Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True, is disappointed with Michael Shermer for saying:
If one is a theist, it should not matter when God made the universe — 10,000 years ago or 10 billion years ago. The difference of six zeros is meaningless to an omniscient and omnipotent being, and the glory of divine creation cries out for praise regardless of when it happened.
Likewise, it should not matter how God created life, whether it was through a miraculous spoken word or through the natural forces of the universe that He created. The grandeur of God’s works commands awe regardless of what processes He used.
Shermer is obviously appealing to theists on their level, which I think can be effective. But Coyne thinks otherwise:
Who is Shermer, I suggest, to tell people what beliefs should or should not “matter” to them? Try telling this to a fundamentalist Christian, or a devout Muslim. To these folks, scripture is scripture, and it matters that scripture is true. If, as recent work suggests, prayer doesn’t work, should Shermer tell the faithful that it doesn’t matter whether or not they pray?
This disappointed me, as I’ve long admired Shermer’s writings, and applauded loudly when he went after Bill Maher’s anti-vaccination stance. But lately he’s been assuming the faitheist mantle more and more often (could it be because of Templeton sponsorship?).
For the record, I am not sponsored by Templeton, and I’ve never received a grant or fellowship of any kind from them….
What is the right way to respond to theists and/or theism? That is the question asked at every atheism/humanism conference I’ve attended the past several years. The answer is simple: there is no one “right way”. There are multiple ways, all of which work, depending on the context. Sometimes a head-on, take-no-prisoners, full-frontal assault á la Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Jerry Coyne is the way to go. Sometimes a more conciliatory approach á la Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, or your humble servant is best. It all depends on the context and what you are trying to accomplish. When I debate creationists—whether of the Young Earth, Old Earth, or the Intelligent Design species—I try to take a Dawkinsonian/Coyneian approach and slam-dunk their flawed arguments and duplicitous claims without an ounce of accommodationism (although I am, by nature and upbringing, polite and respectful)….
On the other hand, if it is your goal to educate everyone on earth to the power and wonders of science (as it is the Skeptics Society and www.skeptic.com) and to employ science to solve social, political, economic, medical and environmental problems (as it is my personal goal), then we need as many people as we can get on board toward a common goal, whatever it may be (starvation in Africa, disease in India, poverty in South America, global warming everywhere…pick your battle). If you insist that people of faith renounce every last ounce of their beliefs before they are allowed to join the common fight against these scourges of humanity, then you have just alienated the vast majority of the world’s population from your project.
I’m with Shermer on this one. What do you think?
Tyler!: Sooooo who exactly are they taking our country back from??? And i am in the process of moving so... 
NoYourGod: Yerp – nuthin’ saiz “patriotic” like “love it or leave... 
LawnBoy: Gee.. when exactly was this golden age of pureness in politics and the reign of common sense? 
Daniel Florien: So why aren’t you out in Montana with a bomb shelter, stocked food, and tons of ammunition? 
nazani14: Things that can’t go on forever don’t. Following the record heat, the power outages in the D.C.... 
Nelly: my apologies for using “duplicate” way too many times………..I really wish... 
Ty: Please. A moon hoaxer talking about good science? “I personally do not believe that we can prove that... 
68 Comments
I can see the value of bending deffinitions in order to demonstrate them to people who wouldn’t otherwise accept them, but on the other hand I’ve watched many times on these boards as, when given an inch, theists take a mile. To fundies in particular, there is no flexibility. Budging even slightly is always going to be seen by them as an admission of fault compared to their own rock-solid stance. If it was any subject but religion, I’d be with Shermer. But if we’re talking about fundies, I don’t think his approach can work.
I tend to side with Shermer, too, but I know theists are going to lift the part of the quote that suits them and trumpet it all over, uh, Creation. It’ll be used against us.
We do use the Bible against them. Fair is fair.
Or rather, to be clearer, you can’t expect people to not use what is unclear or unwholesome about their opponent’s positions as a wedge to open debate and score points.
But…but….
For one, Shermer isn’t answering the critique, he’s off on a tangent about the strength of one’s atheistic approach. Coyne is raising, in my opinion, a rather important issue; fundies cannot be told their faith doesn’t matter when it *clearly* do. In fact, on a lot of the issue atheists raise in debating religious people, I’m constantly surprised to just how “fundie” normal otherwise rational humans can be, and that these subtle but strong beliefs are – pardon the underlining – fundamental to them. These aren’t things we can compromise on; these are make or break issues, and pampering their importance is muddling the waters beyond any clarity we might have found. The world is either 6000 years old, or a bucketload older, and this does matter a great deal to both sides.
Shermer always does that, he never answers criticisms directly. You should see how he responds to critiques of his libretarian economic ideas.
I can clearly see what Shermer was doing, and there is nothing wrong with that approach. Shermer is correct when he says that each engagement may require a different approach depending on the situation. I have found myself in debates where I grant benefits of the doubt to theists in order to make a point, and it can work very well.
I think the overall point was along the lines of “one needs no evidence, and facts are not important when faith is the ultimate decider.” This angle is very effective and has made people think in my experience. I would politely ask why a theist bothers hunting down facts and evidence, and then blindly cling to faith as each of those facts are shredded.
If faith is the ultimate prrof, facts are not necessary. Why not attack this point?
I side with Coyne here. The God who created the Universe 13.7 billion years ago and worked through entirely natural forces to evolve life on Earth over several billion years is clearly not the same God who created the entire universe, including planet Earth and all the “kinds” of life < 10,000 years ago. Shermer telling believers in the latter to give up their God and worship another, and that the distinction between these two Gods is not important just doesn't wash.
Of course Shermer is free to tell believers anything he wishes, and by the same token, Coyne is entitled to point out a notably stupid argument when it arises.
I swear this response didn’t show up before I submitted the second one.
Pictures or it didn’t happen …
I am with Coyne on this one. The God who created the universe 13.7 billion years ago and evolved life on planet Earth over several billion years is clearly not the same as Yahweh who created the entire universe including all the “kinds” of life less than 10,000 years ago. In essence, Shermer is telling believers to give up one god and worship another. The identity of the god one worships can hardly be an irrelevant detail to a religious believer.
Of course, in a free speech sense, Shermer has a right to tell believers whatever he wishes, but by the same token, Coyne has a right to point and laugh at a notably stupid argument.
I agree with Shermer when it comes to debating different kinds of believers, say the differences between YECs and “God is love” Christians.
I disagree however with his approach that we need to be respectful to the point of pandering to their sensibilities and convictions, especially when they happily skip past logic and evidence.
I always feel a pang of nostalgia when leaders of the rationalist community turn away from advancing the cause of rationalism and start going after each other. It reminds me of my days as a fundamentalist, when arguments about which translation of the Bible to read from were considered more important than, say, feeding the hungry.
Two of my favorite fundamentalist tricks are employed in Coyne’s response, from baseless speculation about the motivations of others (if you can’t go after your opponent’s stance … go after his character!) to phrasing accusations as questions (“Obama seems less popular these days … could it be because he’s the Anti-Christ?”).
These tricks look a bit odd coming from the pen of a man who insists everyone (else?) should put the horse of evidence before the cart of conclusions.
The next step, if I recall correctly, is a good old fashioned witch hunt. “Oh, sure, you say you’re an atheist … but do you conform to my personal, arbitrary standards for being atheist *enough*?”
In fact, Dawkins had to deal with the same complaints from other atheists [from reading the introduction to The God Delusion]…but he did not at any stage idealise the atheist position. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that ‘people are people’ and back off from lost causes, such as debating fundamentalists. I know this from experience, since I had a quite fundamentalist aunty who would ‘put her fingers in her ears’ each time my brother and I criticise her beliefs…but we knew in the end that she is foremost a person. Thus I stand between Coyne and Shermer!
I think Reginald assumes that the stories we tell of God are stable and unchanging. But that isn’t true even of the Bible (with two creation stories to take account of) what less the tradition. Some Christians may object to the idea of evolution and what it does to their religious faith but as for myself, I don’t think religion does itself any favors with make believe or inaccurate accounts of the world. Given the consensus and evidence for evolution, somehow an account of God will have to take account of this, be congruent with it. And a range of theologians from the mid to late 19th century onwards have done just that. I don’t think religious language is so private that someone like a Michael Shermer is not in a position to understand the logic of monotheism and draw conclusions from it that could and should enter into the conversation of those of us in the church. Such voices should be welcomed. If Jerry Coyne isn’t interested in that, this is fine but he doesn’t hold veto power over such things.
I think Reginald assumes that the stories we tell of God are stable and unchanging.
Not quite. I understand that the stories we tell about God change. I do not believe that a large number of theists acknowledge this, particularly of the Fundy/Creationist kind. They insist that God is unchanging, that morality is unchanging, etc. despite clear data to the contrary. Polls consistently show that 40-50% of US adults are YEC; since there is zero scientific data to back up this position we can safely assume that they are so for religious reasons. There’s your numbers on how many believers are of the sort I describe.
And a range of theologians from the mid to late 19th century onwards have done just that.
And how much attention does your typical believer pay to theologians?
Hey now!
Given that evolution has made it’s way into the United Church of Canada’s new creed and that over a thousand congregations participated in evolution Sunday last year, I don’t think evolution is something that is not being communicated or engaged with by many folks in the pew. Perhaps not by enough folks or the majority. But we’re also not talking about something that is simply in the head of some academic theologians. There isn’t any city in the US that doesn’t have churches who accept evolution. I don’t see any reason why Schermer is wrong to relate to an actually opening that exists in the churches. I think to the degree that folks, religious or not, are opened up to science, it can only be a plus for all sides involved.
As a Christian who (mostly) enjoys conversation with skeptics, I’d like to make a brief comment on this quotation:
There are multiple ways, all of which work, depending on the context. Sometimes a head-on, take-no-prisoners, full-frontal assault á la Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Jerry Coyne is the way to go. Sometimes a more conciliatory approach á la Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, or your humble servant is best. It all depends on the context and what you are trying to accomplish.
IMO, the latter (a la Sagan, etc.) is always the most effective way to go if your goals approach anything such as explanation or even persuasion.
OTOH, if your goals are to evoke a defensive (or perhaps even outright hostile) position from the person with whom you are conversing, then try a Dawkins or Hitchens style. (In my personal, anecdotal experience) When I hear people argue the way that they do — whether it be from a fundamentalist religious person or skeptic — it’s hard to do anything other than completely shut down and tune them out, because they don’t sound as if they’re interested in you. Rather, they sound like they’re simply more interested in being right — and making sure everyone in earshot knows that.
And naturally you have problems when people who loudly disagree with you are right.
It’s much easier to be wrong when the other guy isn’t being a jerk about it.
Will you two hang on a second as I just need to get some popcorn?
Do you have it, yet?
munch … munch … I don’t like to … munch … munch … type with my mouth … munch … munch …. full … munch … munch … burp!
Now carry on!
I think you misspoke, or you are finally agreeing that being a softie lets people lie to you unchallenged. Is pointing that out being a jerk?
The amphibology in the sentence is throwing you. By “It’s much easier to be wrong when the other guy isn’t being a jerk about it” I mean that psychologically, it is easier to accept correction from someone who is not being a jerk about being right.
Amphibology is a ten-dollar word that means “I screwed up and could have spoken much more clearly.” This isn’t philosophy class. Speak english.
Bloody hell Aor, I thought I was supposed to be the argumentative one! ;-)
Amphibologies are useful when the way the statement is taken is indicative of the mindset of the reader.
You were looking for an opportunity to start an argument, and so you pounced. I imagine most people who read that sentence in the context of the conversation knew exactly what I meant by it.
And last I checked, “amphibology” was a word in the English language.
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
Q: Oh! I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Thank you very much. Sorry.
Pounced? You spoke to me. If you don’t want to be part of a conversation with me, why do you engage me? Your meaning was not clear at all, and while it certainly serves your purposes to claim otherwise I think you should ask for a second opinion. The usefulness of amphibologies is not in question. Your labelling of the phrase as an amphibology is admitting that you realize it was not clear, yet you claim it was clear! Thats just you playing semantic games to continue an argument you claim you don’t want to be a part of, again.
It would have been so much simpler for you to man up and say that your meaning was unclear, but by challenging you I got you to display the characteristics I have criticized you of in the past, which again displays the value of ‘being a jerk’ as you would call it. I push, you go for deception. My goal of displaying your tendency to lie when challenged worked, again.
Oh, and by “speak english” I am absolutely certain that you knew exactly what I meant. This is not philosophy class. Speak english if you want to be understood.
If you don’t want to talk to me, then just don’t. Its that simple. It is never going to be my fault that you are part of this conversation when you enter it of your own free will. Stop playing the victim. Stop resorting to deception when challenged.
Hate to say it Aor, but my first reaction to your reply to brgulker was “Oh ffs, Aor’s trying to kick-off an argument with Gulker again”, so ‘Nope isn’t the only one who read it that way…
Yes, Aor. Pounced. I made a pretty innocuous comment, and you read it (as usual) as uncharitably as possible. You could have let it go, but you just can’t resist, can you? For me, right now, this conversation is taking on a surreal edge I’m finding very entertaining, so let’s continue. After all, by your usual standards, “Amphibology is a ten-dollar word that means ‘I screwed up and could have spoken much more clearly.’” would be considered a lie, wouldn’t it? After all, that is not what the word means. Obviously you were being deceptive intentionally, right?
Oh, and by “speak english” I am absolutely certain that you knew exactly what I meant. This is not philosophy class. Speak english if you want to be understood.
If people know what the word means, then no problem. If they don’t, and want to know what I’m talking about, they’ll look it up. If they don’t and they don’t care to, no big deal. I am under no illusions that this is a philosophy class, but I was unaware that this was supposed to be a blog with training wheels.
If you want to be a whiner about language, it would be helpful to use it properly. When used as an adjective, “English” is always capitalized. FYI. :)
“I made a pretty innocuous comment,…”
I disagree with that adjective, “innocuous”.
I think you knew what you were saying would be interpreted.
I admit I don’t read every exchange between you and Aor and I only remember half of your exchanges. Aor was attempting to Kick a response out of brgulker when you replied with a comment which you should have known, better than I, would only be interpreted uncharitably as possible by Aor.
I think you knew what you were saying would be interpreted.
Of course I thought it would be interpreted. Just I hoped not interpreted poorly, as Aor did.
While I had decent reason to believe that Aor may choose to interpret it uncharitably (from past experience), it is entirely his choice to do so, and crucially I didn’t make the comment in order to elicit such a response. The comment itself was innocuous; most people reading it would interpret it in the way it was intended, especially if they are aware of my past position on the issue (as Aor is). You really have to go out of your way to pull what he did from it, especially knowing what he knew about the general intents of the author, and so I cannot be held responsible for his poor interpretative choices.
To attempt to squeeze all ambiguity out of writing is a ridiculous enterprise, in any case. A writer has to hope that his or her readers know a little bit about reading comprehension, and are actually seeking the intended meaning instead of satisfying their own psychological needs with projection onto the text.
@Custador
“Bloody hell Aor, I thought I was supposed to be the argumentative one! ;-)”
No you’re not …
Oh yeah, sorry Jabster ;-)
“Oh yeah, sorry Jabster ;-)”
You just saying to be argumentive aren’t you? ;-)
What? WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING OF IT?!?!!? HEY?!?! Nah, not really :-)
LOL … seriously though Aor/Eleme should just stick clear of each other.
Why? I think both of them enjoy their arguments. Aor, because he likes arguments in general, and Elemenope because they are “surrealist”.
Meh. Usually I don’t, but this one was especially strange.
@custador
Elemenope wasn’t the one I was speaking to, and when he said I pounced he was not referring to my words to Brgulker.
@Sunny
Exactly.
@Jabster
I was staying clear of him. Guess who wants to be part of the argument while blaming me for his being in an argument, again? He has no right to complain about being in an argument he chose to be part of. Playing the victim in that way is completely unworthy of respect.
@Elemenope
You simply cannot have it both ways. You talk about me letting it go, when you are the one that started this conversation. This is pure deception on your part, blaming me for the results of your own actions. Your words were unclear, open to interpretation as you freely admit… to others, but not to me. This is another example of your tendency to resort to lies when confronted. When someone other than me mentions it you will accept that interpretation is possible. When I confront you, you respond with lies and deception and gamesmanship. This displays your lack of integrity.
This is very simple. You engaged me in conversation, knowing our past interactions, so stop blaming me for the results. This is playing the victim. Man up, accept the consequences of your own actions. I will not stop speaking on the off chance that you will reply to my words. The only way you will keep out of these arguments is if you finally grasp that the solution is in your own hands: stop responding, and stop blaming me for saying something that illicits a response from you. You think this one was ‘especially strange’.. yet it was simple and straightforward and nothing at all to do with you until you inserted yourself in it. Stop playing the victim.
Playing the victim? I said I was having fun. I once was pretty annoyed with your nasty antics, back when I thought there was a possibility of speaking with you rationally. After all, you are clearly an intelligent fellow, whatever other qualities you may possess. Now that that is clearly not possible, it’s a great weight off the shoulders.
Look, you posted something, and then I responded. Wasn’t looking for a fight, just made a comment about a comment. The comment was innocuous, and knowing me and my positions and the context of the conversation, it was quite clear what I was saying. It wasn’t a comment begging for a response, just an offhand sentence. It wasn’t even directed at you, just adding to the general conversation.
A normal person who is confused by an ambiguity asks for clarification, generally without being snide. A jerk automatically assumes the worst possible interpretation. You, sir, are a jerk. It’s not that everyone else can interpret but you. It’s just that very few people are so very bad at it as you. Was it legitimate to interpret the sentence the way you did? In a vacuum, maybe. Knowing what you know? No. It is incumbent upon the listener to try to figure out what the speaker was trying to say, which usually requires a modicum of understanding of where the speaker is coming from. Despite that, I did explain that I meant one and not the other. That also did not require a response, but you then latched onto the fact that it could be taken two different ways and me having clarified which one I meant that I had somehow screwed up. And then my personal favorite part, where you complain that the words I use are too big. I mean, come on, hostile to no possible purpose.
I did note your lack of response to the point that by your own ridiculous standards, you are a liar and a deceiver. (Your definition of amphibology is not what amphibology means, after all.) Do I think you are a devious liar? No. Just an angry guy. But it does show you to be a person who can dish it out but not take it on the terms you set, and that is disappointing. I personally think you’d find it easier to communicate with people if you cut them just a little slack and tried to interpret them in a more charitable fashion, but hey, do what makes you feel good.
Making fun of what an amphibology is is hardly a lie. Its called humor. Look it up. Or do you plan on challenging every snide remark anyone makes? You don’t really expect anyone to take you seriously on that little claim, do you? Its humorous that you think so little of people that you expect them to believe that.
No matter how much you want to, you cannot have it both ways. If you really believe that people knew exactly what you meant, then it wouldn’t be an amphibology. You are contradicting yourself on a minor point and choose to compound the error. We have interacted in the past and argue virtually every time. You knew this going in, and so when you chose to enter a conversation with someone you argue with virtually every time then it is certain that you intended to join (or start) an argument. If you didn’t expect an argument then you are outrageously dumb, and I don’t think that of you. I just think that you lie when challenged. You lack honesty, Elemenope. You want it to be my fault, which means you are playing the victim.
Playing the victim doesn’t earn you any points. Man up.
And naturally you have problems when people who loudly disagree with you are right.
No, I have problems with people such as yourself, for all the reasons that have already been listed. Nine times out of ten, your comments are direct, personal attacks on the people who engage you in conversation. The quintessential example for me is when you accused me of being complicit in the murder of Dr. Tiller, all because I didn’t type 1 or 2 sentences clearly enough for your taste. Get over yourself.
As usual, I am going to ask you to back up your claims. Remember last time, when you accused me of hypocrisy and couldn’t back it up? When you came up with a fake excuse, claiming that my hypocrisy was in the response to when you called me a hypocrite? Its like you are living in a world where cause and effect are reversed, or are hoping that nobody will catch you in these obvious falsehoods.
I accused you of excusing the murder of Dr. Tiller because you said that the concept of justifiable homicide was equally to blame. That ridiculous statement deserved to be challenged, and you should have been smart enough to dissociate yourself from it rather than defend it. By claiming that a law that allows people to defend themselves from harm also allows people to murder abortion doctors, you put yourself in a horrible position and deserved to be confronted about it. You were in an indefensible position and rather than admit it and learn from your mistakes, you chose to compound the error.
This is not the first time I have asked you to back up your claims. If you don’t want to be called a liar, its time for you to stop with the lies. If you want the right to make accusations and not back them up, then you are giving everyone else that right also. How did that work out for Glenn Beck and the woman he may or may not have murdered in 1990?
. By claiming that a law that allows people to defend themselves from harm also allows people to murder abortion doctors, you put yourself in a horrible position and deserved to be confronted about it
Justifiable homicide is not the same as self-defense. You’re conflating the two, and you’re incorrect.
That ridiculous statement deserved to be challenged, and you should have been smart enough to dissociate yourself from it rather than defend it.
Wrong again. I freely admitted that the way I phrased what I originally typed did not convey what I intended. I admitted that over and over and over again. I didn’t communicate clearly, and I accept the responsibility for that mistake. But you don’t let people make mistakes; you look for opportunities to take advantage of those mistakes and use those mistakes to make other people with whom you disagree look like (in my case) a monster.
Tiller’s murderer’s defense was/is going to be an appeal to the legal concept of justifiable homicide (NOT self defense). You made a claim along the lines of “religion is squarely to blame for this murder.” I objected, arguing that the entire concept of a justifiable homicide is also to blame (and also problematic). In my original, hasty post in which I started to make that argument, I misspoke (or rather mistyped), and my comments were ambiguous at best.
But instead of giving me the benefit of the doubt, you pounced and literally named me as complicit in the murder, and you did that repeatedly, even after I offered several clarifying comments. In fact, you wrote off those comments in the same way as you are writing off Elemenope above — instead of accepting that we are human beings who sometimes communicate something that we didn’t intend to communicate, you assume the absolute worst and accuse people of all sorts of despicable things (hypocrisy, lying, deception, and on and on).
For crying out loud, Aor, I’m literally an inch away from being a pacifist, something I’m actually quite vocal about. I would never, ever endorse or sanction murder. But you will ignore that completely, preferring to cling to one ambiguous comment so that you can paint me as the villain.
As usual, I am going to ask you to back up your claims. Remember last time, when you accused me of hypocrisy and couldn’t back it up?
You are demonstrating hypocrisy in this very moment; the irony is that you don’t even see it. You have accused me of enabling the murder of Dr. Tiller; yet, you don’t have one shred of evidence that substantiates your claim.
In case it’s not clear enough: you accuse me of making baseless accusations against you (and in case you don’t see it, I just “based” my hypocrisy accusation), but in reality, you are the one making the baseless accusations. That’s humorous to me, because Glenn Beck does the same thing. It’s obvious when he does it, and it’s just as obvious when you do.
Since the murder was based on his religious beliefs it is hardly outrageous to say that religious beliefs are to blame. You don’t want it to be true… it can’t be the fault of the religious hatemongers who say to kill abortionists, it must be the legal system at fault!
You are right that I misspoke on what justifiable homicide is, but the point remains. You wanted to shift the blame from the people who speak hatred against abortion and abortion doctors to a legal concept rather than the murderer and the hatemongers who encourage those actions. Anyone who excuses those who encouraged him to kill abortion doctors and attempts to lay blame on the legal system instead is being disingenous. The result will be that more abortion doctors are killed and people who think like you are a big part of the reason why. You should not make the slightest attempt to excuse this persons actions or those who lead him to it, even if they are part of your own religious beliefs.
I guess with your attempt to redefine hypocrisy, I shouldn’t expect any kind of honest response from you at all. This is nothing new, you have been a liar since our initial interactions. I have explained my reasoning on how words like yours are used to excuse the actions of murderers. That is not hypocrisy. When you attempt to excuse the actions of people who encourage murder by blaming the legal system instead, people should stand up and loudly yell at you for being an enabler. Again, this is not hypocrisy.
Are you going to back up your other claims of my hypocrisy? Please use the actual definition of the word if you do.
Since the murder was based on his religious beliefs it is hardly outrageous to say that religious beliefs are to blame
There’s too much conflation going on there.
First, I never denied that man’s religious motivations. I acknowledged them from the get-go.
Second, there’s a difference between his religious beliefs (that is, a specific set of religious beliefs) and religious belief. Religious belief(s) generally are not to blame here. But his religious beliefs are absolutely are. I’ve not denied that. He had some type of twisted belief that God wanted him to kill Tiller. I think that’s horrible and shouldn’t be let off the hook. But there’s an enormous difference between blaming his specific beliefs and blaming religious belief generally. And from the start of our conversation, you’ve conflated the two, just as you did above.
Third, as I’ve said above, I don’t deny the danger of that specific way of thinking. But unlike you, I am not going to pretend that this one specific belief is the only factor! Tiller’s killer believed that he was both morally and legally justified in his actions. You want to narrow in on the former so completely that you ignore the latter. I think that’s a mistake; he’s wrong on both counts.
And again you insist on accusing me of something that isn’t true. “Shifting the blame” implies moving the blame from one thing and placing it on another. I’ve never argued for that!!! If anything, I’m spreading the blame around, and that’s something altogether different from what you’re accusing me of.
You should not make the slightest attempt to excuse this persons actions or those who lead him to it, even if they are part of your own religious beliefs.
Give me a fracking break. Whatever Tiller’s murderer’s religious beliefs are with respect to that particular action, I do not share them. I disavow them here as I’ve done over and over again.
Again, you are conflating things with the specific purpose of vilifying me. It’s so obvious, Aor, that it’s almost pathetic. I am no more to blame for Tiller’s murder than you are. It would be just as absurd to accuse me of excusing me for the 9/11 attacks on the grounds that I’m a member an Abrahamic religion as it is for you to accuse me of being complicit in Tiller’s murder. It is absolutely absurd.
When you attempt to excuse the actions of people who encourage murder by blaming the legal system instead, people should stand up and loudly yell at you for being an enabler.
You’re either a liar or a troll. Any intelligent person could read my comments here or elsewhere and know that I unequivocally condemn Tiller’s murder. So either you’re trolling me for jollies, or you’re intentionally lying about me for jollies. Either way, keep flaming people. It only proves the point that Elemenope and myself are making about you.
You’re a crotchety old liar-troll. At first, I was generally insulted by your rants; now, I honestly look forward to them. You are entertaining, if nothing else. In fact, I think of you like I think of the characters from Grumpy Old Men.
I don’t think it’s fair to compare Dawkins with Hitchens in style. Dawkins is much gentler and much less evocative – he makes theist angry not by his tone but because he never says anything as fact that he doesn’t personally have the knowledge and ability to prove – and he can prove an awful lot that contradicts theism. Hitchens is different; he treats theists with far more contempt. There’s no kind and gentle debate with him, he just goes straight for the jugular vein about the evils of whatever religion he happens to be discussing.
I like them both, but I prefer Dawkins.
I have never understood why either he or Harris is considered strident. I guess when you are extremely rational it sounds to some (the more intuitive?) like you’re being strident.
Custador,
That’s a very fair point, and I think you’re exactly right. Dawkins is very rarely a “jerk” (as Elemnope put it).
nomad,
I’m not sure I have an answer to your “strident” question fully. I guess I can only say that after being called “irrational” for the umpteenth time, or having your beliefs called “silly, stupid, fairy tales, etc., etc.” it becomes a rub. Especially when you’re a guy like me who full well knows the tenuous nature of faith. Know what I mean?
Yeah I know. For my part, I was surprised that people found these soft-spoken academic types strident. They have strong opinions, but they are almost polite in their delivery. That’s why I was glad to see an abrasive person like Hitchens join the team. He’s a perfect match for the combative Bill O’Reillys and Glenn Becks.
On the debate between religionists and atheists I think you have to concede that the atheists win the rationality point. The fundamentalists have already. Creflo Dollar, for example, preaches that reason is the enemy of faith. Quite so. It certainly destroyed mine.
But its more than their insistence on reason that makes mild mannered guys like Dennett, Dawkins and Harris sound strident. When people attack your world view, even if they do it politely, it tends to sound strident.
IMO, the latter (a la Sagan, etc.) is always the most effective way to go if your goals approach anything such as explanation or even persuasion.
Uh right. The softer gentler approach worked so well for black civil rights. That’s why no one had to hold marches or sit-ins. It just took a gentle conversation to convince all those bigots that they were wrong.
And it worked so well for gay rights as well. The Stonewall riots never happened.
Confrontation need not be hostile or violent. Sometimes it is an expedient to be hostile or violent, and sometimes it merely complicates things. Generally, such tactics are only effective in catalyzing movement by providing a symbolic event (like Stonewall), but all the hard work before and after that is by people patiently arguing for their cause.
Reginald,
I’m not sure it’s quite fair to compare civil rights/gay rights with matters of faith vs. non-faith, is it? To me, it’s obviously apples and oranges.
I mean, by your logic, anyone could justify their “means” because of the ultimate importance of their “end,” including the religious bigot who’s shouting in the streets, couldn’t they?
But, I probably should not have used the word “always.” I probably should have been more clear and stated something like: “If you’re a skeptic who’s trying to explain your skepticism (or perhaps persuade one to become more skeptical himself), most often you will have better results if you choose a non-confrontational posture.”
Or something like that. Is that a better attempt?
Oh yeah. That black civil rights thing worked real well.
Let me offer a couple qualifications to what I originally posted.
First, I shouldn’t have used the word “always.” That’s never a helpful word in a conversation such as this.
Second, I was speaking as someone from across the aisle who listens to guys like Hitchens and guys like Sagan. In my experience, the Sagan-esque approach is (almost always) more effective because it doesn’t put the listener on the defensive. If one’s goal is to explain or persuade, it doesn’t make much sense to put one’s listener on the defensive immediately.
Third, I do understand that critiquing one’s religions beliefs is not the same thing as critiquing the person who holds those beliefs. However, (almost always) it is very difficult for religious folks to make that distinction, because their religious worldview has most likely become intwined with their identity as people. So even if it is explicitly one’s intention to not critique the person and to critique the belief, the religious person may not find that distinction to be so ready-made and obvious.
This issue has been very important to me for quite a while. Growing up with a Baptist minister as a father I have several people (families and friends) that I am still close to that are fundies or some other toned down version a thumper. In fact several of them are ministers. So how do I address my non belief with these people?
Since I have no cosmic spoiled child demanding all of my praise, love and attention my friends and family get that spot. I had to tell a very dear uncle of mine that I was not a Christian this week. I stopped short of telling him I was an Atheist as he is 83 and has a very different concept of the world than I do and since I care for him a great deal I didn’t want to upset him any more than I had to. He knew that I didn’t believe and that was good enough for me.
With friends and family around my age I am a little bit more forth coming but just as polite. I have yet to have anyone to “preach” to me. That’s probably because dad and other friends of ours in our church didn’t put up with assholes like that. Even if someone I cared about did start preaching to me like a crazed fundie I’d still give them far more latitude than someone who I wasn’t close to but even then that courtesy would only extend so far.
When I meet other fundies my response to them is predicated by their attitude and personality. To put it simply if I like them they get a far less harsher response in regards to religious issues again that only extends so far. I won’t expand on this even though it probably could use some clarification because I really don’t want to quantify the way I deal with people in great detail. besides it would be a bit boring.
I guess I’m siding with Shermer on this one. You have to pick your battles and then pick your weapons.
“I have several people (families and friends) that I am still close to that are fundies or some other toned down version a thumper. In fact several of them are ministers.”
I had the same problem until I realised that my lot were vaccuous arseholes and simply cut them off from my life.
I like the sound of that. I’m saying “arsehole” instead of “asshole” from now on.
The impression I’m getting from some of the comments is that the Dawkins approach is mean….I would disagree…the no bullshit approach isnt mean spirited at all. It has nothing to do with the person but with the ideas themselves that are being criticized–although many theists are emo and take it as that.
I agree with Shermer…there can be a lot of different approaches.
I’m training as a scientist….and there are many times that scientists have been assholes to me while telling me I’m wrong….its nothing to cry about…just accept the truth, which is the best thing you can do. I think its a major flaw NOT to accept the truth WHEN somebody is bringing it across to you in an unfavorable manner.
People need to stop being so damn emo.
As a Christian I more relate to Christopher Hitchens than Richard Dawkins. It may be Hitchen’s literary background or his marked sense of evil and the social situation. Whatever is the case it produces a more interesting and more credible account than Dawkins when it comes to basic questions of life, of value, of ethics
Shermer is right in so far as it depends on what your immediate goals are. But I also believe that religious faith can be an important hindrance to thinking scientifically across the board. We have to be careful when trying to appeal to believers not to give the impression that in doing so we are agreeing that faith is inherently okay or rational – only that good science can be done irrespective of one’s particular faith (in most cases).
I like Shermer’s approach. And, the very first two paragraphs describe my views perfectly when I was still a Christian. Understanding evolution had no impact on my faith whatsoever.
And, like he points out, if we can get the theists to understand and accept science we have a better chance of getting them on board to help with the problems mentioned. As for their faith, that can (or not) be addressed in another way or time.
If a person is receptive to your position then a kinder, gentler approach is often a good way to go. I usually find that the attack method is useful if the person is being arrogant and abrasive, or if there are bystanders that need to realize that their idol is a cheat and a liar.
One Trackback
[...] englischsprachigen Neo-Atheisten debattieren gerade über den sogenannten „Accommodationism“ oder „Faitheism“. Es handelt sich [...]