A quasi-religious movement
by MikeGeneActivist Richard Dawkins has succeeded in stirring up another fight among the New Atheists. And this time, it is over the t-shirt that looks like a uniform. As a result, Dawkins had to step in to calm the flock.
While I had some fun with this , there is a serious angle on it all.
Here we have a leader and a movement that represents hardcore anti-religious sentiments and goals. Yet this very anti-religious movement itself is becoming increasingly religious in nature. There is one significant admission in Dawkins plea (that explains this blog entry):
I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem.
By encouraging "quasi-religious conformity," it seems to me that it's not so much swallowing pride as it is abandoning principle. This is an example where the end justifies the means, such that if one has to mimic religiosity to have influence, Dawkins and his followers are willing to go down that slippery slope. Of course, this is not the first example of an attempt to encourage conformity. Dawkins himself is the one who started the campaign of labeling other atheists who don't conform as "appeasers."
It would be cool if David Sloan Wilson (or someone like him) decided to study Dawkins and his nascent quasi-religious movement.
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
So, now that this thread isn't marked 'Humor', will you answer the following?
Would you be so kind as to provide a full list (or heuristics by which one could generate the list) of the suggestions that Dawkins is permitted to make for the atheist movement, statements he is permitted to issue and swag he is permitted to sell on his website which would not, in your opinion, be signs that his army of pasty yet somehow threatening nerds is about to start goose-stepping down your street?
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Hello Grend,
Your off-topic question is nonsensical, as no where do I see or imply any "signs that his army of pasty yet somehow threatening nerds is about to start goose-stepping down your street." I ask you to please refrain from further misinterpreting my points.
If you wish to continue participating in this thread, you need to stay on topic. And the appropriate topic would be whether Dawkins' new movement is beginning to adopt a quasi-religious dimension. Dawkins appears to acknowledge this (in the section I quote) and rationalizes it from a pragmatic, socio-political perspective.
Comment by MikeGene — August 3, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
So is this the basis for the term "Evangelical Atheists?"
Comment by Randy — August 3, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Okay, so we're not to mention the threatiness. (Also, how did the word 'street' get into your quotation of me between 'be' and 'signs'? Strange.)
It's quasi-religious in the same sense that any activist movement is quasi-religious, in that an activist movement requires some level of uniformity in order to be active in a particular direction. If you think that makes it quasi-religious, then any organization which works towards a particular purpose, no matter what that purpose is, is also quasi-religious, and you've kind of defined all the usefulness out of the word.
The pride he talks about swallowing appears to be a common atheist pride in nonconformity, which doesn't go well with an activist movement of any sort. It's about as religious as any movement which asks people to voluntarily wear a symbol as a means to raise awareness. Here's a comment on the article you linked to mulling over the conflict between the urge to avoid conformity and the desire to see the campaign meet its goals. That, I think, is the pride which is being swallowed.
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
In the sense that any movement which involves taking part in group action of any sort, even entirely voluntarily and with no particular obligation entailed, is "Evangelical". In that sense, slapping a yellow ribbon on your car or flying a rainbow flag in front of your house is "Evangelical".
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
grendelkhan,
One definition of evangelical is "zealous in advocating something." That may included yellow ribbons and rainbow flags. However, I think the aspect of Evangelical Athiests that causes the word "evangelical" to apply is that they are not just zealously advocating something, they are also actively seeking to convert others to their metaphysical belief system.
Comment by Jehu — August 3, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
And yet the word is hardly ever used to refer to those who display yellow ribbons or rainbow flags, at least not solely due to that act. Is it because the usage of the word 'evangelical' is intended to paint the atheist movement as just another religion, and an insular, fundamentalist one at that?
The explicit purpose of the campaign is to spread awareness. You could say that the implicit purpose of yellow ribbons is to encourage others to support the war, or that the implicit purpose of rainbow flags is to encourage others to adopt a more tolerant attitude toward the LGBT community. I'm not seeing the distinction–if wearing an 'A' shirt is evangelical, then so are these things.
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:10 pm
You're familiar with the general sentiment that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris direct towards those who the shirt is supposed to antagonize?
Why are you extracting this relatively harmless act: creating a uniform for like-minded people to wear - from the backdrop of what has happened over the past few years? Imprisoning parents for imbuing their children with their religious beliefs, lacing up the steel-toe boots….
Comment by Doug — August 3, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Atheists: HEY EVERYONE! WE'RE HERE!!!!!!
Christian Majority: We already knew that. Nice shirt.
Spread awareness of what? That a group of fundamentalists is angry that others aren't following lead and superimposing the fundamentalist's arbitrary conception of reality over their own lives.
How noble.
Comment by Doug — August 3, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Nice Randy, ya ripped it right out of context.
Comment by Doug — August 3, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
What a pansy approach. Whenever you hear talk of awareness rest assured those taliking that way cannot own up to their desire to convince others of the "wisdom of their ways."
Comment by Bradford — August 3, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:34 pm
I wasn't aware that the shirt was intended to antagonize anyone. I suppose if you're offended to see that someone else has a different belief system than you do, you'd be antagonized, but I don't think that's the shirt's fault. The shirts are as antagonistic as a rainbow flag, which I do believe some people think is an offensive symbol; these people tend to be bigots.
First off, it's not a uniform. Calling it a uniform is an attempt to bring up images of "militant" atheists. It's a cheap shot to call it that. It's a uniform in the same sense that a Yankees hat is a uniform–which is to say, not really at all.
Please provide me with a list of parents who have been arrested for imbuing their children with their religious beliefs. This is the one that comes to mind off the top of my head, but I don't know if she was actually arrested at any point. Also, the bit about boots was a metaphor. You know what a metaphor is, right?
Feel free to read the posts on the site linked in the original post, in which a number of people agonize about outing themselves as atheists to their family, their coworkers, or anyone else who thinks that atheists are bone-chewing ogres who live somewhere else and are identifiable by the horns on their head.
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
That's a pretty broad claim. Do you really believe that of every group which has attempted to raise awareness about themselves? Do you think that gay people "cannot own up to their desire to convince others of the "wisdom of their ways."" That's a pretty strong claim there.
(The comparison with the gay community is inapt for many reasons, and it's one of the things I don't like about the campaign. However, unless you explain why raising awareness is a good thing in one case and a craven attempt to convert the masses in the other, I have no recourse but to assume you think that's why people fly rainbow flags.)
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
The raising awareness ploy is a social activist tactic and an arrogant one at that. It says: Let me correct your ignorance of this, that and some other thing with some anecdotal stories and maybe some stats thrown in. The unspoken motive is advancing an agenda but like good salesmen we don't talk about the ultimate goal since that would discourage acceptance of the POV being pushed.
Like Mike I notice your tendency to read into what others write. How did this become reduced to gays in your mind?
Comment by Bradford — August 3, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Great. First Dawkins is not allowed to have any moral beliefs, then he's not allowed to sell T-shirts, and now he's not allowed to form organizations and try to convince others of the correctness of his views.
I suppose soon he will not be allowed to choose between a tuna and chicken salad sandwich at the deli, because that would be expressing a value and materialists aren't allowed to have those.
If I were Dawkins I'd be pretty damn gratified to see my opponents stirred up by my every little trivial words and action. If, as you seem to believe, he's running some kind of sleazy self-aggrandizing racket, then you folks are a vital part of his scheme. There would be no need to organize an atheist movement if there weren't religious movements or crypto-religious movements like ID to serve as foils.
Comment by mtraven — August 3, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Read over the thread. First, I said that wearing this shirt is no more a quasi-religious thing than placing a yellow ribbon on a car or flying a rainbow flag, as it shows affiliation. The latter, especially, is used to raise awareness, to make people aware that LGBT people are all around them, working and living pretty much like straights. Then you claimed:
There's talk of awareness around rainbow flags. I am, according to your own words, to rest assured that the LGBT community is in denial about attempting to make everyone else one of them.
Do you understand the chain of events here? I can try and break it down for you a bit finer if you're still having trouble seeing how we got here.
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Ssh! Didn't you get the memo? That's offtopic, per MikeGene, and we're not to speak of it. (Given that he's failed to respond to the question about the precise limits of Dawkins' agency, I assume it falls into the same category as forbidden questions about the threatiness.)
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
That's the dumm down response that's all too typical. (What does LGBT stand for?) An agenda is not making others one of you. It's pushing for various laws and social policies that are in line with the group's goals. Do it openly.
Comment by Bradford — August 3, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
MikeGene decrees:
Yes, in the same sense that being a Red Sox fan or the like also has a quasi-religious dimension. "quasi" puts a whole lot of distance between the concept it specifies and the concept it modifies.
Speaking of Quasi, "there sure are a lot of weirdos out today!".
Comment by mtraven — August 3, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify?
Do your own homework.
Converting someone to the "wisdom of [your] ways" is not making someone like you? I think you're trying to backpedal here, and not doing very well at it.
If you really think this is so, please list what you believe are the goals, above and beyond awareness of atheism in their midst and possibly an end to prejudice against atheists, of the t-shirt wearers. Also, please list off the goals of the group that flies rainbow flags. You can title it "Homosexual Agenda" or not at your discretion.
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
I say who cares what Dawkins and his toadies do. My wife is reasonably plugged into society, has a successful career, and pretty much keeps her thumb on the pulse of the world scene, and I asked my wife today if she's ever heard of Richard Dawkins. She has not. Maybe the brits love the guy, but he's a non-starter in the U.S. in terms of influence. I'm not worried about it. Let them have their shirts.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 3, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
You're right. Let them have their shirts and their rainbow flags too.
Comment by Bradford — August 3, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
How so? The term Evangelical comes from the Greek evangelion,which derives from the term "good news." In other words, an evangelical is one who shares the good news or gospel with others.
In the context of Dawkin's followers, it is clear that they want to have an influence on the beliefs of others, which itself is quasi-evangelical.
The gospel that they want to share is Darwinism
Comment by Randy — August 3, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Randy, by that definition, almost all scientists are catholic.
It's a cheap attempt to slap a religious veneer on something non-religious, and it fits right in with the constant attempts to portray anyone who thinks well of Dawkins as a mindless redshirt. (Again, I encourage you to go over the the message boards at Dawkins' site and see how much toadying goes on compared to how much squabbling and disagreement does.)
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Is the upside down (legs up in the air) Jesus 'fish' not intended to antagonize? Is the Jesus 'fish' with Darwin written inside not intended to antagonize?
Okay, let's say I give you that they aren't intending on antagonizing anyone with this - but I don't see the thought process that conjured up this idea (the shirt) much different from the process that conjured up the aforementioned examples.
Gren, I think I could safetly say I am not a bigot…. at least not to the extent I use to be.
You might not think it is, others might. Maybe I'm more pessimistic with this, but I think the intention that one might have in wearing such a shirt would differ greatly from someone wearing their Green Bay Packers jacket. However, maybe you aren't too familiar with american sports…. many do seem to view their Packers jacket, Yankees cap as a uniform if not a badge of affiliation.
I should have clarified. These as being vocalized intentions on the behalf of those who are advocating the wearing of these shirts. The boots was a reference to PZ Myers. It's not my fault it eluded you.
Then we have vastly different experieces. Either your vocally an advocate of religious pluralism, or you don't believe there's a God at all.
Comment by Doug — August 3, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Sorry Randy,
I thought you were arguing against the term 'evangelical' being used to reference the behavior of some of the more earnest atheists.
Comment by Doug — August 3, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Religion - a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
- something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.
Veneer, hey?
Comment by Doug — August 3, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Except that it's not a parody of a Christian symbol, and not inherently antagonistic. Christians have antagonized people in the past. Does that permanently exclude all Christians from taking part in any sort of discourse, because someone's feelings might still be smarting?
How wonderful of you.
Can you back that up, or do you just feel a distinct burble of threatiness in your gut? (I should add that sports regalia have been used to identify gang members, and that sports fans have been known to occasionally riot.)
I'm aware of the source of the PZ Myers quote. It was, I repeat, a metaphor. The shirts are not meant to imply support for Dawkins' opinions on religion as child abuse any more than they are meant to imply support for his opinions on the gene-centric take on evolution.
That's an interesting dichotomy; is that from your own experience? How do you know this?
So Communism is a religion now? (Could you notify the "But Stalin was an atheist!" contingent?) The neoconservative movement is a religion? The Yankees fandom is a religion?
The argument-from-the-dictionary tends to be used when someone wants to pretend that words don't mean what they commonly mean, and I think that's what you're doing here.
Comment by grendelkhan — August 3, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Hi Grendelkhan,
First, let's be clear that this is not simply my perception of quasi-religious conformity. As Dawkins notes, "I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own."
As for it being quasi-religious in the same sense that any activist movement is quasi-religious, it's significant to see you acknowledge we are indeed talking about an activist movement here. When dealing with activist movements, we're dealing with emotional appeals, black-and-white thinking, and slogans. This supports my contention that Dawkins' "consciousness raising" is really old fashioned propaganda. This in of itself is worthy of note and further exploration.
But is Dawkins' activist movement really the same as all other activist movements? It seems to me that there is a clear, developing quasi-religious feeling to this particular movement. Dawkins himself, in the eyes of his followers, comes across as some type of messiah-like figure. The activist movement comes with its own vision of good and evil, heaven and hell, and a salvation plan that includes conversions. It even has its own version of demons - 'faithheads.'
Comment by MikeGene — August 4, 2007 @ 6:57 am
August 4th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Good Morning Mike,
You wrote…
It seems you are suggesting this is kettles and pots calling each other black.
This is an easy charge to make and has some validity.
However, there is a not-so-subtle distinction. As you have noted Dawkin's own followers are questioning their "religion", publically. This isn't the usual activity of your typical religious and/or patriotic set.
While you seem to be concerned about Atheists excercising their individual right to organize and speak out, you do so by comparing it to Theists who have their slogans printing on our money and recited in the country's pledge of allegience.
Think about how many people wear crosses around their necks and how many pro-religious bumper stickers there are. Here is an current topic that mirrors the discussion we are having here…
The American Civil Liberties Union sued Judge Jim Lamz of Slidell, La., earlier this month for refusing to take down a portrait of Jesus Christ above the words "To know peace, obey these laws" displayed in a courthouse lobby. The judge says he believes the picture is legal, and the mayor of the city "” the mayor and the town are also named in the lawsuit "” called the ACLU "America's Taliban."
link
This is your typical shield bashing. Claim to be the victim of religious extremism when there isn't any doubt that using government funds to put up a picture of Jesus holding the bible ("obey these laws") in a government building is "consciousness raising" to the level of intentionally provoking a fight.
The disturbing part is that with makeup of the current Supreme Court, we are likely to see more attempts like this one. And, God forbid, they might be successful (pun intended).
Dawkins may be foolish in his attempts to fight fire with fire considering the infernal he is facing (pun not intended) but I'm not concerned that he will even come close to being a problem, especially when the "herding cats" analogy is so apt.
With apologies to Will Rodgers…
I do not belong to any organized political movement: I'm an Atheist.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 4, 2007 @ 9:29 am
August 4th, 2007 at 10:47 am
its not? please cite us some specific examples of these typical religious or patriotic sets that exclude this sort of activity.
is the word athiest itself (as a self subscribed stereotype in tp's case) a political word that seeks organization in the public sphere? isnt the word used to identify your commitments against or inline with those of others, and, in america, that these commitments will affect the public sphere of your voting, your speaking, what charities you support, where you go, whom you speak to and how you speak to them? in fact, isnt that why youve just called yourself one here in the forum: to announce your political commitments, (in your eyes as opposed to dawkins political tactics).
sorry to jump on you tp, you were just the last person to post.
lets however go with what dawkins says,
dawkins has identified that the shirts do engender conformity (if this is religious like or not, im not sure that it matters). what is wrong with this sort of conformity to get things done in the real world, either by dawkins or by a church? i myself say there is nothing wrong with it at all, this is the nature of the social sphere, however…..
it appears to me that dawkins is asking his follows to trust his authority in this regards, because, well "we must get things done in the real world". notice the use of the word "real". this word has taken on the flavor of propaganda in some of dawkins other discussions (ie. he wants to know what is real and what is true, forget that it appears he has not questioned these concepts much). dawkins is asking other athiests to knowingly submit their own wills based on him saying, trust me, this will get things done. it appears to me he offers no more rationalization than this one: this is what is real, trust me. perhaps this is why tp is so hostile to it. does religion do the same sort of thing? to different degrees, of course. i consciously choose to conform in certain regards to the body of christ, because i trust the body in certain regards, either to get things done, or merely philosophically as well. does that mean that my religion encourages me to submit my will and my skepticism? my will, but not my skepticism. i wouldnt be too happy with any christian, and ive had this happen, who said when i asked them, why is the bible written like this, or why should we believe in the trinity, they merely say trust god, trust the truth. this is what is real.
there is little difference between that sort of christian propaganda and dawkins own. neither is consciouses raising.
Comment by dantedanti — August 4, 2007 @ 10:47 am
August 4th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Nothing at all. Because humans are NOT omnicient, some degree of trust and presumption (another word for faith) is necessary in all spheres of activity.
The new atheist movement is confronted with the basic scientific fact of human nature, namely, the limited information storage and gathering capacity of each human being. As Mike indirectly speculated (and which I will take much further), every intelligent creature will have some form of religion. It will have a body of values, ideals, leaders, authorities that exist only out of trust and no a priori root empirical justification. For example, even the notion of "good" and "bad", these must proceed from an unprovable body of axioms, etc. This is arguably true when we make artificially intelligent systems. Such intellent systems run from unprovable axioms (faith statements). Why should Dawkins presume to exorcise from human beings what Kurt Godel realized is essential in every human endeavor (namely a degree of faith in something). Richard will not be able to run from the mathematical and logical fact that religion must come with intelligence.
One can relabel religion to mean everything but atheism, but this is only Orwellian double-speak in the end. It will have some areas of faith basis somewhere in the system. It could be as simple as, "Shall I put my faith in trust in Richard Dawkins?" Or even more basic, "Shall I put faith and trush in the laws of physics, even though physcists have proven these laws are not immutable [ala John Wheeler]?"
Dawkins is in the unfortunate position of fighting scientific fact. He must deny his movement is faith based, yet he has to make faith and religiously based appeals. I have forseen this coming. Religion is the inevitable consequence of what is necessary for intelligent information processing systems such as the human mind. Dawkins denies this while simulatenously utilizing it. That is the root of the problem for him, imho.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 4, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Hi DanteDanti,
You wrote…
No need to apologize. You are going to have to jump a lot harder than that to irritate me. I have always enjoyed hearing your unique perspective on things.
To my suggesting that the encouragement of questioning isn't a "usual activity" of religious/political people, you responded with…
Nice try.
Wearing a clown nose and Mickey Mouse ears is also not a "usual activity" but it isn't prohibited (Joy may disagree).
Excuse me if I don't go to the trouble of providing specific quotes where questioning America's decision to go to war in Iraq is helping terrorists.
As to religion"¦
Not only is there rarely a written policy against questioning, often it is officially encouraged. However, if you question too much it is first suggested that, for your own good, you shouldn't be such a "doubting Thomas" If you don't quit after such a suggestion, you are directly informed that you're no longer welcome in the church.
This is what happened to me in the church I grew up in. None of it was official, and my expulsion wasn't a unanimous decision (I was asked by one church leader to come back). I responded to the situation by exploring other churches and religions. Most of them assumed I was a trouble-making teenager and didn't want anything to do with me. I imagine that many at TT can understand why they felt that way. But it took time and effort to go to all these different churches and I was in earnest. To them, it was a matter of rationalized trade-off. One trouble-making, lost soul wasn't worth the upheaval to the warm-fuzzy group think.
Judaism provided a lot of interest to me. So did Jehovah's Witnesses.
Judaism seems more respectful to questioning Truth as long as you follow traditions. Question the traditions all you want, as long as you adhere to them.
I like Jehovah's Witnesses because they are less inclined towards rationalization. They stand by their convictions, even those that aren't popular. I am probably one of the few people who enjoy talking to Jehovah's Witnesses.
Unitarian Universalism is a theologically liberal religious movement characterized by its support of a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." This principle permits Unitarian Universalists a wide range of beliefs and practices. Unitarian Universalist congregations and fellowships tend to retain some Christian traditions such as Sunday worship that includes a sermon and singing of hymns, but do not necessarily identify themselves as Christians.
My wife and I were married in a Unitarian Universalist church. We have taken our children there for their religious education. It is the center of our community service activities. However, lately, most of our "community service" is donating to appropriate charities (I suspect most local charities have us on speed-dial and know when my wife is home and I am not). My wife and kids are also in the habit of helping the local animal shelter (don't ask how many pets we have).
I'm not in the habit of saying I'm a Unitarian Universalist because it doesn't usually provoke thinking. Most people either don't understand the significance (they assume that means I am a "Christian" like them) or politely avoid questioning my religious beliefs.
Please excuse my rambling, but I felt it appropriate that I finish the explanation of who and what I am from a religious point of view. DanteDanti, I think you have been straight with me, I am trying to return the favor.
I suggest "propaganda" and "consciousness raising" are the same thing.
I don't mind the provocative exchange of ideas. In a lot of ways I find comfort in verbal conflict. It often forces people to think about responses.
Just leave the government out of it. They are supposed to be unbiased referees that just enforce unbiased rules. It is an unfortunate reality that referees are imperfect and the rules are inherently biased.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 4, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Salvador:
It is apparent that atheism is in the throes of becoming an organization under the leadership of Dawkins. Much different than a political atheistic organization, such as Communism, in that this movement is loosely organized, and opinions vary. This is a new phenomenon. People who call themselves Catholic or Baptist, but who really don't believe there is a god, can now become a part of a movement that allows them their opinions without negative consequences. Is it religious? Perhaps not, but it is beginning to have the same organizational structure of a fledgeling religious organization.
Comment by Randy — August 4, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
ah you will excuse me for forgetting this example. i also got a heavy dose of this shit during that time. ticked me off worse than anything. however, we are talking about what is typical no? perhaps you are correct to say that many, if not the majority of church's or organizations indirectly discourage questioning of the extreme nature. however, what hard data, other than the experience of one (yourself or myself), do we have to confirm this hypothesis? that is what i am interested in, mostly to gauge the religious landscape.
i have had this happen in half the church's i have been in, however i have also found three church's were i am not only encouraged to ask every and any question i can think of, these three church's, two in particular, have expressed that as a believer it may be my gift or my role in the church body to ask unrestricted questions. perhaps my questions are big questions, or perhaps they are just stupid or arent interesting to some people, but if God has given me such a role to carry out for the time being, i love it, and so do the churches i attend, even though some of my questions are often rude, obvious, uncomfortable, etc.
notice though tp, how you used the pronoun you, instead of some people, or myself, or many people. you addressed the reader in a very informal way, assigning us as readers the experiences you have had before we have had a chance to have them (does that make sense?)
it is sad some people are like this, religious or not. i was suspended from school once for not being able to pledge to the flag, what got me specifically suspended? asking the principal why i had to pledge. what is illegal for them to suspend me? yes. did my parents bother asking that question? no.
i agree fully 100%. i used the term a bit tongue in cheek, though not totally. the question is tp, by using the word athiest, as you labelling yourself as part of a political movement?
Salvador T. Cordova: i really want to know why dawkins has not responded to what you bring up. i think, in regards to dawkins and harris, people have presented them with this faith problem that you bring up. but they never change their minds, never seem to address it, nothing. i really want to damn know their answer. any ideas or places you could point me to?
Comment by dantedanti — August 4, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Hi Salvador,
That was an interesting comment. It had your usual extremely biased slant, but contained some thought provoking points…
I think it is obvious that you are making a dichotomy out of the terms "religion" and "atheism". The question is, is that obvious to you?
You are inherently defining atheism as the opposite of religion.
This is not unusual.
However, you then proceed to equate religion with a person's philosophical outlook.
Equating philosophy and religion is also not unusual. I do it all the time in NOMA discussions.
Yes, people have to deal with the philosophical fact that they don't know the Truth. It is philosophy 101.
I didn't have a problem with Mike calling Atheism "quasi-religious". I doubt anyone, including Dawkins, would object to calling Atheism a personal philosophy.
Dawkins and I happen to disagree on how to treat NOMA concepts.
I agree that is a problem for Dawkins.
I don't agree that is a problem for those who are not inclined to think the Bible provides any special insight into understanding a single, ultimate Truth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 4, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
You're kind of defining religion into meaning practically anything here, aren't you?
Comment by grendelkhan — August 4, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Hi, grendelkhan,
Salvador can definitely speak for himself, but I think the main point he was trying to make is that any system, no matter how structured, carefully planned, and precise, will nevertheless have statements that are unprovable and must be accepted as true. In other words, one must have faith in the statements from which the system is built. There is no getting around this dilema.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — August 4, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Exactly. Even as simple a question as whether it is good for an Atheist to walk around with an "A"-shirt can't seem to find a simple logical, mathematical, scientific answer.
I had mentioned this before. It is amazing the fascination that a modern, technological, highly empirical society has for fiction. Movies are a big industry and Dawkins himself married the Dr. Who babe, Lala Ward. Dawkins likes fiction!
Ah yes, cave into emotional indulgence to help adjudicate what is right and wrong and good. The quasi-religious appeal is being made in the name of reason, but it's methods are not mathematically nor logically deductive. They are appeals to the very things associated with religious endeavors! I doubt any mathematician or physicist, even Einstein or Newton, could derive a theorem to answer simple questions about the OUT campaign. The OUT campaign is rooted in quasi-religion with Dawkins as prophet and priest.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 4, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
No doubt. I wonder, though, why he calls this "religion", thus ensuring that pretty much anything is a religion–as I said, defining the word out of existence.
Comment by grendelkhan — August 4, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Hi DanteDanti,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I will apologize up front for my lengthy response but I am in a talkative mood and you are so good at bringing out unusual ways to look at things.
You wrote…
I'm not sure how or why I know this is a sincere inquiry. From your very first post I have detected nothing but sincerity. You and I don't agree on many things but, IMO, we have great exchanges of ideas.
My second eldest daughter is well on her way to getting a PhD in Psychology. As the proud papa, I enjoy talking to her about her classes. She told me about one situation that came up in her classes. They were talking about a study that was done shortly after 911. It was dealing with the determining how the different personality types (internalizing verses externalizing) dealt with stress. The results of the study were in significant conflict with expectations. The professor asked the students to discuss the different possibilities for why this was.
My daughter immediately said "The participants were lying".
The professor responded with "I wish you were on our panel when we did this study." This proud papa was quite pleased to hear this.
Sure enough, the professor explained that a follow up research into the things like marriage counseling and other indicators of stress showed the alleged non-stressed group was significantly more stressed than the survey results indicated.
The point of all of this is that gauging social landscapes is difficult. Even the TV Nielson ratings have had problems in the past and that isn't a controversial subject. Even a perfect lie detector wouldn't help. People are so good at rationalizing they will be actually convinced of things that aren't consistent with the facts.
One of the most disturbing things I have experienced is when I am faced with a cold hard reality that I remembered something incorrectly. Fortunately, it doesn't happen very often. When it does I try to reconstruct how it happened. I know I can lie to myself, I try to use that knowledge in an attempt to minimize it from happening.
I have little doubt that I could present convincing evidence that nearly 100% of the churches encourage questioning.
I would have a much tougher time presenting convincing evidence that a significant percentage don't. Even if I could find all the antidotal data points like you and me, most of it would be discounted as a misunderstanding or simple loss of faith.
I made a point of stating my expulsion was neither official nor unanimous. An honest assessment wouldn't allow for declaring my childhood church/religion as intolerant of questions. As suspect this would be typical.
The official positions present the positive. Negatives are unofficial "misunderstandings". This happens in religions, politics, businesses and just about every social organization.
It may be a copout on my part, but I think it is the way things are.
I am seriously glad to hear this. Would you volunteer to be cloned?
I suspect I am less patient than you are.
Imagine me in a business setting. People who question are usually "rewarded" with finding the answers to their own questions. Here is another incident in my past that has shaped my approach to life…
I was fresh out of engineering school when I ran across an interesting real-world engineering problem. The details aren't important, but to me it was an obvious problem that the company was going to have to deal with. I identified the problem, I figured out the solution and presented it to my boss.
My exact words words were "We have no choice, we will have to deal with this now or later". My boss took my presentation and presented it to his bosses. The answer came back that they weren't going to do anything.
Sure enough, six months later the problem manefested itself and the project was in trouble. I re-presented my solution which was immediately accepted, but because we started late it caused a significant slip in the product release date.
Shortly after that, I was up for my first annual review. I was looking forward to it. While I got a reasonable merit raise, my boss scolded me. "You KNEW we were doing it wrong, yet you let us do it anyway. Don't let that happen again."
From that point on. While companies sometimes still made mistakes despite my warnings, I made sure the ENTIRE chain of management knew what they were doing and what was going to happen. While it didn't always make me popular it made me successful. I was generally given the most challenging projects to keep me busy.
While businesses will tolerate this type of personality (barely), social groups (like churches) won't.
The jury is still out on blogs like Telic Thoughts. Fortunately, I have mellowed with old age and MikeGene is more tolerant than most.
Of course it makes sense. It was probably intentional.
Leave it to you to notice that. Yes, I was personalizing. I try to be careful not to use the pronoun "you" when it could be interpreted as accusatory. In this case it looks like I got lucky and didn't offend you.
It didn't offend you, did it?
I try to say something like "most people call me an Atheist" but sometimes I get lazy.
I have political opinions that tend to coincide with Atheism.
I think the "Under God" and "in God we Trust" are a violation of the First Amendment and promote other inappropriate acts.
Members of the Dover school board referenced these words in defense of their actions. That wasn't an isolated case of such rationalization.
I think government sponsered prayer is inappropriate (whether in school or otherwise).
I also think it is inappropriate for court house to have a picture of Jesus holding open a bible over the words "obey these rules".
These political opinions of mine correspond with those held by most Atheists.
I don't faithfully follow anyone, including Dawkins. I agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others. There are some things I agree with Dembski on, but I would be quick to point out all the things I disagree with him on.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 4, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
TP:
That's interesting, TP. This is the one thing that I actually agree with in Dawkins' philosophy. NOMA should be non-operational. I agree with him that if God exists, there ought to be some evidence somewhere. We come to opposite conclusions. The problem I see with Dawkins is that he does not beleive his metaphysical assumptions come into play anywhere in his idea of what science is and is not. He does not believe that he has metaphysical biases.
So NOMA is not a problem for Dawkins, he doesn't accept NOMA. He thinks there are no magesteria other than raw science. The problem being that he doesn't recognize his own appeal to non-scientific magesteria.
Now regarding my own view: I don't think that NOMA really works if the God we are talking about actually exists. If He does exist, while He is beyond nature, nature itself is a reflection of His person. It ought to tell us something about who He is. I beleive it does.
Of course, you being an atheist, NOMA works for you. But I can't help thinking that there is really an artificial separation between your philosophy or metaphysics, and your scientific ideas. NOMA creates that forced artificial separation. But I don't think that it represents reality. If you have something to add to this that might clarify your position, I welcome it.
Comment by Randy — August 4, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
August 4th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Hi Randy,
You wrote…
Maybe it is time to have another NOMA thread (TT moderators, consider that a hint). You might be surprised how the opinion on this is divided on both sides of the culture war.
One thing the discussion brings out is how many people think the NOMA wall works only one way.
You imply that Dawkins only considers how science can investigate God (a one way barrier allowing science to effect the philosophical but not the reverse). I agree that there is some validity to that accusation.
But then you turn around and say God "…is beyond nature" which is a direct claim your NOMA wall is only porous in the direction of the philosophical to the scientific.
I declare a pox on both your houses. You have no more right to protect your God from Dawkin's science than Dawkin has to protect his science from your God.
You can't use the philosophical trick of making a "logical" assumption that God is supernatural and, therefore, is undetectable in nature but still can affect nature without providing a SCIENTIFIC MODEL to explain it.
This is where the Third Choice comes in.
Penrose proposes that the Objective Reduction (OR) of quantum wavefunction(s) is non-deterministic yet non-random. Penrose refers to Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems to explain the possibility that a complete universal explanation will be forever unknowable (non-deterministic).
I suggest that science may be able to detect one side of the actual NOMA wall as being Penrose's OR. What or who is making the decisions on the other side of this NOMA wall would forever remain a mystery…
…or not.
Part of the paradox in claiming NOMA is correct is that such a claim pretty much violates NOMA. It is claiming a truth for both magisteria. But I suggest this position is more constructive than not embracing NOMA because…
Rather than having me pontificate, I'm curious as to your reaction to the demand for a scientific mechanistic model for God.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 4, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
August 5th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Hi Mike,
If one defines itself in relationship to religion (even being negative relationship), one necessarily becomes religious. Isn't that what Richard Dawkins is doing? There is a big difference between being non-religious as opposed to being anti-religious.
Comment by inunison — August 5, 2007 @ 9:00 am
August 5th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Hi inunison,
I think the term "atheist" doesn't quite apply to Dawkins and his followers. An atheist is one who is literally without God. But for Dawkins and his follows, God and religion are constantly on their mind. A more accurate term is "˜anti-theist,' or, as you note, anti-religious.
Comment by MikeGene — August 5, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
August 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Hi TP,.
All that's being questioned (by some) is a t-shirt that not only looks like a uniform, but is an advertisement for Dawkins' store. I see no questioning on matters of significance. For example, while Dawkins had to calm the flock over the uniform, he has not had to calm the flock over his bigoted notions about religious upbringing and child abuse. The so-called pro-science and pro-reason crowd has gullibly lapped up that bit of pseudoscience and willing spread that meme. In fact, when Dawkins' site was circulating a petition to make it illegal to give children a religious upbringing, the Dawkins followers willingly signed on and did not criticize. Dawkins didn't have to calm the flock about that one either; he removed his signature and the petition only when a widely read "appeaser" took him to the wood shed over it.
Nope, when it comes to the "religion is evil" faith, the followers do not question this. If they do, they are called "appeasers" and "cowards."
We're not talking about atheists organizing and speaking out. We're talking about anti-theists who seek to demonize religious people. We're talking about a movement that is unified with hate.
Comment by MikeGene — August 5, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
August 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Hi Mike,
Thank you for your response. I think your reaction is a good indication that you are still open minded and sensitive to opposing view points. I did notice you didn't respond to my Slidell case observations. Since you seem to agree this is a situation of dueling metaphysics (religion versus anti-religion) it seems appropriate to compare tactics. You didn't even offer a "yea, but…". Consider me the investigative reporter pushing a microphone in your face asking you about the Slidell case. I want at least an admission of "no comment" on record.
Historically, the religious folks have used "heritics" and "doubting Thomases" for their labels. Lately, the labels "fanatics" and "Arabs" have been used for separation (even when talking about the actions or Arab Christians). When all else fails "terrorists" is the ultimate label to attach to those you want to distance yourself from.
As you noted, the "appeasers" still have influence over Dawkins. If recent Supreme Court rulings are any indication (Bush's faith-based initiatives can't be challenged), our religious leaders are becoming shameless.
Ah, "hate-speech" and "pornography", the gray areas of the black and white world of free speech. Let's just call the whole topic "obscenity". Bigotry has become obscene to most modern people. Should obscene speech be restricted? Well, there is the standard argument about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. But that only applies to situations of immediacy and a lack of opportunity for balancing opinions. Surely, you aren't suggesting that is the situation with Dawkins. No, this is more likely your disgust of the obscene nature of the speech itself. The ACLU defends the rights of Nazis to organize and for Rush Limbaugh to pontificate. Few people would think the ACLU agrees with either. You, of course, are free to engage in name calling. You can suggest Dawkins and his movement is bigoted just like the major of Slidell can suggest the ALCU is a terrorist organization ("America's Taliban").
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 5, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Hi TP,
Well, I realize that reporters have their own reasons for the own stories, but that's off topic. The topic is whether or not Dawkins' and his followers are taking on a quasi-religious dimension and I've offered good reason to think they are.
Comment by MikeGene — August 6, 2007 @ 11:30 am