John Pieret has posted an intersting article in which he criticizes Mary Jordan for writing something silly about atheists in the Washington Post [Harebrained Hairpins]. I agree with John that she went way overboard.
However, I'm more interested in John's opening paragraph where he repeats a position he has long mantained.
I'm not overly sympathetic to the complaints of the "New Atheists" that they are unfairly being told to mute their criticism of religion lest they drive religious people further away from science in particular and rationalism in general. In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism. And atheism, far from having a lock on rationalism, is, in fundamental ways arational, at least, if not outright irrational at times. And, it seems to me, if a dialogue is what you intend in which you hope to convince the religious to become atheists, starting off calling them delusional may be a tad counterproductive.This is a bit confusing. Let's see if we can parse the sentences to get at the essence of John's problem. If I understand him correctly, he is saying ...
It is fair to tell atheists to mute their criticism of religion because it might be driving religious people away from science.How, exactly, does this work, John? What is the ethical reasoning that justifies telling someone to keep quiet because you don't like their message? There is none. It's pefectly okay to disagree with us—something you do quite often—but it's a whole different thing to tell us to shut up, and maintain that it's fair to do so. It's not fair. It's unfair, ... and reprehensible.
If there's a rational argument there, then it has to be something like the following. You believe that religious people are going to embrace science—a good thing—but they won't do it if we atheists start telling them that there's no such thing as God or miracles. Hmmm ... very interesting. Does it also apply to other groups? Will astrologers embrace science as long as we stop telling them that astrology is a bunch of superstitious nonsense?
I interpret John to be saying.
It is fair to tell atheists to mute their criticism of religion because it might be driving them away from rationalism.John, Aren't you making an unwarranted assumption here? Aren't you assuming that the average religious person already embraces rationalism? Otherwise, how could they be driven away?
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that by criticizing religion we are making religious people abandon rationalism? And if we stop the criticism they will become rational? What arguments do you use to support that claim?
In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism.I agree. "Science" and the lack of belief in supernatural beings are two different things. It is possible to avoid believing in supernatural beings and be opposed to science. There are many examples. In addition, there are some people who fully accept all the fundamentals of science, and its implications, while still being religious. Deists are one example. Buddhists are another.
And atheism, far from having a lock on rationalism, is, in fundamental ways arational, at least, if not outright irrational at times.The atheists are saying that they don't buy into the superstitious belief in the existence of supernatural beings. They don't accept most of the basic tenets of the major religions because they are not based on evidence. How in the world is this "irrational"?
And, it seems to me, if a dialogue is what you intend in which you hope to convince the religious to become atheists, starting off calling them delusional may be a tad counterproductive.The evidence so far is against you. We've never had so much dialogue between atheists and religious leaders as we've had since the publication of The God Delusion. It is no longer possible for religious people get away with making the unchallenged assumption that there is a God. Millions of people are hearing for the first time that their core belief is being questioned. Not only that, it's being questioned in a particularly forceful way. That makes you sit up and take notice.
I'm sick and tired of this phony argument. It is completely irrational.
18 comments :
I certainly agree with John that rationalism is not coextensive with atheism, at least not necessarily. It's one of the reasons I object to the phrase "New Atheism". Although hardly a solid ideology, the movement is much broader than simple disbelief in the existence of god(s) (on whatever premise). It's much more a vigorous advocacy of Enlightenment rationalism than a "new" atheism.
"In addition, there are some people who fully accept all the fundamentals of science, and its implications, while still being religious. Deists are one example. Buddhists are another."
Be careful here. Western Buddhism might be mostly "philosophical" and in tune with Enlightenment thinking, but that's not necessarily true of the Eastern religion from which the West got their ideas.
We've never had so much dialogue between atheists and religious leaders as we've had since the publication of The God Delusion.
That has to be the most absurd statement I've ever heard. Anyone with any historical background whatsoever will know that at the turn of the 20th century Nietzsche had a hell of a lot more influence than Dawkins has or is ever likely to.
The atheists are saying that they don't buy into the superstitious belief in the existence of supernatural beings. They don't accept most of the basic tenets of the major religions because they are not based on evidence. How in the world is this "irrational"?
It certainly is not irrational, and atheism is a rational position. The real question though, is whether or not "rationality" is at the bottom of all things. Perhaps our universe is a small slice of rationality in an infinite sea of chaos and absurdity. As per Godel, there is no complete and consistent set of axioms for all but the most trivial systems.
Clearly there are numerous types of atheism, with scientific rationalism being just one. That is obvious if we think of Stalinism or belief in space aliens instead of god as valid forms of 'atheism'. Even within modern secular atheism there are clear differences in viewpoints that are frequently obscured by a bland exclamation of "I'm an atheist too but...." (not looking at any particular framer in particular). Just because one disbelieves god doesn't mean one values critical thought as a useful tool for the population in general.
Suppose that there is one (or several) information processing network made of peoples interacting via verbal links. Imagine that, some day, in this huge neural network, some kind of conscience emerges. Call it god (with lowcase g).
Is this a supernatural being? I am sure it is not. It is a higher inteligence that can affect human lives? Probably yes. Is this idea of god compatible with atheism?
As an example, the market shoes depression and euforia, it calculates prices, it self-organizes economy. It is a huge information processing device very inteligent. Ok, perhaps not (yet) with self-awareness. But, anyway, it has a higher sensitivity, inteligence and creative power than human minds.
We atheists proclame that consciousness can emerge from a network of non-consciousness neurons. It not would be easier a super-inteliggence emerges from networks of peoples. In other words, it would be possible to have inteligent, self-aware memetic complexes? This would explain why the gods need so much us: they are recruiting new (human)neurons for their networks...
Is this science fiction idea compatible with atheism?
I intended to write:
It would not be easier a super-inteliggence emerges from networks of peoples?
In framing is one thing which suprises me;
They seems to be allways "repressing atheists"; They are not jelling to the creationists(et. al.). They are not telling them that "shut up, you can not attack science and atheism at the same time, they can not change both at the same time" nor "If you attack evolution, and tell that it contradicts Bible you turn some theists in atheists."
We don't hear things like that.
If religious-minded guys are saying "mean things" they are only "showing alternative ways of thinking", which is "good thing". But if atheist do the same, they must "frame" = shut up.
I think that is quite amusing. And stupid. But amusing. But scary. and amusing...
[Bitchy characterization] That was an interesting glimpse of John Pieret's original thoughts, when he isn't busy lawyering his way around comments in a thread. [/Bitchy characterization]
I'm not overly sympathetic to the complaints of the "New Atheists" that they are unfairly being told to mute their criticism of religion lest they drive religious people further away from science in particular and rationalism in general. In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism.
I'm looking for some logic here.
If John accepts that science and atheism isn't coexistent (which is true), why does he accept that atheists are unfairly being told that they drive away some people from science? Even more, why does he himself support such practice? But most, why does he himself practice it?
No, not a trace of logic.
And atheism, far from having a lock on rationalism, is, in fundamental ways arational, at least, if not outright irrational at times.
But here there are traces of logic. Pity that it drowns in a sea of conflations.
I'm not overly enthused by philosophical definitions of "rationalism", since they often or always explicitly exempt empiricism. In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". Specifically this excepts science and scientific theory.
In my opinion, rationalism would do better if it accepts as definition logical valid rational methods. In any case, as it stands Pieret conflates empiricism with rationalism. He also conflates rationalism with rationality.
A further conflation comes about by implicitly conflating all forms of rationality. Rationality at large must as "random" be explicitly specified in a discussion. Many enterprises exhibit their own bounded rationality, but they may do so by exempting logic (ad hominem arguments may be rational in politics) or by exempting certain or all facts (religion may be sanitized to be logically sound).
And not only is most forms of atheism boundedly rational, they are even coherent rational with empiricism. This is something religion never can aspire to. Which doesn't prohibit religious individuals to accept the results or even reasoning of science. Even if it may take some cognitive dissonance.
Jonathan Badger:
That has to be the most absurd statement I've ever heard. Anyone with any historical background whatsoever will know that at the turn of the 20th century Nietzsche had a hell of a lot more influence than Dawkins has or is ever likely to.
So tell us - how much influence did Nietzsche actually have? How many people read his books, and how does that compare to the number that encounter Dawkins/Dennett/Harris via books and television and Internet? How much did the influence of religion decline as a result?
My understanding is that Nietzsche's work was very much the atheist bible: everyone (or at least most people with intellectual pretensions) had a copy but very few people ever actually read it. But I'm happy to be proved wrong.
You can't just claim Nietzsche's influence was limited to readers of his own books (which were after all, written in German and in a rather esoteric style) Certainly his direct influence was more localized to Europe, where there *was* a large decline of the influence of religion (but whether Nietzsche was more of a cause or a result of this can be argued).
But there were many popularizations of Nietzsche written, even one published in 1908 by H.L. Mencken himself. Here's the introductory paragraph -- it may seem a little "over the top" to us today, but it is useful in showing how Nietzsche was familiar even to people who had never read a word of his philosophy.
"THE philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and the music (and quasi-music) of Richard Strauss: herein we have our modern substitutes for Shakespeare and the musical glasses. There is no escaping Nietzsche. You may hold him a hissing and a mocking and lift your virtuous skirts as you pass him by, but his roar is in your ears and his blasphemies sink into your mind. He has colored the thought and literature, the speculation and theorizing, the politics and superstition of the time. He reigns as king in the German universities - where, since Luther's day, all the world's most painful thinking has been done - and his echoes tinkle, harshly or faintly, from Chicago to Mesopotamia. His ideas appear in the writings of men as unlike as Roosevelt and Bernard Shaw; even the newspapers are aware of him. He is praised and berated, accepted and denounced, canonized and damned. Pythagoras had no more devout disciples and Spinoza had no more murderous and violent foes. Wherefore it may be a toil of some profit to examine his ideas a bit closely; to differentiate between what he said in his books and what his apostles and interpreters and enemies say or think he said; and in the end, perhaps, to find out what he meant."
[Sigh] Have a car break down spectacularly, feel a little under the weather, don't check Larry's blog too carefully ... and that's the day he'll take a shot at ya! And you guys say there are no god(s)!
It is fair to tell atheists to mute their criticism of religion because it might be driving religious people away from science.
Maybe yes, maybe no ... I'm just not gonna have much sympathy for you when you kvetch about it either way.
How, exactly, does this work, John? What is the ethical reasoning that justifies telling someone to keep quiet because you don't like their message?
Beats me. How do you and the rest of the New Atheists justify it when you tell the theists to shut up about their beliefs because you don't like them?
There is none. It's pefectly okay to disagree with us — something you do quite often — but it's a whole different thing to tell us to shut up, and maintain that it's fair to do so. It's not fair. It's unfair, ... and reprehensible.
Um, Larry ... where did I tell you ... in that post or anywhere else ... to "shut up"?
Skipping to the part not based on a false premise ...
In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism.
I agree.
You don't know how much that gladdens my heart.
The atheists are saying that they don't buy into the superstitious belief in the existence of supernatural beings. They don't accept most of the basic tenets of the major religions because they are not based on evidence. How in the world is this "irrational"?
I've already said in a comment over at my blog that my wording was not the clearest. What I was intending when I said that atheism is "irrational at times" was that individual arguments made by atheists are sometimes irrational.
We've never had so much dialogue between atheists and religious leaders as we've had since the publication of The God Delusion.
Funny ... it's sounded like a lot of people talking past each other very loudly to me. Maybe that passes for "dialogue" in your world, Larry, but not in mine.
It is no longer possible for religious people get away with making the unchallenged assumption that there is a God. Millions of people are hearing for the first time that their core belief is being questioned. Not only that, it's being questioned in a particularly forceful way. That makes you sit up and take notice.
People sat up and took notice of the hula hoop too. They didn't take that particularly seriously either. Let me know when you get past that stage.
I'm sick and tired of this phony argument. It is completely irrational.
But you keep right on making it over and over again nonetheless.
Regarding the "performance indicator" of Nietzsche:
One has to wonder, what can the philosophers of old accomplish if they had access to blogs and the internet like we do now. Or even book tours.
In that sense, I find it rather pointless to keep a tally of how successful they were at swelling the ranks of the atheists and agnostics. They lacked many of the resources we now have to spread information and communicate effectively on a global scale.
The emergence of blogging is also probably one of the major factors responsible for getting more people to discard their religious beliefs, besides the appearance of atheist books like The God Delusion.
I was doubtful if I should comment on Pieret's response, since it is so weak and childish ('you are too'!). But there are some salient points:
when you kvetch
The situation is that there are a lot of reviews and blogs persistently telling atheists to mute their criticism; witness that Pieret here both support and practice it himself. To point out that it is unfair isn't kvetching, it is observing an ongoing process.
where did I tell you ... in that post or anywhere else ... to "shut up"?
Since the message is criticism and you tell atheists to mute it, this is in effect a gag order.
individual arguments made by atheists are sometimes irrational.
Well then, since that is to be expected from all human activities, it isn't an argument.
They didn't take that particularly seriously either. Let me know when you get past that stage.
I bet people noticed the hula hoop because it was fun. But why do these people notice the challenge to their beliefs? Because the point where they didn't take this seriously was before they were challenged.
I was doubtful if I should comment on Pieret's response
You should have gone with your first impulse.
since it is so weak and childish ('you are too'!)
And nynah, nynah, na nyah na to you too!
The situation is that there are a lot of reviews and blogs persistently telling atheists to mute their criticism;
And? I repeat ... show where I have told atheists to "mute their criticism" of theists. I can and do disagree that criticism sometimes but that isn't telling them to stop. What I object to is the claim too often made and the sloppy usage, even more often made, that would equate atheism with science. I think making that false connection is harmful to science education, in that it risks turning some portion of the public off to science. Even then, I don't tell them to "shut up," I just shout as loud as they do. I also think that telling people you want to persuade that they are stupid at the outset is not persuasive. But if you want to do that, the problem takes care of itself, just like natural selection.
witness that Pieret here both support and practice it himself. To point out that it is unfair isn't kvetching, it is observing an ongoing process.
First of all, what is "unfair" about an open debate? Setting aside the question of what exactly the framer's complaints really are, Larry claims that it is unfair, unethical and even reprehensible for anyone to say that they don't like his message and would prefer it if he'd stop using it. If Larry has a right to air his opinions, so do the people who wish Larry would shut up. Unless, that is, Larry is claiming that he is above everyone else and criticism of him is unfair because he can't be wrong. If that is what he or anyone else thinks, please stand back while I spit in their eye.
If someone tries to use the government to stop Larry from talking, I'll be on the ramparts right next to him. If someone writes to his employer trying to get him fired for his message, I'll be happy to write to say that would be wrong. But supporting Larry when he whines that people are saying mean things to him? Don't make me laugh! The Larry Moran I've observed over the last decade has no need for that kind of condescension.
Since the message is criticism and you tell atheists to mute it, this is in effect a gag order.
Does atheism lower reading comprehension? I didn't say that they should mute their criticism. I said I wasn't overly sympathetic to their whining over what other people say to them in open debate. And how in that non-existent God's name does one person exercising his or her free speech right to criticise Larry, et al., constitute a "gag order," when Larry, et al. have equal free speech rights to criticise back?
individual arguments made by atheists are sometimes irrational.
Well then, since that is to be expected from all human activities, it isn't an argument.
Who said it was? It is [cough] an observation that indicates that criticizing atheists is not wholly and completely "unfair."
I bet people noticed the hula hoop because it was fun.
Hah! You weren't around for all the emergency room visits for thrown-out backs!
But why do these people notice the challenge to their beliefs? Because the point where they didn't take this seriously was before they were challenged.
It's also fair to observe that atheists are apparently subject to wishful thinking too.
na nyah na to you too
I don't think we needed that confirmation.
show where I have told atheists to "mute their criticism" of theists.
The "it" in "The situation is that there are a lot of reviews and blogs persistently telling atheists to mute their criticism; witness that Pieret here both support and practice it himself." refers to "that atheists are unfairly being told that they drive away some people from science". If not clear here it would have been clear by reading my first comment.
To avoid later discussion, then I refer to that assuming that it is fair to tell atheists that they drive away some people from science is in effect to tell them to mute their criticism.
what is "unfair" about an open debate?
My point exactly. You do realize that this goes both ways in a debate I hope, even if for some reason you don't see that on this specific debate.
one person exercising his or her free speech right to criticize Larry, et al., constitute a "gag order,"
By attacking the consequences of exercising free speech, which is assumed to be allowed, instead of by attacking the contents of the argument. I don't think it is difficult to understand that free speech means that you have to accept its consequences wherever they take you.
atheists are apparently subject to wishful thinking too
And this is your answer to Moran's observation that religious people are distraught by noticing that their core beliefs can be challenged? As I noted in my previous comment, this is all so weak.
My conclusion of this circuitous argument on some parts of Moran's analysis is that it is borne out - the argument was all phony.
Nobody is telling you guys to shut up; we are just letting you know exactly what you are doing, when you mix up your silly crusade against religion with the acceptance of evolution of life on earth.
If you guys don't agree with that, great!! Spill it out. All opinions are on the table. You try to make it look like people that do not agree with your tactics are against freedom of speach or something. We can ALL express what we think is best without that implying we are telling the other to shut up. So don't make EXAGGERATED accusations. All options are on the table, let the people decide, and STOP whining that we want to "shut you up". PLEASE. It really makes no sense.
Exaggeration and insolence are historical hallmarks of extremism. This is because extremists have no true belief in persuasion; what they really wish for is some "radical action" ( they mostly consider themselves to be in possesion of "the only truth" based on their false claim that they act "in the name of science")
Yet, if at the end of the day the extremists finds he can thnk of no action he can carry out, we have the other face of the extremist: the phony, the poser. You Blow off steam, but you are not for real (that's why we are never taking dawkins or PZ to defend evolution at courts). Extremists who KNOW they are exaggerated and unreal thus graduate to the status of posers; yes, phonies.
The reason why evangelical atheists handle criticism of their tactics very poorly, is because they are extremists They have made this edifice of moralistic, paranoid and exaggerated arguments; they just can't keep on having self-indulgent extremist fun without it. It really really annoys them if you point out their weaknesses.
Notably, since they are based on a vacuos prasing of science (scientism), they will never acknoweldge that surge of ID could have anything significant to do with some phenomenon of fatigue and decadence from WITHIN science itself, that have corroded the image of science unto society. Junk science, ridiculous triumphalism, chauvinism, disloyal competition, and the contamination of sciencie with ideology. In fact, this brand of extremist atheists with their "morality of science" are precisely one of the pathological symptoms; telling people everyone how they should think:The naturalist has turned into a "pastor" of atheism! Funny. And I thought that naturalists were more interested in beetles and stuff like that.
Post a Comment