With Friends Like These

Damon Linker has a great essay in The New Republic on the so-called "new atheism" and the ways in which it undermines the vision of a secular politics that it purports to defend:

Still, the rise of the new atheists is cause for concern--not among the targets of their anger, who can rest secure in the knowledge that the ranks of the religious will, here in America, dwarf the ranks of atheists for the foreseeable future; but rather among those for whom the defense of secular liberalism is a high political priority. Of course, many of these secular liberals are probably the same people who propelled Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens onto the best-seller lists by purchasing their books en masse--people who are worried about the dual threats to secular politics posed by militant Islam and the American religious right. These people are correct to be nervous about the future of secular liberalism, to perceive that it needs passionate, eloquent defenders. The problem is that the rhetoric of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens will undermine liberalism, not bolster it: Far from shoring up the secular political tradition, their arguments are likely to produce a country poised precariously between opposite forms of illiberalism.

Yes indeed. In a raw power struggle between people who, like Harris, want public schools "announce the death of God" and those who want them to indoctrinate us all in the Gospel, the numbers aren't on the side of the non-believers and the outcome is unlikely to be a happy one for anyone. The liberal consensus, by contrast, has served the country well and undermining it from the point of view of ideological atheism is really no better than undermining it from any other direction.

Comments

Yep. Those militant atheists are a serious threat. It's ridiculous for atheists to expect to have their beliefs respected. Arguing that God will eternally torture Matt Yglesias in hell for being a Jew is all good stuff. Arguing that this will not happen because god and hell do not exist is just obnoxious.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 17, 2007 1:26 PM

Religion is the root of all evil. Accepting death means the end of everything you've ever known, the snuffing of your consciousness, is the first step towards rational, humane treatment of your fellow man.

Posted by steve duncan | December 17, 2007 1:27 PM

Most of these writers are English and do not need to suppress what they genuinely believe for fear of arousing the wrath of the righteous wingnuts. Are you arguing that English scientists should suppress what they believe because if they don't the crazed fundies will take over the US? Yeah, that's worked well so far.

I for one was appalled by the funeral of John Paul II, which was treated by the media as the passing of a superior being blessed with superhuman wisdom and goodness. It wouldn't have hurt to have just one voice point out that this fellow protected and protested child molesters while causing untold misery by working ceaselessly to deprive poor women around the world of birth control. Or that the church under him actively intervened and may have determined the outcome of a US presidential election.

And the funeral of Jerry Falwell was not much better. If it takes an atheist to call Falwell a charletan, then we need more atheists in the public sphere.

Posted by Bloix | December 17, 2007 1:28 PM

I don't know about you, but they still read the pledge of allegiance every day over the loud speaker at the high-school I went to, and constitutional rights be damned, when I was a student I was told by more than one teacher that I "had" to stand up for it out of respect.

The fact is, there is no liberal consensus about religion in this country, atheists are made to feel like outcasts in public institutions, and if it is unfortunate that they have become radicalized, it is not very surprising.

Posted by Sam L. | December 17, 2007 1:30 PM

If schools are doing their job, they won't need to "announce the death of God". God died because of the enlightenment and scientific progress and the advancement of the state of human understanding of the workings of the universe.

Schools need only teach good science and good philosophy, and students will draw their own conclusions.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 17, 2007 1:34 PM

I always see Dawkins and Hitchens talked about as if they were somehow similar in their approaches to promoting atheism, and that's really not fair to Dawkins.

Hitchens is little more than an angry religious zealot. He may be an atheist, but he's still pure, unadulterated, religious-style faith behind that anger. This comes through loud and clear whenever Hitchens veers off topic from a generalized criticism of theism and religion to criticisms of specific religions or topics not touching on religion at all. As an atheist myself, Hitchens seems a total nutter who happens to accidentally be right about god. Hitchens is to god as Ron Paul is to the Iraq war.

Dawkins is simply not comparable to Hitchens. Dawkins would leave religion alone if its effects weren't so broadly externalized beyond the individual believer; Hitchens would cry jihad against even the most private of theisms. Dawkins is somewhat angry about religion but generally reasonable about all things including religion; Hitchens is over-the-top angry about religion and reasonable about nothing including religion.

Dawkins is, of course, a first rate scientist, and he approaches religion from a scientific point of view; Hitchens is a particularly scientifically illiterate journalist and literary critic who wouldn't know science or a reasonable argument if it bit him on the ass.

Posted by R Johnston | December 17, 2007 1:35 PM

I think that we're going to see some changes in this 'new atheism,' or rather, 'newly assertive non-theism', as it broadens from being led by a few cranky individuals to a lot more people who may be less invested in demonstrating their own personal contrarianism and more interested in showing that they're simply fed up with having their sensible outlook dismissed by many in the public and private sphere.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 1:36 PM

I got halfway through that TNR before I gave up. Guy just couldn't get to the point.

Do we have to be nice to people who believe in pixies and crystals too?

Good post R Johnston.

Posted by Chris M | December 17, 2007 1:37 PM

I must say, giving resolute secular voters a little breathing room doesn't seem the worst outcome. There's something incompatible about the incessant demands that Democrats "grow a set," "grow a spine" etc. and now this squeamishness in the face of actual liberal forthrightness. Excesses in the rhetoric of atheists are like any other -- excesses -- but if we want to build a truly liberal nation, that's going to be part of the mix. In other words, clamping down on it now is one way to guarantee that it won't happen. I overstate, perhaps, but there's something to it.

Posted by Martin | December 17, 2007 1:39 PM

i don't always agree with yglesias, but at least he usually makes sense. but his jihad against the so-called "new atheists" makes no sense.

first, there's nothing "new" about them. there have been assertive atheists for quite a long time. look at marx, or bertram russell's "why i am not a christian". what we're seeing now is nothing all that original, at least not in the modern era.

and second, what does yglesias think atheists are supposed to do? just shut up and keep their atheisim to themselves? why can't atheists talk about their beliefs (or lack thereof) like everyone else? and how does getting atheists to not discuss their beliefs undermine liberalism?

yglesias is on this anti-new atheist kick and he seems to have lost his otherwise sensible self in the process.

Posted by upyernoz | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM

don't rock the boat. stay in your place and quietly accept the fact that you are second-class citizens for not Believing. enjoy the grudging tolerance Believers have for you and your wicked hell-bound atheistic ways.

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM

What R Johnston said.

I haven't read "The God Delusion", but I did read a long essay by Dawkins in which he makes the philosophical case that there is a low likelihood of the existence of a Divine Being. I thought it was very well argued. All his premises were put forth clearly, and the argument was lucid and convincing. And, anyone who has read "The Ancestor's Tale" knows that he is a great science writer.

Its possible that Dawkins political views are not as sound. That's true of a lot of scientists: they are often naive when it comes to politics.

Hitchens, on the other hand, is just a gasbag.

I respect Dennet, a philosopher who has written quite a bit about consciousness, but based on those writings I believe he is a little too literal-minded and lacking in imagination. He doesn't really seem to grasp how fundamentally un-understandable consciousness is.

Regarding all these people, I think you have to distinguish their arguments about the existence of God from their arguments about what our public policy toward religion should be. I'm totally sympathetic to writings that argue in favor of atheism. I'm not too sympathetic to public policies that involve intolerance toward religion, if that is in fact what any of them are supporting.

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 1:48 PM

Oh good grief. The "liberal consensus" hasn't served the country that well. What has served the country well is the initial condition and persisting tendency towards the separation of church and state.

When did an atheist insist that the schools announce "the death of God"? This is the sort of writing that should see the perpetrator banned from the 7th grade honors class, not published in a national magazine or subsequently cited in blog.

On the other hand, we see the very clear consequences of entirely too much religion in our schools- a dumb-as-bread populace that barely beats a tossed coin in deciding which side of the country the Pacific Ocean is on.

Maybe Matt should discuss this with a rabbi. Or take a close look at Israel.

Posted by serial catowner | December 17, 2007 2:02 PM

Reading the broadsides against the "new atheists," I'm often left to conclude that their critics either didn't read their books or failed to totally comprehend their arguments.

For example, anyone who read God Is Not Great should recognize that Hitchens, while vociferous in calling religion what it is -- claptrap-- insists on polite treatment of the religious individual. He, and none of his "new atheist" colleagues, never call for the abolishment of religion by fiat or government power, or the disenfranchisement of the religious. Mocking someone's belief in the public square is not tantamount to trying to stifle them.

Clearly, these critics -- and unfortunately Matthew appears prey to this as well -- are missing the details of the argument for the vociferous language it is presented in. This is indeed a flaw, and one that as an atheist myself I have pointed out repeatedly, but it's not the same as illiberal oppression.

Posted by James F. Elliott | December 17, 2007 2:09 PM

I can't get elected to fucking dogcatcher as an atheist.

I'm automatically reviled by a significant portion of this country.

And I'm the one who's gotta learn toleration?

Fuck that. Fuck your myths. Fuck the abusive indoctrination of your defenseless children.

And fuck MY for perpetuating this useless pushback against a movement that's sorely needed.

Posted by ethan salto | December 17, 2007 2:13 PM

The liberal consensus, by contrast, has served the country well and undermining it from the point of view of ideological atheism is really no better than undermining it from any other direction.

That's a little bit of a stretch, I think. In the past 8 years we've seen a massive roll-back of secular pluralism and the secular protections against religious oppression, and it hasn't been at the hands of atheists - "new", or any other kind - it's been at the hands of religious moderates simply ceding the ground to their co-religionists.

The new atheism doesn't undermine to the secular wall between government and religion; it's a stronger prop than anything religious moderation brings to bear.

Posted by Chet | December 17, 2007 2:20 PM

I do think my fellow atheists could clean up their language a bit...

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 2:20 PM

I don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but the public tension about keeping atheistic views hidden is precisely the kind of cultural 'taboo-ish' sort of thing which is fought by direct and individual defiance.

That's why part of this debate seems so cranky, and why these 'new' public figures emphasizing it seem so divisive.

That's what happens when there's a set of unwritten but largely accepted cultural prejudices and people start refusing to follow them.

This is not the kind of issue which is really focused on some sort of new legislation, or the need for some new institution, or something like that.

It's one of those cultural things that people just need to start saying, 'No, I'm not going along with that anymore, and my views are actually the more reasonable ones.'

That's the kind of individual-level cultural defiance which right wing religionists feel is their sole preserve. Only they get to bitch and moan about how the NYT doesn't condemn homosexuals to death and hell like they might prefer. Only they get to cry to the heavens that the Statue of Liberty isn't dressed up as Mother Mary with Baby Jesus once a year.

So given that this is an argument that individuals begin publicly asserting their own atheism, or non-theism (I'm not sure there isn't a God, but there certainly is no evidence for one either, and surely if there is one it's not a lunatic who prefers we think irrationally), a certain crankiness is required.

The crop of authors mentioned are the ones who step out in front of the crowd, and so are sensibly the sorts of cranky individualists more willing to do so.

Posted by El Cid | December 17, 2007 2:23 PM

Worst. Post. Ever.

Wow, what a crock of shit. Be committed to rationalism, and watch the "I'm so reasonable" Broders and Yglesiases of the world turn.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 17, 2007 2:28 PM

Another second for R Johnston. I'll add that I think Linker's essay also misrepresents Dennett's book. Concerning Dennett, Linker writes

Philosopher Daniel Dennett shares Dawkins's hostility to religious education, warning ominously in Breaking the Spell that "under the protective umbrellas of personal privacy and religious freedom there are widespread practices in which parents" harm their children by teaching them ignoble lies.

and

Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions.

Brutally intolerant? Hardly. Here's the continuation of the same paragraph in Dennett that Linker quotes above:

What are the rights of parents in such circumstances and 'where do we draw the line'? This is a political question that can be settled not by discovering 'the answer' but by working out an answer that is acceptable to as many informed people as possible.

Does that sound brutal or intolerant? It sounds reasonable to me. In that passage Dennett is simply arguing that religious upbringing should not be off-limits when we consider what's good for children.

Posted by RSA | December 17, 2007 2:28 PM

The fact is, this country's so-called religiosity is 3000 miles wide and about an inch deep. "Extremists" like Hitchens and Harris are doing quite a good job at doing their part, namely emboldening the significant percentage of Americans who kinda sorta believe out of habit and guilt and upbringing, but really don't. More extremists, please. A good swift kick in the ass from a fearless atheist is all this erstwhile 20-year-old needed to come out of the closet, once upon a time.

More new atheism, less concern trolling.

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 2:31 PM

Religion is indeed every bit the opiate that alcohol is. But we should learn from the temperance/prohibition movement: the thing to fight is drunkenness, not occasional imbibing. Nothing wrong with an occasional glass of wine, or a little "denial of death" for Christmas and Easter.

Atheists, like teetotalers, will always be a tiny sliver of society. But somewhat like the % of society that aren't problem drinkers, atheists combined with the non-observant and the occasionally-observant are a clear majority and growing every day. The civic goals of secularists are strengthened by emphasizing what we have in common with that secular majority, not by emphasizing our differences.

Posted by kth | December 17, 2007 2:34 PM

Furthermore, I tutor a lot of lower-income kids who would uniformly describe themselves as Christians. They know...not a thing about the history and beliefs of their own religion, let alone this country's history and founding beliefs. I needed to cope with an 11th grader recently who had absolutely no idea that the way we count the years is linked to the birth of Jesus, and for whom the notion of "B.C." was entirely new. Another had never heard of the Three Wise Men or any other detail of the nativity story, in spite of attending church every Sunday. Their parents are equally ignorant. These students go on to be voting-aged "Christians" and there are millions of them. They think Christopher Columbus is our Founding Father (if perchance they've heard of him at all), they point to Canada when I ask where Mexico is, and they couldn't pin down the life of Jesus anywhere within a thousand years on a time line. The least we can do is point out to them the details and context of what they're supposed to be believing.

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 2:41 PM

Linker's article is in the great "you're only helping the other side!" tradition. Hitchens et al. may be tediously shrill at times (OK, a lot of the time) but how about "the other side"? They get a bit shrill at times as well. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" is a better book than 99.99% of the god-fearing types can manage.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | December 17, 2007 2:42 PM

There's a bit of a double standard here, I think?

Saying, "I believe in God, and you should too, else you risk the fires of hell" is considered normal.

Saying, "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either, because believing in God is stupid," is considered somehow mean. And if you say it, people claim you're part of a campaign to destroy religion.

If that counts as a campaign to destroy religion, then the first statement should count as a campaign to destroy atheism.

Posted by Patrick | December 17, 2007 2:50 PM

I'm actually a little ambivalent about what to tell children. I vividly remember looking in the mirror when I was 4 years old, thinking that some day I would turn into a skeleton. I remember how terrifying it was. When my older brother assured me that I would go to Heaven, it made me feel much better.

I think that comforting children with the illusion of an afterlife might be the best thing for them. Why not wait until their in they're in their teens to tell them the truth?

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 2:58 PM

MY is not criticizing the atheists' tone, and Linker is only secondarily criticizing their tone. The primary criticism is of their illiberalism, which not a single commenter has addressed except for the one who agreed that bringing children up religious is child abuse.

Also, why is it assumed that anyone on the left criticizing these people is a "concern troll" who is worried that atheists are being too inflammatory? Why can't we sincerely believe that the belief that "believing in God is stupid" is, in fact, stupid?

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 2:58 PM

I reject the premise that the "liberal consensus" has served the country well. Really? Because I don't sense that the national culture has any collective tolerance for non-belief.

Now, you can argue that atheists have done a lousy job of packaging and selling its virtues. And I'd concede that. But I see Harris, in particular, as someone who can assertively elevate nontheist talking points and sculpt them into something that resembles an organized movement.

Second, belief in god has dropped from 79% to 73% in three years. Among those under 30, the number is down in the mid-to-low 60s. I'm no pollster, but that suggests to me that nontheism could be a majority in our lifetime.

Finally, I don't see a wholesale criticism of Islamism as "illiberal." Are you really buying into that ridiculous premise that "intolerance of intolerance" is "illiberal"? This is a fallacy of squishy liberalism: Excusing Islam's murderous essence because Muslims are brown people and, quite often, impoverished. Harris rightly believes that we shouldn't excuse a religion that subjugates women, hangs gays in the public square, and preaches murder in the body of their most sacred texts.

Yes...atheists...warriors in a war on Ramadan.

Posted by Kevin | December 17, 2007 3:03 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by illiberalism. For example, is it illiberal to say believe 100% in evolution and to think creationism is stupid?

From what I remember, all Dawkins said is that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the existence of a divine being. He is approaching this like a scientist, and saying what the evidence leads him to conclude and why. I don't see what is illiberal about this.

If he is saying that we should pass laws forbidding organized religion, then that would be illiberal. But, I haven't heard that.

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 3:05 PM

There's a difference between wanting the Government to enforce your view and simply advocating for it forcefully. Despite occasional excesses of rhetoric, think the latter is what DDH&H are doing.

(A long blog post elaborating on this, & generally responding to Linker, can be found here.)

Posted by Stephen Frug | December 17, 2007 3:06 PM

You can, just as I sincerely believe (and can probably defend with a lot more cogency than you can defend your belief, but that's another topic) that believing in God is indeed stupid. Now, I'm not telling you to shut up about your belief no matter how dumb I may consider it- that's not my place, and it is much better to debate you than to try to encourage you to be silent. (Marketplace of ideas, and all that.) And by the same token I have no attention of listening to goofs like Linker and Matthew who have the gall to tell me I should shut up about mine.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:07 PM

While the article may be correct in saying that many of the "new atheist" writers have been too strident in their denunciations of theistic belief that they find themselves grasping for straws to finish their arguments and that they ultimately turn off others to atheism, I do think that atheists should make their views more public.

Atheism is a growing group in this country, with more atheists among the younger generations and many of us feel that there have been ideas in our national discourse which are anti-atheist and I think it is fair for us to point out that we exist that there are reasons that we exist, and that we have a right to participate in the national discourse.

When we have presidential candidates who make speeches about freedom requiring religion and vice versa, we need to point out that we atheists can indeed be ethical...that ethics in no inextricably tied to religion. When bigotry against atheists rears its ugly head in driving families out of town, we need to stand up against it. When the forces of ignorance found in the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis try to push on our children religious thought pretending to be science, we need to stand up.

It's true that those in the new atheist movement that gain the most influence are those who make the most strident claims, but that does not mean that the movement should or will be abandoned. I think it marks a period where atheism will be permitted to be more openly expressed and eventually will shape our national discourse as well. Of course, this is more long term, but we cannot be so short sighted that we ignore the consequences of staying silent.

Posted by Meng Bomin | December 17, 2007 3:08 PM

My, the comments spring up thick and fast. Mine was in response to Brendan. (And my fingers typed "attention" when they were supposed to type "intention".)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:10 PM

What RSA pointed out. Linker is searching out a Sister Soljia [sp] moment, and lies to try to do so. Better liars / concern trolls, with more appropriate targets, please. MY, you should feel terrible for parroting such BS.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 17, 2007 3:11 PM

Illiberalism meaning the use of state power to suppress religion. All of the "new atheists" hint at this, some more directly than others.

My above comment was too strong. There is definitely the sense in Linker's article that there is something illiberal about these authors' contemptuous or dismissive attitude toward religion, which I don't agree with.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:12 PM

Wow, that's a pretty vitriolic set of comments. Here's the problem: atheism is not anything you can live for. Nor is it something that you can stand for or have ground your morality. You're an a-theist, I'm an a-Buddhist. Big deal. Doesn't tell me much about you to tell me what you're not.

The question is what are you for? Then take on a name (freethinker, secular humanist, whatever) that represents what you think. Then you have to argue for it. And until everyone has cards on the table, Brendan is right in saying that "believing in God is stupid" is, in fact, stupid.

Posted by nolaboyd | December 17, 2007 3:15 PM

I recommend reading David Sloan Wilson, an atheist evolutionist who looks at religion scientifically. We can strive for understanding the phenomena of religion in a scientific manner. Religion has evolved, just like our bodies and our cultures, and it has played a large role in our overall cultural evolution.

I prefer to specifically attack stupid ideas (such as ID and brainwashing children), but I look upon religion curiously, wondering if it is just like a virus that evolved and is harming us (the Dawkins view) or if it is like any other cultural phenotype whose creation and current evolutionary purpose can be studied and understood. I trust that atheism will prevail over time, just like most good ideas eventually do, and bad ideas can be useful, but eventually will dissapate, as bad ideas do. Survival of the fittest memes! Some (many, in fact) religious ideas are horrible, but some are good and useful, but are, for now anyway, packaged with the stupid. Let's chip away at these ideas and be part of the evolution and progress of our culture.

Posted by Ares | December 17, 2007 3:15 PM

It almost sounds like Matt is saying that atheists should think strategically. That, if we say what we really think, it may be counterproductive.

Now, I'm all for politicians holding back on what they really believe in order to get elected, etc. But why should ordinary citizens start acting like politicians? We should just say what we think and let the chips fall where they may.

Of course, once President Huckabee establishes the US as a Christian Theocracy, I might change my tune.

Posted by Jim W | December 17, 2007 3:15 PM

"Illiberalism meaning the use of state power to suppress religion. All of the "new atheists" hint at this, some more directly than others."

This is an outrageous lie. Is spreading lies a "liberal" thing to do?

Here's the real problem: rational criticism of religion is prohibited by such a strong taboo that religionists and their sympathizers are even led into telling ridiculous lies like Brendan's when it is breached. To them, criticism already comes near to attempted suppression. They appear to be too addled to know the difference.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:17 PM

There's nothing really new about these "new atheists" to people who have paid attention since, well, much longer than anyone here has been alive.

Christopher Hitchens' book for one is just a pale shadow of Gore Vidal's much more intelligent and much better written writings on the subject going back several decades.

Posted by mad6798j | December 17, 2007 3:18 PM

So saying that I'm an A-unicornist doesn't tell you anything? And if I claim that "your belief in unicorns is stupid", that is a stupid statement? Ridiculous.

Posted by TheF79 | December 17, 2007 3:20 PM

nolaboyd's comment perfectly illustrates the defects of the religious mindset. People should be totally defined by their adherence or otherwise to some set of metaphysical beliefs? What rubbish.

I don't know about you but I have more than one thing to live for.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:21 PM

With Harris and Hitchens, there's no question that there atheism leads to illiberalism--Harris has come out in favor of torturing our enemies, and Hitchens is, well, Hitchens. And Dawkins goes too far in criticizing religious education.

But I think Dennett is still pretty firmly in the liberal secularism camp. Dennett's rhetoric may have gone too far, but his proposal was just to require teaching on the history of religions in school--and apparently some religious believes are in agreement with him on that score. He defends that proposal here and though you could criticize the proposal as unrealistic, it doesn't seem illiberal. Dennett is not proposing that parents be kept from imparting any religious teaching they want, but that they be kept from isolating their children from competing religious teachings.

And ultimately Damon Linker is just wrong, and kind of illiberal, on this point.

Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one; and it is inexcusable that each book leaves readers guessing which objective its author favors.

No. Prostelyzation does not disqualify you from liberalism. A liberal Christian can believe that religious freedom and exchange of ideas will move the nation in a Christian direction, a liberal atheist can believe that the same will lead the nation in an atheist direction. Both of them can work together in the political sphere even as they compete in the sphere of belief. If Linker is uncomfortable with this, I'm not sure he's being any more liberal or tolerant than any of the New Atheists.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 17, 2007 3:21 PM

It's a hilarious double-standard that you actually have to pick up a gun and kill somebody to be considered a 'militant' believer, but all you have to do to be considered a 'militant atheist' is write a book. The 'rhetoric' of Dawkins and Dennett in particular is routinely exaggerated; their books are quite reasonable in tone. Can anyone produce a good counterexample? Hitchens... he's often provocative, even rude, no question. But how long do you think I'd have to search to find statements of comparable intensity on the religious side?

Posted by Ray Ingles | December 17, 2007 3:23 PM

I should clarify that I'm also an atheist. I was responding to the tendency, here and elsewhere, to accuse an atheist who encourages respect for religion, or something along those lines, of pandering or condescending or "concern trolling," etc.

But certainly we all acknowledge that there are beliefs that we do not share, but do not find stupid. The job that I'm not doing right now involves reading a lot of legal documents, and as anyone familiar with the law knows, legal questions often require a judge or a jury to decide how a "reasonable person" could or would react to given set of facts. I think we all perform a sort of "reasonable person" test with respect to beliefs we encounter: there are some beliefs that do not convince us, but which we think could convince a reasonable person.

I don't think the belief that the Bible is literally true could convince any reasonable person with an adequate education. I find that belief stupid. But I do think that a reasonable person could conclude that there is a God.

Obviously we can't respect every possible belief, but political liberalism does depend on our ability to recognize a range of respetable beliefs. For some people, all religious belief falls outside that range, which is fine, but I think they're wrong and that it would be a bad thing if everyone agreed with them.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:25 PM

Matt, this is the most disappointing post I have ever read from you. I would have assumed that you would support my right to freely express my religious beliefs.

I see no evidence that atheism undermines secular liberal politics. Even if we stipulate that it does, why wouldn't it still be valid for atheists to advocate atheism on its own merits? Even aggressively? Why would you single out one inflammatory position of Sam Harris to malign an entire school of thought? Shall I pull out a quote from an inflammatory rabbi and use it to make the argument that Jews should shut up because comments like the one by that inflammatory rabbi are undermining liberal politics?

This post fails to treat your readers' religious views with respect, fails to support its thesis, and basically says to a group of people who probably outnumber Jews, Muslims, and Mormons in this country that they should keep their religious views to themselves based on your unsupported statement that advocating those rationalistic views undermine what you presume to be their political beliefs.

Advocating what I believe is important for its own sake. Advocating atheism almost explicitly endorses making the political sphere secular, which is important for its own sake. Drawing attention to the fact that as of today, liberal politicians, and most Democratic politicians, offer a more clear path to secular politics is important for its own sake. If advocacy like this encourages the nonreligious to support candidates committed to separation of church and state, and can help offset the phenomenon of megachurch political activism, that would be to the benefit of secular politics.

People are unlikely to call it bigotry when aimed at atheists, but it quacks like a duck.

Posted by Tim | December 17, 2007 3:26 PM

I'm with Linker on this one. Dawkins, Hitchens and the so-called "new atheists" have made it acceptable to classify people of faith as essentially sub-human - intellectually inferior and mentally ill.

Even looking at some of the lesser wannabee sites (Pharyngula for example) you can see a disturbing trending away from a tolerance of intellectual and spiritual freedom. What was once a campaign with fairly specific goals - maintaining the firewall between church and state - has now managed to become a generallized "war on religion" (in P.Z. Meyers'own words) with calls from many of his commenters to criminalize the teaching of religious principles to children as a form of child abuse. What do these people honestly expect to accomplish with this kind of adversarialist approach?

The only thing new about the new atheists is the level of their strident rhetoric. They're not helping - they're part of the problem.

Posted by Chris Wren | December 17, 2007 3:27 PM

"For some people, all religious belief falls outside that range, which is fine, but I think they're wrong and that it would be a bad thing if everyone agreed with them." Then why don't you just say that, instead of accusing them of being "illiberal", and making up lies about their proposed forceful suppression of religion?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:28 PM

I find the whole atheism discussion rather pointless.

1. Even the most casual glance at human history teaches us that a huge portion of people (if not the outright majority) have a basic NEED to believe in something. So, the idea that atheism will lead to everyone becoming these hard-headed rationalists who view the world with dispassionate logic is quite silly.

2. The complaints about religion really aren't about religion...they're about what people do in the name of/in the service of religion. Yet, didn't the 20th century provide us with the greatest example (Communism) that if people aren't doing bad things because of God, they'll do bad things because of something else.

Personal disbelief in God is one thing, but Atheism the ideology strikes me as yet another utopian fetish that ignores the immutable nature of Man.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 3:29 PM

Here's the real problem: rational criticism of religion is prohibited by such a strong taboo that religionists and their sympathizers are even led into telling ridiculous lies like Brendan's when it is breached. To them, criticism already comes near to attempted suppression. They appear to be too addled to know the difference.

I shouldn't have said "all," because I haven't read them all. I retract the outrageous lie. However, calling religious upbringing child abuse does invite an illiberal reading, since child abuse is grounds for the state to remove a child from parents' custody by force.

So saying that I'm an A-unicornist doesn't tell you anything? And if I claim that "your belief in unicorns is stupid", that is a stupid statement? Ridiculous.

No. I was talking about God, not unicorns. You are free to believe that the two are equally absurd, as I am free to find that belief stupid.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:31 PM

Nor is it something that you can stand for or have ground your morality. You're an a-theist, I'm an a-Buddhist. Big deal. Doesn't tell me much about you to tell me what you're not.

Right. The content of atheism is simply hostility to religion. In that sense, it is not one belief system among others. You can be non-religious without being an atheist.

A lot of the atheists here seem to think the fact that religious practices involve making false claims about the world is a decisive objection. But that's not really relevant. Religion is a set of ethical and moral standards, a community with shared practices and traditions, and most importantly a basis for people feeling that there lives are meaningful and worthwhile. Are you against those things?

Of course, you can fairly say that the way religion has filled those needs leaves something to be desired. but then you have to offer an alternative.

I wonder if any of the militant atheists have ever talked to someone in AA or visited a meeting. "God" in that context is providing something essential to people's lives. It's easy for people who are constantly told by society in various ways "you are important, what you do matters" to be scornful of people who hear the opposite every day. But there are a lot of them, and the message "you matter" really is as much a necessity of life as shelter or clothing. There's a reason the great populist Williams Jenning Bryan opposed evolution and saw it as a stalking horse for social Darwinism.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 17, 2007 3:32 PM

There's nothing really new about these "new atheists" to people who have paid attention since, well, much longer than anyone here has been alive.

Christopher Hitchens' book for one is just a pale shadow of Gore Vidal's much more intelligent and much better written writings on the subject going back several decades.

"New" refers to their being contemporary and writing current bestsellers - not to the notion that they invented what they're saying out of whole cloth. If you weren't in a hurry to sound like a pompous jackass this might've occurred to you. How many copies did Gore Vidal sell, bub? Notice anything new?

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 3:36 PM

"No. I was talking about God, not unicorns. You are free to believe that the two are equally absurd, as I am free to find that belief stupid."

And yet you don't actually hold either belief, which suggests that you realize that BOTH are unsupported by evidence. So why the pussyfooting around the one but not the other?

All of us hold stupid beliefs about something at one time or other- it's a human failing. Without open criticism of beliefs, we can't correct our errors. All people like Dawkins (and Dennett, who only an idiot could find "strident") are saying is that it is a very bad idea to rule out criticism of certain minds of beliefs as soon as they have a "religion" label stuck on them.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:36 PM

Yikes, what an awful article; I'm not surprised it graced TNR's pages. Linker needs to recognize that the words "tolerate" and "respect" are not synonyms. He wants us "new" atheists to respect religion, not merely tolerate it. I, for one, see no reason to respect any belief that is utterly unsupported by evidence, even if said belief is very common.

We atheists respect the individual's right to hold religious beliefs, and we tolerate the beliefs themselves, but demanding that we respect superstitious flim flam is asinine. Linker's piece would be no more ridiculous if he were condemning aleprechaunists for penning tomes about how there are no pot o' gold at the ends of rainbows.

Posted by Eric | December 17, 2007 3:39 PM

And yet you don't actually hold either belief, which suggests that you realize that BOTH are unsupported by evidence. So why the pussyfooting around the one but not the other?

I think I already explained this; I make a distinction between beliefs I think are merely false, and beliefs that I don't think any reasonable, well-educated person could hold. If you reject that distinction, tell me why. In practice, I doubt you do.

I appreciate that I have never spent any significant amount of time in a part of the country where atheists are unwelcome, and this probably affects my sympathies. That said, I do think that atheists, who are disproportionately affluent, white, and educated, should be careful about throwing around words like "bigotry" and "oppression."

Posted by BP | December 17, 2007 3:43 PM

BP was me, sorry.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:43 PM

What Matt wrote about Linker's view of Richard Rorty seems relevant: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/problematics_of_political_libe.php

. Rawlsian political liberalism is indifferent to most of people's views in other areas of life. But Rawlsian political liberalism doesn't say that individual people -- especially including political liberals in good standing -- must be indifferent to the comprehensive views of other.

Let me quote again this from Linker

Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one;

Sure, Harris and Hitchens run flagrantly afoul of political liberalism, and Dawkins skirts the edge--but I think Linker was unfair to Dennett in exactly the same way he was unfair to Rorty.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 17, 2007 3:45 PM

"He wants us "new" atheists to respect religion, not merely tolerate it. I, for one, see no reason to respect any belief that is utterly unsupported by evidence, even if said belief is very common."

Uh, I can think of one reason why atheists should "respect" religion. That would be the fact that religion or the religious impulse has been responsible for so much of the good things that have happened in the world. Atheists too often seem to care about all the bad that can be blamed on religion while ignoring the other side, like how much the advance of freedom and equality has been propelled by religious reasoning and feeling.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 3:47 PM

No, I hold that reasonable, well-educated people ought to reject beliefs that appear to have no foundation, and I would like to live in a society where they routinely do so. And you do thus reject theism. So your position is inconsistent, and appears to be more reflective of some defensive neurosis on your part than of reasoning.

Should gay people- who are on average more affluent than the average American and thus "privileged" in your terms- go back in the closet too because their little problem with bigotry is just to minor for great-hearted Brendan to care about?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:47 PM

Dawkins, Hitchens and the so-called "new atheists" have made it acceptable to classify people of faith as essentially sub-human - intellectually inferior and mentally ill.

and no religious person has ever thought atheists are evil, soulless, or demented. not one. ever. religious people think atheists are perfectly reasonable and want their grandchildren raised as atheists because it's a respectable life choice.

less than 50% of Americans would vote for an atheist, no matter how qualified the candidate was? mere statistical noise!

oh, the poor persecuted religious people!

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 3:48 PM

"That would be the fact that religion or the religious impulse has been responsible for so much of the good things that have happened in the world."

With that kind of "argument" by assertion I can "prove" that, say, heliocentrism has been responsible for all the good things that have happened in the modern world. OR for all the bad things- fallacious arguments often "work" both ways.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:50 PM

Should gay people- who are on average more affluent than the average American and thus "privileged" in your terms- go back in the closet too because their little problem with bigotry is just to minor for great-hearted Brendan to care about?

I never said that atheists should stop being atheists, or stop speaking out against prejudice against them. I do find it outrageous that an atheist could not be elected to any high office in America. I'm just uncomfortable with equating prejudice against atheism with much more systematic oppression, as of minorities, the poor, or gay people.

No, I hold that reasonable, well-educated people ought to reject beliefs that appear to have no foundation, and I would like to live in a society where they routinely do so.

Whether the belief is without foundation is sort of the substance of the disagreement, isn't it?

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 3:53 PM

I want to find some of these "militant atheists" so I can join their army and start killing believers.

Just kidding. But it would help your credibility if you could actually name some real "militant atheists" rather then mere book writers.

This feels like yet another manufactured controversy.

Posted by Joey Giraud | December 17, 2007 3:55 PM

Why do you reject theism yourself if you think it is well-founded? And if you in fact do not think it's well-founded why do you have a problem when people say so? You're frankly not making any sense.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 3:56 PM

"With that kind of "argument" by assertion I can "prove" that, say, heliocentrism has been responsible for all the good things that have happened in the modern world. OR for all the bad things- fallacious arguments often "work" both ways."

Uh, you notice I didn't say ALL the good things. I said MUCH of the good things. The fact that you so easily mischaracterized my argument pretty much demonstrates my point about atheists like yourself.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 3:58 PM

Steve L., let's say some people believe that a national health insurance plan with an individual insurance mandate would not be significantly more effective than one without, as, in fact, some people do. This is an empirical, though still untested, question. Based on what I have read about the subject, I believe those people are wrong. I do not, however, believe they are idiots. There are also people who believe that any sort of national health care system will lead to authoritarianism. I do believe that those people are idiots.

Do you really never make these distinctions? How do you ever have a civil conversation with anyone?

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 4:01 PM

Attributing ANY good- or bad- things to the influence of religion requires actual informed argument about those specific things. You're welcome to submit some of those for criticism, OR to submit your own specific criticisms of assertions by teh authors we're discussing about negative influences of religion. That would be more productive than blathering.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:02 PM

Mateys,

Lighten up. Neither MY nor D. Linker is telling you (or Dawkins et al) what to believe or communicate.

The TNR article is not arguing that people should not be atheists, or even that they shouldn't advocate atheism. But the intolerance Linker highlights in his piece is real. Dawkins and Harris, especially, both paint vibrant pictures of a religion-free world in dire, Huntingtonian, clash-of-civilization terms. While they don't promote illegal means to ring in that bright future, it's clear that they have no misgivings about the immanent correctness of their position. They know exactly what other people should and should not believe. The God Delusion and The End of Faith are not merely about why the authors are irreligious, but rather why everyone should be, and that religion is inherently a toxic threat to our civilzation and species.

Harris and Dawkins often write in their defense to the effect of "we just want to be allowed to criticise religious belief on the same grounds we would criticize political, aesthetic, or scientific positions." But this gentlemanly mode of discourse is belied by statements like "Science must destroy religion" (Harris), "People must not be allowed to play the faith card," (Dennett), or that religious upbringings are a form of abuse worse than sexual molestation(!) (Dawkins).

It's abundantly clear that in their hearts, this crowd would like to see extirpated any sub-cultures who deviate from the rationalist-materialist model of the cosmos. That is a form of tribalism as hard and furious as anything you'll find in the bible belt, or in Waziristan, and it is neither liberal nor tolerant.

Before you respond with a litany of religion's supposed dangerous or ill effects, I've heard them before, but notably they are never accompanied by anything more rigorous than anecdote or casual argument.

Posted by C. Schoen | December 17, 2007 4:02 PM

Bill:

"How many copies did Gore Vidal sell, bub? Notice anything new?"

Umm, lots and lots and lots. His books are always bestsellers. Several of his biggest bestsellers, including Julian and "United States" dealing heavily with religion.

It would be better if you knew what you were talking about before you got all pissy.

Posted by mad6798j | December 17, 2007 4:04 PM

My problem with the article is that it simply isn't persuasive. Rather, it's full of passages like this:

Do [the new atheists] seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one; and it is inexcusable that each book leaves readers guessing which objective its author favors.

In essence, Linker is attacking the "new atheists" for acting like evangelicals. But is evangelizing - which by its very nature involves persuasion, not forcible conversion - really "illiberal"? The clear answer is no, if we regard "liberalism" as the legal and political tolerance of varying points of view. Unless and until atheists begin arguing that religion should be banned by law, there is nothing illiberal about trying to persuade others to adopt their point of view.

Linker tries to make his case by shifting the goalposts:

[L]iberalism is a philosophy of government, not a philosophy of man--or God. ... But modern liberalism [also] derives, at its deepest level, from ancient liberalism--from the classical virtue of liberality, which meant generosity and openness. To be liberal in the classical sense is to accept intellectual variety--and the social complexity that goes with it--as the ineradicable condition of a free society.

So, according to Linker, liberalism is about the toleration diversity of ideas, not about laws or real freedoms. The sin of the new atheists, Linker argues, is that they violate the "spirit" of "ancient liberalism" which celebrates "intellectual variety." In other words, Linker isn't just saying evangelizing is illiberal; he's arguing that a failure to accept any type of "intellectual variety" is illiberal. Taken to its natural conclusion, Linker would have us believe that argument itself is illiberal.

Is it illiberal to fail to respect the ideas of those who believe that global warming is a hoax? Does a vocal argument against neoconservatism violate the "spirit" of "ancient liberalism" which celebrates "intellectual variety"? Of course not.

What makes believers so uncomfortable about committed atheists is that atheists engage the question of religion using traditional, evidence-based arguments. This, of course, is taboo for believers, who want atheists to share their faith in the great unknown. Linker uses the familiar language of political correctness to take it one step further: an attack on religion is an attack on diversity, and is therefore bad. And therein lies the rub.

Atheists like Harris regard religion as a set of ideas that have a very real impact on the world - just as neoconservatism is a set of ideas that has a very real impact on the world. Thus, Harris speaks out against both the intellectual wrongness of religion, and the negative real world impact he believes religion has on the world. If he were discussing neoconservatism, it would be fair game. Because he is discussing religion, he is attacking "diversity."

Posted by owenz | December 17, 2007 4:06 PM

Brendan, to be a successful defense of your position that would require that you think there are arguments for theism which are colorably defensible but which you ultimately find to be wrong, as might be true in your health care policy example. Do you believe that about theism? If so, what are those plausible but wrong grounds? And if you believe they exist, might you not still be mistaken and obliged to consider that you might be mistaken, and shouldn't you therefore ore correctly describe yourself as an agnostic?

Is lying about nonexistent calls for state suppression of religion your idea of civil conversation, by the way? I hope I never have THAT kind.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:07 PM

atheists are disproportionately affluent, white, and educated

This is important. Educated, affluent professionals are told contantly, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, that they are important and their actions and wellbeing matter. Many people in our society are told the opposite -- that they're worthless and nothing they do will have any consequences. For people in that situation, the belief that your spiritual worth doesn't depend on your status and that there are great consequences to your choices is vital. Necessary to life. And religion is often the only thing that offers that.

If you see a lot of people holding what seem to you obviously false and ridiculous beliefs, you might ask, "what are they getting out of it? Why is this important to them? how could we get them what they need in some other way?" Or, like most o f the commenters here, you might just say "look at those idiots! haha, I'm so much smarter than them."

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 17, 2007 4:07 PM

"Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one;"

Not having read the books in question, I'm not in a position to analyze them. But the statement I just quoted is illogical. It's entirely possible to have the "goal of producing a secular society" without being illiberal -- the question is whether you want to achieve that goal through rhetoric and persuasion or through government mandate. Linker fails to make that distinction.

Furthermore, Linker condemns Dawkins for saying that raising a child in Catholicism is abuse but not concluding that the state should intervene:

"Why Dawkins refuses to take this idea to its logical conclusion--to say that raising a child in a religious tradition, like other forms of child abuse, should be considered a crime punishable by the state--is a mystery, for it follows directly from the character of his atheism."

Of course in reality Linker is demanding that Dawkins make a special, and unreasonable, exception for religion in what forms of abuse the state punishes. Parents are customarily allowed to instill in their children any beliefs they want, no matter how harmful those beliefs are -- "you're unlovable" "you're a failure" "you're ruining my life" etc. We tend to draw the line at physical abuse, and even that line is often drawn somewhere beyond spanking.

That Linker starts his argument with this absurd straw-man doesn't give me much confidence that the rest of his analysis is any good either.

Posted by Galen | December 17, 2007 4:09 PM

MBunge said:

So, the idea that atheism will lead to everyone becoming these hard-headed rationalists who view the world with dispassionate logic is quite silly.

I agree that this idea is silly. However, this is your idea. I haven't seen anyone else make this argument.

The complaints about religion really aren't about religion...they're about what people do in the name of/in the service of religion.

I don't think atheists are so much complaining about religion (some are, of course) as saying it is fundamentally irrational.

Atheism the ideology strikes me as yet another utopian fetish that ignores the immutable nature of Man.

Another straw man to beat up. Atheism the ideology.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 17, 2007 4:09 PM

lemuel has merely found a fancy "populist" way to reframe the indefensible taboo against criticizing religion. Unimpressive.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:10 PM

Religion is a set of ethical and moral standards, a community with shared practices and traditions, and most importantly a basis for people feeling that there lives are meaningful and worthwhile.

This is at best a grossly imprecise definition of religion. It in no way distinguishes the thing we call religion from all sorts of things which we do not call religion.

For starters, you left out the part about an unscientific, narrative cosmology. I mention this because one of the things I find most objectionable about religion is that in many instances believers tie, as you have, a sense of personal meaning and worth to affiliation with something supernatural.

Personally, and amidst the same ups and downs that religious types experience, that all types experience, life is precious to me. It seems to me that in that kernel of understanding there is a basis for reciprocity which may perform better as a moral foundation for a community than the more elaborate, confusing, and ultimately vague rules at play in the major religions that have cropped up over the course of human history.

Posted by MrTimbo | December 17, 2007 4:12 PM

"Attributing ANY good- or bad- things to the influence of religion requires actual informed argument about those specific things."

I ge the sense the you're really not that interested in "actual informed argument", but here goes.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The very founding principles of the United States flows from a religious perspective. Therefore, every good thing (and every bad thing) done by the United States can be attributed to religion.

That you would even attempt (feeble though it is) to challenge the position that religion and the religious impulse has been responsible for much of the good that has happened in the world, shows that you are precisely the sort of atheist MY was writing about.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 4:17 PM

You don't know very much about Jefferson (the author of those words), do you. Here are a couple of samples:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." (Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813)

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Notes on Virginia)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:22 PM

"life is precious to me. It seems to me that in that kernel of understanding there is a basis for reciprocity which may perform better as a moral foundation for a community than the more elaborate, confusing, and ultimately vague rules at play in the major religions that have cropped up over the course of human history."

But if I have power over you and you have no power over me, why should I give a shit about your life? My life being precious to me does not in any way naturally lead to YOUR life being precious to me.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 4:23 PM

The very founding principles of the United States flows from a religious perspective. Therefore, every good thing (and every bad thing) done by the United States can be attributed to religion.

"Therefore" ? really ?

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 4:26 PM

Steve L., you're going to find this argument very weasely and unconvincing, but: the nature of consciousness are both fundamentally mysterious, yet we make assumptions about them. I believe firmly that there exists a reality outside myself and that other people possess consciousness that I do. There is no strictly rational grounds for believing these things. I would say that some kind of intelligence precedes existence, as a solution to the problem of why anything exists, why what does exist is a universe of rationally intelligible laws, is ultimately unconvincing but not insane.

I don't like the term agnostic because all beliefs are to some degree provisional. I live by the assumption that there is no God.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 4:26 PM

Ah, I see, you're one of those people who believe that they are prevented from acting despicably only by their silly metaphysical beliefs. I do you the credit of greatly doubting that this is actually true in your case, but if it were true you would be a dangerous psychopath, and why would we wish to listen to such a person?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:27 PM

"You don't know very much about Jefferson (the author of those words), do you. Here are a couple of samples:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." (Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813)

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." (Notes on Virginia)"

And what the bleep does either of those quotes have to do with the point at issue? Try and focus, bunky.

One can hold that belief in God is irrational, yet still recognize that belief has been responsible for an enormous amount of good and bad in the world. Too many atheists only seem to concern themselves with the bad.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 4:28 PM

Wow, don't know what happened there. Trying again:

I believe firmly that there exists a reality outside myself and that other people possess consciousness as I do. There are no strictly rational grounds for believing these things. I would say that the belief that some kind of intelligence precedes existence, as a solution to the problem of why anything exists and why what does exist is a universe of rationally intelligible laws, is ultimately unconvincing but not insane.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 4:31 PM

To avoid confusion, last comment was addressed to Mike / MBunge.

Brendan is correct in his guess about my assessment of his arguments. But I truly don't care what he believes as long as he stops lying about what the "new Atheists" are saying and stops trying to tell atheists not to give their frank opinions of religion. Fuzzy new-agey deism neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ;)

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:31 PM

Steve L.,

I'm pretty sure that by "priest-ridden" Jefferson means government by clergy. If he had intended to suggest that people with religious beliefs can't maintain a free, civil government, I can't see why he would ever have gotten out of bed in the morning.

As for the second quote, doesn't it suggest that when it comes to liberty, religion just isn't worth making a fuss over? Not a ringing endorsement of the Harris/Dawkins camp.

Posted by C. Schoen | December 17, 2007 4:33 PM

"I wonder if any of the militant atheists have ever talked to someone in AA or visited a meeting. "God" in that context is providing something essential to people's lives. It's easy for people who are constantly told by society in various ways "you are important, what you do matters" to be scornful of people who hear the opposite every day."

This reminds me of what Jesse "The Body" Ventura, governor of Minnesota, once said about how religion is like a crutch for some people, which is true I think. (BTW, Ventura was in The Predator along with Goverenor Schwarzenegger.)

I lost count of the straw man arguments in the New Republic article. Follow the link to author's book. Ironically it seems to be an alarmist book about the rise of the religious right.

Bush did appoint two religious conservatives to the Supreme Court, Roberts and Alito. (The Supreme courts claims to be above politics, but of course it's deeply political, just as the "liberal atheists" like many liberals, claim to be above politics and and supremely tolerant, when they aren't.)

But otherwise, Giuliani and Romney and McCain seem moderate for the Republicans, which is why you see the rise of religious nutbags Ron Paul and Huckabee.

Capitalism and the "cash nexus" dissolve the bonds of society and I believe they are eroding religion in the Republican party. (which is good for gays and women, etc.)

Posted by Peter K. | December 17, 2007 4:34 PM

"and no religious person has ever thought atheists are evil, soulless, or demented. not one. ever."

I'm not sure where I made any suggestion to that effect Cleek, but if you want to assume I did, suit yourself. But if all you have to offer is "Yeah, well Religious people do it too" then you're serving up a pretty thin gruel.

Posted by Chris Wren | December 17, 2007 4:34 PM

I think MY's point about atheism can be summed up by asking "Who in this thread seems more like an asshole, Brendan or Steven LaBonne?"

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 4:34 PM

The point, Mike, is that you tried to use Jefferson to support your assertions that religion does good in the world, only to come a cropper over the fact that his actual opinion was quite the contrary. (And vague Deist reference to a "creator" does not equal "religion".) But feel free to keep digging.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:35 PM

But I truly don't care what he believes as long as he stops lying about what the "new Atheists" are saying and stops trying to tell atheists not to give their frank opinions of religion.

Show me where I did either of these things. Exact quotes, please.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 4:35 PM

I agree that, more or less, the state should not get involved with prescribing metaphysical beliefs. But is the anti-new-atheist argument that Harris or Dawkins or Dennet want atheism to spread by means other than rational argument undertaken in the context of a secular society? That strikes me as wildly implausible. If I were actually concerned about it, as MY and/or Linker seems to be, it would probably be easy to check the record and find out what these men have said about it.

I think that there's something else going on. I think it's the very quality of the new atheist arguments that provoke the urge to reject the new atheist position, even if its just indirectly.

If you are a person who believes and who needs to believe, encountering an argument that convinces you your belief is false could be quite painful. (I confess this happens to me about all sorts of non-religious beliefs I hold.)

I imagine that this experience or even sensitivity to this type of experience is what motivates a fair amount of concern trolling and, at the same time, a fair amount of the inflated rhetoric about atheism being just another religion or the threat of atheistic fascism.

My feeling is that rhetorically, articles like Linkers are trying to score points against the argument by scoring points against the rhetoric.

Posted by MrTimbo | December 17, 2007 4:37 PM

I've gotta say, the position of victimhood being staked out by some of the vocal atheists in this thread is extremely unappealing. What MT and Linker are trying to point out is simply that your petulant rhetoric is every bit as grating as you find the preaching of fervent believers. The vast majority of Americans to go to church, or not, but -- crucially -- have the grace to shut the fuck up about it. They're not going to respond well to your Quixotic attacks on faith, most of which seem to be grounded in a cartoonish and completely inaccurate understanding of the religious.

Expect dignity and demand secular government. If you feel compelled to, make your arguments in an "indoor" voice. And above all, stop acting like the world's out to get you. Sheesh.

Posted by Tom | December 17, 2007 4:42 PM

"Illiberalism meaning the use of state power to suppress religion. All of the "new atheists" hint at this, some more directly than others."

If you're the same Brendan who posted that, it's false and you ought to retract it.

On the other point, I am willing (and glad) to believe that I read too much into some of your words, and am happy to retract the charge.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:42 PM

"I've gotta say, the position of victimhood being staked out by some of the vocal atheists in this thread is extremely unappealing."

So we're just imagining the polls that say most Americans would rule out voting for any atheist for high office, right? Do you think it's equally OK in a democracy for people to feel the same way about Jews or Mormons?

There is a real problem here. Choose to ignore it if you will. But some of us don't think that's a good idea.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:45 PM

Mr Timbo:

you left out the part about an unscientific, narrative cosmology. I mention this because one of the things I find most objectionable about religion is that in many instances believers tie, as you have, a sense of personal meaning and worth to affiliation with something supernatural.

Hey, now we're having a conversation!

So the question becomes, why are the institutions that provide so many people with a sense of community and self-worth tied up with an unscientific cosmology? Is this connection necessary, or just a historical artifact? Why are the narrative elements so much more important to some people (and some religious traditions) than others? Could you get rid of them and still have something that was recognizably a religion? Is the truth or falsity of the narrative really important, or is it just "packaging" for the real content?

Isn't this much more interesting than insulting each other?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 17, 2007 4:47 PM

I did retract the "all" part, almost immediately, since I haven't read all of these "new atheists." I also used the phrase "hint at," since no one actually endorses using state power outright. This is in fact one of Linker's specific criticisms. It's evasive to equate religious upbringing with child abuse and then not say what you think should follow from that.

But how can you seriously argue that the equation doesn't strongly suggest an illiberal reading? Child abuse is a crime. The state can take a child away from abusive parents. Should the state be able to take children away from religious parents?

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 4:49 PM

You're not there yet, Brendan. I HAVE read the books by Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, and it's true of none of those three. Though I hold Iraq war apologist Hitchens in minimum high regard, I doubt it's true of his book either but that one I shan't bother to read.

Are you really so confused that you can't tell the difference between wanting to retract special state PRIVILEGES for religion and wanting to suppress it? The former is the most that Dawkins or Harris have ever said, and Dennett's book doesn't even touch on the issue- it's an examination of the possible origins of religious belief.

Pleass stop compounding the original offense by continuing to retail this falsehod.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 4:53 PM

The vast majority of Americans to go to church, or not, but -- crucially -- have the grace to shut the fuck up about it.

This seems untrue to me. If I had a dollar for every time I heard a political position (on gay rights, or abortion, or stem cells, or sex education in schools, or abstinence-based foreign aid, or any number of other issues) that was based expressly on a religious belief and defended by "but we're a Christian nation," I'd be an extraordinarily wealthy man. I've been hearing that line for a long, long time.

People do not, in fact, simply STFU about their beliefs - they seek to codify them into law, and plenty seek to further marginalize the incredulous with "war on Christmas" rhetoric.

Posted by Brad L | December 17, 2007 4:54 PM

Dawkins, in The God Delusion, most of which I have read, calls religious upbringing "child abuse." Am I imagining this? If not, could you address the question I asked above? You may disagree that the passage admits an illiberal reading, but that doesn't justify calling me a liar.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 5:00 PM

And by the way, are you also so confused that you can't understand the difference between exposing your kids to your religious beliefs and indoctrinating them by keeping them in purdah so they'll remain ignorant of alternatives? I certainly am with Dawkins in regarding the latter as abusive, but like Dawkins I believe this is a case where state intervention is nonetheless a cure worse than the disease. Did you really fail to notice that the TNR article criticized Dawkins for supposedly being inconsistent in NOT calling for such state intervention? Your continued claims that Dawkins "insinuates" the contrary get more offensive each time you repeat them after being corrected.

I am tiring of this dishonesty on your part and will therefore stop responding now.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 5:01 PM

The new criticisms of the "new atheists" aren't new criticisms and they aren't very good, either. Linker has simply added another ounce of mud to the waters that have already been churning for decades, if not centuries. He thinks he's saying something printworthy only because he can't see down through the murk to find Stanley Fish's turds or the other "be nice!" admonitions from the theists and theist-apologists.

All ideas such be scrutinized. When an idea by all appearances is based on lies, myths, fables, and other flimsy sources, yet it purports to contain all the great truths of the universe and be the only pathway to a moral and ethical life, then it REALLY needs to be scrutinized. Harris doesn't go after religious so much as he goes after dogma and the normalized etiquette (among other things) that has spared so much dogma from criticism for so long. The only reason Harris et al are picking a fight with religion in general rather than the dogma of Lenin or Stalin is the sheer popularity of religion in 2007 and the proven danger of those religions. As Harris writes, if someone were to walk down the street claiming that the cheap wine in his cup was the blood of a Jew who died 2000 years ago, we would either ignore that person as a typical street lunatic or we would lock him up. Is it really so impolite or "militantly intolerant" to be incredulous of the many millions of people who believe just that sort of thing and revere the priests who make such truth claims every Sunday? If so, why?

Posted by tinisoli | December 17, 2007 5:02 PM

I also used the phrase "hint at," since no one actually endorses using state power outright.

Well, it's certainly a clever tactic, because "hints at" neither requires much evidence, nor is easily disproven. It's a tactic I particularly hate in other contexts, where bloggers frequently accuse someone's actions of demonstrating a "whiff of" whatever (racism and sexism are the usual suspects.) They said it or they didn't; they are or they aren't. Make the best case for what you think.

But how can you seriously argue that the equation doesn't strongly suggest an illiberal reading?

My reading is that he is not being literal: it is one part hyperbole, one part devaluing the term "child abuse" to mean something less than "actionable by the state" and more like "unnecessary and kind of cruel." In fact, that he doesn't go farther argues against a literal reading of it, I think.

Posted by Brad L | December 17, 2007 5:05 PM

The militant atheism may be a response to the "new Christians," who are just as intolerant as the "new atheists," and of whom there are many more. When I was a kid 40 years ago, I don't think anybody would have questioned my Chistianity just because I believed in evolution. Nowadays, I've talked to at least one person who did. If you force people to choose between evolution and Christianity, some of the biologists are going to start getting militant.

Posted by Peter S. | December 17, 2007 5:07 PM

I didn't think Dawkins addressed the question at all. If he does somewhere, then I'm wrong, not dishonest, and it would have been nice if you'd pointed me at a relevant passage instead of calling me a liar.

I never accused Dawkins of wanting to create a totalitarian state where all children are educated in camps, or something. I just think you can't call religion child abuse without explaining exactly what policies you think that calls for.

No more arguing on the internet. A perfectly good afternoon, gone.

Posted by Brendan | December 17, 2007 5:26 PM

Though I hold Iraq war apologist Hitchens in minimum high regard, I doubt it's true of his book either but that one I shan't bother to read.

It's worth noting that Harris has similar War On Terror views, and unlike Hitchens who opposes torture, Harris is in favor.

Posted by Consumatopia | December 17, 2007 5:33 PM

"and no religious person has ever thought atheists are evil, soulless, or demented. not one. ever."

I'm not sure where I made any suggestion to that effect Cleek, but if you want to assume I did, suit yourself. But if all you have to offer is "Yeah, well Religious people do it too" then you're serving up a pretty thin gruel.

you're complaining that atheists complaining makes them "part of the problem". on the other hand, the religious have been treating atheists like fifth-class citizens for, i dunno, let's just call it eternity. and yet, as usual, ad infinitium, etc., it's atheists who are "part of the problem". some atheists get angry about it, and now they're the problem. right.

it's not "Yeah, well Religious people do it too" so much as atheists aren't even allowed to be angry in public about the situation without people labeling them with the same names they use on violent revolutionaries and terrorists, and blaming them for their own predicament!

"part of the problem" ?

Posted by cleek | December 17, 2007 5:55 PM

"I've gotta say, the position of victimhood being staked out by some of the vocal atheists in this thread is extremely unappealing."

Well, polls show that atheists (who along with agnostics constitute some 15% of the population) are more reviled in the US than homosexuals
(who at best make up 10%, and are actively marketed by wingnuts as the primary group to hate /du jour/) -- you do the math.

Posted by Disputo | December 17, 2007 5:55 PM

"Religion is a set of ethical and moral standards, a community with shared practices and traditions, and most importantly a basis for people feeling that there lives are meaningful and worthwhile. Are you against those things?"

To a degree, yes. First of all, the correct sentence would be "Religions, after a fashion, imply sets of moral standards". Except, more often than not, those are not ethical standards. Start with Ten Commandments -- for a basic set of principles, it is a rather strange collection. There is an elaboration, with more than 600 regulations that have strangely little to do with morality. Certain things are abominations, certain things are not, and why? God only knows, literally.

So how should we resolve such question like abortion, homosexual sex and eating shrimp? Read the Bible literally (actually, much easier said than done, e.g. is it OK for a father to offer the body of his daugher to strangers, something done twice in the Bible with no negative comment), or not, than why not?

Shared practices and traditions --- few object to that. The sense of meaning? Hopefully, harmless, but watch out.

More seriously, I think that it would help if someone wrote a book about liberal ethics which is shared by religious and non-religious liberals, and which manifestly exists, even if various tenets enjoy various level of consensus. Liberal Christians, Jews, Muslim could explain why they support telling the truth, not stealing, refraining from insider trading, corporate responsibility, stewardship over the environment etc. Some differences could be fleshed out too. (I think that atheists would typically agree that while in a particular context the determination can be different, there is nothing moral/immoral in a sexual contact per se.)

Posted by piotr | December 17, 2007 5:59 PM

Consumatopia, I ought to have added that I'm not a big Harris fan either precisely on those grounds; thanks for reminding me to make that clarification.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 6:09 PM

Steve writes, "So we're just imagining the polls that say most Americans would rule out voting for any atheist for high office, right?"

Most Americans would rule out voting for me for high office, too. That doesn't mean I'm an oppressed minority.

The sum population of the United States who are Governors, Congresspeople, Vice-Presidents, or Presidents is 587. That's approximately 0.0002% of the general population. It's nobody's right, god-given or otherwise, to be considered worthy by the general public of election to a post that only about two ten-thousandths of one percent of people are able to occupy.

(And, actually, I suspect that there are some openly atheist Representatives, though I'm not going to bother looking it up.)

And -- this is Matt's point -- if you think that you're making it more likely that an openly atheist person will eventually take the highest offices in the land, then you're the one who's deluded. You're just adding one more layer of conviction to the overwhelmingly theist population that atheists want to destroy their way of life.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | December 17, 2007 6:22 PM

"(And, actually, I suspect that there are some openly atheist Representatives, though I'm not going to bother looking it up.)"

Yeah, why should you confuse your pretty little head with facts? (For the record there is precsiely one who MIGHT qualify, Rep. Pete Stark (D- California).

So edifying to hear that you seem to regard the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution as a quaint relic.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 6:28 PM

Matthew, this is pathetic stuff. It's one of your very weakest subjects, in my opinion.

I'm a believer myself, with both a religion (some institutional structure among fellow believers) and a spirituality (my roll-your-own particular creed). Neither can be defended on purely logical and/or empirical grounds, and people like P.Z. Myers think it's another set of delusions.

And you know what? I'm fine with that. Because Dr. Myers may not like my creed or how I interpret the experiences that led me to it, but since I'm not claiming any special standing in law or society for it, we've got no quarrel. I don't seek a tax exemption for it, I don't demand that political candidates endorse it, I don't think that people who disagree with me should be second-class Americans. Heck, I don't even talk about the specific content of it much in public, in part because I am influenced by Jesus' teachings when it comes to the hypocrisy of public displays of self-righteousness.

Now in some better world where people like him had a shot at holding office, where people who say people like him are responsible for terrorists attacking us lose all their special standing under the law like tax exemptions, where the rule of law matters and nobody is getting away with saying "I say he's a bad guy and now he's lost all his human rights", Dr. Myers and I might have a long heated argument. But as it stands, we share a practical concern for what's wrong with American society right now, and the continued privileging of (some kinds of) religious doctrine is very much a big part of that.

As for the idea that atheists are whining unduly: color me unconvinced. I have friends who've been subjected to gay bashing and friends who've been beaten up for putting up leaflets for atheist gatherings, and I must say that their wounds looked pretty similar to me. Their accounts of being set upon and beaten by drunk guys shouting slurred insults challenging the targets' manhood were very similar, too. Most atheists aren't beaten up, true. But then a lot of GLBTs aren't bashed, either. And atheists are locked out of almost all American politics (when you have to never mention your worldview, that's a lockout), and out of most popular culture, too - atheists continue to be portrayed as weirdos and freaks in much the ways GLBTs have been (and too often still are; the fact of progress doesn't mean getting to "good" anytime soon).

One final thing: I think that the extent to which American atheists are white and middle or upper class is overestimated, simply because a lot of working-class unbelievers just keep quiet about it. But there's always been currents of working-class free thought and dissent, and a lot of folks who go through religious motions for a variety of reasons other than belief in it. And a lot of those won't care to discuss it with a stranger. Some of the strongest skeptics, though, have always been those at the bottom, who see what all the shining lies amount to for those in real need.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | December 17, 2007 6:35 PM

So the question becomes, why are the institutions that provide so many people with a sense of community and self-worth tied up with an unscientific cosmology?

Because they're religions. Without the crap cosmology, it's just a movement.

I mean I get a "sense of community" from the clubs and organizations I belong to. The feeling I get of belonging by hanging out with my racquetball buddies, or whatever, is no less real that what people get at church. Church is just a club for most people.

The difference is that racquetballs are objectively real, and the racquetball rules don't require adherence to entities that objectively don't exist. It's specifically the contrafactual parts that make religion "religion" and not just racquetball at the rec center.

That would be the fact that religion or the religious impulse has been responsible for so much of the good things that have happened in the world.

But, see, here's what's stupid about that. Religion doesn't do anything. People do things. The good things that you've described were done by people rejecting what their religion told them to do - loyalty to a king anointed by God, render unto Caesar, etc - as their individual consciences led them to do.

Religion makes people act against their own conscience. It makes them do things they know are wrong. And it's never prevented anybody from doing the wrong thing, because it's far too easy to justify bad behavior with religion. Religion never made Ted Haggard not smoke crystal meth, but it's made at least two men kill women because their beliefs told them they'd be worth more money as ghosts.

Posted by Chet | December 17, 2007 6:46 PM

With respect to Steve LaBonne's response to me:

Oh, please, you can surely manage something better than a non-rebuttal phrased as though it were a rebuttal to a -- literal -- parenthetical aside.

There's no religious test. There's a popularity test, which you aren't passing. Can't imagine why someone who tells the overwhelming majority of people in the country that they are, prima facia, idiots, finds himself unelectable.

That said, sure, there's a certain feeling of ill-will towards atheists from some fairly large percentage of the population. But:

1. If you look at things on net, atheists are, generally speaking, less persecuted than blacks, latinos, asians, american indians, muslims, the poor, gays, and pretty much every other group in the nation. Yeah, white male rich Christians trump everyone else, but atheists (particularly since they're so predominantly white and rich) get on the end of the line.

2. You still aren't helping. You are not causing anyone to think better of atheists. You are wallowing in your imagined victimization -- the most relevent evidence of your victimization that you are able to point to being that you're in the bottom 99.9998% of the population. You poor, poor thing.

3. Religions serve purposes that have nothing to do with the existence of supernatural thingies. It is certainly possible to imagine someone who cares not in the tiniest bit whether you believe in any particular god or gods (or any other supernatural thing), but cares whether you're willing to associate yourself with a community that publically asserts belief in a variety of civic morals, and dedicates itself to good works. I personally don't care (and don't belong to any church), but it's not like it's irrational to care.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | December 17, 2007 6:50 PM

Well, you certainly aren't doing anything to improve the image of concern trolls, either.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | December 17, 2007 6:56 PM

Can't imagine why someone who tells the overwhelming majority of people in the country that they are, prima facia, idiots, finds himself unelectable.

Now we're back to the strawman, I guess, because I don't know of any atheists who think believers are de facto "idiots." For my own part, I can easily draw a distinction between people who are actually morons and people who are mistaken about what are good reasons to believe something.

But when someone believes something that is clearly false, that the evidence that it's false is staring them right in the face, I don't know what to call that except a delusion. The guy who thinks he's Napoleon probably isn't an idiot, but he's clearly deluded. Why use a different term for the guy who thinks that the universe has a daddy that wants to grant him wishes?

Because religion gets special privileges? Why should it?

Posted by Chet | December 17, 2007 7:04 PM

I think that for me to be a concern troll, I'd have to pretend to care, at least a little, about your imagined victimization. I don't. I think that you're an overprivileged idiot who's whining unnecessarily.

I guess that I could potentially be concerned about atheists who don't act like assholes by either whining about how life's so tough for rich, socially privileged people who none the less would have a tough time winning a Presidential election, or by constantly bringing up their religious disagreements with other people in the most confrontational of possible terms for no good reason... Except that that group of people (of which I am a member) have never struck me as wanting my concern.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | December 17, 2007 7:05 PM

Chet: Religion doesn't get any special privileges. Seriously, yo. You just get to be polite and respond to people in kind.

If someone tells you that you're going to hell because you aren't a believer, you're welcome to respond that he's a moron who can't see the obvious truth of the observable universe when it's quite literally staring him in the face.

If someone engages you thoughtfully about religion, you're welcome to thoughtfully explain your atheism.

Similarly, if someone asks you your romantic advice, you can tell them about the dumb decisions that they make about who they date. And if someone asks for your investment advice, you can tell them for the love of god, stop buying overmanaged mutual funds.

Just don't walk around with a chip on your shoulder waiting for the slightest excuse to stick your nose in someone else's business in the most insulting of possible terms. Someone else's spiritual life is the very definition of none of your business. If someone else's spiritual life impinges on some element of life which is your business (like public policy), you engage it in terms of how it affects your business, not in how they come to peace with their existence.

It's basically the same deal as not trying to psychoanalyze someone who disagrees with your politics ("Oh, well, you only want universal healthcare because you have a deep guilt at having grown up wealthy," or whatever). It's rude, it's counterproductive, and it's ultimately irrelevent.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | December 17, 2007 7:17 PM

Another incredibly stupid Matt post.

Yes, because a handful of atheists have written some books - purchased by a tiny handful of people in the country, since even a "NYT Best Seller" sells what, a few hundred thousand copies? - the entire liberal edifice is going to crash down and the US will turn into a Christian version of Iran.

This is bullshit.

The religious liberals are simply as concerned about the uncompromising stand against irrational faith as the religious right are. This business of "they're threatening liberalism" is simply a cover story to avoid ending up looking like the religious right.

In neither case is it relevant, because the "new atheists" are going to have zero impact on either side. They're - to coin a phrase - preaching to the converted - people who aren't religious already but who have never seen the arguments.

Your average religious liberal is already concerned that he's unable to counter the religious right, because in religion, fanaticism outweighs tolerance every time. So when confronted by a militant atheist, the religious liberal finds himself unable to defend even his moderate religious position. He is left holding the bag from both sides.

And that's the worst position a chimp can find himself in.

So of course he makes up something to accuse the militant atheist of to rally some support.

Email me when this matters.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 17, 2007 7:27 PM

Duncan: "Religion is the root of all evil. Accepting death means the end of everything you've ever known, the snuffing of your consciousness, is the first step towards rational, humane treatment of your fellow man."

Wrong. Death - and the in-built fear of it in every primate - is the root of all evil. Not being afraid of it, but not accepting it either, is the root of all good. This is the Transhumanist position.

Not that I believe in primitive concepts like "good" and "evil" - which are religious. I prefer "correct" and "incorrect". But to express it in your terms, I use the vernacular.

Read Alan Harrington's "The Immortalist" - he laid it out in detail what the effects of death are on human consciousness. Most important book ever written.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 17, 2007 7:31 PM

"Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one;"

No - it's "illiberal" (what a fucked up word!) only if it entails government coercion to produce such a society.

And banning religious INDOCTRINATION in schools is NOT government coercion - it's adherence to the separation of church and state.

This is a veiled attack on that separation.

There is nothing "illiberal" about producing a completely secular society of people who have abandoned religion. Compared to the current situation, let alone the opposite alternative, it would be a vast improvement in US society.

Matt want to argue that point?

I didn't think so.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 17, 2007 7:44 PM

You just get to be polite and respond to people in kind.

And you find that your constant implication that the religious are poor, uneducated, benighted minorities who just can't be expected to know any better to be polite?

Yeah, I just don't get that, I guess.

Religion doesn't get any special privileges.

Doesn't it? How do you explain the fact that when someone says that he hears voices that tell him to do things, we call him crazy; but when someone says that he hears "the voice of God" that tells him what to do, we call him "spiritual"?

If it's not a "special privilege" to have one's delusions normalized, what would you call it?

Someone else's spiritual life is the very definition of none of your business.

In the immortal words of Mr. T, "when punks start hasslin' decent people, I make it my business." There's two smoking holes in Manhattan that, to my mind, testify to what religion does to even well-educated, intelligent people. I don't think it's something we can ignore with a "live and let live" attitude, particularly when so many religions don't want their rivals to live. How many people have to die at the hands of religious nonsense before we take a proactive approach?

If someone else's spiritual life impinges on some element of life which is your business (like public policy), you engage it in terms of how it affects your business, not in how they come to peace with their existence.

I get that, I really do, and I see how it would be nice to believe that, but surely at some point we have to realize that some ideas have consequences, and that some modes of belief strike at a person's very ability to be swayed by evidence and reason. Don't we, at some point, have to realize that it's fruitless to deal with the symptoms and results of irrational, pernicious belief without dealing with the belief itself? Where by "dealing with", I mean "arguing with"?

Posted by Chet | December 17, 2007 7:49 PM

Chet: I'm basically replying to each of your paragraphs seperately, in order.

You're extending your biases towards me. I don't regard the religious as poor, uneducated, benighted, or deluded. I regard atheists as (generally, with exceptions) rich and educated. A -> B does not mean ~A -> ~B.

As to special privilege: if someone hears voices that tell him to do sensible, normal things, I don't regard him as crazy (though I've never heard of anyone claiming this). If someone hears voices that tell him to do harmful, weird things, I regard him as crazy. If someone hears God telling him to do sensible, normal things, I don't regard him as crazy. If someone hears God telling him to do harmful, weird things, I regard him as crazy.

No, "religion" did not cause 9/11. That's moronic.

Sure, ideas have consequences. You undermine the ability to address harmful ideas when you lump together "I believe that God loves me, wants me to love my neighbors, and I like the community of church," with "I believe that God wants me to kill that dude over there." The latter belief has a lot more in common with, "I believe that I would have more street cred if I killed that guy over there," or "I am angry at my general life situation and will take it out on that guy over there," than it does with the I believe that God loves me dude.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | December 17, 2007 7:57 PM

Thankfully, this whole debate will be resolved for good when CNN airs it's latest Holiday Special, "What Would Jesus Really Do?"

The mind reels...

Posted by Rihilism | December 17, 2007 7:58 PM

"because I don't know of any atheists who think believers are de facto 'idiots.'"

You missed me. I do.

Well, okay, maybe not LITERAL "idiots" in the neurological sense. We use that term loosely in public discourse to merely describe someone we think isn't up to snuff in the logic department.

But religious faith is a bellwether as to the capacity to think rationally about an individual.

Which is not to say that a lot of people - indeed, most - can't compartmentalize their minds well enough as to be able to function more or less rationally in their social, business, and professional lives while still being religious. That's obvious. The world would have collapsed long ago if that wasn't true.

Still, that compartmentalization in itself is a fatal flaw.

I cut babes some slack in this regard. I like Andrea Corr, but realize that she's a fairly religious Catholic (although she did once berate a priest at confession for the Catholic Church's attitude toward women, until he felt so bad she had to stop!)

But that doesn't mean I disregard that fatal flaw.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 17, 2007 7:58 PM

"But religious faith is a bellwether as to the capacity to think rationally about an individual.

You might want to try a rational sentence or two so us believers can keep up.

"But that doesn't mean I disregard that fatal flaw."

Yes, it's almost like a cross one must bear. Well, I've always enjoyed playing the martyr. Why stop now? I see me on a tree, maybe a few arrows...

Posted by Rihilism | December 17, 2007 8:06 PM

I want to be perfectly clear on this: I'm not an apologist for any of religious intolerance, religious rudeness, or harmful behavior justified on religious grounds. All of the following people are doing something wrong:

1. Guy who won't hire atheists, or is rude to people who won't join him in prayer, or whatnot.

2. Guy who proseltyzes his religion to the uninterested. (I'm okay with someone briefly enquiring about the subject -- it's well-intentioned and in some ways flattering -- but not anyone who keeps pestering you after a polite statement of uninterest).

3. Christian Scientists who won't let their kids get real medical attention.

4. Islamic Jihadists.

5. Those God Hates Fags assholes.

etc.

But people who think that there's a continuous spectrum from "I go to church on Christmas and Easter" to "I'm going to run an airplane into the World Trade Center" are just completely deluded. That's not how it works, guys, and you can't combat genuinely bad religious behavior by putting people who are religious in non-harmful or positive ways on the defensive.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | December 17, 2007 8:14 PM

Let the atheist fringe pull the Overton Window left, and you'll get a stronger liberal regimen.

This play has worked for the Republicans for years. It should work for us.

Posted by lambert strether | December 17, 2007 8:18 PM

"Where by "dealing with", I mean "arguing with"?"

Thank you for the clarification.

"If someone hears God telling him to do harmful, weird things, I regard him as crazy."

How 'bout weird, but not harmful?

Posted by Rihilism | December 17, 2007 8:23 PM

"Let the atheist fringe pull the Overton Window left, and you'll get a stronger liberal regimen."

Somebody hold me, I'm scared...

Posted by Rihilism | December 17, 2007 8:27 PM

Michael B. Sullivan said:

Just don't walk around with a chip on your shoulder waiting for the slightest excuse to stick your nose in someone else's business in the most insulting of possible terms. Someone else's spiritual life is the very definition of none of your business.

I quite agree, but who, exactly, is doing this? Are there atheists out there insulting the religious on street corners? Interrupting church services? Preaching door-to-door? Writing books doesn't count. Neither does making comments on a blog post about the "New Atheism". Seriously, did someone back in the dorm challenge your faith with their heavy metal music or what?

The only people I know of who routinely try to stick their noses, uninvited, into other people's spiritual business are religious people spreading the "good word". Can't we atheists even post comments on blogs about our beliefs when atheism is the actual subject at hand without being told, quite literally, to shut the fuck up? Really, if anything in the world could demonstrate just how absurd Matt's point is here it is the contents of this thread.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 17, 2007 8:28 PM

Even though I'm a radical Transhumanist and regard most religious people as morons, at least with regard to that topic, I DO appreciate notions of "spiritual philosophy".

I distinguish "spiritual philosophy" from religion based on whether there is a deity and worship involved. Philosophy that deals with inner mental states and an appreciation of an overall view of existence and one's place in that existence I consider to be "spiritual." It's not "scientific" - although it can be based on or consistent with a strictly scientific view of the external world. But it's not necessarily "mysticism" either, even though most spiritual philosophies adhere to notions that aren't scientific and probably can never be supported by science.

For instance, I have no objections to people engaging in occult practices such as ceremonial magic in the expectation that the universe actually is organized in such a way that such practices might actually produce results. I'd say it's not scientifically proven - and unlikely to be - that that is the case. But they're welcome to try. It doesn't concern me. I'm willing to observe and make a determination as to whether it works and has any practical useful results either in the real world or on the practitioner's mental states or abilities.

The late great English magician Aleister Crowley had rather a scientific bent of mind in his theory of "magick" even if he did believe in ancient Egyptian gods. I think he or someone once said that if didn't matter if the "gods" existed - what mattered is that the Universe behaved as if they did. In short, the belief systems in occultism were tools intended to produce results in the real world. This was a result of the fusion of Gnostic concepts and attitudes with Greek rationalism.

So I don't mind magicians and wiccans and the like. Of course, I expect science to produce more reliably reproducible results than their methods.

I don't mind Buddhists and Taoists - although I think both groups tend to make a religion out of what was originally intended to be a spiritual philosophy. On the other hand, the Taoists actually experimented in achieving physical immortality via various meditation practices and even chemical experiments, so I can't fault their intentions as a Transhumanist.

But a religion that emphasizes submission to God - and ALL the monotheistic religions do, with Islam just being more emphatic about it than either Christianity or Judaism - is simply unacceptable to a free society. It should be eradicated - not by force or government fiat, which is simply impossible - but by education.

A properly run society would have a proper education system which would offset any private religious indoctrination of children by their parents with a training program in rational thought and logic. Our present society does not do this at all - there are NO courses in logic until university level - simply because the state does not WANT logical thinkers in its society. And this is WHY the US has millions of nitwits who believe nonsense, know nothing about the history of their own religion or society and can't find Iraq - or for that matter, Italy - on a map.

In history, irrationality led to the concepts of religion and the state. In turn, the state insures that irrationality will be the normal condition of its citizens. Most states allow religion to further make its citizens irrational; others, like the Soviet Union and National Socialism, tried to make the state itself a substitute for religion.

But the chicken and egg problem remains - as long as you have religion and the state as dominant forces in a society, you cannot have rationality in its citizens. Inevitably this means the society is doomed to war, revolution, or collapse of one sort of another. This shuffles the deck chairs and starts another round of irrationality. Only the limited compartmentalizing that humans do between their belief systems and their need to take effective action to survive allows human society to continue and to develop.

All that said, if you think militant atheists are a threat to "liberal society" - you're gonna love radical Transhumanists.

We're the ultimate "religious bigots".

'Cause we don't give a shit whether you're a "religious liberal" or "religious conservative".

We're gonna fuck you up because you're chimps - at least if you get in our way. And we know you will get in our way because you are chimps - that's what you do. You've spent the last X scores of thousands of years starting one war or massacre after another due to your pathetic fear of death and inability to think rationally when it rises.

This is WHY the "new atheists" get accused of being a "threat" - because no chimp can accept that any other is somehow more "right" than he is. That is a direct threat to him and raises his fear of death. Challenge someone's belief system and get ready to fight.

As I've said before, the average chimp thinks like this: "If you're right, I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'm dead - and that can't be allowed. So I'm right and you're wrong - and I'll kill you if I have to to prove it."

This is how you ALL think and this concept - consciously or unconsciously - pervades your every thought, your every action, and your every social action. It guarantees that the human species will never solve its problems without a fundamental change in the nature of the body and brain.

Unfortunately for you, that change will occur. And we Transhumans are the ones who will do it.

The "di-morphic split" between human and Transhuman will be the end of the state, religion, and indeed human history.

And it will occur within the next fifty years or so (my best guess - by the end of the century, almost certainly.)

Have a nice day.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 17, 2007 8:35 PM

"I don't mind Buddhists and Taoists - although I think both groups tend to make a religion out of what was originally intended to be a spiritual philosophy."

Well, I'm certain they'll appreciate that bit of belated information. All those wasted years, what a shame...

"And it will occur within the next fifty years or so (my best guess - by the end of the century, almost certainly.)"

I'll have to set a reminder in Outlook...

Posted by Rihilism | December 17, 2007 8:51 PM

All of the following people are doing something wrong:

1. Guy who won't hire atheists, or is rude to people who won't join him in prayer, or whatnot.

2. Guy who proseltyzes his religion to the uninterested. (I'm okay with someone briefly enquiring about the subject -- it's well-intentioned and in some ways flattering -- but not anyone who keeps pestering you after a polite statement of uninterest).

3. Christian Scientists who won't let their kids get real medical attention.

4. Islamic Jihadists.

5. Those God Hates Fags assholes.

I agree with Michael here. And I also agree that equating all of these kinds of people with "mainstream" religion is a tough sell. Dawkins makes a convincing argument that "mainstream" religion makes it easier for the above mentioned freaks to get a hearing and have their beliefs taken seriously, but I'm not completely won over.

However, in the case of #2 and #5 you're talking about pretty mainstream views and behaviors. Among the religious, are the "God Hates Fags assholes" really a minority? Aren't "values voters" the ones who vote against gay marriage and abortion?

Still, I don't think the atheists have much to gain with the religion=bad argument. Religion is wrong and irrational is a stronger case.

My main hope (and what I think outspoken atheists are trying to accomplish) is that atheism as an idea be allowed to leave its ghetto and be spoken of openly and without fear. No, atheists are not an oppressed minority. But atheism as an idea has very little voice in the public square (outside of the hard sciences, that is). If we can get to the point where religion is simply not privileged I will be happy indeed. So don't tell us to shut up. When your car can pick up 18 atheist radio stations no matter where you drive (as we have with Christian stations today) then maybe it'll be time for the atheists to dial it back. Till then, I say we keep speaking up.

Posted by Rob Mac | December 17, 2007 8:56 PM

You're extending your biases towards me. I don't regard the religious as poor, uneducated, benighted, or deluded.

I don't think so. I think that, if this were true, you wouldn't be making such a big deal (absent any evidence) about atheists being predominantly rich white people, as if poor minorities didn't have the gray matter to see through what we all seem to recognize is somewhat of a scam.

I mean you're really harping on how rich and white atheists are supposed to be. What's the deal with that, otherwise?

No, "religion" did not cause 9/11. That's moronic.

That's the truth. 9/11 was a truly astounding thing to happen, Mike. Think about it for a second. 9 guys were talked into taking flight classes, living in the US for years, and finally boarding a plane to use it to violently destroy themselves and 3000 other people.

They weren't forced to do it. Nobody had a gun to their head. People that they knew talked to them about it and just convinced them to do it.

Can you imagine such a thing? Being asked to take part in a years-long plan of constant effort to cause your own death, and not even flinching? I can, because that's what religion does to people.

I doubt I could cause you to kill yourself, right now, simply by asking you to do it in this forum. But a bunch of teachers and architects - not at all that different, socioeconomically, from you and I - were asked to do it, and because the power of faith was involved in the asking, they said yes, and they do it.

Of course religion was responsible for 9/11. It was the critical factor between asking 9 men to kill themselves and having them laugh in your face, and asking 9 men to kill themselves and having them put in 24-hour-a-day effort for years to make it happen.

You undermine the ability to address harmful ideas when you lump together "I believe that God loves me, wants me to love my neighbors, and I like the community of church," with "I believe that God wants me to kill that dude over there."

But it is lumped together. If there was a religion that was all love, all the time, that would be one thing. But there's not a religion on Earth that doesn't combine "love the people that are like you" with "hate the people that aren't."

"I am angry at my general life situation and will take it out on that guy over there,"

Oh, I get it. You're one of those guys who thinks that the 9/11 hijackers did what they did because they were disgruntled pilots. Who's the moron, exactly?

Posted by Chet | December 17, 2007 9:43 PM

polls show that atheists (who along with agnostics constitute some 15% of the population) are more reviled in the US than homosexuals

On the other hand, taking your head out of your ass shows that gays are far more persectuted than atheists on every conceivable dimension.

Until quite recently, being gay in this coutnry meant being actively prohibited from enjoying sex or a loving realtionship, some of the most important things in life, by the full force of state coercion and violence. It still means active discrimination in many settings, as well as denial of basic legal rights around marriage. Whereas being an atheist means ... what? Having Mitt ROmney say something mean about you in a speech?

Seriously, I'd be curious to hear from any of the militant atheists on this thread about any discrimination they, personally have faced. Because speaking for myself, I can't recall an employer, landlord, teacher or cop asking me about my religious beliefs or chruchr attendance, let alone mistreating me because I don't have any. Nor has this ever happened to anyone I know.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 17, 2007 9:48 PM

The original article by Linker says that we are "poised precariously between opposite forms of illiberalism."

How so?

Nothing in your post illuminates this.

Posted by pcurtis | December 17, 2007 10:00 PM

Whereas being an atheist means ... what?

Denial of basic rights, enforced adherence to another's faith, being victimized by physical violence, being murdered, character assassination, and of course, the constant admonition that we have to shut up about our beliefs and our experiences lest we endanger all that is supposedly held dear.

It's probably pretty specious to try to play "who gets it worse" with anybody, but at least being gay, the only people who tell you that your very existence is a threat to American society are the wack-jobs on the right. Atheists have to hear that shit from everybody, apparently.

Posted by Chet | December 17, 2007 10:10 PM

"Unfortunately for you, that change will occur. And we Transhumans are the ones who will do it.

The "di-morphic split" between human and Transhuman will be the end of the state, religion, and indeed human history."

Ok. I'll be sure and hold my breath. We've had every Harvard physician and his quack brother treating, examining or researching-and trying to cure-a little old thing called the common cold since enlightenment, all to no avail, and yet your gang is suddenly going to lift the veil of our corporeal ennui and transform us into meta-organisms. Got it.

Is there any chance, btw, that you could start the campaign with my mother-in-law?

And why does "The Teachings of Don Juan..." eerily creep into my mind upon reading your post, or am I simply suffering from one of those hallucinogenic flashbacks that arise whenever the "transcendent state" tocsin is sounded, usually on a cold winter night.

Or, coincidentally, whenever the goddamn bars are closed.

Please do give me a shout when the biological revolution takes root; I've got some cloistered ideas that shalln't sit well with the frontier crowd. One of them is, is that your nuts.

Posted by resh | December 17, 2007 10:16 PM

"I doubt I could cause you to kill yourself, right now, simply by asking you to do it in this forum. But a bunch of teachers and architects - not at all that different, socioeconomically, from you and I - were asked to do it, and because the power of faith was involved in the asking, they said yes, and they do it."

But the power of faith isn't restricted to religion. People can have faith in ideologies. They can have faith in individuals. Folks have done a whole bunch of horrible things for "faiths" that had nothing to do with religion.

And to say the 9/11 hijackers were "not at all that different, socioecnomically, from you and I" is incredibly stupid. That came out of a radically different social, cultural and economic world before religion even entered the equation. To suggest they were like suburban soccer dads who just went crazy when someone said "Allah" to them is a bizarre distortion of reality.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 10:48 PM

"There is nothing "illiberal" about producing a completely secular society of people who have abandoned religion."

How did that work out in the USSR again?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 17, 2007 10:51 PM

Whereas being an atheist means ... what?

Denial of basic rights, enforced adherence to another's faith, being victimized by physical violence, being murdered, character assassination,

Can you give me any examples of any of these things happening to atheists in the US today?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 17, 2007 10:52 PM

Who suffers less discrimination: an atheist in the USa or a Falun Gong practitioner in militantly atheistic China?
Lets see how our atheistic commenters, who are crying about discrimination, answer that question.
Here's another question: who is more discriminated against in the US: atheists or practicing Muslims?

Once you answer those questions, you understand how ridiculous it is to see atheists claiming about facing "discrimination" in the US.
I'm not too worried about the Dawkins/Dennett/Harris crowd. what they have done is to spur the believers to respond with a defense of their faith. Francis Collins and Ken Miller are scientists too, and they give the lie to the atheist canard, expressed frequently on Sec Web and elsewhere, that believers are retarded folks who can't count past 10 without taking their shoes off.
Frankly, i have found far more vituperative attacks on religious faith by atheists online, than i have found Christians threatening atheists with hell. You will find a literally infinite amount of frequently foul mouthed abuse of religion at the Secular Web, whereas I find much less verbal abuse of atheism at Christian websites. i haven't done a study of this, though, so i'm willing to be persuaded.

Anyway, I do think that in general, you cant insult people into agreeing with you , which is why I agree with Matt that the Dawkins/dennett/Harris approach is counterproductive. It sure is popular with the Sec Web folks, though.

Posted by stonetools | December 17, 2007 11:05 PM

Has there been some definitive judgement from intellectuals at large, that Dennett gets lumped in with Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens? Dennett does quote these guys some in his works, but I'm not sure that he's the same politically as these others. Truthfully, I've only just read Dennett's "Breaking the Spell", and haven't read the others. But Matt, I'm struck by your earlier post on atheism, below...

But directing equal and opposite illiberal bile at the direction of religious people in a way that draws no distinction between liberal and illiberal strains of religiosity isn't a solution to anything.

You ascribe this behavior to Harris and Dawkins, but I can assure you that it definitely doesn't apply to Dennett, as he sees the Moderates in religion having a key role in teaching and/or policing the Fanatics (his terms vs liberal/illiberal)

Posted by rusty | December 17, 2007 11:39 PM

owenz (4:06 PM) said what I wanted to say, probably better than I could have.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | December 18, 2007 12:40 AM

I'm tired of these complaints. Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on everything liberal, and yet you freely equate their kind of insanity with the suggestion that maybe religion should be called what it is in public schools: a fucking sham. It's true, the "New Atheists" are somewhat belligerent, but their belligerence is rational, and its long overdue. I know there are people here who feel the same way they do about faith. Why would you argue that they keep their thoughts to themselves? There has been a tradition of "tolerance," for religious discourse. This apparently does not extend to intelligent criticism of religion, from the noises I've been hearing. A person can say he believes that the wafer and wine are actually transmuted into the flesh and blood of Christ and not earn your ire, but if I say this is absurd, subject our religious man to the ridicule he deserves for being so naive, here come the fucking tolerance police. Give me a break. Perhaps you do not share Hitchens' apparent view that "Religion poisons everything." Neither do I (neither does he-at least not exactly). But a case needs to be made about the deleterious effects of blind faith in the world, and it should be taken seriously, if with a grain or two of salt. This is what the New Atheists have taken it upon themselves to do. It is a polemical exercise designed to get people to think about the kinds of behaviors that we allow in the name of faith that would not be tolerated otherwise.

Posted by gerontion | December 18, 2007 12:44 AM

Resh: "We've had every Harvard physician and his quack brother treating, examining or researching-and trying to cure-a little old thing called the common cold since enlightenment, all to no avail, and yet your gang is suddenly going to lift the veil of our corporeal ennui and transform us into meta-organisms. Got it."

Maybe you don't. In case you haven't noticed, there are technologies being developed outside the medical profession - which is mostly a joke shop profession, given to treating symptoms for the highest price the market will bear. It's the REAL scientists that are discerning the way things work, and it's the REAL technologists who are devising ways to change how things work.

Shorter version: you're clueless about both the rate of scientific and technological change, and the implications of several areas of technology just starting to be under heavy development.

"Is there any chance, btw, that you could start the campaign with my mother-in-law?"

Why? She ain't bothering me. If she's bothering you, maybe she has a reason, given your attitude.

"And why does "The Teachings of Don Juan..." eerily creep into my mind upon reading your post,'

Actually Castaneda had some fairly smart stuff in there, if you tease it out over the more bizarre Indian mysticism.

"or am I simply suffering from one of those hallucinogenic flashbacks that arise whenever the "transcendent state" tocsin is sounded, usually on a cold winter night."

Don't know - never had any hallucinations myself, on cold or warm nights. I don't drink, either. You should try being sober and drug-free sometime.

"Please do give me a shout when the biological revolution takes root; I've got some cloistered ideas that shalln't sit well with the frontier crowd. One of them is, is that your nuts."

And you're ignorant. Why does that surprise me? Another chimp is ignorant. Will wonders never cease?

And if you've got ideas that won't sit well with us, well, that's no surprise either, as I said in my first post. So it will be "nice knowing you."

Not.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 18, 2007 1:24 AM

"Who suffers less discrimination: an atheist in the USa or a Falun Gong practitioner in militantly atheistic China?
Lets see how our atheistic commenters, who are crying about discrimination, answer that question.
Here's another question: who is more discriminated against in the US: atheists or practicing Muslims?"

Suggest you begin with a review of your logical fallacies. Start with non sequiturs and straw man, and then work your way down.

To be clear, that China emasculates Buddhists to a greater extent than the US scorns atheists doesn't mean the latter's indignity, or outrage, is hollow. Not at all. The man who has two legs removed likely suffers a greater injustice and more pain than the man who is missing just one, but surely you wouldn't deny either an equal right to bitch?

More to the sorrowful point. Atheism continues as our ageless social leprosy. But don't take my word for it. Ask yourself if an atheist can become president, a senator, a mayor, or something as simple as a high school principal-or even a dogcatcher. Ask yourself if you'd entrust your kid to an atheist babysitter, ceteris paribus. Well?

You also juxtapose the atheists' plight to those suddenly overwhelmed, domestic muslims, and that gets you where, exactly? Nowhere, say I, except to remind that injustice is injustice, whether one wears a veil of faith or the face of reason. Or even if one is a Buddhist monk.

But concerning injustice, I leave you with one final thought. The atheist is being scorned for the cosmic sin of...pay attention now...his non belief. Oh the horror. Non Belief. How's that for obtrusive behavior, eh? Only amidst the fine company of the pious and amidst men who dawdle with gods and prophets-when they're not dawdling with someone's penis-would the act of NOT accepting an imaginary being be seen as mortally wrong.

So tell Santa Claus I said hello. Please.

Posted by resh | December 18, 2007 2:00 AM

Richard Steven Hack. How old are you, and do you believe you'll still be alive when this new world order is created?

Posted by mad6798j | December 18, 2007 2:13 AM

"The man who has two legs removed likely suffers a greater injustice and more pain than the man who is missing just one, but surely you wouldn't deny either an equal right to bitch?"

Indeed. Someone care to tell the Native Americans to STFU about the white man's oppression because Blacks had it much worse? Or that Blacks should STFU because Native Americans really knows what oppression is like? I'm not sure who got a rawer deal, but I don't recall a rule that allows only the most grevious sufferers of injustive to speak up and the slightly less grevious should STFU or be labelled ridiculous.

As far as the "illiberalism" of "new atheists," I find the wishings of "gee, wouldn't it be nice if the whole world were atheist" to be a lot less illiberal in spirit than claiming that "atheists should STFU because you're statistically more wealthy and white than the average man and Buddhists have it worse in China."

It's not surprising that there are forceful voices for atheism at this time. In my hometown, my parents asked me to not write letters to the editor of the paper for fear of being thought of as the parents who raised "that atheist boy." And having grown up there, that's exactly the reaction they would have received. I guess you could say that "well, atheism is just not very popular in your town", but would you apply that same criterion to say, blacks or gays?

"But you can choose your atheism!" you cry, "you could be ostracized for your political beliefs just as easily." And that's true, but I didn't create the bizarre double standard whereby chosen beliefs about sky daddies are accorded special tolerance status, while chosen beliefs about public policy are not.

Posted by TheF79 | December 18, 2007 9:09 AM

So, it's kinda silly to still be responding to a blog post this old, but hey, I'm silly sometimes.

In any case, in his most recent response to me, Chet presumeably unintentionally harkens back to my earlier point that questioning someone else's religious beliefs is of a kind with doing pop psychoanalysis of someone who disagrees with you, by... doing pop psychoanalysis to try to dismiss a point.

No, Chet, I really don't think that theists are poor, uneducated, or whatnot. I think they run the gamut -- that every socio-political demographic in the US is heavily populated by theists.

Why was I "harping" on how atheists are rich and white? Because Steve was harping on how oppressed theists are -- and it's pretty fundamentally ridiculous to suggest that in any kind of absolute terms, most atheists are anything other than priveleged. Not in comparison to buddhists in China, in comparison to the majority of people in their own country.

As to 9/11: Saying that "religion caused 9/11" is something like saying, "Human nature caused 9/11." Technically true, but not actually illuminating anything in particular. And going from there to, "We should try to leave behind religion" is like saying, "We should try to leave behind human nature" -- fatuous.

Do you want to try to reduce the draw of violent Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East and the world in general? Well, so do I! Violent extremism is bad, yo. But, seriously, it's honestly and thoroughly just dumb to think that because both Jihadists in caves in Afghanistan and your soccer-mom neighbor mention the word "God" at times, that there's some deep commonality between the two.

Honestly, I feel stupid just writing this, it's so obvious, but here goes: religion isn't a single, monolithic thing with some kind of agenda. Religion is a million different things to a million different people. If there is a God or gods (and, as I think I've mentioned, I'm not religious), then his/her/their will is manifestly non-obvious to most people. It's pretty clear that "religion" is a social reflection of ordinary human psychology, plus a wide variety of not-very-cohesive institutions. So why do people like Chet act as though saying that something is the result of "religion" is a meaningful statement? I mean, it's not like it's hard to find and talk to a religious person: they're all around. Everything I said above about the non-monolithicness of religion should be painfully obvious to everyone.

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | December 18, 2007 1:17 PM

Dennett responds to TNR:

Posted by Daniel C. Dennett
14 of 81 | warn tnr | respond

Damon Linker speaks of my "hatred of " and "hostility to religious education," which is remarkable, considering that in the only place in Breaking the Spell where I discuss the topic I call for a compulsory curriculum in religious education for all children, in public and private schools, and even for home schoolers: "Let's get more education about religion into schools, not less. We should teach our children creeds and customs, prohibitions and rituals, texts and music, and when we cover the history of religion we should include both the positive . . . .and the negative. . . . No religion should be favored, and none ignored." I go on to insist, moreover, that so long as schools and parents teach their children this curriculum on world religions "they may teach their children whatever religious doctrines they like." (pp328-9) I did also predict the "adrenaline rush" that many people would experience when it was suggested that they didn't have the right to keep their children ignorant of basic facts about the world's religions, including their own, and I suspect that it was just such a paroxysm of irrational fear that provoked such a deliberate misrepresentation by Damon Linker. What I, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are opposed to is not religious education, but the sorts of indoctrination that depends on enforced ignorance. Now that really is child abuse-just as surely as it is child abuse to prevent a child from learning to read.

Posted by David W. | December 18, 2007 3:01 PM

This "Christian soldier" crap is a tired trope - almost anachronistic at this point. Yeah, for the atheists the list of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot and the countless "marxist insurgencies" that left millions more murdered are all hiccups. Mentioning such people is really just a worn out tactic, a talking point, Mao, Stalin...yada...yada...yada. "We've heard it all before Christian and you're wrong about all that. Anything else?" You've heard it all before because it's so f*ckin' easy and obvious. Moreover, members of the aforementioned list invariably turn out to be raving, divinely inspired Christian-fascists if you "really look at what they were saying" once a schpinmeister like Dawkins is through with them. For the record I too am an atheist. But I'm not a smug a**hole like too many of us are. The 1900's showed an utter lack in the divine. Blaming the pope or the church, (or the CRUSADES, for Christ's sake!) for that 100 year mess last century is straight bullsh*t. Just because I haven't bought into the whole Jesus story, doesn't mean I want another 300,000,000 non-believers running around the country. Such people are already telling me where I can smoke, what I can and can’t eat, what words are appropriate, what should be done with my money, what kind of vehicle I should drive, where I should pray (if I chose to), whether I should have a gun or not..... Does that not have the whiff of fascism about it? It aint the Jesus-jockeys running that Orwellian smack. Orianna Fallaci called herself a Christian atheist, knowing the limits to fulfillment atheism can provide and the limitless danger it can provoke. Works for me.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm

Posted by JDW | December 19, 2007 3:59 PM