ABC News broadcast a segment on the growing influence of atheists/ You can see it at Atheists Take On Religion. (If you're lucky, you won't have to watch the disgusting anti-drug commercial.)The fact that a major network is addressing this issue relates to the debates on the blogs about appeasers, and "fundamentalist" atheists. The ABC segment mentions "The God Delusion" and "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris. Sam Harris is interviewed by an ABC reporter. Does anyone doubt that it's the publicity generated by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that's driving the debate into the open? Here's what the ABC News reporter says,
This is just one example of the mounting assertiveness of atheists who are arguing loudly that religion is not only false but also a threat to civilization.The main thrust of the story is the US Supreme Court case on Bush's faith-based initiatives. We've seen these type of challenge in the past and they've made the television news. But there's a big difference today. Look at this video clip to see the difference. What you're now seeing is some debate about atheism and the existence of God. Atheism is moving into the public consciousness and the media is starting to take it seriously.
The Supreme Court challenge is backed by an organization called "The Freedom from Religion Foundation" led by Dan Barker. He's a former fundamentalist preacher and when asked, "what are you preaching now," he replies,
Separation of state and church and reason and kindness in place of superstition.Yes! That did not get edited out of the segment and the reporter didn't even flinch. That's progress folks. And make no mistake, we owe it to the "extremists" like Dawkins and Harris. The "kinder and gentler" approach of the atheist appeasers didn't drive any of this publicity.
[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.NET]
15 comments :
"And make no mistake, we owe it to the 'extremists' like Dawkins and Harris."
This is half-true. Their forthrightness has been an asset. It does not follow from this that their whole approach, which involves some serious intellectual sloppiness, is appropriate.
"The 'kinder and gentler' approach of the atheist appeasers didn't drive any of this publicity."
This is misleading. One of the things that has made Dawkins as successful as he has been is that he is not obviously nasty, though occasionally the veneer is breached. You are also ignoring that these so-called appeasers have been responsible for putting the backs of the IDers against the wall and reducing them from superficially respectable pseudoscientists to scroungers resorting to fart jokes. This makes Dawkins' position much stronger.
I should add that this idea that this idea of "appeasers" in general is a canard largely promoted by those who can't tell the difference between someone who says "It's a crock to portray all theists as stupid or deluded" with someone who says "Theists must be coddled."
No it is all true ....
Thought the "appeasers" only made an appearance with the re-emergence of religious insanity in the USA and the muslim countries.
What needs to be added is the statement that:
All religions are a combination of moral and physical blackmail.
G. Tingey: "All religions are a combination of moral and physical blackmail."
That's an incredibly sweeping statement. Do you have anything to back that up other than your own intution?
Right on!
J:
You are making such contortions that it is hard to fish out and address any content in them. It reminds me of the manner of religious apologists, actually.
"their whole approach, which involves some serious intellectual sloppiness, is appropriate."
Since the approach is to open up the discussion and moving the allowed public extreme viewpoint, which as Larry notes is succeeding, it is both a simple, verifiable and verified approach.
But I'm not sure that is on your mind, as you didn't state what your view of "the whole approach" is, and what of it is "intellectual sloppiness". In all probability you are referring to Dawkins already here, with the fixation and famous Courtier response of apologists and many appeasers. If so, that is the epitome of intellectual sloppiness.
"One of the things that has made Dawkins as successful as he has been is that he is not obviously nasty, though occasionally the veneer is breached."
This is trying to have it both ways. If Dawkins isn't nasty, which I can agree with, there should be no argument left (besides the Courtier response regarding Dawkins) to criticize active atheists on.
"You are also ignoring that these so-called appeasers have been responsible for putting the backs of the IDers against the wall"
I don't think one can single out any one group as responsible, especially since IDiots and their cause is pretty much doing it to themselves. It is also rather judgmental to disregard the efforts of other groups here.
But in any case, this shows the goal difference and possibly hints at the bad reading of appeasers. Dawkins and several other atheists goal isn't mainly creationism, which is a special question, but opposing superstition and its ill effects. ID creationism is special since it tries to smuggle itself into education and the separation between state and religion. So it is a much easier task to oppose.
"a canard largely promoted by those who can't tell the difference between someone who says "It's a crock to portray all theists as stupid or deluded" with someone who says "Theists must be coddled.""
This OTOH is sensible and straightforward.
Well, I think most people can tell the difference. But that it is hard to do because appeasers most often don't make this distinction visible, or even sometimes say the first while acting on the second.
The easiest way to elude this problem is to recognize that religion can't use special pleading, thus making it all right to call theists deluded on their superstitious world view.
I think what we are seeing is the "fundamentalist" atheists are being heard in the sense of "equal time for all religions." That is, the hard core atheists get treated -- some would say appropriately -- as another religion due equal time. Think Scientology. On the whole, that's probably a good thing and about the only sort of treatment one can expect from the MSM.
Torbjörn Larsson: "You are making such contortions that it is hard to fish out and address any content in them."
If what I wrote was apparently too "contorted" for you to grasp, then let me simplify it: Forthrightness is good. Distorting the facts is bad.
Me: "One of the things that has made Dawkins as successful as he has been is that he is not obviously nasty, though occasionally the veneer is breached."
Larsson: "This is trying to have it both ways."
You might as well say that it is trying to have it both ways to say that a poker player's success is due to his good poker face, but that he occasionally fails to maintain it.
Me: "I should add that this idea that this idea of 'appeasers' in general is a canard largely promoted by those who can't tell the difference between someone who says 'It's a crock to portray all theists as stupid or deluded' with someone who says 'Theists must be coddled.'"
Larsson: "But that it is hard to do because appeasers most often don't make this distinction visible, or even sometimes say the first while acting on the second."
I'd say that this is exactly backwards. So-called "appeasers" like Brayton tend to do the first but be accused of the second.
Larsson: "The easiest way to elude this problem is to recognize that religion can't use special pleading, thus making it all right to call theists deluded on their superstitious world view."
It is far from special pleading to insist that there is a difference between being delusional and being mistaken.
J. J. Ramsey: "Forthrightness is good. Distorting the facts is bad."
Let me amend this: "Forthrightness is good. Intellectual sloppiness is bad."
Dawkins has made a few factual and logical mistakes, but they, in and of themselves, are largely minor. Unfortunately, the effect of them has cascaded. He leaves the "Neville Chamberlain" hand grenade in his book, and it is the less careful ones, like Myers and Moran who pull the pin and let the dishonesty explode. His fans make excuses for his mistakes, and one of them, Myers, crafts a cute tale, the "Courtier's Reply," which mutates into a knee-jerk reply and a shield against criticism of Dawkins, sort of the way that the "Liberal Media" canard is a shield that conservatives use against inconvenient facts. What is ironic about Dawkins is that he has fueled a worthwhile fight against superstition on the one hand while subtly sabotaging rationalism on the other.
J:
"You might as well say that it is trying to have it both ways to say that a poker player's success is due to his good poker face, but that he occasionally fails to maintain it."
Again contortions, invisible content.
"I'd say that this is exactly backwards."
You keep ignoring the obvious fact that most people can tell the difference. Why shouldn't they be able to? Which makes my explanation much more likely than yours.
Btw, your claim here implicitly contradicts your earlier claim that people can't tell the difference, because they wouldn't all act as you claim if they could not tell.
"It is far from special pleading to insist that there is a difference between being delusional and being mistaken."
That difference can't be great:
"1. delusion - (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary
2. delusion - a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea"
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=delusion )
But in any case, they both apply.
"the "Courtier's Reply," which mutates into a knee-jerk reply and a shield against criticism of Dawkins"
The courtiers reply is apparently a knee-jerk reaction to Dawkins, since it is consistently raised and used to avoid addressing his claims.
If the analysis will one day seem automatic, it likely due to the above. But it is impossible to tell today , since there hasn't been any relevant criticism AFAIK.
Either it is a complaint that he doesn't discuss what theologists discuss. ('Unsophisticated view'.) Or it is a complaint based on that he doesn't discuss what appeasers discuss. ('Not only IDers'.)
Torbjörn Larsson: "Again contortions, invisible content."
The lack of a demonstration of these purported contortions is noted.
Torbjörn Larsson: "That difference [between delusion and mere mistaken belief] can't be great"
The difference is great enough that "delusion" is used as a clinical term in abnormal psychology, while "mistake" is not. Even when "delusion" is used colloquially, its connotation tends to suggest a form of insanity or mental defect, mild or otherwise, and this is especially true when used as invective.
"The courtiers reply is apparently a knee-jerk reaction to Dawkins, since it is consistently raised and used to avoid addressing his claims."
Yet it is used against Plantinga, who actually addressed Dawkins' arguments directly, rather than simply complain that Dawkins wasn't well read. Whether he addressed them well is a vastly different story, of course, but Plantinga's errors are not the same as those of the courtiers.
Here is another example of a misuse of the Courtier's Reply: link
J:
"The lack of a demonstration of these purported contortions is noted."
I noted that I can't extract meaningful content. Such a state can't be demonstrated.
""delusion" is used as a clinical term in abnormal psychology"
I see; when I use "delusion" as key word that definition pops up. However, "deluded" is void of that meaning.
Of course, we can discuss if religion is a form of pathology or not, but I don't think that is meaningful.
Better is to look at the psychiatric criteria. I found Jasper's original proposal:
* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion )
Of the three criteria, religious persons immediately fulfill the second, namely incorrigibility. Many persons seems to fulfill the first as well. And as per Dawkins claim, religion is implausible.
So it must be fully correct for Dawkins and people like him to call religious people deluded even under the psychological definition. And if anyone demonstrates that the third criteria is wrong, or that the first criteria doesn't apply to a certain individual, the colloquial definition remains.
"Yet it is used against Plantinga"
Perhaps. On the other hand, in the analysis I have seen on Rosenhouse et al, you misconstrue what Tyler DiPietro said. Nowhere is the "Courtier's reply" appealed to.
Tyler's comment is actually summing up the critique:
"In addition to the standard "Courtier's Reply", this sort of argument is repeated ad nauseum in a similar fashion. I call it the "Scorched Earth Policy" argument. It goes like this: whenever anyone argues that religion is either empirically unjustifiable or completely vacuous (possibly both), someone starts playing epistemological games to undermine rational inquiry itself. "I may have faith in fairy-tales, but you have great faith in empiricism (or positivism or whatever)!" is one of the most common formulations of the tactic. It's very telling that people would rather retreat into solipsism and/or nihilism than defend religion on it's merits (which apparently approach zero)."
So the conclusion is that Platinga isn't retreating into the first apologist defense (courtier - 'not discussing religion'), but the second (scorched earth - 'can't discuss religion').
( http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/03/plantinga_on_dawkins_part_one.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=sublink )
Torbjörn Larsson: "Better is to look at the psychiatric criteria. I found Jasper's original proposal:"
Ok.
"certainty (held with absolute conviction)"
Visited Ship-of-Fools lately? Absolute certainty is hardly necessary for religion.
"incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)"
I already pointed out theistic evolution as a counterexample. Religions are often flexible over the long term.
"impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)"
This is also problematic. If you have been following some of the recent stuff on evolution and religion, the content of religion tends to be minimally counterintuitive: odd enough to stick in the mind, but not that odd. Of course, this is not so obvious because what counts as odd has changed over the millenia. Very few things in religion are obviously untrue; untrue if examined closely, yes, but that is far from the same thing. Even Bertrand Russell noted that if we were to try to disprove the Greek gods, we would run into difficulty. Often the content is unfalsifiable. For example, Catholics believe the communion meal becomes Jesus' body and blood, but no one expects it to taste like flesh.
Me: "Yet [the Courtier's Reply] is used against Plantinga"
Larsson: "Perhaps."
No perhaps about it. Moran clearly appealed to it. DiPietro did not, of course, as I acknowledged after he pointed that out. Funny how you assumed my retraction wasn't genuine and that no one else had ever cried "Courtier's Reply" in response to Plantinga.
"Absolute certainty is hardly necessary for religion."
Certainly not. However, this is the attitude most presented; theists can't imagine the universe without a creator, et cetera.
"Religions are often flexible over the long term."
As above, I think you confuse the persons view with the religion. In any case, theistic evolution is invented exactly to avoid the conclusion that evolution is chance and necessity.
"This is also problematic."
But not for Dawkins and those who make similar conclusions, as I mentioned above. Note, we were discussing why *he* can use the term "delusion". He can, because it follows logically from his claims.
"Moran clearly appealed to it."
No, he did not.
He referred to what "[S]ome of his fiercest critics" claim, "that Dawkins is attacking a strawman version of Christianity and not the real intellectually sophisticated version that they believe in". Then he noted that it would be "interesting to see how a believer in modern sophisticated Christianity performs". He referred to Rosenhouse's dissection of Planinga, which as we discussed doesn't refer to the Courtier's response, nor does the commentaries. And Moran ended with noting that "It doesn't look good. Superstition is superstition no matter how you dress it up."
"Funny how you assumed my retraction wasn't genuine"
No, I did not.
You initially misconstrued DiPietro's comment, and that and your retraction is clear.
What I was trying to point out is that you are jumping the gun in this matter, on DiPietro's comment and now on Moran's post. It seems you have some difficulties with discerning when people are claiming its use.
"I think you confuse the persons view with the religion."
For religion to change, individual views have to change. Obviously, they have.
"Note, we were discussing why *he* [Dawkins] can use the term 'delusion'."
Um, no we weren't. My first use of "delusion" was in the second comment, and it was not about how Dawkins used the word "deluded."
"What I was trying to point out is that you are jumping the gun in this matter, on DiPietro's comment and now on Moran's post."
This I will concede, although the fact that he wrote:
"Some of his fiercest critics are moderate Christians who claim that the religion Dawkins attacks is not their religion. The claim is that Dawkins is attacking a strawman version of Christianity and not the real intellectually sophisticated version that they believe in.
"This form of criticism is called the Courtier's Reply an amazingly apt response invented by PZ Myers."
and then identified Plantinga as a one of these "really sophisticated" Christians, it wasn't hard to conclude that Moran thought Plantinga was another courtier.
On a different subject, I noticed two things:
* Moran misidentifies the nature of the original Courtier's Reply, which was more of an argument by non sequitur on the part of the courtiers than a complaint about strawmen.
* I find it interesting that the Courtier's Reply is attributed to Christians when it has been atheists, like Orr, commonly accused of making the reply.
"For religion to change, individual views have to change."
Not necessarily for most. It is when the dogmas change that new, or sometimes old, believers may accept the change. Different time scales, different scope.
"Um, no we weren't. My first use of "delusion" was in the second comment, and it was not about how Dawkins used the word "deluded.""
Now you are obtuse. Dawkins is someone who may say "all theists as stupid or deluded", and I was discussing why *he* could use the term "deluded".
"it wasn't hard to conclude that Moran thought Plantinga was another courtier."
I concluded that he gave the background.
"the original Courtier's Reply, which was more of an argument by non sequitur on the part of the courtiers than a complaint about strawmen."
It is essentially the same here, since the strawman that Dawkins need to be discussing the gods of theology is so huge that it leads to a non sequitur of not discussing Dawkins claims.
"attributed to Christians"
It seems both groups use it.
Post a Comment