The evidence is not absent
Josh Rosenau says my post on how gnu atheism can Help is an exercise in sugary saccharine vigorous self-back-patting, and also lacking in evidence. It’s nice of him to Reach Out, but his reading is rather sloppy.
If she’d said that these effects might well follow, I’d have no real argument. They might (and also might not, I don’t know). The initial claim that gnus have already rendered religion “not altogether intellectually respectable” strikes me as the weak point in this argument, though.
Yes but the claim is not mine. I didn’t claim that. My claim overall is pretty much that “these effects might well follow.” I didn’t say that gnus have already rendered religion “not altogether intellectually respectable”; I said
One thing gnu atheism is doing is relentlessly pointing out that religious belief is not altogether intellectually respectable. That means that religion no longer offers such a desirable kind of identity. It means the identity aspect is more mixed.
That’s a pretty hedged, undogmatic claim. It’s undeniable, surely, that gnu atheism is relentlessly pointing out that religious belief is not altogether intellectually respectable – that is precisely why we get shouted at, isn’t it? That’s why we are gnu? That’s why we are Not Helping? It’s debatable that that means that religion no longer offers such a desirable kind of identity, to be sure, but we have heard and read plenty of people saying exactly that, and lots of others implicitly acting on that conclusion. Why else is Karl Giberson so exercised about Jerry Coyne? And saying the identity aspect is more mixed – well is that a very dramatic claim either? I don’t think so. That, again, is what gets people pissed off, surely. We keep pointing out that religion isn’t %100 wonderful and Helpful and desirable.
Absent some sort of evidence that religion is less intellectually respectable now than it was 10 years ago, this first step in Ophelia’s logical chain fails, and the conclusions go with it.
The backlash is the evidence. The flood of books and articles and blog posts and Facebook updates and tweets all yelling with rage at the very idea that belief in God is fatuous. That’s the evidence. I didn’t say the effect was universal, and of course I don’t think it is. But it certainly exists.
Short Rosenau : If Gnu Atheism has had any effect, then I don’t see any evidence for it. If the evidence is there, I don’t know what it shows.
This is my theorem. But I don’t have a proof. If there’s a proof, I don’t know what it proves.
The important point is that gnu atheism is not hurting, in the way that its critics said it would.
Sure, it’s early to know to what extent it is helping. It might never be possible to sort that out, because there are other social/cultural changes going on at the same time so it isn’t easy to tell what causes what. For myself, I tend to be non-confrontational, so Rosenau would prefer my style. But there’s plenty of room in this world for variety.
The trouble with accommodationism, is that accommodation needs to be a two way street. And we are not seeing much sign of accommodation coming from the religious right.
I knew Rosenau’s post would be maddening when I saw the first sentence:
No Josh, the nice thing about being agnostic is you get to posture. You get to brag about how open-minded you are. You get to always position yourself as The Most Reasonable Person in the Room. Your agnosticism may or may not be a principled stance. I guess I’m agnostic on that question. But it sure does make a good stick with which to thwack others, don’t it?
Why else make that the lead sentence?
Well, I decided to look at Josh’s post before reading what you and Jerry had to say about it and my knee-jerk reaction was a bit like what I then saw Jerry had written: people who keep on saying Gnu Atheism is not helping, in the sense that it is stopping believers from cuddling up to science, don’t get to be taken seriously if they suddenly turn around and say that Gnu Atheism has no effect on anything when the argument is about something else.
Ok, slightly hyperbolic, but that is kind of what’s going on here. Anyway, I don’t believe we’re having no effect. If nobody is hearing, listening to and being affected by what we’re saying, then the increasing animosity we’re getting has no conceivable justification. Or am I just weird in using myself as a yardstick, because I can’t imagine losing my temper at someone saying something I don’t believe is being absorbed by anyone else?
The latest BSA report shows that the shift from Christianity to Non-Religion is still continuing in the UK. This is evidence that for the first time in centuries, Christianity is no longer a majority religion in the UK. However, Christianity still has a privileged status within the state. So although something has been happening for the last 30 years, with a new generation that have rejected Christianity, nothing has changed about the special status that Christianity receives within the state.
Since Professor Richard Dawkins has been writing and promoting the subject of evolution and atheism for over 30 years, he may or may not have had a considerable effect on generations that have read his works. Since gnu atheism is in fact, the same old atheism but gone mainstream, I suspect that it is not so much effecting public opinion, but that there is a greater market now for atheist related literature.
All this is beside the point. The article written by Ophelia is not about ‘educating’ Americans about science or atheism, but about changing their attitudes on the social status of atheism and the social status of their own beliefs. It is only the gnu atheists that are providing ‘pressure’ for believers to stop pretending they’re religious for the sake of social status. Accommodationists are most definitely not providing any such pressure, but doing exactly the opposite, propping up the myth that being religious means respectability or means that you’re a good citizen.
And so, just like we can say that the black or gay civil rights movements contributed to the change in perception of blacks and gays in relation to their social status within society, so too are the gnu atheists. If you’re not happy that there is no such evidence that gnus are having any positive effect whatsoever, then I don’t really care, so long as there is a social change for the better. I’m not so much interested in taking credit as part of a movement, only that I can provide some pressure so that change eventually comes, whether provable or not.
To be honest, Josh, it does sound more like sour grapes from you than genuine scepticism. All that matters to me is that change happens, whether or not we can prove we’re the reason for it.
BSA Reports: http://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/606622/bsa%202009%20annotated%20questionnaires.pdf
Heh. That’s another (and better) version of what I was saying, Stewart. Gnu atheism is ruining everything, but on the other hand, gnu atheism makes nothing happen. Well which is it?
Even simpler: “Drop that gun! It’s not loaded anyway. I said, drop that gun, right now!”
Andy: Yes, Josh seems to be trapped in the two dimensions of a cartoon panel, and he hasn’t yet noticed the existence of a third dimension.
@8
Yes he does! The thing about the “I’m not atheist; I’m agnostic” crowd is that they’re so damn transparent about the superiority thing some times.
As I see it, there are two kinds of people in the “I’m not atheist; I’m agnostic” crowd: those who probably comprehend that the statement itself is somewhat incoherent and are only self-identifying that way because they don’t want to self-identify as “atheist” (e.g. Rosenau, Robert Wright), and those who genuinely do not understand what agnosticism is, or what atheism is for that matter (e.g. Ron Rosenbaum). Both groups seem to enjoy the “a pox on both your houses” pastime, which is just frickin’ obnoxious at this point.
The gnu atheism has made a big impact for the good. If you compare the early 70’s to the present, which era would you prefer to live in? I’ve lived in both eras as an atheist and the present is more comfortable for an atheist.
The agnosticism that Josh waves as a banner seems to be a bit dishonest to me. It lacks substance and muddies discussions. What has agnosticism done to promote skepticism?
Repost of what I wrote at Jerry’s:
There is something very strange about quoting yourself.
Meanwhile, Australia are all out for 98 in the deciding Ashes test. Perhaps there is a god after all….?
Merry post-Xmas recovery period, everyone!
I might have more respect for agnostics if they were consistantly ‘agnostic’ about the gods of ancient Egypt or Rome, or about pixies and hobgoblins, or about whether the sun will come up in the morning.
I might have more respect for agnostics if they were consistantly ‘agnostic’ about the gods of ancient Egypt or Rome, or about pixies and hobgoblins, or about whether the sun will come up in the morning.
Can’t agree with this. Being agnostic doesn’t mean denying all knowledge. It means denying specific knowledge claims. If it were the former than agnosticism would be a self refuting position. One is agnostic to specific claims, so it’s perfectly reasonable to say ‘I don’t believe Zeus exists’ or ‘I don’t believe the Abrahamic God as taught to Catholics from the pulpit exists’. In that sense I’m an agnostic. I’m atheist about Gods I’ve heard of, but I haven’t heard of all of them so can’t claim to not believe in all of them. I think.
Keyboard warriors/media blowhards have been railing against socialism in’t U.S. for years. That doesn’t mean Americans are any more sceptical about capitalism. (Not aligning the value of either with religion/nonbelief!)
For the honest take on agnosticism, see Bertrand Russell.
For the dishonest take, see any number of people for whom it is precisely the ordinary man in the street to whom they wish to convey their agnosticism.
I’m not sure intellectual respectability is what makes theism a desirable part of a sound, upstanding U.S. citizen’s identity. It’s more the values – family, community, moral conservatism – and the heritage it’s seen as placing one in. I’d bet social liberalisation will damage that: more people will want to escape rather than embrace that.
True. Nevertheless, people don’t want to appear to be just plain silly. So I think the epistemic issue exerts some pressure on at least some people. Doubtless I should have put it that way in the first place. I would have avoided all this mishegas!
Josh Rosenau’s argument is so palpably a matter of special pleading. Goodness, as both you and Jerry point out, Ophelia, when he uses evidence for the bad effects of gnu atheism, of which there is very little, he takes it for granted that that’s just fine. Enough to condemn us all to some kind of intellectual hell. But then, looking at it from the gnu atheist point of view, he can’t find any evidence to support the claim that gnu atheism is having any effect at all. Well, as you say, he can’t have it both ways. It can’t both be having a bad effect and have no effect at all.
Obviously, there’s no clear statistical evidence, but Rosenau himself thinks the effect is pretty serious. Otherwise, why speak about helping/hurting at all? Why not speak about agreement/disagreement? So now, I think, we have to ask these guys — people like Baggini, Rosenau, Strangroom — what the problem is. If it’s argument, well, presumably they can say something germane. If it’s tone, well, what the hell!? They may as well forget it. They’re not going to stop people who want to be pointed and even strident. Gnu atheists are right. Religion is a big problem. So, let’s say it loud and clear. If they don’t think it’s a problem, they have to explain why. So far, all they’re doing is complaining about tone, and that’s not helping at all, because — guess what!? — we’re not going to change our tone! Hasn’t this dawned on them yet? Or are they just slow learners?
Ah but the goal isn’t necessarily to get us to change our tone. In fact it usually isnt; the goal of course is to make everyone else hate us. At that, they’re having a lot of success.
So it’s all a passive-aggressive self-hating projection? A ruse to distract what’s really going on among us. This reminds me a bit of the self-haters among Jews, Blacks and Gays and any other minority group.
The goal isn’t necessarily to make everyone hate us; usually it’s more along the lines of, “Look at me, I’m an atheist (or agnostic), but I’m such a nice atheist, not like those disgusting vermin over there.” The goal is self-promotion, or at least promotion of the gneiss atheist brand; the fact that other people are thrown under the bus is secondary (although I’m sure it provides many moments of quiet satisfaction in private).
I sometimes wonder whether it isn’t motivated a bit by fear. You know, when the really big backlash comes and they start burning all of us at the stake, the accomodationists will be able to say, “but we were the nice ones, look at our track record record, we were even nastier to the Gnus than you, Your Bloodthirstiness.”
oops, one “record” too many…
Rosenau seems to ignore any evidence that does not come from the US. There is plenty of evidence from Western Europe that it is becoming less intellectually and socially respectable to have anything more than a rather wishy-washy belief in god. Why else would a former Archbishop of Canterbury be so vocal in support of a group trying to make being a Christian something to be proud of ?
Now it is true that this pre-dates the gnu movement, but it also it true that the trend is accelerating and that at the very least the gnus have done nothing to hinder it.
I do wish Rosenau would stop taking such a blinkered view of the world.
I’ve become disenchanted with agnosticism since I started to regard it as a “conditional theism”; it’s the claim that, if there are any gods, they are of such a nature that we can’t know about them. This is pointless.