Is he available for Bah Mitzvahs and children’s parties?
Willo the Wispsays
He’s mostly right. However, even if religion was “just a belief” that didn’t want to impose itself on the actions of every human on the planet it still would not be deserving of respect. I am not required to respect the beliefs of a man who reckons he can talk to teddy bears, or a woman who believes there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter, so why should I be expected to respect the beliefs of the man who claims he has a personal relationship with an invisible, immortal, mindreading wizard who created the universe?
ALsays
“I will respect your beliefs for as long as I can keep a straight face talking about them.”
I’ve always said, I respect others’ right to hold beliefs, but nothing says I have to respect the beliefs others hold.
H. Humbertsays
I liked (paraphrased:) “And I can say that with all due respect, since your beliefs are due zero respect.”
And Willo the Wisp, I agree. The “activism” of religion, while annoying, isn’t what’s so bad about it. It’s that it’s wrong. Unlike taste in wallpaper or flavors of ice cream, religions make baseless statements about our shared reality, not personal preferences. As such, the “it’s just my opinion” defense is insufficient to justify religious claims.
waldteufelsays
Pure Gold!
HairlessMonkeyDKsays
I have no clue who Pat Condell is
or what his positions are on other issues.
But what he says in that clip is something I’ve been trying to express as well.
Only he does it better.
I’d have been more intemperate and stand-offish
and I might even have used the phrase:
“I beseech thee to fornicate off, faith-encrusted fools!”
And yes, why IS faith seen as a virtue
and why should it gain automatic respect?
The delusions of the mentally ill are accorded
no such favor, yet they have the same evidence behind them:
none.
No, I do not consider a belief in God/a god/Gods a sign of de facto mental illness.
I think it is a cultural inheritance, mostly.
A tradition that it is still, to some degree, taboo to break… well, in America at least.
Here in Scandinavia, sure, we’ve got our fundies…
we just don’t elect so damn many of them.
wÓÒ†says
What’s that quote about respecting religion in the same vein as telling your neighbor his wife is pretty and his children are smart?
We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
–H.L. Mencken
jufulu, FCDsays
I have been following PatCondell for a while and as my kids say, “he’s the bomb”. Check out the rest of his monologs on YouTube.
The bit from about 3:40 to 3:25 on the countdown to the end timer dealing with faith by definition being unexamined. “It has to be among the shallowest of experiences.”
Happy happy. Shame that logic will not do anything to anyone already clad in the shiny armor of faith.
sailorsays
That humor is as dry as the driest martini
Sonjasays
He’s terrific… and his “About Me” webpage says he’s a Scorpio. (Now I wonder why he needed to tell us that?)
For what it’s worth, I’m a Scorpio too. It is meaningless, except that we have another thing in common besides our atheism. That and he’s also a fan of (Minnesotan) Bob Dylan! Oh and I’m also 70% water and live on the planet Earth.
tonysays
“Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule.”
I completely agree. I am truly *pissed* with the current vogue for the word “disrepect” as used in “r u disrespectin’ me?”
As I say to my kids (when they’re getting uppity). You have the right to breathe. You also have the right to voice your opinion. You have no right to *demand* repect. Respect must be *earned*.
(usually followed by a stupid line like – and right now you’re overdrawn)
Sampo Rassisays
I hadn’t heard of him before, but found his style to be rather amusing in a wordy sort of way. His response to the Blasphemy Challenge is particularly hilarious.
Rey Foxsays
“Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule.”
That’s pretty much the law of the playground there. Anyone who doesn’t know it missed out on some vital education in their school years.
Lanasays
I liked the bit about how people shouldn’t believe you’re a chicken until they see a few eggs.
Bit of a shame about the other ones, though…”The Myth Of Islamophobia”? Criminy.
Still, I’m actually grateful to him, as I am to Christopher Hitchins and Pen Jillette. They taught me a valuable lesson – just ‘cuz you’re bang on about some things does not preclude you from being a colossal arseface about others. True dat.
Lilithsays
Wow.
Well said.
You get my respect.
Stephen Wellssays
Er, in “the myth of islamophobia” he points out that he does not a phobia- irrational fear- of Islam in general; he has a very specific and rational fear of people who want the whole world to live by Sharia law and who are quite willing to murder those who disagree, and that dismissing this as “Islamophobia” is pointlessly disingenuous. What exactly is your problem with that?
craigsays
“Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule.”
I’m a little uncomfortable with this. There are plenty of people who have been afforded little or no respect by society who have had to demand it. The mentally ill. Oppressed minorities. Etc.
I may be using the word respect too broadly perhaps.
cmsays
Wow, that is one smugly contemptuous SOB. His cadence and grin remind me of something from British comedy but I can’t place it.
He’ll do a nice job of turning people away from rationality.
cm: Yeah, like how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have turned so many people away from right-wing politics. *thbbt*
cmsays
In this video, Pat Condell says:
“The truth is that faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It’s an act of will. It’s not a state of grace, it’s a state of choice.”
That sounds a lot like what anti-gay Christians say about gays. Me no likey.
How does Pat Condell know this? If you like evidence so much, show me the evidence for that one, Pat. Who died and left you the owner’s manual on the human mind?
cmsays
Yeah, like how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have turned so many people away from right-wing politics. *thbbt*
Yeah, yeah, and yeah. They have. Some. There is a way to describe an economically and socially conservative view that is way less off-putting than Hannity–or particularly Limabaugh–do it. The hardcores on either side aren’t going to change, they will cheer for their guys. I’m talking about the uncommitted middle.
Pat Condell’s nasty grinning tone doesn’t start to get up a head of steam until later in the video–that’s the stuff that will put off those from the uncommitted middle. Boo ya.
tonysays
cm
You got it the wrong way round.
There is already fMRI evidence that faith, etc., are functionally equivalent to simple ‘acts of will’. The ‘faith’ driven actions/behaviours are physically identical to ‘choice’ driven actions/behaviors.
If the religionistas want us to *believe* there is a difference… then it is incumbent on *them* to demonstrate the difference.
Pat is basing his statements on evidentiary science (AFAICS). On what do you base your statements?
CRM-114says
I kept thinking, “I wish I’d said that.”
cmsays
There is already fMRI evidence that faith, etc., are functionally equivalent to simple ‘acts of will’. The ‘faith’ driven actions/behaviours are physically identical to ‘choice’ driven actions/behaviors.
Is this published fMRI evidence? If so, could you point me to the reference? Because I cannot evaluate it carefully based on how you described it.
If the religionistas want us to *believe* there is a difference… then it is incumbent on *them* to demonstrate the difference.
No, Condell made a positive claim of the form “x is actually just y”, so Condell has the incumbency. A religious person can simply say “I believe” and not make any claims about the mechanics of that belief. It is Condell who is claiming to know the real story, so let him show us why.
At very least, Condell’s claim is contrary to common intuitions about belief in general. Our common intuition is that one does not choose to belief proposition x, one simply believes it or not depending on how proposition x hits his cognitive apparatus. For example, I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. I did not choose, or exert my will, in believing this. When I was young, I believed that God might protect my cat if I prayed hard enough. I also did not choose to believe this, I simply believed it. I am not claiming common intuition is always right–it often isn’t–but Condell’s claim is contrary enough that he ought to back it up.
Pat is basing his statements on evidentiary science (AFAICS). On what do you base your statements?
I doubt Pat is referring to the fMRI evidence you mentioned or basing it on any science; my hunch (which I base on my experience of people) is that he is just pulling this out of his sleeve.
I base my statements on my ignorance of any evidence to convince me that belief of any sort is an act of will.
Sivi Volksays
Actually, that’s always something that’s bothered me about choice and… crap. Can’t think of the right word to use. “Gayness” looks wrong, but a lot of gay people get put off by the 50s psych sound of “homosexuality”.
I know there is some support for a genetic/physiological basis for desiring members of the same sex. But it shouldn’t be such an issue. So what if it’s a choice? It should only be a problem if you accept the religious premise that being gay is inherently wrong. If you reject that belief, it’s just a choice like preferring brunettes over blondes. Using the “but we don’t have a choice” arguement against religious types seems a bit shakey.
Still, most people I’ve known who were gay or bi can’t imagine being any other way.
Respect, maybe not. But how about some civility and perhaps sympathy? We are all human, after all, and each of us comes pre-installed with a basic package of irrationality. And given the sh** world we live in, it’s no wonder people turn to crutches like religion.
Haranguing people with religious beliefs is like yelling at the depressed: “There’s nothing to be so unhappy about! Plenty of people have it worse than you. Your feelings are ruining your life — quit being such an idiot!!” It may feel good, but it’s not going to accomplish anything.
le_sacresays
disclosure: i did not watch the video.
but on the topic of faith being inherently unrespectable, i am initially inclined to state this as an axiom, but then i reflect a bit. certain bits of faith are just incumbent on us in getting through life (e.g., i haven’t carefully examined all the evidence to decide whether or not the moon landings actually happened, but i rely on a bit of faith in the low probability of so many experts agreeing that they did; more basically, i have faith that the world as i perceive it is an accurate reflection of reality, despite what i know about the senses being unreliable).
one could make a necessity argument then, that certain faiths are just required in order to function.
but then, what about the fact that i consider myself a humanist? i routinely trust in the goodwill of people i don’t know very well, and indeed, i put my faith in certain values in order to make moral judgments. these values may have more internal logic than religions, but the root still depends on bits of faith (e.g., human life has value; suffering should be avoided, etc.)
so how do you differentiate? in essence, i am looking for a clear logical justification that allows me to disrespect religious faith while respecting humanist faith. how am i not a hypocrite when i say that i disrespect religious faith? any ideas? ideally, what i want is an a priori distinction, rather than a consequentialist rationalization.
The simple answer is to disrespect them both. Seriously.
We all have these ideas and principles we hold that have not been tested and that we actually cling to because they are either harmless or expedient. We should not hold them in special regard. We should always be ready to discard them if the evidence contradicts them.
I have an air conditioner hanging out a window in my sunroom. It’s braced with a board on a brick — it’s an inelegant kludge, and I’m aware of it, and I do not hold any particular respect for it, even though it is keeping it from falling out of the window. The plan is to get a carpenter in and brace it properly and professionally soon. That’s what “faith” is — a clumsy, often mistaken mechanism for helping cope with that which they don’t understand, which, unfortunately, they never bother to get tuned up and rendered into a more accurate and better view of the world.
Azkyrothsays
so how do you differentiate? in essence, i am looking for a clear logical justification that allows me to disrespect religious faith while respecting humanist faith. how am i not a hypocrite when i say that i disrespect religious faith? any ideas? ideally, what i want is an a priori distinction, rather than a consequentialist rationalization.
“Faith” in things like induction or that the sun will rise tomorrow is an extension of pattern-recognition and cause-and-effect reasoning. “Faith” in the religious sense is glorified wishful thinking. There you go.
LCsays
I make a distinction among the following:
1. individuals and groups who try to impose their particular faiths on others by insinuating themselves into government and manipulating public policies
2. individuals who try to convert me
3. believers who do not fit into either of the above categories.
Re the first group: Believers who insert themselves into the political process and use their influence to impose a particular set of religious beliefs do not deserve any special respect for those beliefs. And, more and more during the past couple of years, I have come to the conclusion that we non-believers have a duty to confront these individuals and groups.
Re the second group: the first time somebody tries to convert me, I politely request that the person stop. If the person does stop, end of discussion. The second time that same person tries, I give a warning: keep this up and I’m going to tell you exactly what I think of your faith. So far, nobody has gotten past #2 – but if it happened a third time, I would feel totally free to attack that person’s faith.
Re the third group – and an explanation of why category 2 exists for me. For obvious reasons, most of my friends are also non-believers. But during the past several years, I have become friends with a few individuals who are deeply, but quietly, religious. They don’t speak often of their faith, and I usually discover that they are, indeed, religious when something difficult or bad happens in their lives or the lives of mutual friends. I don’t pretend to understand why their faith sustains them, but I see no reason to attack them simply because they find comfort in something I do not understand.
It is, I think, absurd for atheists to deny the special place that faith holds in the lives of many. I wouldn’t knowingly hurt a friend by criticizing a spouse, lover, or child. Or by pointing out some physical flaw. So why should I risk hurting that same friend by criticizing a faith whose existence in that person in no way affects me personally?
le_sacresays
PZ and Azkyroth, your answers are attractive, but i think belief in certain things, like “human life has value,” or “suffering should be avoided,” is required, yet can’t be supported by objective evidence. amoralism is fine for philosophical pondering, but meanwhile we have lives to live here.
if i had children, i would teach them these things, but if they asked “why?” i would have no answer for them. unless we can come up with a hard-wired neural explanation. would you recommend jettisoning these beliefs otherwise?
le_sacresays
to clarify a bit: if we say that beliefs should only be held if evidence supports them, then we cannot believe anything subjective like morality. if we say that beliefs may be held until evidence contradicts them, then we cannot criticize beliefs for which evidence will never be available (i.e. that god exists).
Stephen Wellssays
I think it’s important to distinguish between belief in things for which there is evidence, belief in things for which there’s no evidence, and belief in the teeth of contrary evidence. The first case seems to be a totally different usage than the other two, in that it doesn’t involve any particular “faith.” The second case is logically impregnable but apparently pointless. And the third is massively annoying.
Azkyrothsays
le sacre: If you a priori reject reference to the consequences of actions or general principles that guide them, then yes, you’re going to have a hard time assembling a coherent and defensible set of moral beliefs. This is because morality in all its forms represents, at the simplest level, an attempt to determine which set of actions or attitudes are most conducive to the happiness of those performing or holding them, which cannot rationally be evaluated without consideration of the consequences of actions. However, the cause and effect relationship between certain courses of action and an increase or decrease in happiness can, supported by entirely reasonable inferences, be both observed and predicted with a fair degree of success on the basis of pattern-recognition and cause-and-effect reasoning, and is in this sense objective, so I’m not sure what the objection is.
Stephen: You are mistaken; both case 2 and case 3 are indefensible logically. This is because logical propositions, until proven true (and empirical propositions, until supported by a convincing weight of evidence), default to “false” not to “50/50.”
Stephen Wellssays
I know that case 2 is not rationally defensible, and nobody would adopt that position as the endpoint of a logical deduction. I’m just saying that once someone has adopted such a position they’re immune to logical _disproof_.
le_sacresays
Azkyroth,
i like this. however, favoring consequentialist justifications of belief without objective evidence, how are we then to reject notions of god(s) that are objectively linked to certain “good” outcomes, such as the happiness that people report religion brings them (possibly health benefits too)? see, this is my concern.
if we have to resort to common sense in order to separate religious and humanist beliefs (by humanist here i mean believing things like “it’s wrong to cause suffering unnecessarily”), then that puts on shaky logical ground. but if we depend on objective consequences without an a priori logical backing, then how is that different from religious faith, other than that it *seems to us* more in accordance with common sense?
Chrissays
Well there’s another whole Youtube user’s channel that I now have to watch. Thanks a lot PZ :)
Justin Ballzaksays
God told me you would say that.
RamblinDudesays
That’s what “faith” is — a clumsy, often mistaken mechanism for helping cope with that which they don’t understand, which, unfortunately, they never bother to get tuned up and rendered into a more accurate and better view of the world.
Nicely put. It’s that lazy mindedness of religion, that anti-investigative, anti exploratory mindset that is, to me, the most disturbing aspect of faith. It is truly disgusting.
Dougsays
People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect. It won’t work. It will only have the opposite effect. So I would rather politely disagree, and not disrespect.
I long for the day when people will get the collective Epiphany that their institutional beliefs are no different than the beliefs of the idol worshiping ‘savages’ we used to chuckle at in nature shows. But nay, I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime, if ever.
Janinesays
How does Pat Condell know this? If you like evidence so much, show me the evidence for that one, Pat. Who died and left you the owner’s manual on the human mind?
Posted by: cm | August 9, 2007 05:37 PM
L. Ron Hubbard
Carliesays
le_sacre,
If you want the ultimate hard-wired explanation, it would be that since humans are social creatures, we have to rely on altruism. If we don’t want ourselves or our offspring killed, we have to agree not to kill others in return. That agreement over time becomes part of the general state. Matt Ridley’s “The origins of virtue” is a nifty book on the subject, if a little bit out of date now.
To the question of why we have to be social, there was an interesting article last year in Scientific American that posited that humans require assisted birth as a consequence of becoming bipedal and having big heads. The bipedalism twisted the birth canal so that the mom can’t just catch the baby as other primates do (the baby comes out facing backwards, so cradling it would require flexing the spine the wrong way), and having the big brain means there’s very little room for error. Apart from all the other benefits of communal living, that is the most directly tied to reproductive success.
People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect.
People who claim this completely miss the point, and express some peculiar failures in their perception of the human herd. Ridicule is a powerful tool. If you are the target of ridicule, you may be less likely to “convert” — but if you are seeing others being ridiculed for certain beliefs, you will be less likely to accept those beliefs. Don’t you remember high school, even? Ridicule was one of the tools used to establish all those nice little cliques we remember fondly.
It works. We are aiming to make people conscious of, and a little embarrassed by, the silly belief that a cracker and some grape juice on Sunday morning makes them a better person. We won’t accomplish that by being nice and bestowing undue respect on goofy superstitions.
tonysays
CM: I would like to post citations to the research papers -but not being a scientist have only access to magazine archives, etc., and google… I do recall a number of articles (I think sciam,new scientist, among others)discussing the fMRI experiments (all in the past two or three years).
I can promise you I’m not just pulling this out of my ass – but I’ll need to do some digging to find the papers (mags don’t tag archives conveniently for searching,and headlines often aren’t really related to the context of the article,or provide reference to what may have been a sidebar discussion)
In regards to your challenge, and Pat needing special evidence. It’s in that very research.
With regards to the other points made…I think PZ & Azkyroth have them covered.
Faith is indistinguishable from wishes. prayer likewise.
I have no beef with faith (as described by PZ above). I have a huge beef with ‘faith in god’.
It’s the ‘in god’ piece that is most challenging.
I could care less what you place faith in – animate or inanimate, real or imaginary… so long as you don’t expect me to automatically ‘respect’ your belief.
I have no problem if you treat me exactly the same way.
cmsays
CM: I would like to post citations to the research papers -but not being a scientist have only access to magazine archives, etc., and google…
Well actually everyone in the world has free access to PubMed, and that’s one of the main science pub databases, certainly good for looking up fMRI studies on faith. I searched it earlier today and found nothing. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, certainly. I also checked SciAm back two years and couldn’t find it. I don’t think you are pulling it out of your ass, but I do think there is some chance you
are unintentionally misrepresenting the findings or validity of the studies. It certainly can’t be a well-established principle of neuroscience or I would have heard about it or at least come across it in searching. And really, fMRI, as cool as it is, has some major limitations in what it can tell us.
Faith is indistinguishable from wishes. prayer likewise.
I don’t think that’s true and I don’t believe you mean that. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Wishes are desires expressed as propositions. Even people who have faith have wishes that are not informed by faith, e.g. a pious minister who would wishes to win the lottery but has no faith that it will certainly happen (whereas he does have faith that he will certainly go to heaven).
I am not here to stump for faith. I am trying to stump for clarity in expression, that’s all.
cmsays
How does Pat Condell know this? If you like evidence so much, show me the evidence for that one, Pat. Who died and left you the owner’s manual on the human mind?
Posted by: cm | August 9, 2007 05:37 PM
L. Ron Hubbard
Posted by: Janine | August 9, 2007 09:44 PM
I saw that one marching up the street. Now that you have written it the eternal prophecy is fulfilled.
cmsays
Nicely put. It’s that lazy mindedness of religion, that anti-investigative, anti exploratory mindset that is, to me, the most disturbing aspect of faith. It is truly disgusting.
Are you also disgusted that mentally retarded children can’t do algebra?
The point being, is it really appropriate to condemn the character of those who are religious, as opposed to understanding that there is some failing that has occurred in their thinking, either due to their brain’s structure, their upbringing, their emotional experiences, or who knows what? Is that worthy of disgust? But maybe you are only disgusted that the human mind can misfire like this, and not those whose minds have so misfired?
RamblinDudesays
Doug: I appreciate your view that ridicule-disrespect is counter productive and only provokes people into being even more intractably irrational–but I disagree.
If someone tried to convince you that Peter Pan and Tinkerbelle were real, and that you could fly around the room if only you believed in them, and they kept getting in your face about it and wanted it taught in public schools and inserted into the constitution, and (this is the big one) you saw millions of people actually being converted to their “religion”, buildings packed with people praising Peter Pan and trying hard to believe that any day now they will fly around the room just like him, would you be respectful? What tools would you use to counter act such foolishness and stop their numbers from growing?
Ridicule can be taken to a high art that is very effective. And if it is thoroughly honest-truthful scorn, then it will get people’s attention. No violence, no destruction of property, just consistently, resolutely trying to point out silliness to people by calling attention to it.
The insistence that the faithful flock of true believers deserves respect, and should be excluded from ridicule, is a testament to religion’s continued power to cow us and subjugate our common sense.
RamblinDudesays
“But maybe you are only disgusted that the human mind can misfire like this, and not those whose minds have so misfired?”
I am not convinced that people are helpless victims of neural ‘misfirings’. But yes, you are mainly correct, it is the whole process of subjugation that I find repulsive. And it is a multi dimensional problem that can’t be solved by merely blaming and browbeating the subjugated.
autumnsays
“Ridicule… taken to high art” is called satire, and a great body of it exists vis-a-vis religion.
As to the question of when such ridicule is appropriate, I would suggest that the easiest test any atheist could give to determine if such ridicule may be appropriate is the “our dead buddy would have wanted…” test.
This reason is invoked quite often, and I do not know of a single atheist who, at the moment of the suggestion (even allowing for the many alcoholic beverages imbibed by this point), would stand and say, “where is your evidence that [dead buddy] would want that?”.
Religion, in the dead buddy test aspect, is a way of coping with tragedy. It neither helps, nor hurts, and calms the minds of those in need of calming.
Outside of the dead buddy scenario, however, I can not imagine an instance of religion ever producing a tangible benefit. Religion is, by my standards, and the standards of many good (as opposed to me) writers and thinkers, open to ridicule. Hopefully, the ridicule is so biting and insightful (think Swift or Orwell), that it reaches the level of satire, but don’t be surprised that much of it is puerile and stupid.
A thing being open to ridicule does not in any way imply that all of the ridicule of it is insightful or intelligent.
autumnsays
One more thing;
Typing in all capital letters is universally seen as “shouting”, and therefore, rude. I understand and accept this bit of proletarian dictatorship of the web.
My question is, why isn’t the absence of capitals and punctuation seen as equally rude “mumbling” or “whispering”?
Why can’t those who communicate electronically be held to the same standards as a twelve-year-old writing a thank-you note?
he has a very specific and rational fear of people who want the whole world to live by Sharia law and who are quite willing to murder those who disagree, and that dismissing this as “Islamophobia” is pointlessly disingenuous.
Oh. You don’t say? That’ll teach me to judge a book by the cover – In my defence, all the OTHER times I’ve seen people use the terms “Myth” and “Islamophobia” in the same sentence, it’s been a transparent set of apologetics for hating brown people. Still, boy is my face red…
Stephen Wellssays
Yes, it’s worth watching his vids even if you don’t like the titles :) great deadpan analogies- “Religion is alive and well, much as a crocodile swimming towards you with its mouth open is alive and well…”
Timothysays
Wow, that’s brilliant! Just have to disagree on one point. Religion doesn’t bring out the worst in the best of us, because the best of us are already atheists… or athiest as I guess PZ is now.
I’m so jealous of people with cool accents. All the cool atheists have something colonial, why can’t I have one, too!??!
I’m a little uncomfortable with [the phrase “Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule”]. There are plenty of people who have been afforded little or no respect by society who have had to demand it. The mentally ill. Oppressed minorities. Etc.
I think it depends on what you mean by “demand”.
If you can explain why you deserve respect, and then demand that respect through reasoned argument, that is one thing. This is pretty much what the civil rights movement did. The subtext of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech was not “we deserve respect” but “this is why we deserve respect”.
On the other hand, a Muslim Rageboy’s demand for respect amounts to “You must respect Allah, or else”.
It’s like the difference between a teenager whining “I hate you; you treat me like a child”, and a teenager maturing into adulthood by demonstrating real responsibility.
tonysays
CM: I didn’t want to let this drop, without a follow up.
I had a look for the citations, and couldn’t find the ‘specific’ articles. I did find many on ‘meditative states’ etc…
Sorry. I may have been conflating multiple articles into one, and I accept that the specific articles may not exist. they may, but I cannot find them, so cannot produce the evidence.
There is still (in my opinion – reading all the articles i *could* find last night) a large correlation shown between meditative states, prayer, and wishing… But I cannot find those specific articles, so have no concrete evidence to share with you. I apologise.
I still stand by my earlier statement – it is simply a little less ‘directly’ supported by available evidence – but definitely ‘indirectly’ supported.
tonysays
Re: *demand* respect.
hyperdeath covers the ground really well.
You can *demand* respect, if you if that truly is your due…. but there should be some supporting evidence. The example comparing MLK with a ‘rageboy’ is pointed and fairly represents the two extremes.
In the former, respect is indeed due, and should be demanded if not proferred.
No respect is due the latter, since the demand is simply that you respect him because of his association with some authority (which you may, or may not, respect). Should we also then respect a mob henchman?
kmarissasays
People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect. It won’t work. It will only have the opposite effect. So I would rather politely disagree, and not disrespect.
I read this all the time, and it always catched my eye because that is exactly how I WAS deconverted. An asshole college boyfriend who just couldn’t shut up his criticism of religious things I believed, even when he knew it upset me. I broke up with him because he was a jerk. But I became an atheist because he was right. Had he “respected” my nonsensical cobbled-together answers to standard atheist questions, I never would have been forced to see how ridiculous my answers all were. And to this day, I’d probably still be trying to make those answers make sense. He was an ass, but he forced me to be honest with myself.
Maybe that’s not the norm, but it does happen now and then. And I’m heartily glad that it does.
Hey, PZ, did a 15 year-old hack your log-in info and embed this Condell guy’s video? He commits the cardinal sin for an alleged comedian – he’s not funny (if you want anti-religious humor stick with The Life of Brian). Moreover, I can’t imagine anyone older than 15 finding him remotely persuasive because his reasoning is so embarassingly poor. Just four quick examples off the top of my head….
1. Condell insists on using that boring old saw that faith is “belief without evidence.” I suppose that’s a conclusion one could draw, but it requires an utterly ideosyncratic definition of evidence. One can reasonably weigh the evidence for God and find it wanting, but that’s a measure of the nature and quality of the evidence and not the existence of it. Plus, Patty’s context is clear that he is making a definitional claim and his is not a proper definition either from quality dictionaries or as generally used by people of faith. For example, the OED, the “Bible” of dictionaries defines “faith” as “[c]onfidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine).” With faith, evidence may or may not exist, but that fact is irrelevant because faith doesn’t relate to propositions – it is placed in something or someone. Thus for the Christian, faith is placed in God as revealed in Jesus Christ. The evidence for it (or lack thereof) is beside the point.
2. Condi insists on making the fundamatheist (I define the term here: http://someonesaygrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/ignominiously-defining-fundamentalism.html) claim that believers are mentally ill and seems to expect to be taken seriously. Does he have any expertise for making such a claim? Does he cite any clinical studies? No. It’s hyperbole, plain and simple. Besides, isn’t mental illness by definition a serious abnormality? Since religious belief is the universal norm and has been for as far back as we know, if you want to play that game it’s the atheist that’s nuts. Humanity has a long and ugly history of demonizing opponents and falsely accusing them of pathology (remember when being gay was so considered?). Patty doesn’t do himself and his position any favors here by making the same mistake. He’s no better than the gaybashers. It’s a typical fundy problem.
3. Our lad Pat says that religious faith is a simple act of the will. If that’s true, he has necessarily (though – surprise! – unwittingly) denied physicalism. A physicalist system is necessarily closed. Cause and effect is relentless. There is no place for an act of the (free) will if physicalism is true, as (for example) Dawkins concedes here: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html. What Dawkins doesn’t concede (because he doesn’t even seem to recognize it) are the consequences of his position. A deterministic (or compatabilistic – which is deterministic but in a nicer suit) universe means that our perception of volition, in place all day, every day, is an illusion. If that’s so and our perception is so totally untrustworthy, the whole idea of science, utterly dependent as it is on our perceptions in order to make the observations that fuel it, is necessarily incoherent. We might as well be in the Matrix. We’re left with Patty undercutting physicalism and Dawkins making science incoherent. The daily double!
4. Condell suggests that believing without evidence is somehow immoral. Nonsense. We all have baseline beliefs not based on evidence. For example, mutual altrusim has good reasons supporting it, but no evidence, and there’s no evidence for the idea that that racism is wrong. This isn’t exactly rocket science.
Nice job, Condi. Nice job, PZ. The sycophantic choir may sing along, but nobody with half a brain is going to find much of anything to commend here. Keep up the good work.
cmsays
Tony, thanks for looking for the articles. I’d just point out that when you say, “There is still (in my opinion – reading all the articles i *could* find last night) a large correlation shown between meditative states, prayer, and wishing…”, keep in mind that this still sounds pretty vague to me. I mean, a correlation in what? Brain area activation?
OK, let’s say that’s true. But what if love of one’s mother, love of one’s country, and love of one’s girlfriend all “lit up” the same parcel of brain real estate–would you conclude that they were all essentially the same thing? No. But you might conclude they shared some commonalities, like a positive affective component. In the same way, the fact that meditation, prayer, and wishful thinking all “light up” the same brain areas may refer to some common component, like use of imagination, or positive attitude, or future orientation, etc., and it may not be appropriate to then conclude that they are all the same thing. Also, don’t be too sure that the studies are a) right, b) conclusive, or c) well-reported in the magazines you read.
I’m not saying it’s all flat wrong; just to retain a healthy degree of latitude until better understanding is available (give it about 20 years I’d say). fMRI, as I said, is pretty coarse even with 9 Tesla strength magnets, it can only pick up regional blood flow in the brain which is like measuring economic activity of a country by how bright their cities look at night–tells you something but doesn’t give you much understanding of mechanism. We may indeed find out at some point that the “faith software” and “wish software” in the brain is one and the same, but I know any neuroscientist who claimed this at a conference in 2007 would get laughed out of the lecture hall–the data simply isn’t in.
Steve_Csays
I think Sinbad has his MC Hammer pants in a twist.
“I think Sinbad has his MC Hammer pants in a twist.”
Good comeback. You must have worked on that for a while.
“And he’s already lost his argument.
“Blake’s law in the first post.”
Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply because (a) you don’t have sufficient authority; (b) there is no subject matter jurisdiction; and (c) I’m not referring to vocal or militant atheists in general as fundamatheists (I’ve used the term for over five years, though it was coined by an atheist) but rather to a very specific category of atheist.
Two words were dropped from my previous post. It should read “The Godwin’s Law variant…”.
My bad.
R. Paul Wiegandsays
“‘People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect.’
People who claim this completely miss the point…”
I don’t believe they do miss the point, they (and I) just don’t agree that the tactic will work. Have you evidence that attacking people’s religious choices creates more room for doubt among interested onlookers? It seems completely counter intuitive to me, but if you have something more than anecdotal or analogical to demonstrate this, I’m all eyes.
I understand the spirit of this, and certainly I myself hold no religious belief, but I cannot see how attacking people’s belief is a rational tactic. It is simply a false dichotomy: one neither needs to respect nor disrespect someone’s belief. Why not simply be uninvested in what others believe?
I disrespect certain actions, and certain comments — and certainly a great deal of bad public policy. Much of this stems from personal beliefs, but whether it does or not is irrelevant to me. Being a Christian does not predicate such policies, and as long as a person’s actions and civic responsibilities meet a reasonable conduct, I don’t care if they believe a tart fairy created the world out of a walnut filled with blackberry jam.
You seem to attack a symptom and not a problem in my mind. I seek to convince others to approach the world logically and reasonably. If more people did that, I imagine more will be non-theist. But being a-religious does not imply that one is reasonable. A more constructive approach is suggested by that goal.
More troubling, you are not just pejorative to people of faith, but to those non-theists that refuse to be as abusive as you are toward people of faith. If I choose the middle-road, I am an “accommodationist”, worthy of nearly as much contempt in your eyes. I don’t understand the utility in that position; you are only sowing greater divide in a minority community.
Though anecdotal, you might consider the following as food for thought: I have been a non-theist for many, many years; I am very well-read, reasonably educated, and give a fair amount of thought to these issues; I’ve read some of this blog, much of Dawkins and a bit of Hitchens — despite this, none of you have managed to put together a sufficiently cogent argument that religious belief deserves my contempt and ridicule by default. If you cannot convince me, who will you convince?
It seems more like you are preaching to the choir to me.
NickMsays
@R. Paul Wiegand: “Why not simply be uninvested in what others believe?”
(Being as we’re at the end of an almost-dead thread, I’m going to just write quickly and hope it comes out right, and if you want to counter or question, please do).
There’s a certain amount of prisoner’s dilemma built in to the mind-your-own-belief problem. It’s optimal for me not to care what you believe and for you not to care what I believe as long as we both behave decently. The problem is, belief often translates into some kind of action that affects others – one wants to teach my kids creationism, another wants to discriminate against gays, a third wants to blow up the building where I work. IF your belief is the kind that will make you take some action that affects me negatively, it is no longer the best course of action for me to mind my own business in regard to your belief. It makes a lot of sense then for me to care what you believe, even if that’s not my preference.
As to attacking the symptom and not the problem- I think certain people would say that religion is the problem in many cases, not merely the symptom. Religion creates an entire category of victimless crimes called sins. Whereas rational morality judges actions by their observable effects on other beings or the environment, religious morality asks people to judge actions by the approval they meet with in the eyes of an invisible being. Under a rational moral system , you could never argue that flying a plane into a building full of people is a moral action (unless you do so to avoid some even more deadly result). Nor could you argue that the person who did that and died as a result would actually benefit from their actions. Religion makes both arguments possible. The same with arguments against the teaching of evolution, or for persecuting gays. They would never be possible under any kind of morality that judges actions by their effects on human beings. They are eminently justifiable if there’s some invisible angry guy whose motives aren’t too clear waiting around to hand out rewards and punishments. Weaken belief in that guy and you weaken the motives for a lot of immoral behavior that Would not be justified any other way.
RamblinDudesays
despite this, none of you have managed to put together a sufficiently cogent argument that religious belief deserves my contempt and ridicule by default.
Really? Trying to have creationism taught in schools doesn’t deserve contempt and ridicule by default?
Believing that god hates fags, that natural disasters are manifestations of God’s wrath, that the bible contains all the truth that God wants us to know, that some old fart in Rome is the earthly conduit between heaven and earth, that this country is not a secular nation but is, instead, rightfully a theocracy, that the rapture is imminent and if God doesn’t come soon then we should give him a helping hand and kick start Armageddon, etc. etc…
All traditions of belief that should be left alone, Live and let live?
Perhaps our definition of “reasonable conduct” differs from yours?
NickMsays
Amen, RamblinDude.
cmsays
Really? Trying to have creationism taught in schools doesn’t deserve contempt and ridicule by default?
No. It deserves full disapproval and to be defended against in a serious way (take “serious” in both senses).
All traditions of belief that should be left alone, Live and let live?
You are conflating “do not attack religions with contempt and ridicule” with “do not defend rational laws and public actions”.
R. Paul Wiegandsays
“Really? Trying to have creationism taught in schools doesn’t deserve contempt and ridicule by default?”
I believe I was clear that I obviously disrespect certain actions, words, and policies — just not the beliefs that predicate them. Even a bigoted belief is irrelevant to me … until it is expressed in action or word. So clearly I have contempt for an attempt to foist creationism on public school students, and obviously I revile attempts to inculcate bigotry into our laws. But I don’t have the slightest interest in the beliefs that lead people to those actions. Not all Christians behave in those ways, and not all atheists behave in ways I can support, either.
As to the symptom/cause argument: I don’t see how it starts with religion. First people have to have a mindset that makes the type of fundamentalist extreme behavior you describe possible to defend. People, in general, are improperly equipped with applying logic and reason to the ways in which they negotiate the world. That kind of religious zeal is a consequence, not a predicate.
I repeat: If you convince people to behave, think, and speak more from a position of reason, you will almost certainly have fewer religious people. If you convince people not to be religious, you wont necessarily have more reasonable people. I don’t see how any party, even a third party, is won to the side of reason by witnessing contempt and derision.
Perhaps I am wrong, I admit it. But I will need more than anecdotes and analogies. Show me real evidence that being openly hostile toward other people’s beliefs provides some useful advantage in terms of adjusting people’s thinking for the positive, and I’ll consider that evidence. Until then, I’m afraid the behavior appears unproductive to me.
As to the PD issue, I don’t agree with the analogy. Certainly it is inconsistent with my experiences. If it is consistent with yours, so be it. If you want to be willfully contemptuous of people’s beliefs, so be it. I’m not telling you what to do, I’m only saying I don’t see the logic of it from a tactical point of view.
“All traditions of belief … should be left alone, live and let live?”
You intentionally misrepresent my position. If by “tradition of belief” you mean simply what they believe, then yes … sure. It’s no skin off my nose. Why do I care? If by “tradition of belief” you mean actions and words, then of course not. But even actions only warrant derision when such is necessary. If people believe Christ is the Son of God and they go to church every week, and they quietly help the poor and needy … I’ve got no beef with them. If people advocate that homosexual marriages should not be allowed legally or that anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy, then I am opposed to them whatever their theological beliefs.
But my second point was not addressed (that I saw): Not only can I not see the tactical advantage of such behavior, but I am completely baffled by the animosity shown to those, like myself, that refuse to become abusive at your behest.
NickMsays
I can’t defend abusiveness. It would be hard to imagine an experiment where one could rigorously test the effect of ridicule upon the quality of religious belief. Still, it appears to me that highlighting vigorously the weakness of the evidence supporting a proposition (also called ridicule) is an effective means of convincing people not to accept those propositions as true. Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech certainly employs ridicule for the secessionist position – and was extremely effective oratory for it. Ridicule has been employed as an effective rhetorical device for a very long time, and if it wasn’t useful as such, it wouldn’t be used.
“If you convince people not to be religious, you wont necessarily have more reasonable people.”
This fails to address my main point – there is a category of unreasonableness that can only be justified by resort to religious argument. Can you argue that if you convince people of the unreasonableness of the belief in a God that rewards martyrs in the afterlife, you’ve eliminated a great deal of the motivation to be a martyr?
RamblinDudesays
Trying to teach creationism in public schools is contemptible and it is ridiculous–and that is the motivation for dealing with it, whatever one’s strategy.
I simply can’t agree with “Why not simply be uninvested in what others believe?” Beliefs lead to actions, and the more irrational, disconnected-from-reality the beliefs, the more irrational the actions. The ‘hands off’ approach has not worked. Superstition in this country is rampant.
My assertion is that ridicule and well reasoned scorn, used strategically, are useful in getting people’s attention.
I understand if you don’t agree and I won’t begrudge you your approach, I hope your way works, and soon–before the world’s gets blown up because of senseless beliefs.
R. Paul Wiegandsays
“Can you argue that if you convince people of the unreasonableness of the belief in a God that rewards martyrs in the afterlife, you’ve eliminated a great deal of the motivation to be a martyr?”
No, but since this fails to address my point, I don’t see how it is a concession. Shall I generate a pointless extreme example of irrational behavior that has nothing to do with religion? We are going around in circles because we disagree on the premise itself: I believe the root cause is the way people think that predisposes them to certain types of beliefs, and you believe their belief systems predisposes them toward certain ways of thinking.
Certainly well-placed, appropriate, and measured used of scorn can be effective at certain times and places, but I don’t believe that’s what’s going on here. This is just pure, unfiltered derision. Moreover, I think (in general) constructive approaches have, historically, proven much more effective agents for change. We can agree to disagree if you like.
“The ‘hands off’ approach has not worked. Superstition in this country is rampant.
My assertion is that ridicule and well reasoned scorn, used strategically, are useful in getting people’s attention.”
Your implication is that my position is inactive and ineffective.
On the first point, you assume way too much: I’m not at all hands off; rather I am very active and vocal is working toward the ends I would like to see in our society, as well as in decrying those policies, words, and actions I find objectionable and offensive. I simply don’t resort to abuse of someone’s belief system to do so. I attack the actual offense: the action, word, or policy.
On the second, we will have to agree to disagree. In my own personal experience, certainly I’ve found I get more traction out of people on my views when those around me do not perceive me as their enemy. This includes the very religious. It’s not always effective, but it is more so than wanton contempt.
Again, I fail to see how your approach can possibly produce effective results. If I am wrong, more power to you. I just have yet to see any reason that it will.
I realize I’ve not demonstrated much argument for my position either, but I think my position is less burdened, given that it requires no choice on my part to invest in someone’s belief at all. To convince me to “join your cause” to “take up the anti-religion banner”, to convince me that I shouldn’t be an “accomodationist”, you’ll have to convince me of the utility of intentional disrespect.
You’ll forgive me if I wont take your belief in its productivity for granted?
R. Paul Wiegandsays
“Trying to teach creationism in public schools is contemptible and it is ridiculous–and that is the motivation for dealing with it, whatever one’s strategy.”
Yes, of course. I’ve said as much. This doesn’t address my point at all, and it is the second time that you’ve produced this argument in directly, explicit inconsistency with what I’ve said.
A parent or politician, etc., who is trying to teach creationism in public schools is contemptible, and that effort must be vigorously opposed. A parent, politician, etc., believing in creationism is another matter — of that, I care not.
NickMsays
“I believe the root cause is the way people think that predisposes them to certain types of beliefs, and you believe their belief systems predisposes them toward certain ways of thinking.”
What’s the difference between “belief systems” and “ways of thinking”? Tell me how you disentangle these. People can think either rationally or irrationally.
If they think rationally, they tend
A) not to bomb each other
B) not to look to the end of the world as, like, a good thing
C) tend to resolve conflicts by cooperation rather than violence
and
D) Reject fundamentalist (or any) religion.
Thus: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq: lots of suicide bombers.
Sweden, England: Not so much
It’s not a matter of race – and while economics plays a huge role in this — it’s also not entirely the economics that rules this – people in religious societies don’t just buy a package of beliefs about Big Sky-Dad, but also about real, important things, like killing people.
RamblinDudesays
“Trying to teach creationism in public schools is contemptible and it is ridiculous–and that is the motivation for dealing with it, whatever one’s strategy.”
Actually, I was addressing CM with that one.
R. Paul Wiegand: I see where you’re coming from and I don’t entirely disagree with you. I wouldn’t have a problem with silly beliefs either if it led mainly to people who, “go to church every week, and they quietly help the poor and needy…” Who could have a problem with that? But that’s not where silly beliefs are taking us.
As for, “A parent, politician, etc., believing in creationism is another matter — of that, I care not.”, there we will have to agree to disagree. I’m not so staid about the whole thing. These people are voting very creepy people into office, people who want to turn this country into a theocracy. I will continue trying to advocated critical thinking in my own honest way–as you are trying to do in yours.
Also, I don’t see PZ’s blog as being simply mean spirited and, therefore, counter productive. He’s very strategic about his barbs. He’s gotten lots of people’s attention, and I will continue to argue that that is a good thing. Besides, you really don’t see the humor, the reverence for truth, the years of investigation and hard work to back up his assertions?
If not, then, well, I guess the acid tongued approach just isn’t your cup of tea. Okay, that’s cool. I don’t know your situation, and if I were in your shoes maybe I could better see your point, but I find this blog enlightening, energizing and thought provoking. Maybe my brain really is hardwired differently, I don’t know.
“I wouldn’t have a problem with silly beliefs either if it led mainly to people who, “go to church every week, and they quietly help the poor and needy…” Who could have a problem with that?”
Dawkins, Harris, et als., for starters. These would-be Good Samaritans may be helping the poor and needy, but they are really evil enablers and thus responsible for allowing the real nutjobs to flourish donchaknow.
RamblinDudesays
That’s the point, isn’t it? It doesn’t lead to just altruistic behavior. That’s why it’s a problem. That’s why people must learn that altruism is a human trait, not a virtue bestowed by invisible beings.
R. Paul Wiegandsays
Plenty of very religious people have consistent world views in terms of politics with most of the people on this board (I know many of them). Additionally, there are a-religious people who do not behave reasonably. There is not a 1-to-1 correlation here. I assume we do not disagree on those basic points?
NickM: Indeed, separation of thinking and belief is more complicated than my simplification; however, the basic gist of my distinction stands, I think. By “ways of thinking” I mean rationalism versus whatever else one wishes to employ to derive knowledge from facts and axioms. By “belief system” I suppose I mean wide-in-breadth and shallow-in-scope axiomatic systems that assert consequents without a logically connected predicate. I think those that learn the mental disciplines associated with being rational, will tend to behave in ways that are more consistent with our world views.
We all have beliefs, of course, and we are all irrational at times. One goal for me is to minimize the behaviors and conclusions about which I am being irrational. I would hope others would do that, too. But I still don’t see how attacking peoples’ beliefs accomplishes that. Instead, I think those that you attack will be even more hardened against your ideas, and those that witness it will often see your own actions as irrational (which may or may not be fair … I wont say, but it will be perceived that way by some).
And, on that note, I would add to your list that those who behave in ways contrary to their overall goals, in particular those that are uncivil, are behaving irrationally. I’m not accusing you of this; I realize you believe your long term goals are served by your actions, even if I do not.
Let me step back a moment and talk about my goals in making my posts: 1.) To suggest (respectfully) that those more strident among us who castigate those others of us who can see no logical tactical advantage to being intentionally disrespectful back off. You will not brow beat us into compliance. Until I see a definite advantage to that tactic, I will default to remaining uninvested in other people’s beliefs. 2.) To demonstrate, at least in the case of this one data point, your tactics do not work. I am about as close as it is possible to be to your views in general, and still I find your behavior unnecessarily insulting. It doesn’t demonstrate rationalism (to me) since I cannot see the utility in it.
You all disagree, and that’s perfectly fine — certainly not unexpected. I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree; it isn’t my blog, after all.
NickMsays
Wow, talk about seeing the mote in your brother’s eye and missing the beam in your own. Of course, no list of killer/religious/Armagetiton countries is complete without the U.S. Mea culpa.
R. Paul, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Maybe we can agree that you have no more “empirical” evidence supporting your more accomodationist approach than I have for the more confrontational one I’ve advocated here. In both cases, it’s more of an educated guess as to what tactics work.
I’m not sure I totally buy the confrontational approach that I’ve argued, but I’m trying it on for size and finding it more compelling as I see the fundamentalists becoming more confrontational and scary. I agree there are many religious people – including many of my family own members – who do no direct harm with their belief but I also think that bad religion itself causes a lot of needless suffering that would not occur without religion.
R. Paul Wiegandsays
NickM: Yes, let’s agree to disagree. That works for me.
I agree that I’ve offered no more evidence supporting my position, but I also believe less is required since you are making a conscious and concerted choice to be willfully disrespectful, and I am making no choice about respect at all.
But as to which is more effective, who can say for certain? I tend to default away from being offensive unless I have good reason to believe it is useful, but that is admittedly a personal bias based on my sense that civility is generally quite useful.
One final note, though, I wonder if you might find a less pejorative moniker than “accommodationist”. The spirit in which it has been coined and used by the your side of the fence was never meant to be respectful of people of my view. But perhaps you also disrespect my position? I hope that I’ve demonstrated, at least, that there’s nothing unreasonable in it.
Better yet, let’s discard the labels altogether. What are their purpose?
I’m pretty sure it really is that simple, when you get right down to it.
NickMsays
“Accomodationist” was not meant as a jibe, and would that we could discard labels for peoples’ beliefs. Civility is a very worthwhile concept, and should only be discarded when necessary. Thank you everyone for the discussion.
Paul Flockensays
Ha Ha, religion is choice. Fabulous turnabout.
Paul Flockensays
“That’s the point, isn’t it? It doesn’t lead to just altruistic behavior. That’s why it’s a problem. That’s why people must learn that altruism is a human trait, not a virtue bestowed by invisible beings.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 10, 2007 05:54 PM”
RamblinDude I am on your side so don’t read this wrong. I was simply looking for how the other side would twist this to their advantage.
“Says you, but hate is also a human trait and not an evil caused by a faith in Christ.”
or some such.
Sincerely,
Paul Flocken
RamblinDudesays
I would disagree. Not only because the argument is not inverted by stating it that way, but because it’s just wrong anyways. Hate all too often is caused, and justified, by a faith in Christ.
History is replete with examples of violence done by those who proclaim, as their motivation, faith in Christ (or some other deity). Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, and many others regularly advocate(d) killing of unbelievers. And look at how atheists and other believers in other religions are hated and feared and seen as less worthy of life because they don’t have a faith in Christ.
People do good things and bad things and invisible, supernatural beings are imaginary. And anyone who thinks that faith in Christ hasn’t lead to violence needs a reality check.
Is he available for Bah Mitzvahs and children’s parties?
He’s mostly right. However, even if religion was “just a belief” that didn’t want to impose itself on the actions of every human on the planet it still would not be deserving of respect. I am not required to respect the beliefs of a man who reckons he can talk to teddy bears, or a woman who believes there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter, so why should I be expected to respect the beliefs of the man who claims he has a personal relationship with an invisible, immortal, mindreading wizard who created the universe?
“I will respect your beliefs for as long as I can keep a straight face talking about them.”
Haha! That’s gold.
I’ve always said, I respect others’ right to hold beliefs, but nothing says I have to respect the beliefs others hold.
I liked (paraphrased:) “And I can say that with all due respect, since your beliefs are due zero respect.”
And Willo the Wisp, I agree. The “activism” of religion, while annoying, isn’t what’s so bad about it. It’s that it’s wrong. Unlike taste in wallpaper or flavors of ice cream, religions make baseless statements about our shared reality, not personal preferences. As such, the “it’s just my opinion” defense is insufficient to justify religious claims.
Pure Gold!
I have no clue who Pat Condell is
or what his positions are on other issues.
But what he says in that clip is something I’ve been trying to express as well.
Only he does it better.
I’d have been more intemperate and stand-offish
and I might even have used the phrase:
“I beseech thee to fornicate off, faith-encrusted fools!”
And yes, why IS faith seen as a virtue
and why should it gain automatic respect?
The delusions of the mentally ill are accorded
no such favor, yet they have the same evidence behind them:
none.
No, I do not consider a belief in God/a god/Gods a sign of de facto mental illness.
I think it is a cultural inheritance, mostly.
A tradition that it is still, to some degree, taboo to break… well, in America at least.
Here in Scandinavia, sure, we’ve got our fundies…
we just don’t elect so damn many of them.
What’s that quote about respecting religion in the same vein as telling your neighbor his wife is pretty and his children are smart?
I never heard of him before today, but Pat Condell rocks.
http://www.patcondell.net/
That was awesome. I particularly like the line:
“Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule.”
We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
–H.L. Mencken
I have been following PatCondell for a while and as my kids say, “he’s the bomb”. Check out the rest of his monologs on YouTube.
“believe in god” breath spray! it’s just that easy!
http://tinyurl.com/2ppon3
The bit from about 3:40 to 3:25 on the countdown to the end timer dealing with faith by definition being unexamined. “It has to be among the shallowest of experiences.”
Happy happy. Shame that logic will not do anything to anyone already clad in the shiny armor of faith.
That humor is as dry as the driest martini
He’s terrific… and his “About Me” webpage says he’s a Scorpio. (Now I wonder why he needed to tell us that?)
For what it’s worth, I’m a Scorpio too. It is meaningless, except that we have another thing in common besides our atheism. That and he’s also a fan of (Minnesotan) Bob Dylan! Oh and I’m also 70% water and live on the planet Earth.
“Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule.”
I completely agree. I am truly *pissed* with the current vogue for the word “disrepect” as used in “r u disrespectin’ me?”
As I say to my kids (when they’re getting uppity). You have the right to breathe. You also have the right to voice your opinion. You have no right to *demand* repect. Respect must be *earned*.
(usually followed by a stupid line like – and right now you’re overdrawn)
I hadn’t heard of him before, but found his style to be rather amusing in a wordy sort of way. His response to the Blasphemy Challenge is particularly hilarious.
“Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule.”
That’s pretty much the law of the playground there. Anyone who doesn’t know it missed out on some vital education in their school years.
I liked the bit about how people shouldn’t believe you’re a chicken until they see a few eggs.
Yeah, a fine video.
Bit of a shame about the other ones, though…”The Myth Of Islamophobia”? Criminy.
Still, I’m actually grateful to him, as I am to Christopher Hitchins and Pen Jillette. They taught me a valuable lesson – just ‘cuz you’re bang on about some things does not preclude you from being a colossal arseface about others. True dat.
Wow.
Well said.
You get my respect.
Er, in “the myth of islamophobia” he points out that he does not a phobia- irrational fear- of Islam in general; he has a very specific and rational fear of people who want the whole world to live by Sharia law and who are quite willing to murder those who disagree, and that dismissing this as “Islamophobia” is pointlessly disingenuous. What exactly is your problem with that?
“Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule.”
I’m a little uncomfortable with this. There are plenty of people who have been afforded little or no respect by society who have had to demand it. The mentally ill. Oppressed minorities. Etc.
I may be using the word respect too broadly perhaps.
Wow, that is one smugly contemptuous SOB. His cadence and grin remind me of something from British comedy but I can’t place it.
He’ll do a nice job of turning people away from rationality.
I agree. This guy is great. I have had his video on my site for a couple weeks.
How can you argue with his positions? It is definitely time we stopped respecting faith!
Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com/
cm: Yeah, like how Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have turned so many people away from right-wing politics. *thbbt*
In this video, Pat Condell says:
That sounds a lot like what anti-gay Christians say about gays. Me no likey.
How does Pat Condell know this? If you like evidence so much, show me the evidence for that one, Pat. Who died and left you the owner’s manual on the human mind?
Yeah, yeah, and yeah. They have. Some. There is a way to describe an economically and socially conservative view that is way less off-putting than Hannity–or particularly Limabaugh–do it. The hardcores on either side aren’t going to change, they will cheer for their guys. I’m talking about the uncommitted middle.
Pat Condell’s nasty grinning tone doesn’t start to get up a head of steam until later in the video–that’s the stuff that will put off those from the uncommitted middle. Boo ya.
cm
You got it the wrong way round.
There is already fMRI evidence that faith, etc., are functionally equivalent to simple ‘acts of will’. The ‘faith’ driven actions/behaviours are physically identical to ‘choice’ driven actions/behaviors.
If the religionistas want us to *believe* there is a difference… then it is incumbent on *them* to demonstrate the difference.
Pat is basing his statements on evidentiary science (AFAICS). On what do you base your statements?
I kept thinking, “I wish I’d said that.”
Is this published fMRI evidence? If so, could you point me to the reference? Because I cannot evaluate it carefully based on how you described it.
No, Condell made a positive claim of the form “x is actually just y”, so Condell has the incumbency. A religious person can simply say “I believe” and not make any claims about the mechanics of that belief. It is Condell who is claiming to know the real story, so let him show us why.
At very least, Condell’s claim is contrary to common intuitions about belief in general. Our common intuition is that one does not choose to belief proposition x, one simply believes it or not depending on how proposition x hits his cognitive apparatus. For example, I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun. I did not choose, or exert my will, in believing this. When I was young, I believed that God might protect my cat if I prayed hard enough. I also did not choose to believe this, I simply believed it. I am not claiming common intuition is always right–it often isn’t–but Condell’s claim is contrary enough that he ought to back it up.
I doubt Pat is referring to the fMRI evidence you mentioned or basing it on any science; my hunch (which I base on my experience of people) is that he is just pulling this out of his sleeve.
I base my statements on my ignorance of any evidence to convince me that belief of any sort is an act of will.
Actually, that’s always something that’s bothered me about choice and… crap. Can’t think of the right word to use. “Gayness” looks wrong, but a lot of gay people get put off by the 50s psych sound of “homosexuality”.
I know there is some support for a genetic/physiological basis for desiring members of the same sex. But it shouldn’t be such an issue. So what if it’s a choice? It should only be a problem if you accept the religious premise that being gay is inherently wrong. If you reject that belief, it’s just a choice like preferring brunettes over blondes. Using the “but we don’t have a choice” arguement against religious types seems a bit shakey.
Still, most people I’ve known who were gay or bi can’t imagine being any other way.
Respect, maybe not. But how about some civility and perhaps sympathy? We are all human, after all, and each of us comes pre-installed with a basic package of irrationality. And given the sh** world we live in, it’s no wonder people turn to crutches like religion.
Haranguing people with religious beliefs is like yelling at the depressed: “There’s nothing to be so unhappy about! Plenty of people have it worse than you. Your feelings are ruining your life — quit being such an idiot!!” It may feel good, but it’s not going to accomplish anything.
disclosure: i did not watch the video.
but on the topic of faith being inherently unrespectable, i am initially inclined to state this as an axiom, but then i reflect a bit. certain bits of faith are just incumbent on us in getting through life (e.g., i haven’t carefully examined all the evidence to decide whether or not the moon landings actually happened, but i rely on a bit of faith in the low probability of so many experts agreeing that they did; more basically, i have faith that the world as i perceive it is an accurate reflection of reality, despite what i know about the senses being unreliable).
one could make a necessity argument then, that certain faiths are just required in order to function.
but then, what about the fact that i consider myself a humanist? i routinely trust in the goodwill of people i don’t know very well, and indeed, i put my faith in certain values in order to make moral judgments. these values may have more internal logic than religions, but the root still depends on bits of faith (e.g., human life has value; suffering should be avoided, etc.)
so how do you differentiate? in essence, i am looking for a clear logical justification that allows me to disrespect religious faith while respecting humanist faith. how am i not a hypocrite when i say that i disrespect religious faith? any ideas? ideally, what i want is an a priori distinction, rather than a consequentialist rationalization.
The simple answer is to disrespect them both. Seriously.
We all have these ideas and principles we hold that have not been tested and that we actually cling to because they are either harmless or expedient. We should not hold them in special regard. We should always be ready to discard them if the evidence contradicts them.
I have an air conditioner hanging out a window in my sunroom. It’s braced with a board on a brick — it’s an inelegant kludge, and I’m aware of it, and I do not hold any particular respect for it, even though it is keeping it from falling out of the window. The plan is to get a carpenter in and brace it properly and professionally soon. That’s what “faith” is — a clumsy, often mistaken mechanism for helping cope with that which they don’t understand, which, unfortunately, they never bother to get tuned up and rendered into a more accurate and better view of the world.
“Faith” in things like induction or that the sun will rise tomorrow is an extension of pattern-recognition and cause-and-effect reasoning. “Faith” in the religious sense is glorified wishful thinking. There you go.
I make a distinction among the following:
1. individuals and groups who try to impose their particular faiths on others by insinuating themselves into government and manipulating public policies
2. individuals who try to convert me
3. believers who do not fit into either of the above categories.
Re the first group: Believers who insert themselves into the political process and use their influence to impose a particular set of religious beliefs do not deserve any special respect for those beliefs. And, more and more during the past couple of years, I have come to the conclusion that we non-believers have a duty to confront these individuals and groups.
Re the second group: the first time somebody tries to convert me, I politely request that the person stop. If the person does stop, end of discussion. The second time that same person tries, I give a warning: keep this up and I’m going to tell you exactly what I think of your faith. So far, nobody has gotten past #2 – but if it happened a third time, I would feel totally free to attack that person’s faith.
Re the third group – and an explanation of why category 2 exists for me. For obvious reasons, most of my friends are also non-believers. But during the past several years, I have become friends with a few individuals who are deeply, but quietly, religious. They don’t speak often of their faith, and I usually discover that they are, indeed, religious when something difficult or bad happens in their lives or the lives of mutual friends. I don’t pretend to understand why their faith sustains them, but I see no reason to attack them simply because they find comfort in something I do not understand.
It is, I think, absurd for atheists to deny the special place that faith holds in the lives of many. I wouldn’t knowingly hurt a friend by criticizing a spouse, lover, or child. Or by pointing out some physical flaw. So why should I risk hurting that same friend by criticizing a faith whose existence in that person in no way affects me personally?
PZ and Azkyroth, your answers are attractive, but i think belief in certain things, like “human life has value,” or “suffering should be avoided,” is required, yet can’t be supported by objective evidence. amoralism is fine for philosophical pondering, but meanwhile we have lives to live here.
if i had children, i would teach them these things, but if they asked “why?” i would have no answer for them. unless we can come up with a hard-wired neural explanation. would you recommend jettisoning these beliefs otherwise?
to clarify a bit: if we say that beliefs should only be held if evidence supports them, then we cannot believe anything subjective like morality. if we say that beliefs may be held until evidence contradicts them, then we cannot criticize beliefs for which evidence will never be available (i.e. that god exists).
I think it’s important to distinguish between belief in things for which there is evidence, belief in things for which there’s no evidence, and belief in the teeth of contrary evidence. The first case seems to be a totally different usage than the other two, in that it doesn’t involve any particular “faith.” The second case is logically impregnable but apparently pointless. And the third is massively annoying.
le sacre: If you a priori reject reference to the consequences of actions or general principles that guide them, then yes, you’re going to have a hard time assembling a coherent and defensible set of moral beliefs. This is because morality in all its forms represents, at the simplest level, an attempt to determine which set of actions or attitudes are most conducive to the happiness of those performing or holding them, which cannot rationally be evaluated without consideration of the consequences of actions. However, the cause and effect relationship between certain courses of action and an increase or decrease in happiness can, supported by entirely reasonable inferences, be both observed and predicted with a fair degree of success on the basis of pattern-recognition and cause-and-effect reasoning, and is in this sense objective, so I’m not sure what the objection is.
Stephen: You are mistaken; both case 2 and case 3 are indefensible logically. This is because logical propositions, until proven true (and empirical propositions, until supported by a convincing weight of evidence), default to “false” not to “50/50.”
I know that case 2 is not rationally defensible, and nobody would adopt that position as the endpoint of a logical deduction. I’m just saying that once someone has adopted such a position they’re immune to logical _disproof_.
Azkyroth,
i like this. however, favoring consequentialist justifications of belief without objective evidence, how are we then to reject notions of god(s) that are objectively linked to certain “good” outcomes, such as the happiness that people report religion brings them (possibly health benefits too)? see, this is my concern.
if we have to resort to common sense in order to separate religious and humanist beliefs (by humanist here i mean believing things like “it’s wrong to cause suffering unnecessarily”), then that puts on shaky logical ground. but if we depend on objective consequences without an a priori logical backing, then how is that different from religious faith, other than that it *seems to us* more in accordance with common sense?
Well there’s another whole Youtube user’s channel that I now have to watch. Thanks a lot PZ :)
God told me you would say that.
Nicely put. It’s that lazy mindedness of religion, that anti-investigative, anti exploratory mindset that is, to me, the most disturbing aspect of faith. It is truly disgusting.
People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect. It won’t work. It will only have the opposite effect. So I would rather politely disagree, and not disrespect.
I long for the day when people will get the collective Epiphany that their institutional beliefs are no different than the beliefs of the idol worshiping ‘savages’ we used to chuckle at in nature shows. But nay, I don’t expect it to happen in my lifetime, if ever.
le_sacre,
If you want the ultimate hard-wired explanation, it would be that since humans are social creatures, we have to rely on altruism. If we don’t want ourselves or our offspring killed, we have to agree not to kill others in return. That agreement over time becomes part of the general state. Matt Ridley’s “The origins of virtue” is a nifty book on the subject, if a little bit out of date now.
To the question of why we have to be social, there was an interesting article last year in Scientific American that posited that humans require assisted birth as a consequence of becoming bipedal and having big heads. The bipedalism twisted the birth canal so that the mom can’t just catch the baby as other primates do (the baby comes out facing backwards, so cradling it would require flexing the spine the wrong way), and having the big brain means there’s very little room for error. Apart from all the other benefits of communal living, that is the most directly tied to reproductive success.
People who claim this completely miss the point, and express some peculiar failures in their perception of the human herd. Ridicule is a powerful tool. If you are the target of ridicule, you may be less likely to “convert” — but if you are seeing others being ridiculed for certain beliefs, you will be less likely to accept those beliefs. Don’t you remember high school, even? Ridicule was one of the tools used to establish all those nice little cliques we remember fondly.
It works. We are aiming to make people conscious of, and a little embarrassed by, the silly belief that a cracker and some grape juice on Sunday morning makes them a better person. We won’t accomplish that by being nice and bestowing undue respect on goofy superstitions.
CM: I would like to post citations to the research papers -but not being a scientist have only access to magazine archives, etc., and google… I do recall a number of articles (I think sciam,new scientist, among others)discussing the fMRI experiments (all in the past two or three years).
I can promise you I’m not just pulling this out of my ass – but I’ll need to do some digging to find the papers (mags don’t tag archives conveniently for searching,and headlines often aren’t really related to the context of the article,or provide reference to what may have been a sidebar discussion)
In regards to your challenge, and Pat needing special evidence. It’s in that very research.
With regards to the other points made…I think PZ & Azkyroth have them covered.
Faith is indistinguishable from wishes. prayer likewise.
I have no beef with faith (as described by PZ above). I have a huge beef with ‘faith in god’.
It’s the ‘in god’ piece that is most challenging.
I could care less what you place faith in – animate or inanimate, real or imaginary… so long as you don’t expect me to automatically ‘respect’ your belief.
I have no problem if you treat me exactly the same way.
Well actually everyone in the world has free access to PubMed, and that’s one of the main science pub databases, certainly good for looking up fMRI studies on faith. I searched it earlier today and found nothing. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, certainly. I also checked SciAm back two years and couldn’t find it. I don’t think you are pulling it out of your ass, but I do think there is some chance you
are unintentionally misrepresenting the findings or validity of the studies. It certainly can’t be a well-established principle of neuroscience or I would have heard about it or at least come across it in searching. And really, fMRI, as cool as it is, has some major limitations in what it can tell us.
I don’t think that’s true and I don’t believe you mean that. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. Wishes are desires expressed as propositions. Even people who have faith have wishes that are not informed by faith, e.g. a pious minister who would wishes to win the lottery but has no faith that it will certainly happen (whereas he does have faith that he will certainly go to heaven).
I am not here to stump for faith. I am trying to stump for clarity in expression, that’s all.
I saw that one marching up the street. Now that you have written it the eternal prophecy is fulfilled.
Are you also disgusted that mentally retarded children can’t do algebra?
The point being, is it really appropriate to condemn the character of those who are religious, as opposed to understanding that there is some failing that has occurred in their thinking, either due to their brain’s structure, their upbringing, their emotional experiences, or who knows what? Is that worthy of disgust? But maybe you are only disgusted that the human mind can misfire like this, and not those whose minds have so misfired?
Doug: I appreciate your view that ridicule-disrespect is counter productive and only provokes people into being even more intractably irrational–but I disagree.
If someone tried to convince you that Peter Pan and Tinkerbelle were real, and that you could fly around the room if only you believed in them, and they kept getting in your face about it and wanted it taught in public schools and inserted into the constitution, and (this is the big one) you saw millions of people actually being converted to their “religion”, buildings packed with people praising Peter Pan and trying hard to believe that any day now they will fly around the room just like him, would you be respectful? What tools would you use to counter act such foolishness and stop their numbers from growing?
Ridicule can be taken to a high art that is very effective. And if it is thoroughly honest-truthful scorn, then it will get people’s attention. No violence, no destruction of property, just consistently, resolutely trying to point out silliness to people by calling attention to it.
The insistence that the faithful flock of true believers deserves respect, and should be excluded from ridicule, is a testament to religion’s continued power to cow us and subjugate our common sense.
“But maybe you are only disgusted that the human mind can misfire like this, and not those whose minds have so misfired?”
I am not convinced that people are helpless victims of neural ‘misfirings’. But yes, you are mainly correct, it is the whole process of subjugation that I find repulsive. And it is a multi dimensional problem that can’t be solved by merely blaming and browbeating the subjugated.
“Ridicule… taken to high art” is called satire, and a great body of it exists vis-a-vis religion.
As to the question of when such ridicule is appropriate, I would suggest that the easiest test any atheist could give to determine if such ridicule may be appropriate is the “our dead buddy would have wanted…” test.
This reason is invoked quite often, and I do not know of a single atheist who, at the moment of the suggestion (even allowing for the many alcoholic beverages imbibed by this point), would stand and say, “where is your evidence that [dead buddy] would want that?”.
Religion, in the dead buddy test aspect, is a way of coping with tragedy. It neither helps, nor hurts, and calms the minds of those in need of calming.
Outside of the dead buddy scenario, however, I can not imagine an instance of religion ever producing a tangible benefit. Religion is, by my standards, and the standards of many good (as opposed to me) writers and thinkers, open to ridicule. Hopefully, the ridicule is so biting and insightful (think Swift or Orwell), that it reaches the level of satire, but don’t be surprised that much of it is puerile and stupid.
A thing being open to ridicule does not in any way imply that all of the ridicule of it is insightful or intelligent.
One more thing;
Typing in all capital letters is universally seen as “shouting”, and therefore, rude. I understand and accept this bit of proletarian dictatorship of the web.
My question is, why isn’t the absence of capitals and punctuation seen as equally rude “mumbling” or “whispering”?
Why can’t those who communicate electronically be held to the same standards as a twelve-year-old writing a thank-you note?
he has a very specific and rational fear of people who want the whole world to live by Sharia law and who are quite willing to murder those who disagree, and that dismissing this as “Islamophobia” is pointlessly disingenuous.
Oh. You don’t say? That’ll teach me to judge a book by the cover – In my defence, all the OTHER times I’ve seen people use the terms “Myth” and “Islamophobia” in the same sentence, it’s been a transparent set of apologetics for hating brown people. Still, boy is my face red…
Yes, it’s worth watching his vids even if you don’t like the titles :) great deadpan analogies- “Religion is alive and well, much as a crocodile swimming towards you with its mouth open is alive and well…”
Wow, that’s brilliant! Just have to disagree on one point. Religion doesn’t bring out the worst in the best of us, because the best of us are already atheists… or athiest as I guess PZ is now.
I’m so jealous of people with cool accents. All the cool atheists have something colonial, why can’t I have one, too!??!
I’m a little uncomfortable with [the phrase “Anyone who demands respect deserves ridicule”]. There are plenty of people who have been afforded little or no respect by society who have had to demand it. The mentally ill. Oppressed minorities. Etc.
I think it depends on what you mean by “demand”.
If you can explain why you deserve respect, and then demand that respect through reasoned argument, that is one thing. This is pretty much what the civil rights movement did. The subtext of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech was not “we deserve respect” but “this is why we deserve respect”.
On the other hand, a Muslim Rageboy’s demand for respect amounts to “You must respect Allah, or else”.
It’s like the difference between a teenager whining “I hate you; you treat me like a child”, and a teenager maturing into adulthood by demonstrating real responsibility.
CM: I didn’t want to let this drop, without a follow up.
I had a look for the citations, and couldn’t find the ‘specific’ articles. I did find many on ‘meditative states’ etc…
Sorry. I may have been conflating multiple articles into one, and I accept that the specific articles may not exist. they may, but I cannot find them, so cannot produce the evidence.
There is still (in my opinion – reading all the articles i *could* find last night) a large correlation shown between meditative states, prayer, and wishing… But I cannot find those specific articles, so have no concrete evidence to share with you. I apologise.
I still stand by my earlier statement – it is simply a little less ‘directly’ supported by available evidence – but definitely ‘indirectly’ supported.
Re: *demand* respect.
hyperdeath covers the ground really well.
You can *demand* respect, if you if that truly is your due…. but there should be some supporting evidence. The example comparing MLK with a ‘rageboy’ is pointed and fairly represents the two extremes.
In the former, respect is indeed due, and should be demanded if not proferred.
No respect is due the latter, since the demand is simply that you respect him because of his association with some authority (which you may, or may not, respect). Should we also then respect a mob henchman?
People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect. It won’t work. It will only have the opposite effect. So I would rather politely disagree, and not disrespect.
I read this all the time, and it always catched my eye because that is exactly how I WAS deconverted. An asshole college boyfriend who just couldn’t shut up his criticism of religious things I believed, even when he knew it upset me. I broke up with him because he was a jerk. But I became an atheist because he was right. Had he “respected” my nonsensical cobbled-together answers to standard atheist questions, I never would have been forced to see how ridiculous my answers all were. And to this day, I’d probably still be trying to make those answers make sense. He was an ass, but he forced me to be honest with myself.
Maybe that’s not the norm, but it does happen now and then. And I’m heartily glad that it does.
Catched = catches
And the lesson is that the atheists with the harsh tone and unstinting ridicule will woo people away from religion…but they won’t get laid.
Hey, PZ, did a 15 year-old hack your log-in info and embed this Condell guy’s video? He commits the cardinal sin for an alleged comedian – he’s not funny (if you want anti-religious humor stick with The Life of Brian). Moreover, I can’t imagine anyone older than 15 finding him remotely persuasive because his reasoning is so embarassingly poor. Just four quick examples off the top of my head….
1. Condell insists on using that boring old saw that faith is “belief without evidence.” I suppose that’s a conclusion one could draw, but it requires an utterly ideosyncratic definition of evidence. One can reasonably weigh the evidence for God and find it wanting, but that’s a measure of the nature and quality of the evidence and not the existence of it. Plus, Patty’s context is clear that he is making a definitional claim and his is not a proper definition either from quality dictionaries or as generally used by people of faith. For example, the OED, the “Bible” of dictionaries defines “faith” as “[c]onfidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine).” With faith, evidence may or may not exist, but that fact is irrelevant because faith doesn’t relate to propositions – it is placed in something or someone. Thus for the Christian, faith is placed in God as revealed in Jesus Christ. The evidence for it (or lack thereof) is beside the point.
2. Condi insists on making the fundamatheist (I define the term here: http://someonesaygrace.blogspot.com/2007/06/ignominiously-defining-fundamentalism.html) claim that believers are mentally ill and seems to expect to be taken seriously. Does he have any expertise for making such a claim? Does he cite any clinical studies? No. It’s hyperbole, plain and simple. Besides, isn’t mental illness by definition a serious abnormality? Since religious belief is the universal norm and has been for as far back as we know, if you want to play that game it’s the atheist that’s nuts. Humanity has a long and ugly history of demonizing opponents and falsely accusing them of pathology (remember when being gay was so considered?). Patty doesn’t do himself and his position any favors here by making the same mistake. He’s no better than the gaybashers. It’s a typical fundy problem.
3. Our lad Pat says that religious faith is a simple act of the will. If that’s true, he has necessarily (though – surprise! – unwittingly) denied physicalism. A physicalist system is necessarily closed. Cause and effect is relentless. There is no place for an act of the (free) will if physicalism is true, as (for example) Dawkins concedes here: http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_9.html. What Dawkins doesn’t concede (because he doesn’t even seem to recognize it) are the consequences of his position. A deterministic (or compatabilistic – which is deterministic but in a nicer suit) universe means that our perception of volition, in place all day, every day, is an illusion. If that’s so and our perception is so totally untrustworthy, the whole idea of science, utterly dependent as it is on our perceptions in order to make the observations that fuel it, is necessarily incoherent. We might as well be in the Matrix. We’re left with Patty undercutting physicalism and Dawkins making science incoherent. The daily double!
4. Condell suggests that believing without evidence is somehow immoral. Nonsense. We all have baseline beliefs not based on evidence. For example, mutual altrusim has good reasons supporting it, but no evidence, and there’s no evidence for the idea that that racism is wrong. This isn’t exactly rocket science.
Nice job, Condi. Nice job, PZ. The sycophantic choir may sing along, but nobody with half a brain is going to find much of anything to commend here. Keep up the good work.
Tony, thanks for looking for the articles. I’d just point out that when you say, “There is still (in my opinion – reading all the articles i *could* find last night) a large correlation shown between meditative states, prayer, and wishing…”, keep in mind that this still sounds pretty vague to me. I mean, a correlation in what? Brain area activation?
OK, let’s say that’s true. But what if love of one’s mother, love of one’s country, and love of one’s girlfriend all “lit up” the same parcel of brain real estate–would you conclude that they were all essentially the same thing? No. But you might conclude they shared some commonalities, like a positive affective component. In the same way, the fact that meditation, prayer, and wishful thinking all “light up” the same brain areas may refer to some common component, like use of imagination, or positive attitude, or future orientation, etc., and it may not be appropriate to then conclude that they are all the same thing. Also, don’t be too sure that the studies are a) right, b) conclusive, or c) well-reported in the magazines you read.
I’m not saying it’s all flat wrong; just to retain a healthy degree of latitude until better understanding is available (give it about 20 years I’d say). fMRI, as I said, is pretty coarse even with 9 Tesla strength magnets, it can only pick up regional blood flow in the brain which is like measuring economic activity of a country by how bright their cities look at night–tells you something but doesn’t give you much understanding of mechanism. We may indeed find out at some point that the “faith software” and “wish software” in the brain is one and the same, but I know any neuroscientist who claimed this at a conference in 2007 would get laughed out of the lecture hall–the data simply isn’t in.
I think Sinbad has his MC Hammer pants in a twist.
And he’s already lost his argument.
Blake’s law in the first post.
“I think Sinbad has his MC Hammer pants in a twist.”
Good comeback. You must have worked on that for a while.
“And he’s already lost his argument.
“Blake’s law in the first post.”
Godwin’s Law doesn’t apply because (a) you don’t have sufficient authority; (b) there is no subject matter jurisdiction; and (c) I’m not referring to vocal or militant atheists in general as fundamatheists (I’ve used the term for over five years, though it was coined by an atheist) but rather to a very specific category of atheist.
Way to attack the substance though.
Two words were dropped from my previous post. It should read “The Godwin’s Law variant…”.
My bad.
“‘People will not change their belief systems via ridicule nor disrespect.’
People who claim this completely miss the point…”
I don’t believe they do miss the point, they (and I) just don’t agree that the tactic will work. Have you evidence that attacking people’s religious choices creates more room for doubt among interested onlookers? It seems completely counter intuitive to me, but if you have something more than anecdotal or analogical to demonstrate this, I’m all eyes.
I understand the spirit of this, and certainly I myself hold no religious belief, but I cannot see how attacking people’s belief is a rational tactic. It is simply a false dichotomy: one neither needs to respect nor disrespect someone’s belief. Why not simply be uninvested in what others believe?
I disrespect certain actions, and certain comments — and certainly a great deal of bad public policy. Much of this stems from personal beliefs, but whether it does or not is irrelevant to me. Being a Christian does not predicate such policies, and as long as a person’s actions and civic responsibilities meet a reasonable conduct, I don’t care if they believe a tart fairy created the world out of a walnut filled with blackberry jam.
You seem to attack a symptom and not a problem in my mind. I seek to convince others to approach the world logically and reasonably. If more people did that, I imagine more will be non-theist. But being a-religious does not imply that one is reasonable. A more constructive approach is suggested by that goal.
More troubling, you are not just pejorative to people of faith, but to those non-theists that refuse to be as abusive as you are toward people of faith. If I choose the middle-road, I am an “accommodationist”, worthy of nearly as much contempt in your eyes. I don’t understand the utility in that position; you are only sowing greater divide in a minority community.
Though anecdotal, you might consider the following as food for thought: I have been a non-theist for many, many years; I am very well-read, reasonably educated, and give a fair amount of thought to these issues; I’ve read some of this blog, much of Dawkins and a bit of Hitchens — despite this, none of you have managed to put together a sufficiently cogent argument that religious belief deserves my contempt and ridicule by default. If you cannot convince me, who will you convince?
It seems more like you are preaching to the choir to me.
@R. Paul Wiegand: “Why not simply be uninvested in what others believe?”
(Being as we’re at the end of an almost-dead thread, I’m going to just write quickly and hope it comes out right, and if you want to counter or question, please do).
There’s a certain amount of prisoner’s dilemma built in to the mind-your-own-belief problem. It’s optimal for me not to care what you believe and for you not to care what I believe as long as we both behave decently. The problem is, belief often translates into some kind of action that affects others – one wants to teach my kids creationism, another wants to discriminate against gays, a third wants to blow up the building where I work. IF your belief is the kind that will make you take some action that affects me negatively, it is no longer the best course of action for me to mind my own business in regard to your belief. It makes a lot of sense then for me to care what you believe, even if that’s not my preference.
As to attacking the symptom and not the problem- I think certain people would say that religion is the problem in many cases, not merely the symptom. Religion creates an entire category of victimless crimes called sins. Whereas rational morality judges actions by their observable effects on other beings or the environment, religious morality asks people to judge actions by the approval they meet with in the eyes of an invisible being. Under a rational moral system , you could never argue that flying a plane into a building full of people is a moral action (unless you do so to avoid some even more deadly result). Nor could you argue that the person who did that and died as a result would actually benefit from their actions. Religion makes both arguments possible. The same with arguments against the teaching of evolution, or for persecuting gays. They would never be possible under any kind of morality that judges actions by their effects on human beings. They are eminently justifiable if there’s some invisible angry guy whose motives aren’t too clear waiting around to hand out rewards and punishments. Weaken belief in that guy and you weaken the motives for a lot of immoral behavior that Would not be justified any other way.
Really? Trying to have creationism taught in schools doesn’t deserve contempt and ridicule by default?
Believing that god hates fags, that natural disasters are manifestations of God’s wrath, that the bible contains all the truth that God wants us to know, that some old fart in Rome is the earthly conduit between heaven and earth, that this country is not a secular nation but is, instead, rightfully a theocracy, that the rapture is imminent and if God doesn’t come soon then we should give him a helping hand and kick start Armageddon, etc. etc…
All traditions of belief that should be left alone, Live and let live?
Perhaps our definition of “reasonable conduct” differs from yours?
Amen, RamblinDude.
No. It deserves full disapproval and to be defended against in a serious way (take “serious” in both senses).
You are conflating “do not attack religions with contempt and ridicule” with “do not defend rational laws and public actions”.
“Really? Trying to have creationism taught in schools doesn’t deserve contempt and ridicule by default?”
I believe I was clear that I obviously disrespect certain actions, words, and policies — just not the beliefs that predicate them. Even a bigoted belief is irrelevant to me … until it is expressed in action or word. So clearly I have contempt for an attempt to foist creationism on public school students, and obviously I revile attempts to inculcate bigotry into our laws. But I don’t have the slightest interest in the beliefs that lead people to those actions. Not all Christians behave in those ways, and not all atheists behave in ways I can support, either.
As to the symptom/cause argument: I don’t see how it starts with religion. First people have to have a mindset that makes the type of fundamentalist extreme behavior you describe possible to defend. People, in general, are improperly equipped with applying logic and reason to the ways in which they negotiate the world. That kind of religious zeal is a consequence, not a predicate.
I repeat: If you convince people to behave, think, and speak more from a position of reason, you will almost certainly have fewer religious people. If you convince people not to be religious, you wont necessarily have more reasonable people. I don’t see how any party, even a third party, is won to the side of reason by witnessing contempt and derision.
Perhaps I am wrong, I admit it. But I will need more than anecdotes and analogies. Show me real evidence that being openly hostile toward other people’s beliefs provides some useful advantage in terms of adjusting people’s thinking for the positive, and I’ll consider that evidence. Until then, I’m afraid the behavior appears unproductive to me.
As to the PD issue, I don’t agree with the analogy. Certainly it is inconsistent with my experiences. If it is consistent with yours, so be it. If you want to be willfully contemptuous of people’s beliefs, so be it. I’m not telling you what to do, I’m only saying I don’t see the logic of it from a tactical point of view.
“All traditions of belief … should be left alone, live and let live?”
You intentionally misrepresent my position. If by “tradition of belief” you mean simply what they believe, then yes … sure. It’s no skin off my nose. Why do I care? If by “tradition of belief” you mean actions and words, then of course not. But even actions only warrant derision when such is necessary. If people believe Christ is the Son of God and they go to church every week, and they quietly help the poor and needy … I’ve got no beef with them. If people advocate that homosexual marriages should not be allowed legally or that anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy, then I am opposed to them whatever their theological beliefs.
But my second point was not addressed (that I saw): Not only can I not see the tactical advantage of such behavior, but I am completely baffled by the animosity shown to those, like myself, that refuse to become abusive at your behest.
I can’t defend abusiveness. It would be hard to imagine an experiment where one could rigorously test the effect of ridicule upon the quality of religious belief. Still, it appears to me that highlighting vigorously the weakness of the evidence supporting a proposition (also called ridicule) is an effective means of convincing people not to accept those propositions as true. Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech certainly employs ridicule for the secessionist position – and was extremely effective oratory for it. Ridicule has been employed as an effective rhetorical device for a very long time, and if it wasn’t useful as such, it wouldn’t be used.
“If you convince people not to be religious, you wont necessarily have more reasonable people.”
This fails to address my main point – there is a category of unreasonableness that can only be justified by resort to religious argument. Can you argue that if you convince people of the unreasonableness of the belief in a God that rewards martyrs in the afterlife, you’ve eliminated a great deal of the motivation to be a martyr?
Trying to teach creationism in public schools is contemptible and it is ridiculous–and that is the motivation for dealing with it, whatever one’s strategy.
I simply can’t agree with “Why not simply be uninvested in what others believe?” Beliefs lead to actions, and the more irrational, disconnected-from-reality the beliefs, the more irrational the actions. The ‘hands off’ approach has not worked. Superstition in this country is rampant.
My assertion is that ridicule and well reasoned scorn, used strategically, are useful in getting people’s attention.
I understand if you don’t agree and I won’t begrudge you your approach, I hope your way works, and soon–before the world’s gets blown up because of senseless beliefs.
“Can you argue that if you convince people of the unreasonableness of the belief in a God that rewards martyrs in the afterlife, you’ve eliminated a great deal of the motivation to be a martyr?”
No, but since this fails to address my point, I don’t see how it is a concession. Shall I generate a pointless extreme example of irrational behavior that has nothing to do with religion? We are going around in circles because we disagree on the premise itself: I believe the root cause is the way people think that predisposes them to certain types of beliefs, and you believe their belief systems predisposes them toward certain ways of thinking.
Certainly well-placed, appropriate, and measured used of scorn can be effective at certain times and places, but I don’t believe that’s what’s going on here. This is just pure, unfiltered derision. Moreover, I think (in general) constructive approaches have, historically, proven much more effective agents for change. We can agree to disagree if you like.
“The ‘hands off’ approach has not worked. Superstition in this country is rampant.
My assertion is that ridicule and well reasoned scorn, used strategically, are useful in getting people’s attention.”
Your implication is that my position is inactive and ineffective.
On the first point, you assume way too much: I’m not at all hands off; rather I am very active and vocal is working toward the ends I would like to see in our society, as well as in decrying those policies, words, and actions I find objectionable and offensive. I simply don’t resort to abuse of someone’s belief system to do so. I attack the actual offense: the action, word, or policy.
On the second, we will have to agree to disagree. In my own personal experience, certainly I’ve found I get more traction out of people on my views when those around me do not perceive me as their enemy. This includes the very religious. It’s not always effective, but it is more so than wanton contempt.
Again, I fail to see how your approach can possibly produce effective results. If I am wrong, more power to you. I just have yet to see any reason that it will.
I realize I’ve not demonstrated much argument for my position either, but I think my position is less burdened, given that it requires no choice on my part to invest in someone’s belief at all. To convince me to “join your cause” to “take up the anti-religion banner”, to convince me that I shouldn’t be an “accomodationist”, you’ll have to convince me of the utility of intentional disrespect.
You’ll forgive me if I wont take your belief in its productivity for granted?
“Trying to teach creationism in public schools is contemptible and it is ridiculous–and that is the motivation for dealing with it, whatever one’s strategy.”
Yes, of course. I’ve said as much. This doesn’t address my point at all, and it is the second time that you’ve produced this argument in directly, explicit inconsistency with what I’ve said.
A parent or politician, etc., who is trying to teach creationism in public schools is contemptible, and that effort must be vigorously opposed. A parent, politician, etc., believing in creationism is another matter — of that, I care not.
“I believe the root cause is the way people think that predisposes them to certain types of beliefs, and you believe their belief systems predisposes them toward certain ways of thinking.”
What’s the difference between “belief systems” and “ways of thinking”? Tell me how you disentangle these. People can think either rationally or irrationally.
If they think rationally, they tend
A) not to bomb each other
B) not to look to the end of the world as, like, a good thing
C) tend to resolve conflicts by cooperation rather than violence
and
D) Reject fundamentalist (or any) religion.
Thus: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq: lots of suicide bombers.
Sweden, England: Not so much
It’s not a matter of race – and while economics plays a huge role in this — it’s also not entirely the economics that rules this – people in religious societies don’t just buy a package of beliefs about Big Sky-Dad, but also about real, important things, like killing people.
“Trying to teach creationism in public schools is contemptible and it is ridiculous–and that is the motivation for dealing with it, whatever one’s strategy.”
Actually, I was addressing CM with that one.
R. Paul Wiegand: I see where you’re coming from and I don’t entirely disagree with you. I wouldn’t have a problem with silly beliefs either if it led mainly to people who, “go to church every week, and they quietly help the poor and needy…” Who could have a problem with that? But that’s not where silly beliefs are taking us.
As for, “A parent, politician, etc., believing in creationism is another matter — of that, I care not.”, there we will have to agree to disagree. I’m not so staid about the whole thing. These people are voting very creepy people into office, people who want to turn this country into a theocracy. I will continue trying to advocated critical thinking in my own honest way–as you are trying to do in yours.
Also, I don’t see PZ’s blog as being simply mean spirited and, therefore, counter productive. He’s very strategic about his barbs. He’s gotten lots of people’s attention, and I will continue to argue that that is a good thing. Besides, you really don’t see the humor, the reverence for truth, the years of investigation and hard work to back up his assertions?
If not, then, well, I guess the acid tongued approach just isn’t your cup of tea. Okay, that’s cool. I don’t know your situation, and if I were in your shoes maybe I could better see your point, but I find this blog enlightening, energizing and thought provoking. Maybe my brain really is hardwired differently, I don’t know.
“I wouldn’t have a problem with silly beliefs either if it led mainly to people who, “go to church every week, and they quietly help the poor and needy…” Who could have a problem with that?”
Dawkins, Harris, et als., for starters. These would-be Good Samaritans may be helping the poor and needy, but they are really evil enablers and thus responsible for allowing the real nutjobs to flourish donchaknow.
That’s the point, isn’t it? It doesn’t lead to just altruistic behavior. That’s why it’s a problem. That’s why people must learn that altruism is a human trait, not a virtue bestowed by invisible beings.
Plenty of very religious people have consistent world views in terms of politics with most of the people on this board (I know many of them). Additionally, there are a-religious people who do not behave reasonably. There is not a 1-to-1 correlation here. I assume we do not disagree on those basic points?
NickM: Indeed, separation of thinking and belief is more complicated than my simplification; however, the basic gist of my distinction stands, I think. By “ways of thinking” I mean rationalism versus whatever else one wishes to employ to derive knowledge from facts and axioms. By “belief system” I suppose I mean wide-in-breadth and shallow-in-scope axiomatic systems that assert consequents without a logically connected predicate. I think those that learn the mental disciplines associated with being rational, will tend to behave in ways that are more consistent with our world views.
We all have beliefs, of course, and we are all irrational at times. One goal for me is to minimize the behaviors and conclusions about which I am being irrational. I would hope others would do that, too. But I still don’t see how attacking peoples’ beliefs accomplishes that. Instead, I think those that you attack will be even more hardened against your ideas, and those that witness it will often see your own actions as irrational (which may or may not be fair … I wont say, but it will be perceived that way by some).
And, on that note, I would add to your list that those who behave in ways contrary to their overall goals, in particular those that are uncivil, are behaving irrationally. I’m not accusing you of this; I realize you believe your long term goals are served by your actions, even if I do not.
Let me step back a moment and talk about my goals in making my posts: 1.) To suggest (respectfully) that those more strident among us who castigate those others of us who can see no logical tactical advantage to being intentionally disrespectful back off. You will not brow beat us into compliance. Until I see a definite advantage to that tactic, I will default to remaining uninvested in other people’s beliefs. 2.) To demonstrate, at least in the case of this one data point, your tactics do not work. I am about as close as it is possible to be to your views in general, and still I find your behavior unnecessarily insulting. It doesn’t demonstrate rationalism (to me) since I cannot see the utility in it.
You all disagree, and that’s perfectly fine — certainly not unexpected. I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree; it isn’t my blog, after all.
Wow, talk about seeing the mote in your brother’s eye and missing the beam in your own. Of course, no list of killer/religious/Armagetiton countries is complete without the U.S. Mea culpa.
R. Paul, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Maybe we can agree that you have no more “empirical” evidence supporting your more accomodationist approach than I have for the more confrontational one I’ve advocated here. In both cases, it’s more of an educated guess as to what tactics work.
I’m not sure I totally buy the confrontational approach that I’ve argued, but I’m trying it on for size and finding it more compelling as I see the fundamentalists becoming more confrontational and scary. I agree there are many religious people – including many of my family own members – who do no direct harm with their belief but I also think that bad religion itself causes a lot of needless suffering that would not occur without religion.
NickM: Yes, let’s agree to disagree. That works for me.
I agree that I’ve offered no more evidence supporting my position, but I also believe less is required since you are making a conscious and concerted choice to be willfully disrespectful, and I am making no choice about respect at all.
But as to which is more effective, who can say for certain? I tend to default away from being offensive unless I have good reason to believe it is useful, but that is admittedly a personal bias based on my sense that civility is generally quite useful.
One final note, though, I wonder if you might find a less pejorative moniker than “accommodationist”. The spirit in which it has been coined and used by the your side of the fence was never meant to be respectful of people of my view. But perhaps you also disrespect my position? I hope that I’ve demonstrated, at least, that there’s nothing unreasonable in it.
Better yet, let’s discard the labels altogether. What are their purpose?
He asks why faith is considered a virtue.
Because it allows people to believe in God.
I’m pretty sure it really is that simple, when you get right down to it.
“Accomodationist” was not meant as a jibe, and would that we could discard labels for peoples’ beliefs. Civility is a very worthwhile concept, and should only be discarded when necessary. Thank you everyone for the discussion.
Ha Ha, religion is choice. Fabulous turnabout.
“That’s the point, isn’t it? It doesn’t lead to just altruistic behavior. That’s why it’s a problem. That’s why people must learn that altruism is a human trait, not a virtue bestowed by invisible beings.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 10, 2007 05:54 PM”
RamblinDude I am on your side so don’t read this wrong. I was simply looking for how the other side would twist this to their advantage.
“Says you, but hate is also a human trait and not an evil caused by a faith in Christ.”
or some such.
Sincerely,
Paul Flocken
I would disagree. Not only because the argument is not inverted by stating it that way, but because it’s just wrong anyways. Hate all too often is caused, and justified, by a faith in Christ.
History is replete with examples of violence done by those who proclaim, as their motivation, faith in Christ (or some other deity). Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, and many others regularly advocate(d) killing of unbelievers. And look at how atheists and other believers in other religions are hated and feared and seen as less worthy of life because they don’t have a faith in Christ.
People do good things and bad things and invisible, supernatural beings are imaginary. And anyone who thinks that faith in Christ hasn’t lead to violence needs a reality check.