Katie Kish has posted a list of things that annoy her about atheists [Why Atheists Annoy Me]. Remember that Katie is an atheist.
Reading her list makes me sad. Many of us are passionately interested in the conflict between rationalism and superstition. We tend to be outspoken in our advocacy of rationalism and our opposition to superstition. In that sense, we are no different than lots of others who feel strongly about a particular social issue.
But there's a big difference between this particular issue and most others. When it comes to criticizing superstition there are many potential allies (i.e., other atheists) who think that religion/spiritualism deserves some special status. Those potential allies demonstrate a visceral hatred of the vocal atheists that they don't extend to vocal proponents of environmentalism, socialism, feminism or gay/lesbian rights.
For example, here's how Katie Kish describes her feelings about Richard Dawkins ...
3. Dawkins. I think I’ve made it pretty clear in the past that I don’t like Dawkins. I really don’t want Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens to be the voice of my atheism. Because it’s not the voice of many people’s atheism, and it gives people a dangerous path to follow in their atheism. It makes them intolerant, gives them a reason not even try to understand and makes it impossible to have conversations with them. It’s like a hardcore theist - their theism leads them to dangerous places (mentally and physically), their beliefs give them reason to not listen to anyone else and they’re almost always impossible to talk to. The person I want to speak for my atheism is willing to listen, understands if you choose to be religious (and respects that) and attempts to have conversations (where they’re not shoving things down the other person’s throat).This is really harsh. I don't think Dawkins is unwilling to listen to believers and I don't he fails to understand their point of view. He just disagrees—as I do.
If believers make the effort to engage in the debate then they should be prepared for a real debate with all that entails. I fear that Katie is falling into the trap of assuming that believers deserve some special form of respect just because we're talking about their beliefs. It's as if Dawkins and others are supposed to metaphorically tie one hand behind their back when they debate believers because it's not fair to use all the debating skills at their disposal.
Here's one item on her list that could just as easily be about me as any other vocal atheist. It accuses us of being close-minded because we challenge the views of those believers who voluntarily enter the debate on the blogs.
6. Closed minded - This stands for most of my “liberal” friends as well. They can’t see things from the other side. A good example is something going on at a blog I was reading where people just can’t wrap their head around the fact that people can be spiritual, and not be religious. Religion implies some sort of formality, and doesn’t always include a really deep connection to things. I know a lot of people who are religious. They go to church, and they go through the motions but they have no connection to it. Then I know a lot of people who never go to church, who don’t claim to believe in God or even know what God is - but they have this deep connection to what they usually call “something” and they feel like it strengthens their spirit. And gives them a deeper connection to things and whatever that “something” is. And I respect that. They’re not religious. They’re not following any sort of religious dogma, or religious traditions, or even claiming belief in God. They’re developing what they call their spirituality. And I think there is a fine line between spirituality and religion - but a line nonetheless.Katie, I'm delighted that you have such a deep understanding of spirituality and what it means. I don't, and that's why I like to discuss it with believers who are willing to debate the issue. The only way for me to find out about the line between religion and spirituality is to ask questions and challenge the answers, just as those believers ask about and challenge my atheism. That's what debate and discussion is all about.
I can only assume that these are questions that you have already resolved. Apparently, you have learned enough about the meaning of spirituality that you no longer feel curious about it. Apparently, as soon as someone says they are spiritual and not religious, that's the end of the discussion for you. Fine, I respect that, but I think it's wrong for you to demand that the rest of us can't explore the topic.
UPDATE: See Sabrina's list of 10 things I love about being an Atheist!
I can't seem to view Katie's original post (it's telling me that my institution views it as a 'badware' site). However, I agree with the general assertion that religion should be open to debate, and shouldn't be allowed to claim special untouchable privileges (which, Katie seems to want to accord it).
ReplyDeleteHowever, the only point upon which Katie and I may agree is that I don't think that it encourages rational discussion when one side is mocking. We may call the Intelligent Design apologists IDiots because of the shenanigans they pull and their obvious obfuscation of facts. However, in the mind of a public that sees them (unfortunately) as some valid scientific argument, petty insults from scientists are probably just adding weight to their claims that they're being systematically 'expelled' from the discussion.
I'm not accusing this blog of engaging in this sort of behaviour. But I have seen quite a few exasperation-driven insults being leveled at religion from scientists on the intarwebs. Religious people (like my own family) aren't likely to listen if we begin the discussion by calling them delusional fools...
I had the same reaction reading her list, at least wrt Dawkins. I suspect that there are two factors at play.
ReplyDeleteFirst, many American atheists tend to be iconoclasts by nature or as a self-defence mechanism. They/we have a tendency to assert our independence of thought by publicly disagreeing with prominent allies. You don't see quite so much of this in the theist camp as they're more likely to dismiss nonsense as being "one of the good guys." (Ebonmuse just posted a good example of this, where he latches on to a single word Dawkins used and tries to tear him a new one. I think this results in atheists exaggerating minor differences and lashing out at people for no reason.
Related to the "respect" view of religion, even atheists often have a mistaken view that there is an excluded middle, that when confronted with two equally passionate people who disagree on an issue, the truth must lie somewhere in between. There's a temptation to accuse both sides of an inability to understand the perspectives of the other.
I've seen interviews with Dawkins talking to theists like McGrath and he seems calm, placating and respectful. I certainly get the impression that he understands exactly what the theist is saying (to the extent that any theology can be understood :) ), but just disagrees. Yet even atheists don't always go deep enough and just see sound bites or second-hand news reports and get the impression that Dawkins is mean, insulting and intolerant. I've even seen otherwise intelligent people on scienceblogs say that Dawkins wants to "abolish" and "outlaw" religion which is total b.s.
I assume that Professor Moran, like all scientists, has a metaphysics, but I wouldn't presume to say that I know what it is.
ReplyDeleteMany scientists are convinced of the unity of the universe, the universality of physical laws, and the ultimate unity of all knowledge, of theory. "Consilience" as EO Wilson has referred to it. But a unitary universe with one set of ultimately comprehensible laws is a hypothesis, no less than the idea of God. So the difference between some scientists who reject the idea of God (atheists) and believers is that the former fail to articulate their metaphysics while the latter allegorize their metaphysics as "God". Unsophisticated believers think of God as a sky-dweller with unlimited power; the sophisticated (e.g. Albert Einstein) conceive of God as a mysterious metaphysical principle that is experienced as awe.
You can of course be agnostic on metaphysical questions, but I don't think you can escape the metaphysical altogether. The theory and practice of physics and chemistry imply a metaphysics just as surely as any religion does. If atheism is more than simply a denial of the metaphysical claims of religion; if atheism has any genuine content, then it must at least confront the guiding assumptions (guesses? intuitions? hunches? faith?) of its own practice.
if atheism has any genuine content,
ReplyDeleteWhy does a rejection of the silly beliefs of a large number of other people require some inherent "content" of its own?
Does a disbelief in Santa Claus require an inherent content centered on lying parents to be considered "genuine"? What about disbelief of myths that I have never encountered, but are believed by people I have never met? Do I need some content before I can even listen to their claims, too?
No, you can simply reject silly beliefs (God, Santa, Unicorns etc. etc.).
ReplyDeleteMy point is that science itself has a metaphysics. That metaphysics is speculative. Scientists operate on faith; they make assumptions about nature, just as the God-fearing do. Those assumptions are not falsifiable; they are not scientific; they demand a kind of faith. Atheism too has a metaphysics. You assume your metaphysical assumptions are NOT silly. A true skeptic says: "Prove it!"
How do you know your notions aren't just as ridiculous as those of any religious fundamentalist?
i want to point out that a long time ago i did write about the positve aspects i see in atheism.
ReplyDeletei was ranting in this particular post that more people happened to pick up on.
for the positive:
http://liberal-debutante.com/atheism/positive-contact.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy problem is not with theism or with atheism, but with "rationalism". Notice that "rationalism" is found in both.
ReplyDeleteSimply put: proclaiming reason is pointless, because anyone can do that. That is, there is a difference between proclaiming reason, and actually using reason. As it is, "rationalism" can be attached to anything.
Becuase of this, "rationalists" are proclive to include some of their fantasy into some kind of univocal positive category of "what is rational" that should be considered simply "is". One of such typical mistakes in neoatheists is panselectionism. Dawkins, Dennet, Coyne. They think this is real, "just the way it is" and act as if there were no scientific controversy. No: there is plenty controversy over panselectionism and adaptationism (unlike, for instance, over ID)
Therein the danger of "positivism" and "rationalism". You may have your head positively dug into your buttcrack, and you would not even know it. You'd think it's "just so".
Just like a religious person
who entertains notions such as "the only true religion". They confuse fantasy with reality, in other words, DOGMA.
The scientists and religious people that I respect are those that do not vacuously invoke reason to transform ideas into dogmas, but rather admit that other worldviews are possible and none is in any way "absolutely false " or "absolutely real".
In this sense, Buddhism has made considerable more progress than many neoatheist scientists and philosophers.
The voice of my atheism? Does atheism have some kind of pope? If you don't want Dawkins, or Hitchens, or anyone else being your voice, then speak for yourself.
ReplyDeleteKatie Kish: "A good example is something going on at a blog I was reading where people just can’t wrap their head around the fact that people can be spiritual, and not be religious."
ReplyDeleteanonymous: "Unsophisticated believers think of God as a sky-dweller with unlimited power; the sophisticated (e.g. Albert Einstein) conceive of God as a mysterious metaphysical principle that is experienced as awe."
I'm with Sabrina on this one. Using words in unfamiliar ways results in many people misunderstanding your intent. If you mean something different, then use a different word. Take "spiritual" for example. As an atheist I don't agree with any supernatural connotations of the word. The parts I do accept can be better described by other words, such as "emotional." So it is much more straightforward to use that word instead.
i was ranting in this particular post that more people happened to pick up on.
ReplyDeleteI think that is a fair assessment rather than the characterization of "being very tongue in cheek" of earlier. [My condolences, btw.] If not for that I would have recommended to relax and enjoy a bit of the humor that you apparently do from time to time.
It makes them intolerant, gives them a reason not even try to understand and makes it impossible to have conversations with them. It’s like a hardcore theist - their theism leads them to dangerous places (mentally and physically), their beliefs give them reason to not listen to anyone else and they’re almost always impossible to talk to. The person I want to speak for my atheism is willing to listen, understands if you choose to be religious (and respects that) and attempts to have conversations (where they’re not shoving things down the other person’s throat). [My bold.]
"Dangerous places, mentally and physically" is totally unsubstantiated, also very non tolerant. When say Dawkins makes the same accusation of religions, he has substantial reasons behind.
Respect is earned, tolerance can and should be given. There is no special reason to respect religions or many of the reasons to choose to support them, and quite a few to disrespect most of them.
And, to make another rant :-P, this is before considering that a common reason to be non tolerant of other atheists is the acceptance of philosophical agnosticism, which is a very much stronger and non revisable claim on facts than empirical claims.
For example, if I observe that there are many orders of magnitude theories, models and pure observational data series that can be explained without any signs what so ever of agency, so that by common statistical tests that means that I can claim that beyond reasonable doubt there is no agency involved in nature, it is unreasonable according to the above to draw the obvious conclusion.
Because this is Not the True Godsman... excuse me, Scotsman of some undefinable non-agency entity (well, agent actually). Which possibly exists. Just like Santa Claus does.
@ Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteits own practice
Science isn't founded on the assumption that there aren't no gods, it is founded on a method that has no use for them. It is independent on atheism, and in fact many scientists are religious.
So how could science be atheism practice? I think atheism practice is what this blog among others do, point out the irrationality, ignorance and danger with religious practices. And sometimes non tolerance.
In short, I think you make an unwarranted connection between atheism and science. Now, AFAIU razib on another thread here showed very convincing statistics on how making contact with knowledge and science methods will decrease the amount of every religious and agnostic group to the benefit of non-agnostic atheism.
But that isn't to say that science equals atheism.
If that would be the case, the discussion we have is needless - science works, so according to you atheism is true.
Scientists operate on faith; they make assumptions about nature, just as the God-fearing do. Those assumptions are not falsifiable; they are not scientific;
So you are saying that science isn't science. Are you sure you want to go there?
(In fact, science, including its assumptions, all of them, is tested daily. And passes; that's what a method is for.)
Errata: "arent no" = aren't, "independent on" = independent of, and I messed up as IIRC razib was showing statistics on scientists, not all groups in the society. (Though it is tempting to generalize here.)
ReplyDeleteScience operates on certain assumptions concerning the way nature MUST work. And it has a great deal of difficulty reconciling observations that seem to contradict its metaphysical assumptions. Dark matter and cosmological constants are good examples of ad hoc notions designed to make nature work "the way it should" according to the laws "as they are supposed to be". Nature has to be consistent; it has to work the same way everywhere and at all times. That's a very big claim, it is unproven and it is as unproveable as the existence of a deity.
ReplyDeleteReligion at its crudest involves taking a metaphor (e.g. rising from the dead) literally. It is easy (and boring) to dismiss the metaphors and leave it at that, just as it is easy (and boring) to reduce science to puzzle solving. Science operates in the context of metaphysical ideologies; those ideologies are often found to be no less ridiculous than naive religious notions. Remember the ether? Remember wavicles? Remember "dark matter"? Big bangs? Singularities? Drift? Science thrives on the occult; it always has. But whereas religion often foregrounds the occult, science occludes it in an effort to seem perfectly sensible. But we've known for a long time now that photons are weird. The universe is weird. Does any of this mean we should believe in "God"? Of course not, but it does suggest that we might be a little less rigidly righteous (obnoxious might be another word for it) when it comes to the dumbfounded lovers of biblical metaphor. They look through words at the weird; science looks through equations at much the same thing.
Science operates on certain assumptions concerning the way nature MUST work. And it has a great deal of difficulty reconciling observations that seem to contradict its metaphysical assumptions.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. You could set up a scientific study to study the effects of supernatural phenomena. Many studies of the effects of prayer have been performed, for example. So your statement that science makes "metaphysical assumptions" seems to sell science short.
It is true that the conclusions of such studies do not support supernaturalism, but those are conclusions, not assumptions.
Are physical laws universal? Do they obtain everywhere and at all times in the history of this (and any other possible) universes? If you can conceive of any experiment to test the proposition of a consistently lawful universe, I hope you will publish your proposal in Science and Nature. You will win the Nobel prize and the world will be your oyster.
ReplyDeleteCall it a unified field experiment if you like; or a string experiment. What are unified fields and strings anyway, except ideas with historical pedigrees.
Meta-physics is the context in which experiments take place. Science is a sub-meta-physical endeavour. Meta-physical assumptions make science possible.
I enjoy the story of benzene. Kekule's dream. The snake eating its tail--rather like the devil. Don't sell the occult short. Newton was an ardent occultist. Einstein had Romantic transcendental longings. Even Darwin conceded the origin of life (rather grudgingly, but nevertheless...) to a "creator". Science draws a great deal of its vitality from the mystical. Think of Descartes' vortices and Maxwell's demons. Think of Claude Bernard's ghastly hallway of horrors. Think of those strange double helices (models) that have become symbols of veneration.
Science operates on certain assumptions concerning the way nature MUST work.
ReplyDeleteNot really. And you haven't considered my easily verified claim that science tests its assumptions when a theory passes a valid test, something that happens the world over every day.
Dark matter and cosmological constants are good examples of ad hoc notions
You haven't studied cosmology, have you? Dark matter has been observed since 2007ish. The cosmological constant isn't ad hoc, but has underpinnings in both general relativity and quantum theory. In fact I think Wikipedia covers this; in any case this is nitpick on erroneous claims.
Nature has to be consistent; it has to work the same way everywhere and at all times. That's a very big claim, it is unproven and it is as unproveable
No, no! We could possibly live (if we could live) as scientists with laws changing from room to room and week to week. Remember, science is but a method in essence, and it works everywhere.
But we would be very busy making observations and theories explaining all these different patches of physics.
That is originally an assumption, which has been kept out of parsimony. Parsimony is used when to choose between theories, because it turns out to be most often correct.
As all science assumptions it is tested daily, implicitly so but also sometimes explicitly as when scientists look for changes in the fine-structure constant.
Moreover, today we know that it must be so, and why. Cosmology tells us that the universe inflated early on, so all what we can observe originates from an originally casually connected volume. And in most inflation theories inflation can't start unless the original volume was sufficiently low entropy ordered.
The test would be to test inflation, which has been done a number of times. So it is "proven".
You will win the Nobel prize and the world will be your oyster.
Yes, several physicists got their Nobel prize for inflation theory which shows that we have the same parameters over the universe. I expect some will get the same for the observations that shows the same on stars and background radiation.
But in some small way I think it was Einstein that made consistent cosmological models possible, and he actually didn't get a Nobel prize for general relativity.
physical laws
"Laws" have now been subsumed in the much more powerful tool of theories, which interconnects hypotheses such as laws and the facts that they predict in an intricate and robust way.
it is as unproveable [sic] as the existence of a deity
ReplyDeleteIf it is unprovable either way, how come you can't find a valid objection to my claim of non-existence?
Your meta-physics is as strange as that of any religion.
ReplyDelete"Science," you write, "is but a method in essence, and it works everywhere."
A "method in essence"? "Works everywhere"?
These are mere statements of faith--doctrine. Science needs doctrine to operate, of course, and as a social institution it requires indoctrination. That's what high school physics classes and university courses do, in part. They indoctrinate. The methods of indoctrination are similar to those employed by religious associations. They both have their catechisms. You would argue that the difference between science and religion is that the doctrines of science are true and the doctrines of religion are false; religious fundamentalists make the same case in reverse.
All of which is only to argue that we ought to be careful to avoid dogmatism. Or, in other words, we ought to make arguments for a God-free universe based on probabilities and an appreciation of reasonableness. If it is more or less likely that we live in a God-free universe, then (we might say) it is not unreasonable to behave AS IF THIS WERE TRUE, despite the fact that we cannot test the proposition. That is, in effect, what science does; it proceeds on an inference to the best explanation; it argues on a balance of probabilities. Hume. That's all.
Militant atheism is as much a fig leaf for oppression, suppression and prior restraint as religious fundamentalism. One oughtn't to become the mirror image of one's adversary. The most important questions concern the nature of science itself--a perfectly human institution with much to account for and many flaws. On balance, science is a good thing just as, on balance, religion is not (I contend). But the balance in both cases is finer than the doctrinaire would have us believe.
Mostly, science makes the world a bit better but it also seems to make our problems more difficult to solve, in some respects. We can, using science, produce much more food. It looks as if we will be able to continue to produce more in future too. We can sustain an ever increasing human population. We can occupy more and more land, build more and more homes, consume more and more resources. E.O. Wilson has had some interesting things to say about this process.
But I digress...
Last word to you.
anonymous has written many erroneous things in this thread, one of them being:
ReplyDeleteAre physical laws universal? Do they obtain everywhere and at all times in the history of this (and any other possible) universes? If you can conceive of any experiment to test the proposition of a consistently lawful universe, I hope you will publish your proposal in Science and Nature. You will win the Nobel prize and the world will be your oyster.
As Torbjörn mentioned earlier, this demonstrates your unfamiliarity with the subject you write about. In fact there have been several proposals by quite serious physicists/cosmologists that gravity is variable in force, not a constant throughout the universe, put forward as alternatives to dark matter and dark energy. These alternative hypotheses have lost favor over the last several years not through some "metaphysics," but as a result of data obtained from colliding galaxies confirmatory of the dark matter hypothesis, and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) that has provided ever more precise data confirming the dark energy hypothesis.
So the experiments have been done, son, results published as scholarly articles (you can read them - ever heard of the arXiv?), and so far not only is the world not "the oyster" of the scientists who've done these experiments, they're so obscure you've obviously never heard of them.
That's because it's just more science, the way it is done every day, not some revolution against a dogmatic metaphysics. If you want to observe the latter, you'd be far better served paying attention to, e.g., the potential schism in the Anglican Church over issues involving homosexuality.
"The voice of my atheism? Does atheism have some kind of pope? If you don't want Dawkins, or Hitchens, or anyone else being your voice, then speak for yourself."
ReplyDeleteI DID! And everyone started getting pissed off at me!!!
Katie Kish says,
ReplyDelete"The voice of my atheism? Does atheism have some kind of pope? If you don't want Dawkins, or Hitchens, or anyone else being your voice, then speak for yourself."
I DID! And everyone started getting pissed off at me!!!
Katie, I don't think anyone objects to that part of your posting. You don't have to agree with Dawkins et al. and you certainly don't have to let them be the only voice of atheism.
However, you said much more than that. You said, ..
I think I’ve made it pretty clear in the past that I don’t like Dawkins. I really don’t want Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens to be the voice of my atheism. Because it’s not the voice of many people’s atheism, and it gives people a dangerous path to follow in their atheism. It makes them intolerant, gives them a reason not even try to understand and makes it impossible to have conversations with them. It’s like a hardcore theist - their theism leads them to dangerous places (mentally and physically), their beliefs give them reason to not listen to anyone else and they’re almost always impossible to talk to. The person I want to speak for my atheism is willing to listen, understands if you choose to be religious (and respects that) and attempts to have conversations (where they’re not shoving things down the other person’s throat).
That's what some people, including me, object to. The primary goal of The God Delusion is to get the discussion out into the open. The idea is to challenge the basic assumptions of the believers and start a debate about belief in God.
Some people automatically assume that it's disrespectful to discuss one's religious beliefs. That's not true. It's quite possible to respectfully disagree, and even to do so in a very heated manner.
You are assuming that whenever somebody has a strong opinion about something, they must be intolerant. That's why I object to your characterization of Dawkins. He is not that kind of person.
Thanks for posting the link to my counter list! :)
ReplyDelete-Sabrina
ReplyDelete"Science," you write, "is but a method in essence, and it works everywhere."
It is a method in that you use some regular features, prominently observation and theories. And it works on all scales and all of the observable universe.
This is not metaphysics but an observation.
Science needs doctrine to operate, of course,
Then demonstrate this "doctrine" and this "need".
The remainder of the comment contains many more errors, but this will suffice for now. Awaits your elucidation on what science is and why scientists knows less about their subject than what you do.
Katie
ReplyDeleteConsider this:
When we call a Christian or a Muslim to task for being intolerant, we do it because that Christian or Muslim is doing something concrete about their prejudice.
EG: Refusing to hire members of other religions, telling their kids not to play with children of other faiths, evicting people for being of another faith etc...
When you take atheists to task for being intolerant, you are in essence accusing them of disagreeing with the religious in public discoure.
No threats of violence, no arguments any more offensive than you could see on arguments over what constitutes the best episode of Dr Who, just people disagreeing with people and talking about it.