faith. Then, interestingly, they respond with a defense of religion <i>generally</i>.
Dawkins has my religion wrong, therefore atheists have religion wrong.
It’s the bias of tending to see oneself as representative of a broad category. Maybe, when Dawkins criticizes Biblical literalism during a discussion of religion, he is not claiming that all religious people are literalists. We could look it up and find out for ourselves, but that would not be as pragmatic as dismissing him as ignorant, marginal, extreme, etc.
This is one of many fallacies that result from our metaphorical treatment of issues. For example, given a particular issue, we naturally refer to “sides” and “spectrums,” thinking either one-dimensionally or dichotomously about the range of opinion. These geometric depictions come easily to <i>homo sapiens</i>, but they are informal mathematical models which fail more often than not to have any relation to reality.
And here, we also find our objections to labeling. In a manner similar to our way of naively inferring cause and effect, we treat groups superstitiously. From the properties of the label, we determine that groups have certain essential properties. A priori, this isn’t necessarily the case. A posteriori, for me at least, it isn’t the case more often than not.
Am I rambling? Yes, because I’m about to quote some of the comments on Mooney’s post and I want the previous kept in mind:
Jon@41:
Of course, Dawkins does not say that religion is child abuse. He does say, however, that giving a young child a religious label is. So to Jon, complaining about brainwashing is more illiberal than, say, brainwashing. And of course, Jon’s conclusion that this criticism preempts dialogue is faulty. We’re voicing an ethical concern in strong language, not demanding that the religious be locked up.
Behold! He knows our dispositions! We tend to criticize several types of religion which do not include the sophisticates. Therefore, we simply can not “soberly understand” Taylor, Habermas, or even Dennett. If I, or anybody, claimed that the religion of philosophers and the religion of the populace were equivalent, then Jon’s critique would surely be biting for them. Of course, we repeatedly emphasize the differences among a Ken Ham, a Miller, an Armstrong, an Eagleton, and… who else is there? Thousands, right? I can’t see the distinctions, though, because I’m blinded by a sheet of red meat. I could go on, but read Hitch’s comments @43 and @45 instead. First, I want to note Mooney @30 seconding our dear Jon @29 who says:
Well, we will agree that there was no explosion of blogs, but were there really none of the historical factors? How “proto” was Russell, exactly? For, if I remember correctly, he was prevented from teaching at a college in 1940 because he had previously advocated nontraditional forms of marriage. Ok,<a href=”http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/08/21/illinois-family-institute-goes-after-me-again/”> similar efforts</a> to censor atheists by Christians happen today. This red meat is older than you think, and yes, it’s starting to smell rather poorly.
Let’s try something else. How about religiously motivated violence?
Things that change: scale, place, and time. The essential historical factors have always been there. We could go way back, if you please, all the way through history. Why did we have Ingersolls and Voltaires and anti-clericalism in early 19th century socialism? Are they exactly like modern atheists? Of course not, but anti-theism, right or wrong, has a long tradition. For obvious reasons, it is usually in reaction to religion. Historically, there has been far greater reason for atheists to react, actually, but society was hardly secular enough to allow safe reaction.
I end by directing everybody to the <a href=”http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/”>historical library</a> hosted by Internet Infidels. The modern library is post-1970, and there’s plenty of material aside from Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens.
The question is not why these books have been written and whether or not the motivations have essentially changed, but rather, why have they become so popular and successful?
Because now, when “child witches” are burned with acid in Nigeria, we hear about it. Now, when religious apologists lie, we can find it on Youtube. The internet, generally, has not been overly kind to religion. 9/11 is a big example of the problem, but we’ve never lacked examples. We’ve been publishing, steadily less discreetly, for centuries. The difference is that before, we could be safely ignored.
So no, “New Atheist” is not a fair label. Try “Dawkins” for Dawkins, “Hitchens” for Hitchens, and possibly “Harris” for Harris. Anti-theistic atheism is reviving, but it’s not new. This label does nothing to describe the nature of atheistic criticisms and complaints, except to say that it’s something that it isn’t: new.
I don’t mind the label, personally, though I won’t claim it for myself. I’ve used it in the past, and I still find it useful for discussing a group of about 5 or 6 people. The main problem with the label is how it has been used, smeared, and straw-manned beyond the point of recognition. It fails to deliver an accurate impression of the group to which is being referred. That is the test of an appropriate label, if we must have one at all.
Here’s a thought: if you disagree with “New Atheists,” why don’t you cite whoever is supposed to be making the argument with which you disagree and call it <i>[that guy]’s argument</i>?
This standard would prevent people from claiming that a large group of people do not know that religious scientists exist.
Labels are shortcuts. They are lazy.
Not only does Mooney dislike being labelled while happily labelling others, he will also happily disappear the most innocuous comments that point out that he may not always be right in his pronouncements on the Atheists Who Sell More Books Than Chris Mooney™:
The comment was there for a couple of minutes, then it made ‘poof’. Sad to see that a supposedly grown-up person has such grave issues with handling even the mildest forms of criticism. And that he is such an obvious world-class hypocrite about only nuking comments that are not “reasonable, thoughtful, civil”. My arse.
I personally have no problem with “New Atheist”, but I do have a problem with what is often added to it, as in ‘New Atheist Noise Machine’, or some combination of rude, strident, shrill, etc. And if, in popular understanding, ‘new atheism’ simply means strident, rude, brash, shrill, etc., then, of course, it is not acceptable, though a bit of stridency does not always go amiss, especially when important issues are at stake.
In the comments to his latest Mooney says this:
This is very peculiar. A few atheist books obviously met a social need, and sold well, and to that degree there was a publishing sensation. This seems largely past. The social need was (and is) the threat that religion poses to democracy and freedom. So far, however, it is scarcely true to suggest that there is a strong ‘new atheist’ social or political movement. There has been an increased stress on the value of secularism, but this is scarcely new. Renewed stress on secularism is a direct response to growing demands made by the religious.
What is really new, at least in most liberal democratic polities, is the degree to which Christians have begun to make demands for a larger footprint in the public square, as if their footpring was not already obliteratingly large. This has followed, to a great extent, the growing influence of Islam in those places where there is a public square. It is hard to remember a time, in living memory, when British Prime Ministers have been so up front with their faith commitments, until Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Donald Cameron. While we were told that Blair did not ‘do’ god while in office, Gordon Brown and Donald Cameron have both put their faith commitments into the political agenda.
The religious response to the ‘publishing phenomenon’ of Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins (and to a lesser degree Dennett) was strikingly strident and shrill. The number of books condemning the ‘new atheism’, as it came to be called mainly by those opposed to it, was striking. Four books or so were taken as a brutal and unrelenting attack on religion, while the presses continue to run off thousands of books every year defending religious beliefs and doctrines, some so blatantly shrill and even hysterical that the works of the ‘new atheists’ seem positively muted by contrast.
The odd thing about the accommodationist approach is that it takes the religious assault on atheism with such seriousness. Suddenly, atheists like Mooney and Sloan Wilson are apologising for the supposed intemperateness of the atheist attack on religion. One only has to read a few of the books written in response to Dawkins’ The God Delusion to appreciate just what the word ‘attack’ means. The level of vituperation and unrestrained polemic has to be read to be believed. This is why ‘accommodationism’ is such a suitable label for the response of some atheists to the extravagance of religious claims to have been so offended, for it is, in fact, a form of appeasement, an attempt to mollify believers, and to reassure them, almost entirely without argument, that their world view is perfectly reasonable and acceptable in a modern society, and in no way in conflict with the findings of science. Mooney actually admits that the reason he is so accommodating to religious belief is pragmatic, to ensure that science has a reasonable chance of convincing religious believers of its value and truth. In other words, we shouldn’t ruffle the easily antagonised feathers of the religious, or the problem of communicating science to the religious public will be further endangered. Unfortunately, he has not demonstrated that this is true, and Albert Mohler’s recent sermon indicates the reason why it is not.
Sorry for HTML fail in previous comment. Could you fix the missing closing blockquote tag for me, Ophelia? A preview function would be very useful… :)
His tolerance and praise of those with the power is noble and inspiring. Pragmatic…indeed.
I’m tired of this nonsense about “moderate” religious people. On what are they moderate, specifically? What religious beliefs do Miller and Francis hold about my gender, about sexual and reproductive rights, and how are these informed by their religion? What are the positions of the churches they belong to and support, or the organizations that fund them, on matters of human rights, foreign policy, and social justice? (Which evangelical church does Collins belong to, anyway?) It’s demanded that we accomodate not only those scarce religious views we don’t find reprehensible but also the the epistemic pile of sand on which they all rest and the controlling institutional structures that surround them. And if we don’t, we’re the problem. While people are being harmed. No. And Mr. Privilege has a lot of gall presuming to tell others what their cause is or should be. Don’t like accomodationist? OK. How about enabler of oppressors? I’m not really sure just what his cause is aside from self-promotion, but if he’s fighting for anything I don’t think they’re goals I share.
I wonder if the people he deals with, like that Mooney feels that they are people that he has to tolerate because of pragmatic reasons
Thank you SC. As someone who has reason to despise religion for some of the reasons you mention, I sometimes forget to state them clearly at times like this. Religion harms so many people, despite its repeated claims to social usefulness, that it is good to be reminded of the unbridled harm that respect for religion licenses. But for someone like Mooney to do so, simply to ensure, as he suggests, that the religious are not too offended, and so not put off listening to the appeal of science, — and to present this approach as in some sense intuitively obvious — is carrying a kind of louche pragmatism to completely unacceptable extremes.
Hmmmmmmm Zach…I’m not sure I want in depth analysis of comments by “Jon” here. I skip over them at the Intersocktion because I see no reason to pay any attention to “Jon,” so I see even less reason to resurrect his remarks here. No offense but…
Tea – same here. I could have gone my whole life very happily without knowing these things about these people.
Haha yeah, Ophelia, Jon is a case, as I remember from past comments on the Appalling Revelations thread. He’s a rather aimless sycophant. I mentioned him because Mooney nevertheless endorses him, and I felt that Jon’s comment was a good opener for explaining the problem with the “New” article in “New Atheism” as suggestive of more than `recent publications.’
This is rather mean, but due to the extreme insipidity of “Jon”‘s comments at the Intersection, I’ve begun to visualize him as “Jon” from the equally insipid “Garfield” comic strip, and most specifically the pathetic, angst-laden “Jon” who is revealed when the trappings of a snarky, talking cat are stripped away in “Garfield minus Garfield”: http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/
I know, I am a small, petty person. I should be better.
Nu uh. As Dorothy Parker said – if you can’t say something nice about anyone, come right here and sit by me.
I get the same feeling looking at Jon’s comments as I have, as Dorothy Parker had also, apparently, whenever I overhear oh-so revealing casual, ill-thought public chatter. I spend a lot of time at Starbucks, and this being the Bible Belt, there are plenty of regular Christian groups and meetings. So, I hear the occasional implicit endorsement of theocracy or sentimental reaction. On a few occasions, I’ve heard positive blabbling about Expelled or some other bit of uninformed nonsense.
Reading Jon’s comments, or reading some of the recent gloating over Hitchen’s condition, leaves me with similar feelings of disgust.
Now that Parker and Hitchens have come up… I’m tempted to reread some Unacknowledged Legislation all over again. I blame you, Ophelia.
Yeah, SC is right. We do always have to ask: “Moderate about what?” Now, there are some people around who adopt genuinely moderate religious positions. Eric will probably remind me that I’m showing my age and that this was a phenomenon of when I was a child growing up in the 1960s. That’s doubtless true, but these positions have kept on in some quarters. My local Anglican diocese is still pretty moderate as far as I know. But it’s also true that this strain in Anglicanism is under siege, that there’s nothing moderate about the Roman Catholic Church, and that the forms of religion that are growing rapidly world-wide are far from moderate. Philip Kitcher has a great essay in 50 Voices of Disbelief in which he argues that traditional religion is incompatible with science but goes on to expresses nostalgia for the non-literalist Anglicanism he knew in his youth, and a hope that religion will morph into something like that in the US (as it has, perhaps, done in Scandinavia).
But I’m afraid that’s not the world trend, and it doesn’t seem to be the US trend either, though maybe it’s still the trend in some of the more social democratic countries.
In any event, we should not be talking about the Catholic Church as moderate. When I sometimes refer to “genuinely moderate religion” and to the sort of religious folks that I have no real beef with, I mainly have in mind a kind of Anglican that is common enough where I live but an endangered species when looked at in world perspective.
Anyway, I think it’s too late for Mooney – “accommodationist” is likely to stick. So will “New Atheist”, but I still preface it with a “so-called”, partly to emphasize that much of it is not really new.
Hmm…so framing is good when Mooney is doing it to other people, and framing is bad when other people do it to him.
So, I guess the only consistent standard Mooney has is that it is always about him. Sigh.
However, if he doesn’t like Accomodationist, and since he didn’t offer alternatives, perhaps he’ll prefer Agnostic Narcissist?
Scote,
Nah, we need something more descriptive… how about Partisan Framist?
‘New’ atheist has always struck me as a deliberate slur, in the same way that (certain) people look down on others as being ‘new’ money – plus there’s the added implication that it’s a terrible mistake that will eventually fade away, like ‘new’ Coke.
That they seem to forget people have been saying the same things as the ‘new’ atheists – and demanding (and not receiving) the same answers to the same questions the religious today are ducking and weaving with their nonsense about compatibility with science and ‘other ways of knowing’ [jazz hands!] for centuries.
Really, the only thing ‘new’ about it is that society doesn’t allow them to use the same methods to keep us down as they once did.
@ Eric MacDonald : Well, there’s another unnecessary name change: The British Prime Minister is David Cameron, not Donald.
I think the appellation “new atheist” is already too widely used to be displaced. But would “keen atheist” be a better term? The usage notes in my dictionary (NOAD) say, “Anyone who is deeply interested in something or who shows a spirited readiness to act is called keen.” That keen also has the sense of “sharp or penetrating” is just a bonus!
I have changed my mind on the term new atheist. I used to object to it, but now I am proud to consider myself one.
I do still have a problem with it though and that is it shows a lack of familiarity with the history of atheism. There is nothing new about Dawkins’ (et al) form of atheism. Have the accomodationists never head of Bertrand Russell ?
Thank you Ant Allan, I did know that, and noticed the ‘Donald’ just as I clicked ‘submit comment’. ‘Donald’ Camerons are quite common in this part of the world (Nova Scotia or New Scotland). However, I knew some kind reader would correct the mistake without my having to.
As for moderate Anglicanism. Yes, there is a form of moderate Anglicanism, Russell, even a form of fairly radically humanist Anglicanism, of which I used to be a representative; but I am afraid it was beginning to be buried under the heavy weight of a fairly literalist evangelicalism. In my experience, much of this transition came about as women were admitted to the priesthood. I used to say to some of them, “If that’s the way you believe, you shouldn’t really be a priest at all” (for a literal reading of some of the pastorals would mean that women should not be in authority over men), but I’m afraid most of them did not get the point. Literalists usually don’t. It’s a deeply humourless form of religion.
Wowbagger & Matt
What I find new in the new atheism is that ultimately, is it is a new media powerhouse. There has always been a Richard Dawkins, but there hasn’t always been a Thunderf00t.
<BLOCKQUOTE>I also am tired of the label “accommodationist.” It seems to imply that there is something weak about my view, as if I’m all ready to just cave to some common enemy.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Bingo. That’s why we use the term.
Matt Penfold: Have the accomodationists never head of Bertrand Russell?
If they have, they probably found him much too cheerful and forthright in his views. Camus and Sartre at least had the decency and depth to wish they could believe. See, that would show proper respect. But as well as being too prim to go beyond rebuking the cheery ones for hurting precious feelings, the accommodationists also haven’t been able to come up with a descriptive term for the Positive Atheists that carries even a minimum of unambiguous information. ‘Accommodationist’, ‘faitheist’, and, for that matter, ‘homeopatheist’ (my absolute favourite: the more you dilute your atheism, the more effective it is), are all graphically descriptive terms, and even Mooney understood ‘accommodationist’ perfectly when he said that the term denotes a lack of intellectual courage. If only the accommodationist camp (a couple of whom like to give lessons in communication) could come up with an epithet that had some clear meaning…
So I know there is zero chance of anybody adopting these synthetic and admittedly somewhat awkward terms, but I have a suggestion: Tacticalist (nee accomodationist) and Strategicalist (nee New Atheist). I believe this captures both sides in a respectful and neutral manner, and also sets up the dichotomy quite cleanly. Click the link for my rationale.
As Ben pointed out, Mooney applied the term to himself more than a year ago.
That was June 3 last year. How reading the post and the first few comments brings it all back, and reminds me how the irritation started and then increased as time went on. It’s such typical Mooney. He says in the post
The first two comments go like this
And we’re off.
Sigh.
Apparently, posting my “bingo” comment over there was sufficient to get me banned. My comments no longer say “held for moderation”, they just don’t show up at all.
Yeah, my comments don’t show up at the Intersocktion anymore either.
Well, I did say that I was going to press the point.
Mooney made a big show of fawning on Hitch yesterday, by way of telling the world that he just loves people who disagree with him as long as they do it in the reasoned substantive polite way that Hitch does it. I wonder how long that will last.
Wait, wait. I’m confused. Mooney became, and called himself an Accomodationist because he’s pragmatic:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/06/03/do-i-contradict-myself-very-well-then-i-contradict-myself/
And he rejects the Accomodationist term, er, because he is a pragmatist:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/07/12/on-toleration-not-accommodationism-and-templeton/
:-p
…oh, and good luck to hitch walking Mooney’s token critic tightrope. It won’t, I expect, be long before Mooney reluctantly “has to” ban him or other similar critics, for the sake of civility and for the sake of the kind dialogue Mooney considers “worthwhile.”
Scote, quite so. Amusing, isn’t it. Props to Ben for finding (or remembering) that post.
Mooney has solidified himself as belonging to the ever-growing “We Should Know Better” crowd—scientifically literate, generally sensible people (Robert Wright, et al.) who are enormously concerned about offending religious people. They tend not to phrase it that way, but that’s what their anxiety is.
Quite. Now if only Mooney would label The Intersection “For Entertainment Purposes Only,” then I think everything would be much better :-)
And a great find by Ben.
From what I can tell, the so-called “new atheists” don’t say anything actually new, but they do distinguish themselves from other atheists, and from the liberal-and-moderate ‘spirituality’ crowd by their disagreement with 3 common tropes which seem to have become some sort of cultural agreement:
1.) There is no necessary conflict between science and religion, because scientific theories, discoveries, and methods cannot be used to examine religious beliefs, which are metaphysical matters of faith not open to this sort of inquiry. Leave religious people alone as long as they don’t directly contradict science.
2.) There is no necessary conflict between atheism and theism, because in matters of faith people should be allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, and it is impolite, impolitic, disrespectful, rude, and insulting to treat religious beliefs as if they were ordinary beliefs and argue against them, mock them, or try to change anyone’s mind. Leave religious people alone as long as they don’t directly challenge your views.
3.) There is no necessary conflict between religious faith and reason, or religious faith and good behavior, because those people who use religion or faith to justify wrongful things are the problem: they take something good or at least neutral, and distort it for their own selfish ends. Leave religious people alone as long as they don’t directly interfere in your life.
One of the overriding assumptions seems to be, that what really matters here, is people, themselves. Not the beliefs, not the claims, not the methods, not the truth of the matter, but people. Take each individual, as a personal encounter. Avoid unpleasantness, it only disrupts the relationship. Agree to disagree, and move quickly to subjects you do agree on. Religion is a very personal choice. When you argue against religion — analyze it, take it apart, criticize it — you are attacking the believer themselves, as far as they’re concerned. So don’t. Just don’t. Not if being religious doesn’t seem to have steered them awry, and they’re moderate.
Moderate is good. It’s acceptable. So if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Why can’t you just leave perfectly fine religious people alone?
I don’t know. Maybe Mooney sees himself as a sort of Chris Crocker-type, defending those whose beliefs have made them vulnerable — against those who refuse to forebear.
It’s a nice enough stance, I guess. But I think rather short-sighted. When dealing with religion, it’s the system itself which is ‘broke,’ not the religious belief here or there which has unaccountably gotten intrusive. It’s not always about getting along with folks at the dinner table, or dealing with a specific problem that comes up when someone uses religion the “wrong” way. There is no “wrong” way. It’s Calvin Ball. There’s no rule in religion that mandates that everything has to make sense to an atheist. In fact, it can’t all make reasonable sense, or it becomes something not-a-religion.
Can anyone think of a so-called ‘new atheist’ who would actually agree with any of those 3 stances? Don’t their critics, though, think they ought to agree with at least some of them?
Well I could agree with the first part of 2 – there’s no necessary conflict between atheism and theism, provided the theists shut up about it. But of course that’s not how the rest of 2 goes. :- )
Great comment, by the way.
But I think there’s a deliberate slide there on what it means for there to be a “conflict.” Of course there is a necessary conflict between atheism and theism: they’re contending positions. If you’re examining the question of whether God exists or not, there’s direct conflict between the propositions.
Which is then smoothly translated as being about personal conflict. Think of the people. Atheists and theists don’t have to have fights and arguments — as long as they stay off the topic. I think the Accomodationists — the “why can’t we just get along” contingency — are pushing a sort of “let’s agree to disagree” forebearance in hopes that the important issue will be addressed: religious people failing to get along well with others in a particularly dangerous way. Dangerous times, call for dangerous measures, and forming alliances.
It’s like trying to work with friendly chiropractors and naturopaths to get children vaccinated. The up side is lives are saved, because alt med practitioners can get a fair hearing from people who distrust mainstream medical science. They can convince and persuade, using the language of alt med.
The down side is that vaccine-friendly chiropractors and naturopaths are actually a lucky fluke — and now you’re granting status to the sort of thinking that can actually talk about “alternative” medicine with a straight face. There are different ways of knowing and systems of science — but please do try to pick one that isn’t as actively hostile to science-based Western Medicine as it could be. Moderation in all things.
And thanks :)
If Mooney doesn’t like “accomodationist”, then perhaps we need to call him what he is – a shameless, amoral opportunist. Mooney seems to have sold whatever principals he might have had to promote himself, and if that means kowtowing to those with any sort of power or money (Templeton?), well, he does what he has to do to protect #1. Of course he can’t admit to any wrong in this whole incident – he has chosen his “frame” and has to stick to it, or else his world might crumble around him and he might have to face reality. I suspect it’s pretty dark for him.
Damn – I forgot to congratulate you (Ophelia, that is) – I just found out that you have been joined by famous company in being banned from the Intersocktion – Camera-boy himself, the Kw@k, has apparently been banned. Found that out on a Laden post that was filled with five-posts in a row, mentions of famous people from his high school, a bizarre repetition of some poster’s view of him…all the classics. Here’s the relevant thread (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/07/a_truly_wtf_moment_ynhb_poser.php#comment-2658932)
As far as I see it, the only thing new about the “New Atheists” is that people are listening now. I think that is what scares religious people the most. It is not that they are saying anything new, few if any of the arguments are less then 1500 years old. It is not that they are saying it louder, there have been lots of loud atheists in the past. The “problem” is that they are actually getting noticed by the general population. People are seriously listening now.
The absolutely worst thing for religion is if people realize that you can be a happy, well-adjusted, social, normal person without believing in God. That is one of the key big lies religion has been selling, that atheists lack motivation, a reason for living, any sense of joy, or even a sense of morality, that those things require religion. That is why religious people get so offended when atheists are up-front about their lack of beliefs, if people realize that atheists are just like everyone else than they will realize all the stuff their religion has been telling them in order to justify their own existence disappeared. The more people listen to the atheists, the harder it will be to convince them that religion is necessary for a normal, happy life.
This is all just my take on the issue, but I think this is where the real problem lies, and is the real reason for the backlash we are seeing. It isn’t like people haven’t been vocal about their lack of belief in the recent past, but none of that saw the backlash we are seeing now. What separates New Atheists from Old Atheists, in my opinion, is not the atheists themselves, but the audience. And if I am right, then keeping quite is the absolute worst thing we can do. It will allow religion to spread it lies about atheists without opposition, so no one will know there is any other way of living out there.
I think TheBlackCat is on the right track. There’s very little new in any atheist arguments; of course we have so many more and better explanations for so much about the world and the universe than we did 1500 years ago. And anyone who was looking could find atheist writings (I’m talking about earlier in the 20th century and a bit further back than that). But it was about as acceptable to have where everyone could see it as pornography. The news is the best-sellers, the success of which says there’s more of an audience than for earlier works. But if earlier works were too philosophical the message of there simply being no god might not be grasped immediately. The titles of the new batch take care of that. But still newer is the advertising. I don’t want to state flatly that there’s no precedent for the bus campaigns and the billboards, but I certainly never heard of any till recently. It’s more direct, it’s as in-your-face as the always ubiquitous religious version it aims to counter and the message is there without having to read a book. And the internet has helped people realise they’re not as alone as they thought, sometimes even in their own geographical area. And the net effect of that is to embolden us and refuse to be pushed around anymore. And that last bit is really new.
Sastra:I actually don’t see very many people at all disagreeing with each of the main points.
It’s why you don’t hear people calling for making religion illegal or burning down churches or whatever. It’s because even the most strident atheist is willing to let bygones be bygones. As long as they keep their religion private, and don’t allow it to hurt other people, they’re fine with it.
The problem, the core conflict is when religious folks believe that it’s a core part of their religion to make their beliefs dominant. That’s a knot that really can’t be untied. It’s a straight-up conflict. There’s no middle ground, there’s not even compromise. We give them a bite of the apple. We split it down the middle, then they come back looking for the other half. Not all religious people are like this. Some (most?) are.
So it becomes a battle. So be it.
Interesting point – the novelty in “new” atheism is that it’s working.
Hoo boy, Badger – thanks for the reminder of that Greg Laden post. I was annoyed at myself at first for reading it, but then I started laughing hysterically, and went on doing that, so it was well worthwhile. The friends at the Met, who as it turns out won’t be able to vouch for Kwok, because they’ve been laid off due to the recession. Hahahahahahahahagasp.
And this
Used. He must have used the book. Hahahahahahahahahachoke.
And
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
God Kwok is hilarious. He’s creepy as hell, but once you get into a groove, he’s also fall-down funny.
And somebody did a brilliant running joke about socks.
Karmakin #9 wrote:
By “leaving people alone” the accomodationists don’t mean physically alone; they’re referring to open dissent in the public square, where people might encounter it even if they’re not actively seeking it out. The confusion, I suspect, is deliberate.
Holy shit – that Kwok-fest really is gold! You’re totally right, I’m actually laughing out loud like a mad man.