Hardly a disaster
So now poor Michael Ruse has to write a petulant article (for Comment is Free this time? we don’t want to get out of sequence) saying that that horrid new atheist David Barash is mad at him, that he doesn’t care a bit, that he’s a brave contrarian who pisses off campus feminists and other bores who believe in equal rights, that he likes a good dust up, that he was in Arkansas testifying when everyone else was in nursery school, and that new atheists are a danger to the wellbeing of America comparable to the al Qaeda and the Westboro Baptist Church combined. That should take him at least ten minutes.
Barash was gobsmacked by Ruse’s
assertion that the New Atheists constitute a “disaster comparable to the Tea Party.”
So was I. I always am surprised by how malicious and mendacious some atheists allow themselves to be about the Gnu variety.
Barash pointed out what the Tea Party is actually about, and then pointed out that the new atheists are not about the same things.
The New Atheists, with whom I cheerfully and gratefully align myself, have no specific public-policy goals, except perhaps the will-o’the-wisp of delegitimizing the typically unspoken assumption—especially in the United States—that religion must never be questioned, not only as a public good but something that is necessarily true and to which all good people must necessarily subscribe. Theirs is an intellectual struggle, an effort to provide a voice to the large number of previously closeted nonbelievers who felt isolated in their atheism.
Exactly. And we really are allowed to do that. We really are not doing any harm to Michael Ruse by doing that. We really are not doing anything that justifies the relentless campaign of vituperation that is being directed at us. There really is no good reason to preserve and protect the assumption that religion must never be questioned.
If the New Atheists succeed, unbelief will be increasingly legitimate and willing to speak its name. Minds will be opened, and many will find themselves liberated to express views previously forbidden. Hardly a disaster … unless you believe, Michael, that people are unable or unwilling to do the right thing in the absence of religious belief.
I can’t improve on that.
Excellent post! So glad I found this site!
Some of us are still semi-closeted and appreciate the voices being raised for us. Thanks Ophelia.
Well, I tried to use the quote function.
Hangs head and sighs.
Head up! :- )
You missed out the bit where he plugs his book, which is already being remaindered at Amazon.
Oh, and some ad hominems aimed at the “junior New Atheists.”
If (as you pointed out over at Eric’s), he’s too unpleasant for a Templeton
bribeprize, he really has to promote the book a bit more…And is it just me, but is there an element of the “they laughed at Galileo” fallacy in his whining about being persecuted?
You guys are missing the point here, which is that Sarah Palin never called Ruse a clueless gobshite. All else is meaningless.
Ha!
Although it’s demoralizing to witness atheists being such self-serving wretches, the good news is that in the long term, such people discredit themselves from the intellectual gene pool.
A good article, and well said.
I would just highlight the reason that Ruse (rhymes with moose) cited for thinking that the New Atheists are a ‘disaster comparable to the Tea Party’:
I mean, really. Compared to the shitstorm of stupid that is the Tea Party, he thinks that’s comparable? And it’s a massive pile of straw anyway. You could say the New Atheists are wrong about the conflict, but to say they haven’t thought seriously about it is barmy; a massive part of the project is pointing out that religious claims conflict with science, and addressing the objections from theists and faitheists and relativists who think those conflicts don’t exist.
Isn’t the whole “all-self-respecting-atheists-should-be-embarrassed-by-the-new-atheists” thing passe at this point? Haven’t the gnubashers realized that it hasn’t been working, that gnuism has just grown more, year after year?
That is remarkable when you think about it. For all the slings and arrows of overstated and unfair criticism gnus endure, you’d think our numbers would be dwindling. But they don’t appear to be.
Really? That’s his complaint?
I think not.
I think his complaint can be translated to “they refuse to buy my book about why they hold their positions about the conflict between science and religion.”
I think I’m “done” with Prof. Ruse. There’s not one thing he can possibly bring to the table that is remotely of interest.
I hereby nominate him for the “Mr. Irrelevancy” Award. Ignore him. Maybe he’ll get the hint that he’s not one of the kewl kidz. And the reason is not that he’s “edgy” but because he’s a bit of a dolt.
Here’s my take on why new atheists are so despised, even though atheism has been part of the intellectual milieu for many generations: The old atheists questioned whether God is present in the world. That is a proposition that we can all agree to play with from our diverse perspectives. The new atheists question whether theology is a legitimate academic discipline. That is a matter of far greater importance, which must be met with vigorous resistance.
Ken: I think you’ve hit on only a partial answer.
It’s not merely theology as an academic discipline that I see as meaningless twaddle. But it certainly is part of the equation.
The entire enterprise needs to be fought tooth-and-nail. Regardless of the oh-so-sophisticated arguments taking place in the rarefied atmosphere of PhDemia or the halls of philosophy.
It’s not JUST the academic discipline that is toxic. The academic discipline enables the rest. But it’s not where the majority of the “faithful” (ie, credulous) reside.
People like Ruse and Jean Kaziz (or whatever her name is) remind me of crooked cops putting on a show of fighting the mob, but actually being careful to not really interfere with operations, eking out a living from a few scraps provided by the organized criminals. Then the gnus come along and jeopardize the deal by actually challenging operations. No wonder they’re upset!
Kevin, I believe the knowledge needed to end Christianityy as a significant power is in our hands now, but is being ignored. Of course the NT scholars are not about to accept it, as it will mean the ends of their careers to have all the mysteries solved.
Joseph Atwill has discovered that the canonical gospels are a satirical commemoration of Caesar Titus Flavius’ Judean campaign that crushed the First Jewish Rebellion in the early 70s CE. Titus of course is the sole individual of history who fulfilled Jesus’ prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man, to the letter (encircling Jerusalem and razing the temple leaving no stone upon another) and on cue (within the lifetimes of some who would have witnessed the fictional Jesus’ warnings). Titus’ father Vespasian was truly a god, in the legal sense of having been deified by the Roman Senate. The Jews refused to worship Caesar and this incensed the Caesars. Jesus is a false messiah who sets the stage for Titus as the true messiah.
This is made clear by reading the NT in parallel with Josephus’ Jewish War. Jesus’ Galilean ministry closely parallels Titus’ military camnpaign there, with many of the key events of the ministry satirically depicting events in Titus’ campaign, with the ordering and geographical locations are preserved. This cannot reasonably be accidental. Apparent contradictions between the gospels are seen to have a meaning, often viciously comical. For example, why are there two demoniacs in one gospel, one in two others, and not mentioned in the fourth?
There is no demoniac in John because this gospel was written by the demoniac himself. It becomes clear reading intertextually that one of the demoniacs represents John, the rebel leader encountered near Gadara, where the Roman army is attacked and many rebels drown. Josephus describes how out of his one head sprang the evil ideas that corrupted thousands of ordinary Jews.
At the end of the Jewish war, Josephus relates, John is spared and taken back to Rome as prisoner, but spared death. The demoniac of Mark on the other hand is said to have gone off to the Decapolis to proclaim of the miracles of Jesus. In other words, he was forced to help the Flavians construct their intended Rome-friendly replacement religion for militant messianic Judaism.
The second demoniac, who appears in Luke alongside John, is the second rebel leader of Josephus’ Jewish War, Simon. Simon is taken to Rome for execution, and this is also relatable to other gospel events. One must also recognize that the Jesuses of the different gospels are not the same individual. False messiahs after all are a dime a dozen. So it’s no contradiction that one Jesus encounters a single demoniac, while another encounters two. This theme of multiple false messiahs but only one true messiah (Titus) is played out in other ways, including the puzzle of the empty tomb, where two different parties mistake each other for angels.
There is much more richness in just this one parallel than I can describe here, and this is but one of many, and not even the best one. Also, Atwill has a new edition with 34 fairly tight and obvious parallels between Luke and Josephus mostly following close in line. He calls this the “Flavian Signature.” That one costs $12 for controlled electronic access only on Scribd, at the moment, but there is still the first edition available for free on esnips. You can download a PDF without restriction, and although I thought I had to register to download the file, someone said recently they got it without even registering.
I think this is a world-changing discovery by Atwill and that it’s a shame it’s being ignored as implausible even by atheists. It may be unlikely, but it is not in the least implausible. The Flavians wanted posterity to know, and even the intelligentsia of the time, how they were fooling those holier-than-thou Jews into worshipping Caesar, and so they made it certain for those who can get past the superstition and solve the puzzle. I think the presence of these unsoved puzzles is subliminally recognized by many people and is a large part of what gives the gospels their surprising persuasive power. Also, it is not disputed that Josephus was working directly for the Flavians, had been adopted and given the name Flavius (for declaring having had a revelation that Vespasian was the true messiah) and that the title page of The Jewish War has a dedication by Caesar Titus. It is official Flavian propaganda, not history.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/b67761f4-ecd2-423a-93a0-0ff2b9eb6149/Joseph-Atwill—Caesars-Messiah—The-Roman-Conspiracy-to-Invent-Jesus
(I forgot to subscribe.)
Despite all of Ruse’s self-congratulations on fighting creationism, he is in danger of being their star witness with his argument that any science that contradicts religion should not be taught in classrooms. There is, of course, a lot of science that contradicts various religions, but like all the NOMA crowd, Ruse thinks he is in a position to say that no real religion is in conflict with science.
So he’s not only the final arbiter on all that is science, he’s also the final arbiter on all that is religion–sort of an Uber-Pope…
A commenter recently wrote to the effect that theology is “just making shit up”. As such it’s difficult to see how it could be an academic discipline. Oh wait – that would make it like economics wouldn’t it? Ah well, as I wrote, difficult to see how it could be an academic discipline.
Right arm!
And not just science; other empirical disciplines as well. I’m looking at you, History.
I heard a jaw-droppingly absurd complaint on NPR’s recursive On the Media the other day: they were talking about bias on NPR itself, so they dragged in an evangelical Christian for a chat: one of his examples of NPR’s grotesque level of bias was an episode of Fresh Air in which Terry Gross talked for the whole hour to a guy from the Jesus Seminar, which considers the resurrection to be a fiction.
I’m not making it up.
Of course theology remains an academic discipline. We have English departments, so there is plenty of precedent in studying works of fiction. We have history departments, so there is plenty of precedent in studying old belief systemsand their influence. We have psychology and anthropology departments, so there is plenty of precedent in studying religions. So what if their subject matter doesn’t exist. Neither did King Lear, but you can still learn something by studying him.
Well you make a very convincing case for not having theology be an academic discipline, since it’s so well covered already by real subject areas (where just making shit up is usually frowned upon)
Not only is Ruse wrong about what New Atheists do, but even if he were correct on all those factual points, the gnus still wouldn’t be anywhere NEAR as harmful as the Tea Party. In fact, even if he were correct, the gnus wouldn’t be harmful at all; we would just be annoying.
But if theology does have to be a discipline, let it be led by honest people like Bart Ehrman.
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110319/A_LIFE/103190316/-1/NEWSMAP
Ignore it, it’s just a Ruse.
Anonymous:
I’ve been an admirer of Bart Ehrman for a number of years and I’ve read everything by him I could get my hands on. Anything by him is well worth the reading. But he’s not a theologian, he’s a scriptural scholar and, in his own words on Fresh Air “a happy agnostic”.
Bart Ehrman’s books are certainly worth a read but even he seems to take some things on faith. He seems to accept some sort of historical Jesus, as described in the gospels, despite the lack of evidence and views religion as a good thing overall. He doesn’t have time for those who publicly state that ‘faith’ is a negative thing. He is quite distant in his views from many in the Jesus Seminar or from the likes of Bob Price or Hector Avalos.
This Infidelguy interview with Ehrman shows how unwilling he is to even entertain that there may not have been a historical Jesus:
http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Digital_Shop&act=showItem&item=834
Reggie is quite taken aback by Ehrman’s response to the mere suggestion there might not have been a Jesus.
Has anyone seen this? It’s just as bad, if not worse:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/new-atheismthe-tea-party-reflections-on-professors-ruse-and-barash/33501?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Yikes. No, I hadn’t; thanks, Michael. And while we’re at it – I cited you on the previous Ruse thread, about his absurd claim that atheist scientists will cause the Supreme Court to declare science unconsitutional in public schools and CFI legal experts’ attempts to explain to him why that’s absurd. Do you remember where you said that? I’d like to link to it. It must have been on your CFI blog, but I don’t remember which post.
Ah, I actually mentioned that in a comment thread here. Ruse made the argument in his presentation at CFI’s World Congress 2009, on the panel titled “The Influence of Darwin.” Eddie Tabash, who was also on the panel, tried his best to convince Ruse he was wrong — as did some in the audience, which was generally shocked by his position — but to no avail.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/worldcongress/
Perhaps I’ll try to get my hands on video of the discussion and write something up.
Michael @ #30
Yikes, indeed.
But I have a confession to make. Just the other day, my Catholic Auntie said a Hail Mary and, you know, I resisted the opportunity to disparage her, and didn’t describe her as an imbecile and a creep.
I can only offer my heartfelt apologies to all; I’ve let down the New Atheist movement, or ‘juggernaut’, as I think we should start calling it. I fully expect to be denounced as ‘some sort of deluded, self-hating, sellout, subverting the rise of the Mighty Atheist Political Juggernaut’. And rightly so, bring it on, don’t disappoint Prof Berlinbrau.
Apologies, Prof Berlinerbrau. I should have hesitated in the middle of his name.
Oh it was here – I can easily find it then. Do write it up if you have time, Michael. It’s interesting for one thing that he simply ignores legal expertise. I thought it was supposed to be the new atheists who ignore professional expertise…
Thanks, Michael. That Berlinerblau piece is precious.
I find it sadly amusing how the New Atheists get vilified by some scholarly atheists for being “unserious,” with no evidence, and as a substitute for evidence, Berlinerblau gives the example of Bill Maher.
I didn’t even know that Maher was a New Atheist. I seem to recall him being roundly criticized by New Atheists a while back. And I’m simply shocked—shocked, I say—to hear that Bill Maher can be unserious at times.
The sad funny truth is that by and large, with regard to atheism per se, the New Atheists are guilty mainly of popularizing entirely mainstream views within professioinal philosophy and science. Their major common themes and arguments are utterly ho-hum among professional philosophers—not because they’re out of date, but because they’re still the received view among the smartest and most serious thinkers about such things in both philosophy and science.
As even Ruse admits, the Problem of Evil is insoluble, and the New Atheists simply point out that well-known philosophical truth for the masses who still think that traditional Western Theisms make sense. Science also thoroughly undermines the dualism in which the overwhelming majority of religion is grounded—even almost all “liberal” and non-Western religion. It’s not just an accident that among the smartest and most serious scholars in philosophy and science, philosophical naturalism is the dominant view.
I’m a wee bit tired of shit-stirring marginal whiners like Ruse consistently misrepresenting this situation—making the New Atheists out to be fringy, unserious thinkers, promoting philosophically marginal views to illiterate suckers who don’t know any better.
For example, Dawkins’s The God Delusion isn’t the most subtle and careful book in the world, but the main arguments against theism are mostly the same as the late philosopher J.L. Mackie’s in his scholarly The Miracle of Theism. If the masses aren’t going to read thorough philosophical treatises like that—and they’re not—it’s all to the good if they read The God Delusion.
It’s really not the New Atheists’ fault that the problems of theism are not subtle, and don’t require a lot of subtle philosophy to debunk fairly well and accurately. If the New Atheists can actually get people to read books that expose people to utterly mainstream and eminently respectable ideas in philosophy, that shouldn’t be a mark against them.
I can’t help but think that these gnu-bashers are mostly disingenuous. They’re not upset that the the Gnus are selling philosophically marginal ideas, but that the gnus are so successful popularizing utterly mainstream ones—old wine in new bottles. (Which the gnus cheerfully admit to; the “New Atheism” isn’t really new, and what they’re selling is mostly the vintage stuff.)
Ruse is pretty clearly unhappy not because the New Atheists are philosophically marginal, but because he is. He pushes views that neither the masses nor the experts have much of a taste for—e.g., that the Problem of Evil is insoluble, but that the horrors of evolution somehow aren’t an interesting example of natural evil.
Sorry, Mr. Ruse, but if you say that, it’s clear that it’s not the New Atheists who are promoting a philosophically fringy, flaky view; it’s clearly you. If you can’t see why evolution is a bit of a problem for mainstream theistic views, you’re either a clueless gobshite or a disingenuous propagandist—and it’s not just “scientistic” scientists like PZ who disagree with your philosophical views. It’s mainstream professional philosophers, and they disagree with you for the same good reasons. They think you’re a clueless gobshite, too.
This accommodationist pose of defending serious philosophy is just grotesque—Ruse et al. are defending unserious contrarian claptrap and politically convenient misrepresentations against actual serious, mainstream philosophy.
Yes but he does it out of love and concern for America.
I was reading a particular comment of late Jan, 2011 over at CHE and it appears that there is a pattern to the ‘atheist’ posts being delivered. If it’s not Ruse, it’s Barash and then Jacques Berlinerblau. Seems like the commenter was proven right!