#13798: Nathan Newman — 01/19  at  07:56 PM
As you emphasized, I do argue we need to be more "out and proud" in our godlessness. See my followup post.

#13799: covington — 01/19  at  08:10 PM
Absolutely. It's ridiculous that one side of this argument believes the world is run by magic invisible pixies, and the side that believes the universe acts only according to discoverable natural laws is the one bashful about calling the other side wrong. The religionists ARE wrong.

They're no different than primitives jabbering praises to a volcano. It feels rude to say it out loud, doesn't it? Screw that. Politeness got us to a 21st century in which more Americans believe in magic pixies than believe in the scientific method.

#13801: — 01/19  at  08:20 PM
Yes, I have taken a more direct approach lately with people I have direct contact with in this regard. Pretty much everyone around me knows that I dont respond well to foolish theories based on 'spiritual' insights ..

And they are welcome to their opinions, even it they are wrong; but I dont want to hear them. I am proud to say that this firm insistence actually caused a couple of Idaho Mormons to vote for Kerry. This can be quite effective if you are dealing with people who already respect you for other reasons. Diplomacy is still required, but it is not necessary to reflexively agree with every 'religious' comment just because that is what is done in polite society.

#13802: Ben — 01/19  at  08:22 PM
Atheism only exists as the passive antithesis of theism. It should be treated as such. Shame their childish assumptions and the irrational actions which stem from them to your heart's content, but you can't "sell" it; you either get it or you don't.

#13803: — 01/19  at  08:30 PM
If you follow the Pandagon link, Dean's comment about how to handle the Social Security issue is a favorite of mine ... which for some reason the Dem politicians cant seem to say out loud. Bush is not shy about lower upper income taxes, why should we by shy about raising upper income FICA contributions. It is a stark difference that we should have no problem defending, hell we should roll the Dean 'plan' out and taunt Republicans with it.

#13804: — 01/19  at  08:40 PM
One quibble for Nathan Newman - the fact that evolution directly contradicts literal, fundamentalist Christianity isn't a problem when it comes to knocking down creationism in the courts because biology isn't a faith, it's a science. It's not a problem at all in court to make that clear, regardless of the implications for theistic myths like Noah's Ark. No one worships Darwin in the religious sense.

#13806: — 01/19  at  08:59 PM
For those would would enjoy a delightful blast from the recent past about evolution, here's the grand old man of evolutionary biology being interviewed on what evolution is:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html

The intro by Jared Diamond is terrific reading as well.

Hey, I just thought a bit of joy on the subject would be welcome for a change...

#13811: — 01/19  at  10:22 PM
On the subject of political 'testicles' (no offense intended L. Summers), congratulations to Senators Boxer and Kerry for just saying no to Condi Rice. Extra chops to Boxer for pushing Rice's buttons during questioning. It looked like the senator might have to live up to her name for a while there.

Now where was the rest of our team on this vote, especially the leader of the weasels, Biden. I was unable to stomach his explanation for being oh so polite, on Charlie Rose tonight. Had to change the channel.

#13813: — 01/19  at  11:00 PM
This discussion and the post about Nathan Newman's article reminds me of an experience I had several years ago.

I had a job as a new assistant professor at a small public university in Oklahoma teaching evolution and other courses. My previous experiences hadn't really esposed me to the darker side of the fundamentalists, yet.

During my first semester, the Oklahoma Academy of Science meetings were at Oral Roberts, I know, completely f-ing crazy. During the meetings a geologist from Oklahoma State organized a little symposium for the teaching of evolution and dealing with student resistance. It was interesting and well run. He did what a lot of people do, tried to show that there isn't necessarily a confilct between evolution and religion and several different ways to approach the subject in class.

During the question and answer period he fielded questions from a variety of faculty members and students, and someone asked to tell a student who came to him and said that learning about evolution was pushing him or her towards atheism. In response he got really nervous and bent over backwards trying to reassure the questioner that one could accomodate both faith and evolution. I wonder, even now, if he was a closet atheist and was uncomfortable defending his position.

At that point, I raised my hand and asked the obvious question, what's so wrong with being an atheist? At that point the Oral Roberts students in the audience completely stiffened up and clearly stopped paying attention, but the rest of us had a fairly productive discussion of atheism as a valid philosophical position which is something that a lot of people haven't heard.

I think Hank Fox is right, we need to start defending atheism.

Cheers,

Jim

#13818: Frank — 01/20  at  12:15 AM
Defending atheism? No. How about forcing the religious to defend their faith, instead?

Why should I defend something that isn't even a system of belief, that is rather a lack of such belief? There's nothing to defend! It is the religous who are yammering on about "god" who should have to defend their idiocy.

That's how I go about my life, pretty much. I don't go out of my way for such battles, but when they come to me, I don't stint in saying what I think about such fantasies.

I behave in a similar way with respect to politics, as well. I have found that it is a rare individual indeed who persists in their attacks after I've either pointed out the silliness of their beliefs or completely destroyed their blind assertions.

And the really nice thing about such battles is that I'm arguing from the position of truth and of reality rather than of falsehood and fantasy. It kind of gives me an unfair advantage, I guess. I'll take it.

#13821: — 01/20  at  12:41 AM
I wasn't very much enamored with Howard Dean until I saw him interviewed about his opposition to the Iraq war. In response to a question about his opposition to the war, he replied (I'm paraphrasing from memory here), "First, let me remind you that I supported Gulf War I, and I supported military action in Afghanistan after 9/11. I didn't oppose going to war with Iraq because I'm a peacenik or anything like that. I opposed it because I didn't see any evidence that Iraq posed a threat to us"
.
So in response to that question, Dr. Dean used a word that I rarely hear a politician use: he uttered that "e" word, evidence.

At that point, I realized that I was unfairly judging Dean by his early followers ("peacenik" types whose views were quite a bit "left" of my own).

Howard Dean isn't hated by the right because he's "liberal".(In fact, an examination of his record will show that he isn't nearly as "liberal" as John Kerry is.) Dean is hated by the wingnuts because he values evidence over faith. IOW, he is (drum-roll for this dirty word) "secular".

#13833: — 01/20  at  02:55 AM
Frank

"I have found that it is a rare individual indeed who persists in their attacks after I’ve either pointed out the silliness of their beliefs or completely destroyed their blind assertions."

Go and argue about evolution with the folks at the Evangelical Outpost and you might end up reconsidering your use of the term "rare".

#13834: — 01/20  at  02:59 AM
Joining the discussion a little late, all I can say is "Hell, yes."

A few years ago I read an interview with Christopher Hitchens, a self-proclaimed atheist who seems to have boundless faith in the justice and humanity of the Bush administration. At one point the interviewer asked him if he, Hitchens, would recommend some reading matter that put the case for atheism. Hitchens shifted uncomfortably and said something to the effect that: "Well, there's Spinoza... People will discover these things on their own..."

I remember being disgusted by that. People don't discover these things on their own. With all due respect to the poster above, you don't "either get it or you don't". Many people are instinctively atheist, true. But many more people aren't - and those who aren't need to be enlightened.

It isn't necessarily a factor of intelligence, either, so we can't just say that the stupid can go to the wall on this one. Western Europe laboured in darkness for thousands of years; all the smartest people got snapped up by the Church. Think of all the man hours of science, of medicine, that were lost with every scholastic who spent his time cogitating about angels and pinheads, or trying to figure out how to use reason to convert the pagans, when he could have been doing something more worthwhile?

Besides, there are always going to be many people out there who do not have an advanced scientific education. They will be writing your laws, manning your prisons, signing your grant checks. This isn't just about the scientific community: it's about making the rest of the community a safe place for science.

But let's be clear about this. Atheism is not just the antithesis of religion. It isn't the basic state of human nature. It's an historically very peculiar, very fragile state of clarity.

We need to get beyond our present condition of embarrassment at the very thought of standing up to religion. Christians have a marvellous way of being passive-aggressive - when you argue with their religion it's cruel, it's attacking something private, it's assaulting a deeply held belief - but they can feel free to insinuate/say outright that you are corrupt and someday you are going to fry. "We care, we love - but you bastards are going to be tortured for eternity for not believing in our sky-beard". Thanks, guys.

As for those who fear a backlash: the religious will always hate you if you are an atheist. If you don't fight them, they win anyway and you are just as screwed.

So spread the good news!

#13836: Hank Fox — 01/20  at  04:06 AM
Marchpaine, holy shit! A "... peculiar, very fragile state of clarity." That was wonderful! <big possum grin>

On the other hand, regarding what Ben said:

Atheism only exists as the passive antithesis of theism. It should be treated as such. Shame their childish assumptions and the irrational actions which stem from them to your heart’s content, but you can’t “sell” it; you either get it or you don’t.

I have to strongly disagree on THAT. Ben, you might see atheism conceptually as a passive antithesis, but to me, it’s a doorway, a starting point, for a whole LOT more. Atheism is the first step into a world of passionate wonder, a place where minds unfold and ideas blossom.

Maybe I’m one of only a very few who sees it in those glowing terms at present – but given enough time, I think I could explain it to anyone willing to listen, and maybe get them just as excited about it as I am.

Out of a context of huge numbers of minds stilted by bronze-age bullshit, I see unfolding when atheism begins to have influence in the life of the individual. Out of a background of ideas colored and poisoned by the dead hand of superstition, I see blossoming when people start to be able to think their own thoughts without the worry of some silly mystical superbeing waiting outside with a lightning bolt.

The secret ingredient of religion is gullibility. The secret ingredient of science is skepticism – unbelief. You can’t DO science if you constantly accept the likelihood of magic. Wherever you’re sitting right this instant, look around you: I’ll bet you’ll see a hundred materials, objects and inventions which would have been absolutely impossible for solely-religious people to accomplish. The amount of pleasure, comfort, wealth and ease produced by the type of skepticism that leads to science is off the scale of anything the type of gullibility that leads to religious superstition has ever been able to accomplish.

Ben, can’t you see that that same type of magic-free thinking can pay the same huge dividends if broadly applied in the fields of, for instance, compassion and ethics? International statesmanship? Economics? Ecology? Governance? (The godders can say what they will about the U.S. being a “christian nation,” but I think the United States exists ONLY because a bunch of brilliant guys unchained their minds from religion for one historic moment, and attempted to invent a fair, benevolent, workable government.)

Context, again: I think the REAL reason so many of us shy away from speaking up about atheism is that we live so much in the constant poisoning influence of religion, that any expression of passionate rejection, much less outright proselytizing, seems too drastically bold. It’s like we’ve lived for so long in the fog that the occasional break in the clouds seems frighteningly bright.

I’ve lived much of my adult life being quietly proud of being an atheist. I’ve said to close friends in private that becoming an atheist, really freeing myself from superstition, was one of the most magnificent achievements of my life. Why? Because I did it all myself. I thought my way to freedom over the span of about 15 years. I had no help, no advisor, and for most of that time, nobody even to talk to. And yet I got here.

I think most atheists – the real ones, not the kids who flip into nominal atheism to shock their parents – make the same lonely journey. And I think it takes most of them years to get there. Struggling alone at a crawling pace. Gaining one little shiny insight at a time until they can build a place of understanding and freedom in their own heads.

My question to you is: WHY THE HELL SHOULD IT HAVE TO BE THAT WAY?

Why should anybody have to make that cruel journey on their own?

Why is there no ordered venue for fostering atheism/agnosticism/freethought? Why are intelligent kids left to their own devices instead of encouraged and guided on that lonely road? Why is it that each of us has to discover fire and invent the wheel on our own – when there are already people out there who blaze with understanding, who could give us a chauffeured ride to critical insights?

What have we atheists really got in the way of supportive community? I’ve been to a couple of meetings of the local Humanist club. Know what I saw? Picture 15 to 20 middle-aged and elderly people and maybe three or four young ones. Talking in quite voices, expressing mild passions. Reasonable people. People who probably believe as you do, Ben, that atheism should not be advertised. People who probably feel as I did, that atheism is a private accomplishment, something to warm your own private insides with the thought of the great, grand precipice you single-handedly scaled.

On the other hand, you know those people with their “childish assumptions” and “irrational actions”? THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PRESIDENT – and he is arguably the most powerful single individual on this planet.

They also have, what? I’ll guess a hundred thousand churches, give or take. Trillions of dollars of economic might. Lucrative, massive, tax-free corporations. Buildings all over the world. The right to call the rest of us traitors, and second-class citizens, at will. The right to molest kids and get away with it for, oh, say 5,000 years or so. The right to tell practically any lie, at any time, and have everybody around them actually be EMBARRASSED to call them on it.

“You either get it or you don’t.” Nonsense. Ben, why should the “product” of atheism not get equal airtime with chewing gum and bras? And why should there be any fewer people permitted to be exposed to it and perhaps say “Yeah, that’s just what I’ve been needing!”

Yes, if we sell atheism like cruises to Belize, there will certainly be plenty of people out there in the statistical universe who won’t “get” the core epiphanies, who won’t make the whole trip. I’d bet any amount of money, though, that once the boats start leaving on a regular schedule, a thousand times more people will make the journey every year than did in any 50-year period before.

Better still, there will be a lot more people willing to listen when we try to talk about what lies on the other side of that doorway of unbelief. Out of the small, cramped, dark room of superstition, out in the light, free of all the god-inspired fear, in all those bright, exciting places where real things happen.

In the world of religion, con men posture and proclaim on stage, and pathetically confused victims come forward for phony, short-lived “healings.” In the world of skepticism, of humanism, of atheism, of science, children really and truly get cured of cancer, blind people really do sometimes regain their sight. And someday, if the godders get out of the way and let it happen, people like Christopher Reeve will really become able to walk again.

To me, that stuff is worth the mild philosophical misgivings I’ll suffer over building a public tram to the mountaintop that I had to climb on my own.

<Ben, just so you know, none of this spouting is really aimed at YOU. I could never be truly angry at anyone who had Yanni for a gravatar. And the rest of yez, please forgive this huge long post. Pretend I was a Russian novelist in a previous life.>

#13850: — 01/20  at  09:53 AM
Hank—breathe.

#13852: — 01/20  at  10:12 AM
I think you are conflating two, separate issues here. I think it's fine to be open and confident about your philosophical beliefs. There is no reason to be ashamed of being an atheist or not to speak openly and reasonably about that belief. I think it's also good to fight the imposition of religious beliefs into the public school curriculum. But if the defense of public school science courses extends to attacking these people's deeply-held religious beliefs, it becomes self indulgent and nonproductive. There is an appropriate forum for defending your philosophical beliefs, and the fight to keep science in the biology class is not that place. Keep to the issue there.

Keep in mind that attacking a person's religious beliefs will seldom convince that person that your own beliefs are correct. Religion is not rational and usually not susceptible to rational argument. By all means argue away with all the contempt you can muster, but remember that you're doing it to make yourself feel good, not to convince the target that he's wrong. If you want to convince the target that he's wrong, I think a softer approach is warranted. I think a practical approach, one that might actually get results, is more rational than blazing away at your opponent's religion. On the other hand, if you're simply defending your beliefs, then fire away. Most reasonably intelligent people know that religious belief is very fragile, so an informed argument can wreak havoc. Especially good is using their book against them. They usually retreat into something like, "Well, I haven't really read the Bible, but I believe it's God's literal truth."

I agree that the Democrats need to speak freely and forcefully about issues like the Iraq invasion, privatizing (killing) Social Security, and torturing prisoners and holding prisoners in secret locations without trial. These are issues that matter, and it's important to keep saying it.

#13862: — 01/20  at  10:40 AM
Good post, Mark. I agree that conflating the debate about atheism/theism with what's taught in the biology classroom is a bad idea. Creationism isn't credible science, and evolution has been so well supported by the actual evidence that you might as well call it a fact, as Ernst Mayr does.

The only reason the subject of evolution comes up in court is because foolish people do foolish things like putting silly disclaimers about evolution in biology textbooks. I disagree with Nathan Newman's assertion that there are valid secular purposes for such acts, when even a casual suvey of the evidence demonstrates the direct religious intent of those Cobb County school board members who mandated said stickers.

#13866: Frank — 01/20  at  10:47 AM
Gladys, that would, I think, constitute "going out of my way" for a fight. Arguing at the "Evangelical Outpost" would be essentially the same (and with the same effect) as standing up in a church and mocking the beliefs of the congregation.

On the other hand, when they seek me out, or when they choose such fora as, say, the comments section of a science-oriented weblog for their attacks, then I will feel free to slice them into tiny bits and jump on the bits.

Of course, there are always those individuals upon which words are wasted. Those, after a round or two, I just ignore as not worth the effort. Why should I waste my time and energy trying to teach a pig to sing?

#13867: — 01/20  at  10:51 AM
Marchpaine, holy shit! A “… peculiar, very fragile state of clarity.” That was wonderful! <big possum grin>

... Hank that made me feel the same way. Thanks Marchpaine.

#13884: Hank Fox — 01/20  at  12:32 PM
Oooh, check out Unscrewing the Inscrutable http://www.brentrasmussen.com/ for Brent's "Carnival of the Godless" post! He (and maybe DarkSyd and/or Dr. Myers -- I'm not clear on whose ideas and labor went into it) is creating a monthly compendium of submissions, much like Tangled Bank, only on atheism rather than science.

Rockin' idea. Good show, Brent!

#13887: Hank Fox — 01/20  at  12:50 PM
Richard, just for that, I'm putting you in my next lengthy, Russian-style novel.

I'm writing you in as a member of an old circus family, a troupe of tumblers from Prague, fleeing the Nazi invasion of your homeland by acquiring passports and sufficient money to get you and your entire family to America, but then turned away at Ellis Island when, with your halting English, you describe at length your family's wretched plight and then fly into a rage and begin fighting when you translate the name of your family's act as the Bouncing Czechs, and the American immigration authorities all start laughing.

After that, it's a love affair with vodka for the next 40 years, and finally a merciful death when a goat falls on you.

#13888: — 01/20  at  12:58 PM
Spasibo, Hank, but at only three paragraphs I feel slighted. Alas, I'm not in my right mind. I swear, Varttina sounds like elves on crack.

#13905: — 01/20  at  03:28 PM
If David W. is right about the inutility of conflating atheism with biology in the classroom, how about conflating atheism with Social Security?

Wow!

#13942: — 01/21  at  06:03 AM
Mark, I find this comment thought-provoking: Keep in mind that attacking a person’s religious beliefs will seldom convince that person that your own beliefs are correct. Religion is not rational and usually not susceptible to rational argument.

Those of us who value reason, logic, and empiricism might have their opinions on a topic swayed by someone arguing with better evidence or reasoning. But I've increasingly come to believe that responding construcively to logical, well-reasoned arguments is deeply a atypical trait, and that most people are influenced most fundamentally by emotion. For those who don't accept the value of reason and logic to begin with -- and as Marchpaine so elegantly describes, this appears to be most of humanity -- we can agree that using reason and logic to convince them of their error is unlikely to be successful. (And in any case, few people like being told that they're wrong; it just makes them defensive.)

Hence I hypothesize that a more effective way to "convert" folks to atheism would be to employ techniques that engage their emotional faculties. Religions do this (or so I gather) through a variety of mechanisms such as fables, music and art, and impassioned oratory (as well as some less savory ones like compelling monetary contributions and similar sacrifices, which tends to deepen one's commitment via cognitive dissonance). Perhaps atheism needs something similar, albeit wholly aboveboard -- something that first engages people's emotional sense of awe and wonder at the universe we inhabit, and only later illustrates how empiricism can deepen wonder by providing understanding of the mechanisms that lead things to be the way they are. Or to think of it another way, hook people on the emotional benefit, and only after they're already receptive discuss the sort of empirical techniques that science uses to reach these conclusions.

#14089: Hyphenman — 01/22  at  08:21 AM
The piece that got me blogging came after sitting through the horrible movie: What the #$*! Do We Know? with a friend.

I came home from the movie and wrote An Intolerance for Ignorance.

You can find the complete text at: http://www.havecoffeewillwrite.com/cgibin/cutecast/cutecast.pl?forum=10&thread=56. The gist is this: we can no longer afford to be tolerant of those who do not use reason to guide their lives. They are doing serious damage to civilization and must be aggressively opposed.

Jeff Hess

http://www.havecoffeewillwrite.com