This site has its heart in the right place, but it’s more for theistic evolutionists than my kind—all the bowing and scraping to a creator god leaves me cold (especially since it seems to substitute hearty encouragement and reconciliation over actually discussing the evidence). But if that doesn’t bother you, take a look at The Epic of Evolution. It’ll probably make somebody happy.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ i’ve been reading up on your blog, and I must say, you are a hate-filled angry SOB. Seriously dude, go fishing, take a vacation, hang out with your family (if you have one), etc.
I’ve got news for you…If your right (as you most certainly are) about your naturalism, it isn’t going to change a damn thing regarding Theistic believers in your lifetime.
Maybe, just maybe, one day your wake up and realize that your a 50 year old man who whines, complains, and bitches life an immature child about stupid shit that your can’t control–like other people’s thoughts, opinions, and their perceptions of reality. All-the-while realizing the futility of your constant ramblings regarding something that doesn’t even exist within the framework of this godless universe.
You my friend, are a complete tool.
Thanks for leading by example!
just skimmed the site briefly:
Shorter version: “we’ll find those damn gaps somewhere!”
oh, and rls: take a look in the mirror, “my friend”.
rls, I take “your” a younger person. I don’t know. I am still in my late 20s but I can’t understand this kind of thinking from many young people. Well, firstly, PZ is really not that angry. I think most of his posts are written with irony.
Secondly, People like him do change minds. I wasn’t really a mind that had to be changed that much, I was already sick of religion, but people like him and most notably others before have really gotten me into the beauty (and horrors) of the universe.
Thirdly, even if he was angry, which he may be just a bit, it is perfectly understandable, and downright necessary, when you’re a professor and see your field attacked and undermined by idiots with no case at all but huge marketing expenses and a gullible and uncritical audience. Oh, yeah, and they have God on their side. To be resigned to futility is just what they should not do. Just keep pushing the rock up the hill Mr PZ, that’s what more people, especially scientists, should be doing. The only way to get off from having to do it is killing the gods. And after some time, you may even realize it’s not such a bad rock to push after all.
Well he could have said it more tactfully, and personal attacks aren’t very fair. PZ strikes me as a much more mellow dude than the tone of his blog might suggest.
But I do feel like the burden of proof for right now is on the “confrontationalists” to show where they are getting any better results than the “appeasers.” I can honestly tell you that I have never, ever seen a religious person be deconverted by head-on argumentation. Many became “appeasers” only after a lifetime of confrontation taught us that it was futile, and only served to sour our relationships with otherwise decent (and sometimes totally hot) religious people. You have much more influence on your friends than you do people you are just arguing with.
Note I’m mainly talking about direct inter-personal relationships here. On the printed page, in written works, let fly!
rls:
1.) No one will take you seriously until you learn to use proper grammar. This isn’t unfair; if you can’t be bothered to type in grammatically correct sentences, then why should readers be bothered to think analytically about what you say? Bountiful spelling errors and grammatical mistakes are more often than not symptoms of an inferior argument.
2.) What, exactly, are you complaining about? I’ve read your post a few times, and I’m still not sure exactly what it is you think PZ is doing wrong. Are you accusing him of general rancor? Being a curmudgeon? Do you realize that a blog is an outlet for one’s opinions? As best I can figure, you’re upset that PZ has staked out a clearly defined position, whereas you would prefer something more wishy-washy and less offensive. Well, wishy-wash makes for poor blogging. I don’t always agree with everything Paul says, but I sure do appreciate that he puts his opinion out there for me to evaluate.
What no-one has commented on is that the “Epic of Evolution” site is, well —
Teleological.
ARRRGGGH!
I though Teilhard de Chrdin was both dead and discredited.
Thanks for the pointer. I’ve had a quick look through the site. Intriguing. I’m impressed that you were able to describe it so generously.
I didn’t find anything there, at a quick glance, that was questionable as far as the science was concerned. I suspect the primary author is not Christian, but a more nebulous perspective that sees “spiritual” value in all kinds of diverse and conflicting religious positions, and seeks to celebrate what she finds to be the worthwhile core in them all. It will be interesting to see who finds this of value and who does not. I don’t think it could be endorsed as it stands in a public school, except as a useful example of how some people reconcile their religious beliefs with science.
Probably a positive step, if it encourages more people to speak up against the pseudoscience of intelligent design and creationism. I think it will. Unfortunately, I suspect it will be used more in an attack against atheism.
You can expect to see a number of folks taking this site and using it to say — “See! All those people like Myers and Dawkins and so on are wrong; you can believe in God and in evolution.” I’m content to throw you to the dogs (or the kittens, perhaps :-) provided we also get people taking this site and using it to say — “See! All those people like Dembski and Ham are wrong; they have let their religion force them into an irrational denial of the world we live in.”
I don’t think this site will do much at all to make belief more sensible for unbelievers. But I hope it will contribute to the erosion of the base of support for creationist pseudoscience by chipping away at the religious support that they require to survive.
I can dream… Cheers — Chris
Another site about evolution that might be more interesting is this one: Understanding Evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/tour.php
“Credits
This site is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. For more information, see our credits page.
Funding
Support for Understanding Evolution has been provided by The National Science Foundation (under grant no. 0096613) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (under grant no. 51003439).”
WRT “Social Darwinism” (I haven’t but glanced at the site, I’m commenting on “Brain Hertz”‘s comments).
If evolution is regarded as directed, isn’t that flirting with “Social Darwinism”?
If evolution is making things better, why not encourage that progression?
If evolution, on the other hand, is simply what happens, a fact of nature, without any value
judgement to it, then we have to look elsewhere for our values.
“Social darwinism” can be quite a different beast than evolutionary biology (darwinism). In practice, it substitutes “State Intervention” for “natural selection”. That has led quickly from “lets drop social welfare programs” to “the superiority of the white race” to “lets get rid of the inferior races”.
I’m sick of the comparisons with “Social Darwinism”.
Social Darwinism is not a form of Darwinism(sic), any more than National Socialism was a form of Socialism.
xebecs, there’s a whole hell of a lot of people who do believe that the Nazis were leftist.
It’s a funny thing, popping open this thread and finding someone up there goin’ on and on about ‘hate filled angry SOBs’ and ‘complete tools’…
See, I read PZ’s little (somewhat qualified) enconium about that site, popped over, and was mildly astonished…
Thought our respected host was being rather too nice about it, truth is. Felt, as much as it clearly is well-intentioned, that said site kinda insulted my intelligence in several rather cringe-inducing ways.
I mean, except that now, I s’pose, it would necessarily make me an even more ‘hate-filled SOB’ than PZ or sumpin’, I probably would otherwise by now have beeen describing said site using such loving phrases as ‘intellectual pablum’, ‘well-meaning treacle’, and, probably, even ‘a typically weaselly example of this regrettably and increasingly popular subgenre’.
So it’s a good thing I said none of those things.
Ah, hell. I’ll say it. All of it. And I’ll expand. One thing I was particularly fond of:
Many people find that instead of disproving God, understanding evolution actually expands their concept of God and in so doing, enhances their relationship to the Divine. These people conceive of God as the creative force of the universe who is still creating. For them, God is the process underlying all reality and the relationship between all things. Understanding evolution helps some people move from believing in God, to knowing God. Others prefer to call this force nature.
I’m sure it’s been said before, but what fascinates me most about this is the incredibly plasticity of the concept of a deity. Sure, we accept that living things are how they are because reproductive success is governed to a degree by the environment in which an organism makes its living, and because that differential success selects some heritable variations against others. Mechanism’s all good… we accept that, and, presumably, we accept that the actual natural laws themselves are invariant… (I’d hope… or is this the wiggle, here…. is the thought, after all, that said deity might just mess with Hardy-Weinberg, just a little now and then? Was that how it made the platypus? Presumably because it has a sense of humour? Anyhoo…)
But somhow our deity is still ‘a creative force who is still creating’…
And, apparently it’s both ‘the process underlying all reality and the relationship between all things’. Oh… and…
Something one can have a ‘relationship’ with.
Erm. Yeah.
Funny, innit, how the deity they then arrive at:
a) Actually could be a set of impersonal natural laws, and no one would be the wiser… but somehow
b) It still allows roughly the same rhetorical flourishes (somewhat diluted, but what are ya gonna do?) about the importance of having a relationship with it as has every previous incarnation?
Umm. Yeah. Compartmentalize, much, people?
Yes, yes, I know. Terribly divisive of me. Nice theistic evolutionists are just trying to make sense of this in a way they don’t have to discard a few millenia of intellectual inertia… and I have to come along and say so unhelpfully that I just don’t think it washes terribly well.
But man, I have to say: it just doesn’t. It’s not so much that I want to make trouble. I just can stand here, watch someone saying anything quite that silly, and let it pass entirely without comment.
You can call it a moral failing. If you feel you need to. Or, if you wish (as I’m sure some of you do), you can just go for the ‘silly, oversimplifying atheist… he doesn’t understand the terribly sophisticated theology whereby I have made my deity so utterly and perfectly inconsequential, indetectable, and non-negatable…’ thing. Whatever works for you, I guess.
Oh, and yes, I suppose you could say I ‘prefer’ to call it nature. Has to do with the fact that that word sure seems from here like a much clearer one for what we’re actually observing than does a word that has frequently and of long tradition (outside the many intentionally deceptive and ambiguous dodgy redefinitions meant to avoid these very problems) meant a distinctly purposeful and sentient being.
Oh… And though I know this is terribly inconvenient for certain folks’ standard narratives, I’d say it’s really got only a very little to do with hate. I do find a bit of disgust, now and then… Though perhaps even this is too strong a word. It’s probably best characterized as a sorta embarrassment for my fellow men, really… I mean, usually, I read something like that, I feel like I wanna nudge the writer, quietly, say: Hey, guy, you know you’re saying that stuff in public, right?’
But, y’know, I’m finding it unlikely I’m going to convince anyone who can do the kind of mental gymnastics as are on display at that site of any such thing. They want to believe this is about ‘hate’, I expect that’s what they’re going to believe. And it’s not just long experience that tells me as much…
It also seems to me minds that willingly do contortions like those will believe whatever they feel they need to, whatever the evidence.
Damn commie nazis!
Must’ve hit rls where he lives. No cogent arguments; no clear examples; just titty-baby whining. Feh.
re: #5 — No one paid the slightest bit of attention to atheists until the “confrontationalists” hit the best-seller list. That’s the main difference.
Now that the “confrontationalists” have forced the issue into public discourse, it would be great if the “appeasers” approach could help sway the fence-sitters and secret doubters in inter-personal relationships.
It all comes down to the intellectual honesty of the individual believer whether or not, when presented with them, to accept the arguments and evidence that conflict with what they’ve been taught.
— CV
Well, I’m one of those people that think National Socialism was a (mutated) form of state Socialism and was solidly left wing, as was Mussolini’s Fascism, which Hitler admired. They differed from Lenninism/Stalinism on ownership of property and the means of production. Pinochet’s government was right-wing.
Spend some time looking at the early Nazi party propoganda. Its clearly socialist. (ein volk, ein Reich…)
enconium -> encomium
somhow -> somehow
… anyway.
The plasticity of the concept of deity and the constancy of deity-belief are hints that people believe in these things for emotional reasons that can’t be touched by rationality. Part of why what is here disparaged as “appeasement” has so much more success than confrontation.
rls exhibits Freud’s projection, indicated in his tone. A very nice and concise wikipedia entry on “projection” exists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Indeed, for Freud, religious belief is a reversion to childish patterns of thought, with God replacing the biological father as the source of the forgiveness and security for which we all long. To Freud, religion is simply an infantile wish projection.
But I do feel like the burden of proof for right now is on the “confrontationalists” to show where they are getting any better results than the “appeasers.”
ap·pease(-pz)
tr.v. ap·peased, ap·peas·ing, ap·peas·es
1. To bring peace, quiet, or calm to; soothe.
2. To satisfy or relieve: appease one’s thirst.
3. To pacify or attempt to pacify (an enemy) by granting concessions, often at the expense of principle. See Synonyms at pacify.
#1. PZ brings me calm whenever he insults a religious lunatic.
#2. Seeing PZ rip a lunatic to shreds is very satisfying.
#3. PZ, you need to work on compromising your principles for the benefit of Behe, Egnor, Wells, Chopra, Adams, etc.
Some lunatics decide they just can’t keep their idiotic beliefs to themselves.
PZ confronts these lunatics.
People get angry.
GOOD!
The plasticity of the concept of deity and the constancy of deity-belief are hints that people believe in these things for emotional reasons that can’t be touched by rationality. Part of why what is here disparaged as “appeasement” has so much more success than confrontation.
You have written two sentences. Neither is entirely true.
The former is a half-truth, at least, I’ll give you that. Emotional reasons are very much what it’s about, I’d expect. So that part is right.
The second part of the first sentence is demonstrably false. You can’t say this belief “can’t be touched by rationality” without qualification. Clearly, in some, it can. As it has been. Any number of people who have rejected the concept of a god will tell you as much, and can give you excellent evidence: the rational arguments themselves.
You could argue the sentence is true in the sense that there may be some in whom the belief can’t be touched by rationality. It might be so. I’d even warrant it’s likely. From my own comment about minds so willing to contort logic to reach their desired conclusion, you could even expect I’d be sympathetic to that notion. And I would be.
But none of that leads on its own to concluding that confrontation has less success than ‘appeasement’, as you claim. Are you, perhaps, again concluding this principally because of your own personal experience? Because your ‘Part of why’ does not at all seem to me to follow. At all. In fact, directly confronting someone who’s become accustomed to lying to themselves, as any number of folk dealing with such phenomena as substance abuse and addiction will tell you, can actually work quite well.
You’ve written of your experience; I’ll buy you report it honestly. From my experience, however, for the question we’re directly addressing, actually, both approaches have their place. I’m not just trying to make everyone happy, or break up your line of evidence unfairly; that’s really my experience. I’ve been (relatively) nice to folks trying to fit their god into gaps where it dissolved entirely, slowly pointed this out to them, had them admit to me and themselves as much… tho’ (and this is a big caveat, I’m afraid), I rather expect from the tone of many the ‘oh, you’re so shrill!’ crowd, they’d have found even my presentation on that occasion ‘confrontational’, I hardly think it was…
That’s a big caveat, because, yes, I think a lot of the people out there have a pretty slippery definition of what’s confrontational. For some, looks to me, it’s anything actually involving raising any objection to arguments for gods, however gently.
Oh, and yes, quite clearly on the other side of it, I’ve seen out and out confrontation work. I’ve seen people told: look, y’know, that just makes no fucking sense, and I’ve seen them come ’round, acknowledge to themselves it was a slippery, dishonest, specious argument they’d been making.
And one of those people who came ’round in that fashion was me.
I simplify only slightly, there. It took a while. But part of what weighed on the decision was that very derision I experienced. In retrospect, it struck me, eventually, it was entirely just.
Anyway: as I said: your argument, so much as it is one, doesn’t seem particularly sound to me. And my larger quibble with those who bitch about the confrontational approach: that for some, any actually audible argument that might actually change someone’s mind is ‘confrontational’, I’d like to repeat for the record:
Seems to me for some, a ‘confrontational’ atheist is just one who opens his mouth at all about it. Can’t very well grant those folk what they want of us, can we.
And again: I do think both approaches have their place.
Insofar as they had a coherent ideology other than just being a bunch of bastards, the Nazis are about as far to the right of the political spectrum as you can get without falling off. Their economic socialism is definitively Right-wing and anti-Left. “Collectivism” does not mean “left,” and many ideologies that clearly are right-wing are also collectivist.
I thought the word “tool” had a specific sort of meaning. Like the person being called a “tool” has subjugated himself to someone or something else in an undignified fashion. Maybe I’m too out of step with the younger people, maybe “tool” is just a generic insult for when someone doesn’t have the guts to say what they really feel. Who knows?
Their jokes page mostly sucks. Anyone else got any better evolution jokes?
You my friend, are a complete tool.
Got that right. Everybody know that PZ is a tool of the evil cephalopod conspiracy!
[shiver]
Chris,
Given this is an evo-devo blog, we are way off topic. So I will just leave it as it is.
“I’ve been (relatively) nice to folks trying to fit their god into gaps where it dissolved entirely,slowly pointed this out to them”
The words “nice” and “slowly” in that sentence are clear symptoms of an “appeaser” and not a “confronter”. The term “appeaser” was a pejorative in the first place, nobody ever said don’t fight for your (un)beliefs! It means go slow and be respectful to people, and don’t be a dick when you come across a terminal (i.e. virtually every) case.
“had them admit to me and themselves as much”
So you got one out of how many tries? If it was so easy to talk people out of religion, why are there so many of them?
“I hardly think it was…”
It depends. Did you call him an idiot and accuse him of child abuse for taking his kids to church?
“It took a while.”
Exactly the point we “appeasers” keep trying to make. Most people won’t ever get there. The few that do will take some time, during which you will need to be on friendly, mutually-respectful terms with them.
“Seems to me for some, a ‘confrontational’ atheist is just one who opens his mouth at all about it.”
Not at all. I regard myself as an “appeaser” and I will talk about my atheism with anyone, anytime, anywhere. I will even get into arguments, so long as they are not heated and disrespectful. The “appeasers” (again, that’s an unfair pejorative) are willing to baby-step people towards the light. And accept that many decent, intelligent people aren’t capable of even baby steps.
In many cases we are asking people to confront mortality, their own and that of the people they loved. As far as I can tell most people don’t have the sand for it.
Weird. The site doesn’t fit well to my beliefs, but I was willing to admit that some might find it copacetic and gave it a grudging recommendation…and for that I get an angry excoriation?
What am I supposed to do? Be an atheist who loves God wholeheartedly? Remind me that there’s no point in acknowledging other positions on evolution in the future — there’s no gain to me in it.
….
But the “confrontationalists vs. appeasers” debate has very little to do with direct inter-personal relationships. It’s about the most effective way for a nonbeliever to behave in public–on the printed page, in interviews and so forth.
I don’t think anyone has ever suggested that you should constantly start fights with religious family members and the nice Episcopalian lady next door. (Dawkins and PZ both come from religious families, and AFAIK are on good terms with them.)
Right. This isn’t about walking up to your Christian neighbors door on Sunday morning and haranguing him. It’s more about finding common ground with other atheists by making yourselves known, and being unafraid to admit that you are an atheist and you think the trinity (to name one example) is really stupid.
And I think Chris has it reversed. The “confrontationists” have been quiet and the “appeasers” dominant for years — you get the occasional bold person stepping forward, but then usually the atheist community backs away, and all the appeasers try to shush him. The country we have now is the product of letting the religious run roughshod through society and politics, and I think what it clearly says is that appeasement has failed. It’s surrendered everything, and now we have to fight twice as hard to get it back.
Only if you have a caricatured view of “confronters” in which they unleash vicious verbal assaults on every believer they pass in the street.
a) That wouldn’t fall under what Dawkins describes as child abuse. He’s talking about applying religious labels to small children, and teaching them traumatic dogmas such as almost all of humanity’s being doomed to Hell, not the mere act of exposing them to religion.
b) Dawkins’ recommended response to the labeling issue is to openly “wince,” not to get in a shouting match.
Again, it seems that you’re going by the accusations leveled against “confrontational” atheists by their opponents, rather by the behavior they themselves advocate and adopt.
Your response is a travesty, Chris.
My words, from above:
Oh, and yes, quite clearly on the other side of it, I’ve seen out and out confrontation work. I’ve seen people told: look, y’know, that just makes no fucking sense, and I’ve seen them come ’round, acknowledge to themselves it was a slippery, dishonest, specious argument they’d been making.
And one of those people who came ’round in that fashion was me.
I simplify only slightly, there. It took a while.
And you respond to this how? By quoting only the ‘it took a while’, and then concluding from this:
Exactly the point we “appeasers” keep trying to make. Most people won’t ever get there. The few that do will take some time, during which you will need to be on friendly, mutually-respectful terms with them.
Sorry, but what does not follow, here, again, from anything you’ve said, is that you shouldn’t be confrontational, nor rude. My point, again, though I don’t really think you could have missed it, was: yes, someone was rude to me. Quite confrontational. Pointed out the argument I made was dreadful. In no uncertain terms.
And it sunk in. And it got to matter. Though it took a while. Simmered a bit; I had to think it through, face that fact slowly that they had a point.
And all you take from this? That it ‘takes a while’… Which apparently means, ‘don’t be confrontational’…?
Wrong. Dead wrong. Do please stop twisting the evidence you’re given to fit what you want to conclude.
The evidence, again, I have is: confrontation works. Being rude works. Being direct works. Not being especially diplomatic works. Sure, maybe not always. But frequently enough, actually, that you folk trying to shout down the confrontational types, I don’t think you’re doing anyone much good.
You ask also how many tries it took. Let’s see… we can’t really talk systematicaly or precisely about ‘tries’ as it’s not like this is some kinda grand experiment I’m running, but including myself, I can think of at least two people in whom at least part of the discussion really was quite ‘rude’ by most folks’ standards, I’d expect. I almost want to say three, but maybe that third is on the line, a bit. But for those other two, we’re talking stuff like: ‘that’s a really silly, bad, childish argument’, and ‘look… you’re lying to yourself, and you have to know it.’ The term ‘idiot’ did come up at least once I recall, in my case. And that’s out of about five of the people I’d say I know enough directly about the process of their leaving their religion to be able to describe it at all… I’m omitting, there, mind you, a lot of cases I know far more indirectly and with less detail, through online correspondence, so on…
But that’s just under half of the small sample I’d consider reasonably reliable, now that I think about it.
Oh, and as to that ‘mutually respectful’ thing: calling someone on their bullshit, in no uncertain terms, far as I’m concerned, certainly does show respect (though yes, it might depend on them and on the relationship how well the relationship will survive this) more than is coddling and smarming and talking out both sides of your face, thinking someone’s a fool, and never quite saying so directly. Thought experiment: if your friend of ten years, drinking buddy, childhood friend, is gonna buy a lemon, and has talked himself into it through a pile of absurd rationalizations, do you look at the labour of talking him back out of it, give up and just say, oh, good decision, man, let him regret it later, or do you give it that college try, give him that shot across the bow, tell him directly: look, it’s burning oil, it stinks to high heaven, it’s got no brakes no tires, no floor, and you need your head read if you think I’m ever getting in that thing with you?
Which one’s respectful? Which one treats your friend like an adult, who can take being told he’s about to be had?
You can be direct, you can be confrontational, you can cross all sorts of lines it seems to me appeasers seem to think are terribly taboo. Telling someone they’d be an idiot to take their kids to church, no, I haven’t quite said that to anyone yet… or not quite in so many words (closest I guess I’ve ever come was a backhanded ‘Don’t you worry it’s just gonna mess ’em up?’ comment… much as I felt I could reasonably get in at the time). But, actually, I could well imagine the relationship and the occasion in which that would be a perfectly sensible thing to say, and it might well get through to them, and the relationship might well survive, well enough.
There are people, actually, who I’m quite sure can take that. And who might even need to hear that.
PZ wrote: “Weird. The site doesn’t fit well to my beliefs, but I was willing to admit that some might find it copacetic and gave it a grudging recommendation…and for that I get an angry excoriation?”
Poor PZ. This falls in the category of ‘no good deed goes unpunished.’ For the record, the site struck me as being like a nice warm bowl of oatmeal and brown sugar. Pleasant, but a little mushy.
Anyway, PZ, I think (as a simple experiment) you should post a completely uncritical and enthusiastic endorsement of one of the links within the site (say, Connie Barlow’s site). Just gush over it. Then watch the fur fly!….:)
(PS: On the ‘commenters’ section, could you make my name with a hyperlink to my blog ‘Monkey Trials’? It would be much appreciated…SH)
OK, the link is added. Now you’re required to add new content in return.
And no way can I endorse Barlow’s site. Anything that ignores the fact that the true scientific story has to be loaded with chance and purposelessness does not get my approval.
Here’s a preview .pdf of an article that Stegnor submitted to Skeptical Inquirer (only 3 pages.)
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Onward.pdf
I think it goes a long way towards explaining why appeasing is not such a great deal for atheists.
And here is the main problem Chris – you are preaching to atheists and telling us how to behave. Think about why some of us are now atheists. It may help you understand.
“It’s more about finding common ground with other atheists by making yourselves known, and being unafraid to admit that you are an atheist and you think the trinity (to name one example) is really stupid. The “confrontationists” have been quiet and the “appeasers” dominant for years “”
That’s not confrontation, that’s networking with other atheists and standing up for your personal beliefs. There is no mythical “appeasement” movement that ever stopped doing these things. And you can do it without using counter-productive words like “stupid” that accomplish zilch. Much better to *show* them why it’s stupid.
“Only if you have a caricatured view of “confronters” in which they unleash vicious verbal assaults on every believer they pass in the street.”
Where did I say this? Calling people and their beliefs “stupid” and accusing them of abusing their children is behaviors that “confronters” do engage in. And this is all things that I personally have done myself.
“a) That wouldn’t fall under what Dawkins describes as child abuse. He’s talking about applying religious labels to small children, and teaching them traumatic dogmas such as almost all of humanity’s being doomed to Hell, not the mere act of exposing them to religion.”
At least two, maybe three things wrong with this.
#1 It tries to differentiate between aspects of Jeebusosity that are more virulent than others. Target the nasty parts rather than the good parts. Maybe wrongly, I associate that thinking with the appeasement crowd.
#2 That is exactly what my parents and my church taught me as a child. They were wrong, but they weren’t child abusers by any stretch of the imagination. Check out “Deliver Us From Evil” for an example of actual religious child abuse.
#3 “Yer goin’ to burn without Jesus” is a core tenet of the Catholic religion. Dawkins says teaching this to children is abuse. Ergo, Dawkins is saying that teaching one of the central tenets of the Catholic faith to your kids is mental abuse. Personally I just want them to stop molesting the kids. They can keep their doctrine.
“Again, it seems that you’re going by the accusations leveled against “confrontational” atheists by their opponents, rather by the behavior they themselves advocate and adopt.”
Not at all. Dawkins does say that teaching your children the central tenets of Catholicism is mental abuse. I watched his video and listened to his audiobook. I have no idea what his detractors are saying, I didn’t listen to their audiobook. And if being confrontational means letting Chris Hitchens represent us, call me Neville Chamberlain!
Maybe part of the problem is this terminology isn’t helping us. Confrontation by definition would mean that every time you see someone you know praying or singing a hymn, you confront them about it. When you do not do this, you are by definition appeasing their faith. Munich! Chamberlain!
Of course nobody’s advocating this, but that’s what an accurate reading of the terms would lead you to conclude.
Sorry if this is incoherent, I’m working on three things at once here. And it’s weird getting into a debate with other atheists. Nothin’ but love for my fellow infidels. Except Hitchens. And that racist asshole I talked to this weekend. Yuck. :)
Dammit – that is what I hate about posting from work. I was interrupted before I could correct Stenger’s name.
And you can do it without using counter-productive words like “stupid” that accomplish zilch. Much better to *show* them why it’s stupid.
of course, the most effective thing is to do both, which is exactly what PZ does with his primary contributions.
can’t see wtf you are complaining about, really.
Sorry if this is incoherent,
“Apology accepted, Captain Needa.”
#1 It tries to differentiate between aspects of Jeebusosity that are more virulent than others.
no… It differentiates between aspects of BEHAVIOR that are more virulent than others, which is done on a constant basis, even in the legal system.
suggest you take a gander sometime at legislation in different states that covers the term: psychological abuse.
educate yourself on where the argument actually comes from, for a change.
The “confrontational” approach works better in public, I think, simply because an awful lot of persistent myths about atheists are allowed to fester, and I’m not just referring to the mild myths, or even Bush’s “No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots”, but this sort of crap.
Hell, we’re not even out looking for converts. We just have seen the ugly side of religion rise swell over the past near-decade of ripe opportunities for power, and we don’t want our rights, or us to be the first X in “when they came for X, I did not speak up, because I was not an X”.
In some ways, it was even fine when they were attacking us. Then, they started going after our children again. Not just our children, but the children of our milder religious neighbors. The smear campaign on truth affected us doubly so, in particular because it’s the same people who have been smearing us all along.
We may be able to do our own one-on-one deconversions, given the opportunity, through niceness and rationality, but the “other side” offers cheap, certain answers and all they ask is slavish devotion. It’s not likely to be the Episcopalians showing up on peoples’ doorsteps. It’s not meritocratic. Quite frankly, it’s also not in many of our natures to actively go and deconvert people, as so many of us pay more than lip service to liberty, including that of belief.
I can’t guarantee it, but I would be inclined to bet that most atheists here were not “converted to atheism” by an atheist, but rather more likely (if they were not lucky enough to have started that way) by encountering the Froot Loop side of religion (for me, it was the Baptists at the conveniently near Sunday school.)
Confrontation lets us air the issues and raise public consciousness. The people inclined to see us as monsters will continue to do so, and there is every chance that we might push some people away (though there are always people inclined to that – witness the split in the United Church over gays), but we have face time, even on the most right-wing of networks, and this can reach some otherwise unreachable people… at least to bring us up to the status of other heretical sects. Atheists are real people, not just boogeymen invented by the reverends, and we are here to contradict some of the lies made up about us. For those deep in the mire, it also lets them know they have options.
Dare we ever hope that people can admit in public that they’re atheists? I think it’s wrong that we we should be forced to have that trepidation. It’s self-perpetuating, to boot: we generally can’t say that we are, so even if we’re nice, ethical, hard-working people, people won’t know to associate that with atheists.
I do think we will still have our milder religious friends at the end of the day. We still need this opportunity to shake things up, and if we manage some measure of success, they will thank us for clearing the air with the fundies.
“Appeasement” just hasn’t been working for atheists. All in all, it hasn’t been working for science education, either… it’s just that in that case, pro-science is already a way more inclusive group than atheists are :)
Of course you treat others respectfully in person. People are people, all to be judged on their own merits. We generally don’t like to let accidents of parentage get in the way of friendship or camaraderie. After all, evil, friendship, love… everything at last comes down to real, living people.
(and many creatures :)
AJ:
Sorry if you felt like I was distorting your argument, that was not my intention. Please don’t get mad at me and accuse me of twisting evidence. I don’t think I was being unfair.
You wrote: “I’ve been (relatively) nice to folks trying to fit their god into gaps where it dissolved entirely, slowly pointed this out to them, had them admit to me and themselves as much”
Based on that statement, I dont think it’s unreasonable for me to assume that you were a) relatively nice about it and b) slowly walked them through it. Neither of those things sound like the confrontational approach to me, but I think we agree the term “confrontational” may be vague.
“The evidence, again, I have is: confrontation works. Being rude works. Being direct works. Not being especially diplomatic works. Sure, maybe not always. But frequently enough”
Maybe we should ask people who actually study opinion-influencing from an empirical, scientific perspective. I’m gonna bet that they aren’t going to tell us that there’s a lot of solid evidence that being rude is an effective marketing tool. Most religious people in this country have been in a few debates with an atheist. They’re still religious.
“. Telling someone they’d be an idiot to take their kids to church, no, I haven’t quite said that to anyone yet”
Chamberlain! Munich! :)
I think that both appeasers and confrontationalists serve useful purposes in the ongoing political debate. The practical goal of the debate is to decrease tolerance for magical thinking in our society.
Appeasers provide a safe harbor for religionists who want to accept some measure of reality by holding on to some vestigal feel-good beliefs.
Confrontationalists provide motivation to those who are already wavering in their faith.
” It differentiates between aspects of BEHAVIOR that are more virulent than others”
But what if all you can do is knock out the bad behavior without affecting the belief? We appeasers say go for it!
” which is done on a constant basis, even in the legal system.
suggest you take a gander sometime at legislation in different states that covers the term: psychological abuse.”
Why waste my time? I already know that they are trumped by superior laws that unarguably protect a parents’ right to teach their children that they have to believe in Jesus or they will go to Hell. That is a textbook example of protected religious speech.
But what if all you can do is knock out the bad behavior without affecting the belief? We appeasers say go for it!
I would too.
as soon as you can figure out how, go for it. At this point, judging by the recent article in Science, we are just beginning to finally scratch the surface. religion is often an enabler to bad parenting behavior, just like alcohol is an enabler to addictive personality disorders.
If you want to force it into one camp or the other, somehow I don’t think ascribing cult behavior to a lot of the religious will end up in the “appeasement” camp. Though, frankly, I could see an argument being made for why it technically should.
Why waste my time?
perhaps because you’re dead wrong?
you might actually want to take a look at the various related court cases over the last 3 decades and see for yourself.
but why bother, right?
just be wasting your time.
I now proclaim you dense beyond measure, and intractable to boot.
good luck with that.
“I now proclaim you dense beyond measure, and intractable to boot.
good luck with that.”
That was an uncalled for personal attack. I didn’t insult you. It’s also an example of how hurling personal insults just doesn’t get you any traction in a reasonable debate.
“perhaps because you’re dead wrong?”
If I am, then why don’t you just cite a single instance of a parent succesfuly being declared abusive by a court based solely on them teaching their kids that Jesus is the only way to salvation from an eternal butt-kickin’?
“You might actually want to take a look at the various related court cases over the last 3 decades and see for yourself.”
Ok, so assume I am, as you so ad hominem-ally put it, dense. Show me these cases you keep talking about where parents are being declared abusive solely because they taught their children a religious principle subscribed to by a majority of the country.
Even if such a case did actually exist, I’m pretty sure that Congressmen would be falling all over themselves to condemn it and pass laws protecting such behavior.
Actually, you might also want to look at the percentage of Supreme Court justices that are Catholic. I’m sure they’d be real receptive to an argument that teaching basic Catholic catechism to their kids is child abuse.
BTW, I apologize if anything I said above was taken as an ad hominem. That wasn’t how it was intended!
Actually I’m really grateful that you are wrong about this. If they can declare parents abusive for teaching them the doctrine of salvation, they can declare us abusive for teaching our children to reject that doctrine. We both know which argument would get more traction in the United States in 2007.
If I am, then why don’t you just cite a single instance of a parent succesfuly being declared abusive by a court based solely on them teaching their kids that Jesus is the only way to salvation from an eternal butt-kickin’?
nice strawman, but that was never the argument,
I never said that all religion was essentially a cult, I’m saying that there is an awful lot of religions that ARE best defined as cults, and many members of those who practice behaviors that come under many state’s definitions OF cults.
tell me that Opus Dei is NOT a cult.
you were the one who said you didn’t give a shit.
why should I bother doing your research for you?
seriously, I also don’t give a shit… about what you think any more.
it’s obvious to me you haven’t actually spent the time to look at the legal statutes, or how they have been applied, but would rather base your position on your own incredulity that any of that would violate your simplistic notions of “free speech”.
simply put, YOU are a waste of my time.
“nice strawman, but that was never the argument,”
Scroll back up…that was *exactly* the argument I was making. I have made no other argument in regards to child abuse. I never at any point have said a single word about cults!
Is teaching your children that Jesus is the only way out of Hell, and everyone who doesn’t subscribe to him is gonna burn, is that mental abuse in a legal sense? That is what we were talking about. If you missed the fact that this was the argument then you are arguing something entirely different and that’s why you are mad at me and making personal attacks. The answer is “Obviously no, that’s a basic religious doctrine, central to mainstream Christianit y and it is clearly protected speech.”
I am more than open to be swayed by evidence to the contrary, but you need to show me this evidence.
” but would rather base your position on your own incredulity that any of that would violate your simplistic notions of “free speech”.
It’s not a simplistic notion….”You must have Jesus in your heart or your gonna get frickaseed for ever after” is a basic religious principle. You can’t legally declare that child abuse. That’s at least 100 million families you just declared abusive! That was the only argument in regards to child abuse that I have made. I dunno where you are getting the thing about cults. It is not because I said anything about them.
xebecs @ #12:
“Social Darwinism” is a completely religious concept. It’s just the Divine Right of Kings in a stolen lab coat.
“He’s talking about applying religious labels to small children, and teaching them traumatic dogmas such as almost all of humanity’s being doomed to Hell, not the mere act of exposing them to religion.”
This was the opening point about whether mainstream Christian doctrine can be declared child-abuse. Pretty much everyone’s going to hell except the Christians and maybe the Jews is a basic, mainstream Christian principle.
That is what we are discussing. Not cults. Not depriving kids of medicine and blood transfusions. Not strapping cilises on their butt cheeks. Not forcing them to engage in polygamy or under-age marriage. Just the simple question over teaching them that salvation from hellfire comes from Willem Dafoe, and all the rest of us Defoe-less losers are gonna burn.
Sorry if there has been some confusion. Now that you see what the argument is actually about, do you agree that it’s impossible to get this declared abuse in a court of law? Apologies for my “why bother” comment, I think some wires got crossed there.
RE: “OK, the link is added. Now you’re required to add new content in return.”
That I will do. But I have to say, as a newbie, that trying to get my thing going at any sort of respectable level compared to your blog is just daunting.
You said that a previous poster fell under the “appeaser” category simply because he used the words “nice” and “slowly” to describe his approach toward believers.
Then you may have earned the coveted title of Ultra-Confrontational Atheist! Most of the people who are identified as “confrontational” don’t do that, however. I really haven’t seen Dawkins call a believer he was talking to “stupid.”
Then, inasmuch as Dawkins and Harris both do this (just look at Harris’ paeans to Jainism and Buddhism, for instance), your criteria for belonging to the “appeasement crowd” versus the “confrontation crowd” are somewhat distorted. Either Sam Harris is an appeaser, or the line between the two factions (however fuzzy) isn’t where you think it is.
They abused you. Sorry. I’m sure they meant well, I’m sure they didn’t intend to hurt you, but it was still abuse. Yes, it probably wasn’t as bad as, for instance, being violently raped. So what?
I fail to see how that claim is self-evidently incorrect.
(And, really, there are liberal Catholics who think non-Catholics get to heaven too. I grew up with some. I’m all for encouraging other Catholics to be more like them.)
Dawkins’ argument is that in some cases the doctrine can be more harmful and traumatic than the molestation. He has some evidence for this, albeit anecdotal. In any case, I don’t see why opposing molestation requires condoning lesser types of abuse.
But he does not say that this is abuse which should be punished by law, which seems to be a central element in your arguments. In fact, he specifically said that it should not, when asked to clarify.
“A case could be made that children should be protected by law against verbal abuse (such as hell-fire scaring) as well as physical abuse. I agree with Russell that the disadvantages of such an interfering law outweigh the advantages.”
Have you ever heard him say differently?
Not really; you could just as easily slant it the other way. Appeasement by definition would mean that every time you see someone you know saying atheists should be denied citizenship, you say, “Yes, that’s absolutely right!” When you do not do this, you are by definition confronting them.
I agree that the terminology isn’t particularly helpful, but that’s why we have to look past the label and see what the different groups are actually advocating.
Previous one got held for some reason–maybe the links? You can kill this one if you enable that one, PZ.
You said that a previous poster fell under the “appeaser” category simply because he used the words “nice” and “slowly” to describe his approach toward believers.
Then you may have earned the coveted title of Ultra-Confrontational Atheist! Most of the people who are identified as “confrontational” don’t do that, however. I really haven’t seen Dawkins call a believer he was talking to “stupid.”
Then, inasmuch as Dawkins and Harris both do this (just look at Harris’ paeans to Jainism and Buddhism, for instance), your criteria for belonging to the “appeasement crowd” versus the “confrontation crowd” are somewhat distorted. Either Sam Harris is an appeaser, or the line between the two factions (however fuzzy) isn’t where you think it is.
They abused you. Sorry. I’m sure they meant well, I’m sure they didn’t intend to hurt you, but it was still abuse. Yes, it probably wasn’t as bad as, for instance, being violently raped. So what?
I fail to see how that claim is self-evidently incorrect.
(And, really, there are liberal Catholics who think non-Catholics get to heaven too. I grew up with some. I’m all for encouraging other Catholics to be more like them.)
Dawkins’ argument is that in some cases the doctrine can be more harmful and traumatic than the molestation. He has some evidence for this, albeit anecdotal. For instance, a Catholic woman writes to him, “Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yuchy’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest, but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares.”
In any case, I don’t see why opposing molestation requires condoning lesser types of abuse.
But he does not say that this is abuse which should be punished by law, which seems to be a central element in your arguments. In fact, he specifically said that it should not, when asked to clarify.
“A case could be made that children should be protected by law against verbal abuse (such as hell-fire scaring) as well as physical abuse. I agree with Russell that the disadvantages of such an interfering law outweigh the advantages.”
Have you ever heard him say differently?
Not really; you could just as easily slant it the other way. Appeasement by definition would mean that every time you see someone you know saying atheists should be denied citizenship, you say, “Yes, that’s absolutely right!” When you do not do this, you are by definition confronting them.
I agree that the terminology isn’t particularly helpful, but that’s why we have to look past the label and see what the different groups are actually advocating.
I’d be all for it. I’ve never seen any studies on the topic, myself.
I think the bulk of American advertising argues against you there…
As far as I’m aware, a significant fraction of religious people in this country have never even met an open atheist, let alone debated one.
And yes, most of the believers who have argued with atheists are still religious. But that’s an argument for rudeness, not against it; many religious leaders are far better at being rude than we could ever be. No nonbeliever has anything to compete with “Atheists are hellbound, amoral fools who will get your children damned and cause society to collapse.”
I already said this on a previous thread, but I think rudeness is really really good at persuading people. Look at most of the people who touched off religious revivals, founded successful new sects, founded popular movements. Almost invariably extremist, aggressive, and yes, rude.
Doesn’t mean we have to be rude and aggressive for its own sake, of course. Even if it is more persuasive, there’s intellectual integrity to consider.
They do declare us abusive for teaching our children not to believe, all the time. That’s part of the reason why we need to point out that they have that backwards.
I see that it’s what you were talking about, but I think the rest of us were talking about “abuse” as alleged by leading Militant Atheists, which is not meant in a legal sense.
rls says: “Maybe, just maybe, one day your wake up and realize that your a 50 year old man who whines, complains, and bitches life an immature child about stupid shit that your can’t control–like other people’s thoughts, opinions, and their perceptions of reality. All-the-while realizing the futility of your constant ramblings regarding something that doesn’t even exist within the framework of this godless universe.” [sic]
*Brrp* – Have another drink, rls.
In the morning when you have that fine hangover, you might appreciate the subtlety (that is, it would no doubt be subtle to you) that nobody here (including PZ) remotely wants or cares to “control…other people’s thoughts, opinions, and their perceptions of reality.”
We just want the SOBs to quit trying to control OUR thoughts, opinions and perceptions of reality. ALL of us. That also means OUR children. It means OUR future.
CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
Meanwhile, you can grab that all-important hair of the dog as you contemplate “futility”, after thinking loftily on more “stupid shit” you manage to find in all those other “complete tools”.
Show ’em, mate. Show them what it really means to be a “hate-filled angry SOB”. Grab another shot. Or three. Maybe even consider jumping into that lake you suggest PZ should go fishing from. Hey, serously. Literally, no one will be the wiser.
Drink up, now.
Cheers.
Sorry if you felt like I was distorting your argument, that was not my intention. Please don’t get mad at me and accuse me of twisting evidence. I don’t think I was being unfair.
You wrote: “I’ve been (relatively) nice to folks trying to fit their god into gaps where it dissolved entirely, slowly pointed this out to them, had them admit to me and themselves as much”
Based on that statement, I dont think it’s unreasonable for me to assume that you were a) relatively nice about it and b) slowly walked them through it. Neither of those things sound like the confrontational approach to me, but I think we agree the term “confrontational” may be vague.
Chris, this is just as dishonest as your last response. Last time, I caught you distorting evidence from a separate case entirely, trying to make it fit yours. And in response to this, what do we have? Now you’d like to conflate the two cases (remember… two examples? One in which confrontation wasn’t so much the MO, one in which it was?), say this is why you did so?
You’re either not much for reading comprehension, or you’re full of it entirely.
To be fair, the left-right continuum is not a straight line, it’s a circle. The Nazis were not Randians; they did believe that the state should do something for the German People(tm).
There we have it. In communism the state owns the corporations. In fascism, National Socialism included, the corporations own the state.
How, please, is “one (ethnic) people, one empire, one leader” socialist?
Also, it is clearly socialist to promise jobs, but not to create any except in the military-industrial complex is not socialist in my book.
Look at what else the Nazis did at that time: lots of pandering to the plutocrats that financed them (Krupp, Thyssen…). It’s a bit like the Busheviki and Halliburton/Bechtel/ChevronTexaco etc. etc..
Well said.
To be fair, the left-right continuum is not a straight line, it’s a circle. The Nazis were not Randians; they did believe that the state should do something for the German People(tm).
There we have it. In communism the state owns the corporations. In fascism, National Socialism included, the corporations own the state.
How, please, is “one (ethnic) people, one empire, one leader” socialist?
Also, it is clearly socialist to promise jobs, but not to create any except in the military-industrial complex is not socialist in my book.
Look at what else the Nazis did at that time: lots of pandering to the plutocrats that financed them (Krupp, Thyssen…). It’s a bit like the Busheviki and Halliburton/Bechtel/ChevronTexaco etc. etc..
Well said.
To discuss the “Evidence for Evolution” site itself for a moment….
I agree with Chris Ho-Stuart; you were generous in your description, PZ. There doesn’t seem to be all that much evidence there. One or two bare outlines that just list terms like “fossil record,” or link to an elementary-school-level activity which usually doesn’t demonstrate what it claims to.
Even in the outlines there’s some stuff I think is just wrong. Their tree of life has “protists” as a monophyletic group, for instance, and they put the claws on modern bird wings under “imperfect and vestigial parts.” Heck, it’s not even spell-checked.
No doubt it’ll improve over time, but at present the most useful thing it does is link to a bunch of other, more informative sites on evolution. Ah, well. One more site that endorses science is always nice.