I suppose I could!
woops, the roll down as waters is from amos
and what: exactly!! it’s not like jesus had never read that stuff.
i think if youre a secular humanist & believe in the goals of secular humanism then you may believe that having & raising children with those beliefs would have a positive effect but its hardly doctrine
as a secular humanist myself, im on the fence about it
which may damage my chances in the long run
I’m not sure why you started this thread at all ethan
well as much as id like to be down with all the smart literate people i respect who seem offended by armchair/bestsellre ‘new atheism’ i cant help kinda liking it & none of the arguments thus far really do alot for me—was hoping for more than ad hom i guess
out of curiosity, has anyone read the daniel dennett book? out of all this recent batch, that one sounded the most interesting to me. it was subjected to a withering, sneering review in the nytrb by leon wieseltier (who basically was just offended at the suggestion that religious belief might have evolved from a set of biological/cultural circumstances that could hypothetically be traced), which seemed weird to me given the generally enthusiastic reception dennett’s other books have gotten. but i haven’t read much else about it, and it hasn’t generated as much static as dawkins, harris, et al (probably because it’s longer and denser and maybe less polemical).
xpost:
i think whether they know it or not all the supposedly useful liberal christians are enablers of intolerance & theocracy & all that, even if not actually supporting it—its the black republican/racism game
i’ve had that argument with liberal catholic friends in particular. like, “you can’t just have your own version of catholicism, by calling yourself a catholic you’re implicitly supporting the institution.” they make the old better-to-reform-from-within argument, which i can understand, except of course for the general ineffectiveness of liberal catholic reformers post-vatican ii. it would be a hell of a lot more politically effective for every catholic who uses birth control or supports legal abortion to just leave the church altogether. but then, people don’t belong to the church for political reasons, they belong for personal reasons — but then, those personal reasons have political effects. and on and on.
the problem is that what’s actually good for the world is for people to act like reasonable creatures and think for themselves once in a while. militant anything is a pile of bullshit. so why would you want to add to the militancy? it doesn’t fucking help. it might be nice to think of dawkins et al as a counter to evangelical creationist freakshits but they really, really, really aren’t, except, as noted earlier, on the NYT bestseller lists, and none of this crap can go toe to toe with harry motherfucking potter OR back to the future, so I think we’ll be okay.
the idea that ‘proving’ god doesn’t ‘exist’ is striking some kind of blow against conservative intolerance in Today’s American Society is pitiful
Heidegger addresses this, obliquely, in The Question Concerning Technology and pretty much all over his later work.
the point is there is nothing wrong with Dawkin’s thought that isn’t wrong with all metaphysical thought. (why metaphysical? basically because in order for Dawkins to claim to be an atheist and have some weight behind that belief as a truth would require him to be able to steop outside the universe and see the entirety of it, including himself. stuck inside it, his point of view always includes a blind spot.)
it’s political or pragmatic use, obviously, comes into play in times like these i guess.
the problem that agnostic liberals always have with their churchgoer neighbours remains the same—about four to eight years of angsty hand-wringing out of every twelve to sixteen
let me tell you something: liberal catholics elect democrats just like you! they do not elect the fucking Pizope.
Do secular humanists really believe it’s worth having children? I mean, as part of being a secular humanist?
Yes. Warriors are needed for The Big Showdown. Liz Chen3y has five children and we only have two — it’s simple mathematics!
even children sharing genes with dick cheney can only eat so much
the problem is that what’s actually good for the world is for people to act like reasonable creatures and think for themselves once in a while. militant anything is a pile of bullshit. so why would you want to add to the militancy? it doesn’t fucking help.
dont you work for the military?
^^^this thread’s rubicon moment
it might be nice to think of dawkins et al as a counter to evangelical creationist freakshits but they really, really, really aren’t, except, as noted earlier, on the NYT bestseller lists
i think being on the bestseller lists is somewhat useful, in the same way that having al gore on there serves as counterpropaganda to sean hannity or whoever. when you have these explicit, ongoing efforts to rewrite american history to recast the country as an explicitly christian enterprise, i think it’s healthy for there to be some explicit nonchristians (or even anti-christians) showing a little muscle in the marketplace. it doesn’t mean i want to read them or go out for beers with them (although like i say, i’d definitely go for beers with dennett), but politically and culturally i think it has some value.
liberal catholics elect democrats just like you! they do not elect the fucking Pizope.
but they still provide cultural cover for the institution of the church. it’s impossible to imagine another institution that could have survived the sex-abuse scandals, for example — imagine if it came out that i.b.m. or the u.s. post office was protecting and [i]promoting[/] known child molesters? — and the reason it survived was because of its perceived power, which derives mostly from having so many members. (small religious cults accused of sexual abuse don’t fare nearly so well.) so by belonging to the church, whatever their reservations, liberal catholics lend strength to its worst tendencies.
my criticism of the nu-atheism is that it dives into amateur theology and skips over history.
A-Ron said:
Criticizing Dawkins from a post-theist sort of standpoint is fine and perhaps warranted, but it does nothing to address the real ways in which religion is becoming a threat to secular, liberal society.
but that’s exactly what Dawkins doesn’t do. He doesn’t do any investigation of what, say, Ted Haggard’s theology is, or what he does, politically, and what the connection might be. He just sits down in his office and says, “hey pastor, all this god stuff is child-abusing fascism, amirite? good coffee by the way, thxbye! ha ha sucka”
if you want to talk about fundamentalism, talk about fucking fundamentalism! and the (almost totally ignored by opponents AND adherents) geneology of fund. is absoulutely MODERN if not MODERNIST.
Augustine rejected biblical literalism. get that? it’s a recent thing, a response to the overwhelming idea that came out of science: things are true or they are not, verifiably. there’s no mysticism, no living contradictions, not even any mystery (christianity is Mystery! or was, to every single christian before the 20th century). “Fundamentalism” is comic book manicheism speaking with the certainty of a Newtonian. nothing classical, or Hebrew, or even really theistic about it.
and, wierd as his critique is, Eagleton is pretty good at showing Dawkins belief in a “secular liberal society” is itself unquestioned ideology.
ts untested vs impossible
unless youre one of those ppl who think that stalism proves that america needs to be a christian nation
are you talking to me? i don’t get you
and the (almost totally ignored by opponents AND adherents) geneology of fund. is absoulutely MODERN if not MODERNIST.
otfm. it is a response to modernity. really, modern fundamentalism is kind of a weird hybrid of classical american Jesus-ism and Wal-Mart capitalism.
geoff that was in response to you drawing an equivalency between religious fundamentalists beliefs & “dawkins’ belief in a secular liberal society”
Main reason why many intellectuals refrain from endorsing the positions put forward by Dawkins (et al) is that his positions are simplistic, short-sighted and divisive. Reasonable, sure. Eminently defensible. Painstakingly accurate, as far as they go. But no more worthwhile for all that.
See, we often criticize religious arguments for failing to take into account the fact that faith and science are fundamentally incompatible. That spritual and scientific truths really have nothing to do with one another. We reject Intelligent Design because it is an essentially non-scientific philosophy that poses as scientific theory, using the language and codes of scientific speech, in order to appear more credible. The problem with Intelligent Design is that it conceals a small kernel of valid spirituality in a vast and totally worthless Trojan Horse armature of fake science.
For the same reason, we should be wary of any argument that attempts to diminish the validity of spiritual awareness/truth by the application of scientific reasoning. Science can no more discredit spirituality than spirituality can discredit science. The one has nothing to do with the other.
what is the ‘valid spirituality’ of intelligent design?
oh hell no
i’m saying dawkins hasn’t done his homework, even on what he himself believes (i say not having read his book...)
the rest of your argument
i think it’s a mistake to pay too much attention to the specifics of dawkins’ et al’s actual ideas. people aren’t buying these books because of the particular insights of dawkins or harris, they’re buying them as a gesture against encroaching theocracy, looking for voices that express some of their own unhappiness about the cultural rise of fundamentalism. in a way, worrying about the effects of dawkins’ ideas is a litle like worrying about the effects of violence in video games — it’s missing the point. i guess those would all be valid complaints in a book review or something, but from a broader cultural standpoint they’re trees in the forest.
(reminds me of all the outraged nitpicking about fahrenheit 9/11)
I presuppose that Intelligent Design (as a personal philosophy held by a specific individual) arises from a set of spiritual beliefs.
Of course, as Intelligent Design, these beliefs are concretized in literal assertions of what I’m inclined to call “bullshit,” but that doesn’t incline me to doubt the core of spiritual gnosis they spring from.
P.S. Tipsy Mothra OTM
I think ethan doesn’t know what the fuck science is or what Dawkins purports to have done for a living before becoming Oxford’s own Michael Moore
adam that’s bullshit. they have absolutely everything to do with one another, they’re answering questions about the world.
if there really was no confluence between them, we wouldn’t be having this conflict, the difference between them would be self evident, and we’d go back to hen fap wikivandalism and be done for the day. saying “they’re totally different and non-contiguous” is just a lukewarm way of wriggling out of the problem, or appearing to be above it.
but it’s good to know every post on this thread not by him or hurting has been either an ad hominem or a fallacy which can be easily parried by comparing the debater to a right-wing lunatic or a UFO cultist
the one thing about Dawkins i like: the conviction that one side has to lose, one idea has be shown to be wrong without mercy. what that means re: treating the adherents of said idea is the tricky part
i like dawkins best when he’s writing about his actual area of expertise, biology.
dawkins has been writing more about religion than genetics or darwinism since before i was born, dipshit
& im pretty sure i know what the fuck science is well enough to beef with whatever realpolitik hard-ass ayn rand frontin youre all about
people aren’t buying these books because of the particular insights of dawkins or harris, they’re buying them as a gesture against encroaching theocracy, looking for voices that express some of their own unhappiness about the cultural rise of fundamentalism.
hands up ANYBODY on this thread who has actually bought the god delusion or knows somebody who has. because I’m personally pretty sure the main target audience for it is college kids who don’t drink and/or Pastor Ted’s flock.
yeah ethan ayn rand libertarianism and guns. that’s me.
and “before I was born” is a good way of pointing out that dawkins blew his canonical contribution wad a long time ago and the rest is easy money so thanks for that
I’m disappointed that I can’t buy an MP40.
I’m disappointed that ethan thought that talking about dawkins and atheism was somehow a better thread idea than Zombies - classic or dud
new wave of atheist bestsellers has more influence on american culture than the snakes on a plane tee youre wearing right now
but ok yeah caring about stuff is gay & any politics other than a frantic rush towards the center is like totally stupid right
I have no problem with bible-as-literature or religion-as-philosophy, but neither of those things have much to do with fundamentalist religion as it is actually practiced and as it is actually influencing our cultural and political life.
This is like the most shoulder-chipped highbrow assumption ever!
Criticizing Dawkins from a post-theist sort of standpoint is fine and perhaps warranted, but it does nothing to address the real ways in which religion is becoming a threat to secular, liberal society.
Please tell me this is an attempt to bait... cuz otherwise it’s this discussion’s equivalent of Mrs. Lovejoy leapin’ up in town hall and screaming ‘Won’t somebody think of the children?’
erm, figure
Criticizing Dawkins from a post-theist sort of standpoint is fine and perhaps warranted, but it does nothing to address the real ways in which religion is becoming a threat to secular, liberal society.
isn a quote, not mine.
Urghonomic:
I understand that religion and science attempt to answer similar sets of questions. The spheres overlap. And I have very strong opinions about which “way” is more valid in approaching certain questions.
But my point is that, when you strip away everything else, the basic mechanics of religion and science are totally different.
Science says, “I know because I understand and can demonstrate.”
Religion says, “I know because I just KNOW.”
Now, those inclined toward scientific understandings will, of course, find the apparently baseless beliefs and assertions of religious folk ridiculous. Atavistic. Misguided. Whatever. And those inclined toward religious faith will find the mechanistic quibblings of science empty and perverse.
But that doesn’t matter. Neither dismissal changes anything about the nature or power of the other. After all, a great deal of what we (humans) deal with and respond to on a daily basis is simply and profoundly unscientific. Most of us do not handle our feelings in a scientific manner, and many of us base a great deal of the important decision-making in our lives on our incohate, half-formed, illogical personal feelings. Biases. Sentiments. Affections and moralities that are, at root, very similar to religious faith.
I have no problem with that. I’m in favor of that.
As long as we can keep “what we can reasonably determine about the mechanical nature of the world” separate from “what I know in my secret-sacred heart of hearts”, I think we’re doing about as well as can be expected.
Pushing the matter farther than that is arrogant, one-sided and destructive. No matter which side of the fence you stand on with regard to any particular question.
hey ethan if you ever want to have a conversation instead of just setting traps for us folks in the hitler dubya fanclub so you can call us out for secretly all being in the NRA let me know all right
adam:
Science says, “I know because I understand and can demonstrate.”
Religion says, “I know because I just KNOW.”
This is ridiculously simplistic! This is science approving of itself because it is more scientific; empiricism weighing in favor of the empirical. It is a zero-risk bias, a pseudo-rationalist’s déformation professionnelle, finding against those things which on the most unstudied surface appear to be more rational.
= thats just, like, your opinion, man!
Didn’t mean to posit science as in any way superior in the above comparison, Remy. I don’t see science as superior to religion/spirituality.
I’m talking about the origin point of knowledge. If you believe that God exists, and if you believe this because you perceive God and have methodically tested this perception against the best objective evidence at your disposal, then you do not have a spiritual belief at all. You simply have a scientific belief in the existence of something that most people see in spiritual terms.
Science is that which observes, tests, measures, hypothesizes, argues and (perhaps) concludes. It’s a rationalist system of thought about and interaction with the physical.
Spirituality has nothing to do with any of that. It’s a non-rationalist system of thought about and interaction with the non-physical. The metaphysical. To the extent that anything can be objectively measured or tested, it has at least a pseudo-physical (i.e. non-spiritual) component. To the extent that anything can be objectively measured or tested, it lies outside the realm of spiritual faith.
Faith simply is. To be valid, it must withstand the total lack of merely material (objective/scientific) support.
Religion says, “I know because I just KNOW.”
While there might be some religion that says that (“Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so”), much of the better writing that I’ve read says something closer to “I don’t [can’t] know but I believe.”
Criticizing Dawkins from a post-theist sort of standpoint is fine and perhaps warranted, but it does nothing to address the real ways in which religion is becoming a threat to secular, liberal society.
Please tell me this is an attempt to bait... cuz otherwise it’s this discussion’s equivalent of Mrs. Lovejoy leapin’ up in town hall and screaming ‘Won’t somebody think of the children?’
— remy bean (rem...)
From Ronald Reagan on, Republicans have appealed for support from Christian right organizations, but now the Christian right has become not only an integral part of the Republican Party but also the party’s main constituency. In an interview, the astute Republican lobbyist and activist Vin Weber said of the Christian conservatives, “They really are to the Republican party what labor or African-Americans are to the Democrats—similar in numbers and impact.” Weber told me, “The evangelical vote is simply larger than that of other Republican constituencies.”
I have made no attempt to read this whole thread, but everyone, seriously, read one William James. He’s more likely to offend you if you’re already religious than if you’re not, but he talks seriously about religion, and he’s fucking brilliant. Do it. Do it. Do it.
Funny, I just came across something while doing research at work: a takedown of Dawkins by Terry Eagleton in the LRB.
xpost—linked already
Am I the psycho, or is William James? I am missing Ethan’s point.
Oh whoops, someone linked to that already.
whoops.
Please tell me this is an attempt to bait... cuz otherwise it’s this discussion’s equivalent of Mrs. Lovejoy leapin’ up in town hall and screaming ‘Won’t somebody think of the children?’
no, that would be this:
Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights
By TINA KELLEY
The New York Times
December 18
KEARNY, N.J.
Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.
Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz broke the church-state boundary.
’If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,‘ Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. ’He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.‘
The student, Matthew LaClair, said that he felt uncomfortable with Mr. Paszkiewicz’s statements in the first week, and taped eight classes starting Sept. 13 out of fear that officials would not believe the teacher had made the comments.
Since Matthew’s complaint, administrators have said they have taken ’corrective action’ against Mr. Paszkiewicz, 38, who has taught in the district for 14 years and is also a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church. However, they declined to say what the action was, saying it was a personnel matter.
’I think he’s an excellent teacher,‘ said the school principal, Al Somma. ’As far as I know, there have never been any problems in the past.‘
Staci Snider, the president of the local teacher’s union, said Mr. Paszkiewicz (pronounced pass-KEV-ich) had been assigned a lawyer from the union, the New Jersey Education Association. Two calls to Mr. Paszkiewicz at school and one to his home were not returned.
In this tale of the teacher who preached in class and the pupil he offended, students and the larger community have mostly lined up with Mr. Paszkiewicz, not with Matthew, who has received a death threat handled by the police, as well as critical comments from classmates.
Greice Coelho, who took Mr. Paszkiewicz’s class and is a member of his youth group, said in a letter to The Observer, the local weekly newspaper, that Matthew was ’ignoring the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives every citizen the freedom of religion.‘ Some anonymous posters on the town’s electronic bulletin board, Kearnyontheweb.com, called for Matthew’s suspension.
On the sidewalks outside the high school, which has 1,750 students, many agreed with 15-year-old Kyle Durkin, who said, ’I’m on the teacher’s side all the way.‘
While science teachers, particularly in the Bible Belt, have been known to refuse to teach evolution, the controversy here, 10 miles west of Manhattan, hinges on assertions Mr. Paszkiewicz made in class, including how a specific Muslim girl would go to hell.
’This is extremely rare for a teacher to get this blatantly evangelical,‘ said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational association. ’He’s really out there proselytizing, trying to convert students to his faith, and I think that that’s more than just saying I have some academic freedom right to talk about the Bible’s view of creation as well as evolution.‘
Even some legal organizations that often champion the expression of religious beliefs are hesitant to support Mr. Paszkiewicz.
’It’s proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can’t do that,‘ said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. ’You can’t step across the line and proselytize, and that’s what he’s done here.‘
The class started on Sept. 11, and Matthew quickly grew concerned. ’The first couple of days I had him, he had already begun discussing his religious point of view,‘ Matthew, a thin, articulate 16-year-old with braces and a passion for politics and the theater, recalled in an interview. ’It wasn’t even just his point of view, it went beyond that to say this is the right way, this is the only way. The way he said it, I wasn’t sure how far he was going to go.‘
On the second day of taping, after the discussion veered from Moses’s education to free will, Matthew asked why a loving God would consign humans to hell, according to the recording.
Some of Matthew’s detractors say he set up his teacher by baiting him with religious questions. But Matthew, who was raised in the Ethical Culture Society, a humanist religious and educational group, said all of his comments were in response to something the teacher said.
’I didn’t start any of the topics that were discussed,‘ he said.
In a Sept. 25 letter to the principal, Matthew wrote: ’I care about the future generation and I do not want Mr. Paszkiewicz to continue preaching to and poisoning students.‘ He met with school officials and handed over the recordings.
Matthew’s family wrote four letters to the district asking for an apology and for the teacher to correct any false statements he had made in class, particularly those related to science. Matthew’s father, Paul LaClair, a lawyer, said he was now considering legal action against the district, claiming that Mr. Paszkiewicz’s teachings violated their son’s First Amendment and civil rights, and that his words misled the class and went against the curriculum.
Kenneth J. Lindenfelser, the lawyer for the Kearny school board, said he could not discuss Mr. Paszkiewicz specifically, but that when a complaint comes in about a teacher, it is investigated, and then the department leader works with the teacher to correct any inappropriate behavior.
The teacher is monitored, and his or her evaluation could be noted, Mr. Lindenfelser said, adding that if these steps did not work, the teacher could be reprimanded, suspended or, eventually, fired.
As for the request that Mr. Paszkiewicz correct his statements that conflict with the district’s science curriculum, ’Sometimes, the more you dwell on the issue, the more you continue the issue,‘ Mr. Lindenfelser said. ’Sometimes, it’s better to stop any inappropriate behavior and move on.‘
The district’s actions have succeeded, he said, as the family has not reported any continued violations.
Bloggers around the world have called Matthew courageous. In contrast, the LaClairs said they had been surprised by the vehemence of the opposition that local residents had expressed against Matthew.
Frank Viscuso, a Kearny resident, wrote in a letter to The Observer that ’when a student is advised by his ‘attorney’ father to bait a teacher with questions about religion, and then records his answers and takes the story to 300 newspapers, that family isn’t ‘offended’ by what was said in the classroom — they’re simply looking for a payout and to make a name for themselves.‘ He called the teacher one of the town’s best.
However, Andrew Lewczuk, a former student of Mr. Paszkiewicz, praised his abilities as a history teacher but said he regretted that he had not protested the religious discussions. ’In the end, the manner in which Mr. Paszkiewicz spoke with his students was careless, inconsiderate and inappropriate,‘ he wrote to The Observer. ’It was an abuse of power and influence, and it’s my own fault that I didn’t do anything about this.‘
One teacher, who did not give his name, said he thought both Matthew and his teacher had done the right thing. ’The student had the right to do what he did,‘ the man said. As for Mr. Paszkiewicz, ’He had the right to say what he said, he was not preaching, and that’s something I’m very much against.‘
Matthew said he missed the friends he had lost over his role in the debate, and said he could ’feel the glares’ when he walked into school.
Instead of mulling Supreme Court precedents, he said with half a smile, ’I should be worrying about who I’m going to take to the prom.‘
“...much of the better writing that I’ve read says something closer to ‘I don’t [can’t] know but I believe.’”
—Casuistry
Just so. I accept yr. correction, though I think we’re splitting hairs. End result is the same. Spiritual beliefs tend to express themselves in certainties (“God DOES exist!”) because steadfast loyalty to beliefs chosen in the absence of definitive knowledge is often seen as the crucible of faith.
What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them?
Oh, let’s get all haughty about theology, shall we? Or philosophy, even. Hey, here’s a short post-it to the writer of this article: Shut it.
Richard Dawkins is right about what the universe looks like. It’s cold, empty, and entirely pitiless. If you believe otherwise, you may as well go read a horoscope.
Where he’s wrong is that he doesn’t take into account any human relationship with the universe. The eternal, religion, whatever you want to call it.
That doesn’t mean he hasn’t read enough books, though. It’s a failure of imagination.
Richard Dawkins is right about what the universe looks like. It’s cold, empty, and entirely pitiless. If you believe otherwise, you may as well go read a horoscope.
Where’s my Jeane Dixon column?
“That doesn’t mean he hasn’t read enough books, though. It’s a failure of imagination.”
—Candle Guy
Yes.
Okay, never mind, not only am I out of my league with this thread, I have poor reading comprehension, too. Ignore me.
From Eagleton:
“Dawkins, as one the best of liberals as well as one of the worst, has done a magnificent job over the years of speaking out against that particular strain of psychopathology known as fundamentalism, whether Texan or Taliban. He is right to repudiate the brand of mealy-mouthed liberalism which believes that one has to respect other people’s silly or obnoxious ideas just because they are other people’s. In its admirably angry way, The God Delusion argues that the status of atheists in the US is nowadays about the same as that of gays fifty years ago. The book is full of vivid vignettes of the sheer horrors of religion, fundamentalist or otherwise. Nearly 50 per cent of Americans believe that a glorious Second Coming is imminent, and some of them are doing their damnedest to bring it about. But Dawkins could have told us all this without being so appallingly bitchy about those of his scientific colleagues who disagree with him, and without being so theologically illiterate.”
I think this is it (the answer to the thread title), in a nutshell. The thing is, much as “reasonable, moderate” republicans enabled the fringe of their party (this is what Kos, Bowers, and others rail on about all the time), moderate religious people have not done much to blunt the edges of their sects. Asking moderates to get militantly moderate is, by definition, a lost cause; so Dawkins and his ilk are left to the task of steering society toward the center by tugging on the other edge.
The title fallacy here is curious. Dawkins and Co. are about as un-media savvy as it gets. You don’t get a guest spot on Oprah and the Today Show talking about how 80% of the American population (and a lower, but still high, number in Europe) are morans.
Media savvy would be slowly backing atheism into the cultural discourse (as has been happening for the last 100 years).
try the last 1000.
atheism would be fine if it wasnt code for hyper-rationalism i think. (i guess that’s the major reason i dont consider myself an atheist.)
tho any good hyper-rationalism would have to take itself into account, provide a ground for itself, and thus enter paradox....atheism without rationalism is sorta cool tho! “i dont believe in god because i dont want to!”
And it shouldn’t be, even if Dawkins wishes. I used to call myself an agnostic (because it’s easier, people find that word less disturbing), but at some point I just gave up the charade. I cannot in any way conceive of the existence of God, gods, the soul, etc..
But I’d still like to think that I’m open to the concept of the unknowable and unexplainable.
“He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.”
xpost that’s Bertrand Russel, isn’t it?
I used to call myself an agnostic (because it’s easier, people find that word less disturbing), but at some point I just gave up the charade. I cannot in any way conceive of the existence of God, gods, the soul, etc..
But I’d still like to think that I’m open to the concept of the unknowable and unexplainable.
this is basically where I’m at.
Re: Schwantz & Milo
Don’t know that Dawkins and co. are really “steering society towards the center.” I think that books like Dawkins’ have almost no impact on those who haven’t already made up their minds, and while they encourage debate, it’s a polarizing, destabilizing kind of debate. I suspect that Dawkins does more to fuel fundamentalists’ persecution fantasies than to make atheism palatable to the masses.
On the other hand, I’m not sure how you “slowly [back] atheism into the popular discourse.” That kind of thing only happens in a long-term sense, in response to the more dramatic but short-lived gnashing of teeth that we see in (and in response to) Dawkins.
P.S. I’m w/ Milo & Ryan, re: the ex “agnostic” thing.
xpost
me three
I’d still like to think that I’m open to the concept of the unknowable and unexplainable.
No scientist worth his salt would say any different.
Well, just for the sake of the quibble, let’s say that any scientist worth his salt is open to the unknown and the unexplained.
Cuz aren’t “the unknowable” and “the inexplicable” (as absolutes) basically the antitheses of science? Can’t imagine any purely and relentlessly scientific thinker simply accepting as given that some things flat-out CANNOT be known/explained. Not ever, not by anybody, no matter what.
Even as an abstract concept presented for debate, absolute unknowability sounds like a direct repudiation of science as philosophy (as distinct from science as practice, mind).
I mean, as a scientist, you’d have to keep trying...
you can’t KNOW that the unknowable is unknowable because then you’d know something about it!
I’m not gonna fuck with this thread, I just realized...
LOL IT’S MF DOOM
ryan OTM, actually. Nothing is unknowable unless you just haven’t heard about it yet.
but “the unknowable and unexplainable” as pertains to science is, yes, a challenge, not an end unto itself.
What’s the great frickin’ virtue in resigning yourself to not knowing something?
you can’t KNOW that the unknowable is unknowable because then you’d know something about it!
I know that Princess Di’s last words are unknowable, and that doesn’t seem to make it any less unknowable.
Casuistry:
Princess Di’s last words are merely unknown. To argue that they’re fundamentally unknowable requires quite a leap of faith.
Candle:
The virtue in resigning yourself to not knowing resides in every egg. Or so sez my mom.
Casuistry continues to live up to his handle...
Yeah, Adam, I don’t know if I buy the whole two-extremes-make-a-moderate thing either. It sometimes works in politics, but it sure doesn’t add up to any kind of nuanced ideology.
Dawkins is pretty much preaching to the choir, but I guess, being a member of the choir, I’m ok with that.
I cannot in any way conceive of the existence of God, gods, the soul, etc.
What do you mean by “existence,” “God” and “the soul”?
But I’d still like to think that I’m open to the concept of the unknowable and unexplainable.
I don’t see that those things necessarily have anything to do with religion.
another reason for the dislike of dawkins—he’s another outsider who doesn’t get that despite what opinion polls may say, 85% of americans are not fundies oppressing some cowering “atheist” minority.
As antecdotal evidence in the case of Militant Atheists vs. “Tolerant Libs” Who Hate Them:
At college I was involved with a militantly atheist group called the Atheist Agenda. We had a bulletin board where we attacked alternating religions on a weekly basis. We had a website with a discussion board. We held a well-publicized and well-attended screening of “The God Who Wasn’t There” that almost degenerated into a brawl (I was literally beaten with huge Study Bibles before somebody pushed the four fundies off me).
As our final blaze of glory before winter finals we promoted and organized a “Porn for Bibles” exchange on campus where we would hand over porn in exchange for the Holy Book of the heathen’s choice. We got about 30 Bibles which we were going to use for an in-depth Bible study (“know your enemy” was the mindset).
The head dude loved Dawkins et al, and his ideas drove many of our campaigns. I left the group when I realized what douches we were being.
rofl @ “step into my parlor”
I definitely feel disappointed reading about Dawkins, but am not completely sure why. Some of it is a “is that it?” kind of reaction, like seeing the wizard of Oz come out from behind the curtain. Another part is that even though I don’t believe in a god, and even though I completely oppose people using (a) god’s name to justify any number of ridiculous, hate/fear/shame kind of things, I still think they should have all rights to believe it. But then I also think friction between people is inevitable, and that who comes out on top is probably who pushed (or was pulled?) hardest (which is maybe why someone like Dawkins seems so, er, pushy).
when you say people have the ‘right’ to believe in god, which i hear a lot, do you mean the legal/social right or some kind of philosophical right?
it seems like lrb/tls/nybooks/harpers types are jumping over htemselves to distance themselves from this & i still havent figured out why
I think a lot of “intellectuals” (the NYRB/Harper’s crowd) (myself included to some extent) are sort of irritated with the way Dawkins’s nu-atheism could have existed just as easily in the 18th century—not just because he doesn’t seem to have taken the last 300 years of theology into account but also in the RAH-RAH-RATIONALISM that ignores every continental philosopher since Nietzsche. I mean, this is why I find it hard to take him seriously, because 1) like really who gives a shit about the existence of God and 2) if you’re going to talk about belief and rationality you should probably mention just a lil’ bit about thinkers who spent a lot of the last century uh dismantling the rationalist project of the Enlightenment.
(n.b. that doesn’t really surprise me seeing as Dawkins is a) a scientist and b) British and therefore probably considers those cats “intellectual charlatans” or some such, but if you want to be taken seriously by the d00dz at the TLS, it would help to at least acknowledge [even if tangentially] Althusser or Derrida on “secularized theology” [or fuck really even Spinoza on the reading of Scripture], and Dawkins seems to be operating under the assumption that everyone in the known universe is or should be subscribing to the same rationalist/humanist/Enlightenment principles [w/r/t the knowability of things/teleology of human knowledge/universalism] as John Locke or Kant or whoever).
Also like seriously the guy is a total asshole.