Et tu AAAS?
Jen McCreight of Blag Hag is at the Evolution 2010 conference in Portland and she went to a 2 hour symposium on Communication this morning. It started well, with Robert Pennock giving some good advice…but then…
But it quickly went downhill. Much of the talk was about distancing support of evolution from atheistic views – that we need to stress that religion and science is compatible so people in the “middle” can still accept theistic evolution. That people are more willing to accept evolution if they hear it from their pastor. He lauded Francis Collins and the BioLogos foundation for being pro-evolution…even though BioLogos just had a piece trying to reconcile Biblical Adam and Eve with evolution.
Well that is being pro-evolution – it’s just not being pro-thinking straight, that’s all.
The reason why people feel compelled to do this is because religion holds a special status in our society where it can’t be criticized, even when it’s blatantly wrong. This really came out in the second part of the symposium, which was by a woman from AAAS (I unfortunately missed her name). She said there’s no use in including creationists or atheists in the discussion because we’re extremists who won’t change our minds.
Oh thanks. People from the AAAS are othering atheists now; that’s nice. Science and The Good People are all in the middle, and atheists are way the hell out there on the extreme margin, being marginal extremists, and weird and different and abnormal. I believe this is colloquially known as throwing people under the bus. It’s spotting an enemy and cold-bloodedly deciding to sacrifice an ally or friend to the enemy to save one’s own life or job or ability to get along with the neighbors. It’s not very principled or admirable.
I’m a glutton for punishment, so I occasionally visit the Amazon discussion boards to do battle with creationists. The “arguments” they put forward appear to be cut-and-pasted from the same limited set of web sites.
Is there now a website where accommodationists can go and drag out the usual canards about atheists? Their comments are showing that same “cut-and-paste” feel.
SinSeeker “pursuing a sacrilegious curiosity” – a sin according to Augustine (Confessions 3.3.5)
Ugh. The usual dismissive attitude, ingroup/outgroup mentality, and etc.
Disgusting, but unlike some of our theistic counterparts have implied for themselves, we’ll continue to support the science even if you hate us. That’s the difference.
But hey, I’m a kooky extremist.
Isn’t having only one god an extremist position? Shouldn’t a person embrace them all?
I need to post on this, I think, rather than just commenting here. But isn’t it just obvious that occupying a position at one end of a spectrum is completely different from being unwilling to change one’s mind about a position? In principle, the person in the middle of the spectrum may turn out to be the most dogmatic in refusing to budge.
Even if we acccept that there’s a spectrum from atheist to fundamentalist (which is actually a bit dubious – what is the element that is varying here, analogous to a variation in wavelength of light?), it may be that the person who believes in God but denies biblical inerrancy is just as dogmatically committed to her position as the person who believes in both and the person who denies both. Perhaps more so. Furthermore, if this person is not dogmatically committed to her position but the other two are … so what? Isn’t that all the more reason to talk to them to see if there really might be reason to adopt one of their positions? If she’s open to changing her mind, why not go to the others and hear their arguments?
As it happens, fundies are very difficult to get to change their minds on anything. But that’s not because of where they fall on a spectrum. It’s partly because they have an integrated system of thought, and they are very resistant to giving up one part of it – the rest may then collapse. Atheists, qua atheists, don’t commit to an integrated system of thought, so they may be prepared to change their minds on lots of things, e.g. about how pernicious religion is. Some religious liberals and moderates may not have integrated thought systems, so they may be prepared to change their minds on various things with no great angst. But this is not a feature of where someone falls on a spectrum. Someone in the middle of the spectrum may nonetheless be committed to a system of thought from which she won’t budge an inch for fear that the whole system will collapse.
I’m not suggesting that it’s just a matter of how integrated your system of thought is. There may be other issues, such as how high the stakes seem to be if you change your mind. But your place on a supposed spectrum is going to be separate from all of these.
So the accommodationists aren’t dogmatic? They are willing to change their minds and hear arguments against their position? Why then do they exclude atheists?
So in other words atheists should stop donating funds to the AAASsholes.
I think I will blog on this later today to point out how this actually does precisely what the accommodationists claim atheists do to science – turn it into a religion.
I suspect this has to do with money and social power/prestige. Religion is still pretty dominant, especially in the US, but increasingly so in places like Britain, Australia and Canada, and it has money to spare. Not only the Templeton Foundation, but many Christian denominations have scads of money — nor are they prepared to see their social predominance threatened. A lot hangs on this, especially a number of moral campaigns regarding things like abortion, stem cell research, or anything, as one writer puts it, that alters human nature. Evolution, as it has operated ‘naturally’ (although this question — viz., what is natural? — is almost always begged) is fine, and can be taken on board, but not hands-on efforts to intervene in the human genome. (Hence all the exaggerated responses to the Venter’s synthetic bacterium.) There are a host of theological problems concealed here, but, who’s paying attention to those? After all, if you can accept horrendous evils and still speak about God’s love, then the problems of the ichneumonidae fade into insignificance. But these same voices, who still dominate the intellectual landscape, are not prepared to mainstream atheist discourse, and they still have the clout to shunt it off onto a spur line, and they are doing so. The easiest way to do this is frame atheism as the flip side of fundamentalist extremism. It’s easily identified and just as easily dismissed.
Of course, what Russell Blackford is saying is true. Just being in the middle does not necessarily indicate a willingness to change one’s views with increasing data. What makes thinking dogmatic is whether or not the system of thought in which one’s views are embedded is patient of revision on critical grounds. So a point of view adopted on evidential grounds is far more likely to be revisable on the strength of evidence than a point of view adopted on dogmatic grounds (as are the views of most accommodationists), but it won’t make it more easy to revise, if the evidential grounds are strong. So the critical position may be just as resistant to change as the fundamentalist position, or the waffling middle ground position, but each resistant for different reasons. So far, the accommodationists have not noticed that many scientific views are very resistant to change, because based on the strongest evidence of all, but this is not a form of fundamentalism.
Which shows that the dispute is a cultural one, not a rational position taken up for good reasons or based on good evidence. It is far more dependent on cultural prestige and (probably) money, than it is on evidence. Which, of course, brings me in a circle to where I began. The only thing for the non-accommodationist to do, in these circumstances, is to continue, with a reasonable degree of calmness, to continue to put the case for non-accommodation, spelling out what would be necessary in order to make accommodation true — that is, to spell out clearly what would be necessary for the non-accommodationist to change his/her mind. This will show clearly that (i) the non-accommodationist is not a fundamentalist, and (ii) that there are reasonable grounds on the basis of which they will change their minds. The main thing is to keep hammering in the basic point, that a viewpoint which is consistent with anything is virtually contentless. Accommodationists will do their best to marginalise atheists as the Other, but the non-accommodationist holds all the cards, unless the accommodationist produces the evidence. Since religion is, in fact, as I have already suggested, cumulus shaped, some basic revisions of religious claims must be forthcoming, or they will lose the debate by default. The fact that the accommodationists are already resorting to nonsense (e.g., in the Adam and Eve gambit), indicates that they do not have a strong case. Patiently telling them that their case is not strong and that they will have to do more than this will begin to wear them down. Religions, remember, have cultural inertia in their favour, but more people are less enchanted with the mysterian position of the religions.
Organisations like Templeton, Biologos, etc., show all the signs of the decline of religion. They know that religion’s influence is waning, and had it not been for the intrusion of Islam in the debate, the process would have continued to wear away at that influence. What they seem to want to do is to try to recapture some of the credibility of liberal religion, without realising that liberal religion depended upon its cultural location, not on its rhetoric. It cannot recreate the culture in which Tillich, John A.T. Robinson, and others, began to shift the weight of opinion away from old religious certainties, and these ‘neo-liberals’ (so to speak) simply do not have the cultural support they need, so they end up sounding like fundamentalists manqué. They are forced to treat the Bible as, in some sense, interpretably true (which is just another form of literalism). Without that, they lose credibility with the the large fundamentalist base they would like to turn by means of framing. The result is that they will inevitably become more shrill and intolerant — which they are. This cannot last. It has no religious foundation. It consists of scientists dabbling in something they do not understand. What is needed now from non-accommodationists is steadiness, clarity, and, above all, a continuing commitment to critical discipline. The accommodationist programme will inevitably come unglued.
Oh, golly, that was much longer than I thought! Sorry folks.
If people accept or reject evolution, or any other aspect of science, depending on whether or not it can be shaped so as to not too obviously contradict their existing (religious) world view, or because of their pastor’s approval. then surely nothing has been gained. They clearly haven’t grasped it as science, they have just accepted that it is ok to believe in it because they have been told so.
Why would anyone see that as a desirable outcome? It shows contempt for the ‘middle people’, who apparently can be bought off by a soothing tone.
It may seem nit picking, but could we reserve the word accommodationist for nonbelievers who pander to religion? Eugenie Scott and, presumably, the unnamed AAAS representative, are accommodationists. Daniel Harrell is not. The distinction is useful inasmuch as one can more readily imagine persuading a true accommodationist that their enterprise is futile. Persuading the BioLogos crowd would be more of a philosophical undertaking.
Unfortunately, I lack the etymological chops to propose an alternative for Francisco Ayala et al. I doubt that catechamaeleon would catch on.
Agree with Ken about restricting the use of ‘accommodationist’ to atheists who pander to religion but ‘catachaemeleon’ sounds too much like a Culture Club song :-)
[…] to Ophelia Benson for bringing it to my […]
I don’t understand why we need to restrict ‘accommodationist’ to atheists who pander to religion. Francis Collins and Francisco Ayala are surely both accommodationists. Collins is a religious believer who also believes that science and religion (as he understands religion) are compatible. Ayala is also an accommodationist, although apparently an unbeliever. Eugenie Scott is also an accommodationist from the unbelieving side. If we restrict it in the way that Ken suggests, very often we will not know (without futher information) whether someone is an accommodationist or something else (a belief-shifter, perhaps?). I should have thought that an accommodationist is simply someone who believes that religion and science are compatible worldviews (to use Midgley’s language).
Jerry Coyne came up with a good word for atheists who pander to religion: faitheist. Accommodationist is a broader term that applies to anyone, believer or not, who bows down before the temple.
I think I will start a new blog to monitor the conflict between the faction that wants to limit ‘accomodationist’ to believers and the faction that wants to continue to use it to name believers and non-believers who favor accommodationism. Call the first faction the limiters and the second faction the continuers. I will pretend to be a limiter and then spend all my time and energy and exiguous resources of language to heap ungrammatical opprobrium on what I am pretending is my faction. To prime the pump, I will for the first few months, or years if that’s what it takes, do nearly all the commenting myself under a sparkling variety of names. I will not falter even when I stumble and accidentally claim to agree with myself – at that point I will simply do a comment saying “Hey I didn’t post that comment” and another saying “I will look into it” and another saying “That was a sock puppet, it is banned.” I think I will call it You’re Not Hindering. Josh Rosenau, alone among mortals, will take it seriously.
I preferred one of the other alternatives he offered: credophile. But I suppose that would be shrill of me.
it may be that the person who believes in God but denies biblical inerrancy is just as dogmatically committed to her position as the person who believes in both and the person who denies both. Perhaps more so.
It’s likely to be more so, Russell. It’s a much more flexible position. There have been absolute theists who were logically persuaded their opinion was false and there have been atheists who became theists or deists by what they thought was logic. However, the person who believes in God but denies biblical inerrancy has a much less definite set of opinions and can adopt and adapt much more flexibly as a result, no matter how dogmatic they may be at any moment about any particulat belief. They are sure of the truth of what they believe, even if they aren’t sure what it is.
What Russell says should be framed and memorized by all school-children. As he points out, the extreme positions in any debate, not just in this one, are not always characterized by more fanaticism (or by any fanaticism) and so-called moderate position do not always exhibit the Aristotelian virtue of moderation, which has nothing to do with being in the middle of the road. In fact, the fanaticism of the status quo is often fearful, and middle of road positions may often be held against all evidence.
evidence… I see that a lot… always used in a manner saying anything other than the magical evidence is, what… non evidence?
There are two positions, the winning position will be the one that actually sides with the most people in a manner that is acceptable and at least palatable, all other positions will be rendered mute on grounds of the inability to take actual people into account.
It wasn’t until Martin Luther King began thinking about the people of the USA and offering a solution for everyone that segregation began to crumble in the USA. Yes, there were the ideals, the dreams and the… evidence… but he had to win the people over with a belief that the change was possible. He never lost sight of the people… something anyone who takes an anti-position on anything in this world, needs to think about.
I’ve always thought there are two positions; either you are superstitious or you’re not. If you want to debate with two sides, put cultists, UFO believers, fundies, accommodationists and homeopaths in one corner and the reasonable people in the other. That’d be the way to show things in the right context.
The problem with the positions you offer Pekka are that there are respected scientists who believe in all those things. Is it that the Atheist view, which in itself no automatically the scientific view, require exclusivity so that it can formulate judgments on others according to its tenants? To date I am having difficulty accepting any reasonable context either way. All I am seeing is ‘I’m an right, you are wrong.” and this position is consistently stated throughout atheist debates. With a position like this there can be no discussion… the world is currently fortunate enough to have atheists in a minority, because this right and wrong stance is what actually starts conflicts, and we already have enough of those to deal with right now.
Robert N Stephenson
Utter bollocks spouted by idiots who either don’t understand politics or are concern trolling for the other side.
The position that wins is the position which grabs the most attention, and is seen as being the most trustworthy. This can be demonstrated by the rise of the Republican Party in America – the Democratic party was in fact far closer to the accommodationist movement and tried to play to the centre, which resulted in it losing credibility in the eyes of voters.
The Republican’s mouthpieces are basically neofascist whackjobs with a habit of viewing human rights in much the same light as they view the truth – absolutely optional.
This meant that it took two wars, two major disasters, torture scandals, various economic scandals, half the Republicans’ biggest names being caught in the closet AND two recessions for the Republicans to finally lose. They had to fuck up so majorly that Bush is already considered one of the worst American presidents ever in order to neutralise the disdain people had for how spineless the Democratic Party is.
And that spinelessness is starting to cost Democratic Party all over again.
Piss-knees in the accomodationist movement constantly fail to recognise that no, it is not the palatable position that wins. They become slimy appologists for bullshit because they think it is politic, when if you actually look at politics that isn’t the approach that actually works.
State the truth, state it boldly and let the chips fall where they may. Playing “Centrist” in the science v religion debate isn’t going to do shit. The AAAS and other scientific bodies should quite simply butt out of the religious argument, just supply the facts and if it contradicts someone’s long cherished beliefs, well tough shit.
People respect that a lot more than they respect what sounds like someone telling them precisely what they want to hear and treating them like they are stupid when they note the inconsistencies.
Bruce, the rest of the world is not like America, where religion is as much a business enterprise as it is anything else. Though I would not be drawn into why and how you view things, as that is entirely up to you; the stance you take is not one that is accommodating even of the general public, let alone that of any religious or no religious stand point.
Without a level of respect you have nothing. No matter what the message, people ignore shouting.
Stephenson:
The word is “tenets.” Best to get the basics right before you go on to lecture people about “what’s right an [sic]wrong.”
And, yeah – I’m being an “elitist.” Don’t get me started on your lack of argumentative skill.
Thanks elitist – you settled the argument well. Why argue or even discuss with someone who made up their mind well before such could begin. You see, there is a reason such positions are never invited to a discussion. No point really, is there. So, given the set position, why complain either; it wasn’t going to change your mind, was it?
And sorry for the typos – kill the dyslexic in the corner
Ophelia Benson, you are wicked, wicked woman. I’m having trouble typing this comment because I keep getting distracted by my chuckling over comment #15. I thought I had a flair for snark, but now I know what true snark is. I bow to you, madame.
On a related note, did you notice that <a href=”http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/06/massimos-picks_24.html”>Massimo actually linked to a YNH post last week</a>? As if it said something worthwhile, and people should read it? I helpfully posted a comment linking to Oedipus’ exposure of the sock-puppetry and sheer crazy. Will Massimo have the grace to be embarrassed that he missed all the signs that YNH was authored by an axe-grinding intellectual lightweight, signs that many other people picked up on right away? Will he ask himself why he missed those signs? I hate to say so, but I doubt he will.
Whoops! Still in html commenting mode. Forgot to use the link button.
PZ Myers – I’d call them “fideists”.
R N Stephenson – You shouldn’t regard religious elites as any less elite than any other elite, or any more connected to their claimed constituency. And what anti-position are you talking about? The truth is a pro-position.
I think accomodationists who complain about how some atheist messages may offend the people we are trying to persuade are totally missing the point. They often object to the “tone” of the message as being counter-productive.
Many atheists would agree that older religious believers are generally a lost cause, because their minds are already made up. It is the younger generation we have to influence in order to generate a complete paradigm shift in how religion is perceived. And for reaching youth, tone is important – and the more derisory and contemptuous of religion the better!
The reason is this – on the subject of paradigm shifts, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.
Younger people are strongly influenced by how their peers see them. In this case, public ridicule and deliberate contempt of an idea, combined with clearly explained derision toward those who hold the idea to be true will certainly cause young people to think twice about subscribing to the same concept. It’s about making religion look un-cool and for brain-dead losers. We need to encourage our opponents to (naturally) die out, without being replaced.
We also need to shift the balance away from the default setting of pandering to religion. This will open up the middle ground for polite, well-informed, quietly-spoken atheists such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers to be more widely viewed as the clear-thinking moderates that they actually are – instead of being continuously and falsely painted as “radical” and “strident” by our opponents!
In a paradigm shift, it is all about the popularity of the idea among the new generation that determines its eventual dominance. So, no accommodation!!!
Bruce, the rest of the world is not like America, where religion is as much a business enterprise as it is anything else.
Who is talking religion here? We are talking politics boet – and the rest of the world reacts in much the same way to softly softly patronizing bullshit.
And treating the religious like they can’t take debate around the truth? The very definition of patronizing bullshit.
If you wrap the facts in cotton wool all you achieve is making them look fuzzy. If you are going to play politics, play it as it is played. Stop trying to look harmless and get interesting.
To put the accomodationist argument into political terms, consciously or unconsciously they are using the Argument to Moderation in combination with the Overton Window to shift the middle ground in a direction favourable to religion.
Viewed in that light the accomodationists are our opponents just as much as the extreme dogmatic religionists, as they both are having the same effect.
Two sides can play that game! In fact, must.
Ophelia, comment #15 is pure awesome. I choked on my coffee. And it is throwing outspoken atheists under a bus. I wonder if what’s going to be needed, are more, larger organizations by scientifically-minded atheists to stand strong on rationality if groups like the AAS are going to be filling up with faitheists?
Robert N Stephenson @ 23 ….
” the rest of the world is not like America, where religion is as much a business enterprise as it is anything else.”
I’m sorry to say you are wrong.Religion is big business (it makes it SO MUCH easier to con people out of their money) here (GB) as well. There are railway operators and car-sales enterprises and many others, never mind the ever-insidious Templeton foundation.
Being Britian, it is much better hidden, and probably thus even more insidious.
It’s why the NSS gets so annoyed at times, because of this “faith-balnket” that also acts as a protecting shield for all the religions (except one) – catholicism is NOT loved by the majority here, and for good historical reasons.
Thanks G and Glendon! :- )
G, no, I didn’t see that. Oh, Massimo, honestly…
While I understand the concerns about the role of religions in social life, I do not accept that they are insidious or dangerous. To some they will seem that way, and seem that way simply based on what they believe. One note here is that the Atheist position (which is not a science position – science is not owned by Atheism and never has been) often comes with hostility as well as expressed or suppressed anger. Perhaps dealing with that personally would be beneficial when making an argument or entering into a discussion.
At present the strong Atheist argumentors, may, at best number in a few thousand while the religious thinkers, as opposed to just followers, will number in the millions. This is not to say small voices will not make a difference, they will, but they will not make the changes being called for, though change will happen and despite the positions taken in the anti-religious camps, these changes are already taking place.
I must add, simply because of curiosity, did you know there is no scientific reason why love works the way it does, the same goes for hatred,despair and other emotions. Yes, they have all the chemical reactions and even know the triggers but they do not know why. Does this in effect make such emotions supernatural? Science cannot test for the concept of truth, yet it is used very regularly to confirm arguments. They can test for outcomes that create a positive result but there is no known test for what is truth and what is not. Science also has no test for reality, or a general reality in which we all exist – reality is individualistic and though we can have a rough approximation every persons reality is a variant of that approximation. It cannot be tested for because with each test it changes slightly.
These questions are just as much philosophical as they are science related. You could even argue ‘Time’ cannot truly be measured because it is a constant and simply defies what we know as measurement.
The point?
Though Faith is based on a multitude of historical happenings, stories and even ancient legends – some historically accurate, some simply exagerations of an actual event – it is essentially an emotional state. Science may know all the chemical reactions involved in this emotional state (the same with love, hate, etc) but as I said before, they don’t know why. Why does person X who went to the same school, had the same upbringing, had the same life experiences as person Y decide they want to be a religious person while the other decides to be something else?
You can easily throw around as the negativity or even abuse all you like, but at this time there is no consistent or suitable answer. You will be able to find leading world scientists who believe in God, and they will work alongside equally leading world scientists who do not. Yet both are experts in science. So it is clear science is not solely owned by Atheists. I have a science background, my wife has a science background and so do many other Christians I know personally.
It is clear the Atheist has their position but if its strength is only ever bolstered by anger and hatred then it existence will fade quickly. Note how many changes have taken place in human history based of hatred, anger and hostility. When it is used wars prevail and change does not happen.
Oookay. Now we are talking religion.
So your first ad-hominem (Atheists are so angry, why are atheists so angry?) well…
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html
And
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and–1.html
I must add, simply because of curiosity, did you know there is no scientific reason why love works the way it does, the same goes for hatred,despair and other emotions. Yes, they have all the chemical reactions and even know the triggers but they do not know why.
The thing about gaps is, you never know when they will get filled.
The point?
That you are basically using an appeal to ignorance known as the God of the Gaps argument, gaps which tend to get filled as human knowledge marches on? An argument which amounts to “I don’t know, nor do you, therefore lets just make shit up”?
Or if you are somewhat lacking in the imagination for that, “Lets just accept shit someone else made up, and act like that is somehow more valid because they made it up a long time ago?”
Religion doesn’t have millions of thinkers – otherwise we wouldn’t get religious people raising the dead to try and debate with atheists.
Swinburne basically disguises circular reasoning as induction, Karen Armstrong calls people who actually believe in God stupid in a manner that leaves the religious thinking she is somehow on their side, Islam’s reaction to criticism is invariably censorship, the Dalai Llama is essentially fighting for his own feudal kingdom while Hindus are still trying to stamp out honour killings and human sacrifice in India.
The last great thinker religion had was Martin Luther King. Desmond Tutu tries, but frankly he is the Bono of the Anglican Church, he runs a cause orphanage.
The fact of the matter is after every lost debate the religious have, and frequently against atheists who aren’t actually all that good, we get whines of how the religious wish this generation had a CS Lewis.
The intellectual trouncing the religious get is so bad that we have columnists who accuse us of bullying – in a worldwide society that is majority religious, and includes areas where simply being an atheist is a death penalty offense. It is so bad that when clerical whackjobs try to get people like Ali Hirsi killed, she is taken as the bad guy.
There are not millions of religious thinkers, there are just a few apologists who aren’t quite as embarrassing as Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind.
forgive me if I laugh…
Robert N Stephenson wrote: “Though Faith is based on a multitude of historical happenings, stories and even ancient legends – some historically accurate, some simply exagerations of an actual event – it is essentially an emotional state.” (my emphasis)
Thanks for that clarification, Robert. Because, until you made it so obvious, I did not realise that the 9/11 outrage was actually just an emotional state.
Likewise, Sharia law that demands the death of apostates – purely emotional.
Let’s see, what else?
Religious interference in our children’s education. Emotional state.
Young Earth Creationism and other anti-rational, anti-science agendas – all essentially emotional states.
Religion seeking to control people ‘s reproductive rights – just an emotional state.
Organised Christian political lobbying that seeks to control people not sharing their faith – just an emotional state.
Religions opposition to stem cell research that could benefit millions of people – totally emotional.
Use of religious authority and influence to silence victims of pedophile priests, and hamstring investigators – that is definitely an emotional state!
Robert, you are completely correct that none of these essentially emotional states are “insidious or dangerous”.
You are 100% right that anyone’s alternative point of view is “simply based on what they believe”. I can’t understand why Atheists show hostility to these clear expressions of faith, let alone “expressed or suppressed anger”.
Thanks so much for your wise words.
Oh, and here is the other thing about the bullying accusation:
We get accused of bullying, for what amounts to reacting to religious bullshit. We get accused of bullying for responding to religious ideas, and demonstrating that they are lacking.
For the most part the “new atheist” movement left the Deists alone until they started whining about feeling left out.
Robert.
You are excused because there is nothing else you CAN do.
Your base argument is that emotion is unexplained as to the why of it – yet there is active research in several different fields into that question that is in fact progressing. Even were it not progressing, even if emotion was 100% unexplained as to the why of it (On your own terms here) it wouldn’t begin to imply God, it would simply imply that we don’t know why we have emotions.
The idea of religion as being emotional is quite frankly a badly constructed attempt at dodging around the central issue of whether God actually exists. Whether the authority religion grants its teachings is actually valid.
We are talking about whether the religious have access to a perfect being – whose word on whether say, Gay marriage or not really is authoritative. That can say exactly what we should and shouldn’t do and actually knows the answers to such world shattering questions as the difference between good and evil. Questions which we have been struggling with throughout history.
Questions, which religion has supplied the thoroughly wrong answer to throughout history, on about the same level as if it were someone’s wild guess.
Your supporting argument is based on the fallacious idea that the number of “thinkers” on either side of a debate lends weight to what they think. Their arguments, if good, should stand even if nobody stands with them, even if they are not actually considered great thinkers. This means you can’t say you have “thinkers” on your side if their best thinking is in other areas. Alchemists could claim to have had Newton on their side and it would be about as relevant.
The quality of their thoughts in the specific argument is what is important. Reality isn’t some great democracy which depends on the vote of “great thinkers” it is revealed by great thinking. And not every thought that passes through a great thinkers’ head is all that great.
This is quite fun, isn’t it — the supposition is that I am making particular claim to support something else. That would be true if I was, but it isn’t. But it is clear that you did answer something important.
Why, it is okay to hold one position for one untestable point but ignore the same position for something else. You see, the science is a bit pick and chose isn’t it. If we don’t have the answer now, one day we will. I am fine with that by the way – the emotional comment was based on current research and it quite challenging work. That and the investigation of the workings of the brain, which at times just looks like magic. Interesting that in this teasing out within science you leave out the concept of finding God (which is neither confirmed or denied) or how science may understand the internal working of faith, which really does run with quite significant emotional component,
How to give an atheist apoplexy – believe in God and be a Christian – don’t really have to say a lot after that, do I. The question is then why don’t I – because the atheist is so narrow minded, so pig headed, so fearful they explode into self serving grandeur. There is a place they stand and righteousness is stamped all over that place. Brick wall/brick wall discussion isn’t it
Is the atheist wrong in what they believe. Scientifically no, not at all, but in terms of social understanding, free thought and even in areas of creative thinking things can get quite questionable. What is the point of even discussing life, the universe and everything with an atheist, really. They have pre-formed answers, usually borrowed from some other person who has issues with themselves and those around them. The atheist can sometimes be quite insecure – not always, just in some cases. I suppose the same can be said about Christians and I would support that claim, faith effects people differently and I have met many an insecure person
You see, for me this site isn’t a discussion site – it is naturally only a blog site and what is blogged are things agreeable to the set self appreciation society – don’t hold an alternative view it appears. It is also a fascinating point, where in the book of life does it actually say have to think like someone else? Maybe I missed that lesson in biology. When confronted with a Christian you don’t even know how to talk to one, let alone venture into the territory. How about we continue with cliches, how about we throw about old rhetoric or even some of the created isms the atheist creates, as it, in itself, is the social conscience of the world. Some atheists make good even examinations and use their understandings in a way that does have direct benefits to people (real people – not the internet support groups for the disenfranchised). These atheist I can respect, regardless of the dogmatic attitude. The cut and thrust of this is, yes, science is a reasonable and logical examination of the natural world – but it has no conscience, no moral (depends on the understanding here), no social grounding. It is little more than a set of numbers on a page. Important to some, but to the wider world you might as well just have written ‘dog’ in red ink.
When the atheist learns the concept of humility, maybe, just maybe someone will listen to them. At the moment much of the discussions running about the place are meaningless, cold and often pointless.
The biggest mistake anyone can make in life, regardless of their walk or creed, is to say or even believe they are the holders of the truth. I hear fundamentalist Christians say this a lot and alongside them strands the atheist. And you wonder why people oppose the stance you take.
Bring me a beaker and a test tube, I need to mix me some reason
Robert, it always amuses me when idiots call a blog an echo chamber – in that blog’s comment section. Your comments, I note, have not been deleted.
Whining about how mean I am does not lend your argument any validity, it just makes you a whiner without a point.
You have not demonstrated reason here, you have just put forward a long winded version of Cartman’s “Screw you guys, I’m going home.”
As to “Science doesn’t provide us with morality or really, society” that is at least accurate, and nobody ever claimed it would. The thing is, neither does religion. Of the ten commandments, only three are in the west’s legal system, and they are common to just about every legal system I know of.
But fortunately we have whole fields like philosophy, or even really good books we can fall back on. Failing that a decent upbringing can achieve more than the hottest of hells.
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank Robert for attacking the single biggest strawman I have ever seen. It’s a strawgodzilla!