Don't Call Me Militant!!
by MikeGeneOver at the Evolution and Rationality blog, Shalini, a self-described "pro-Dawkins evangelical atheist", asks, "Whatever did we do to deserve the title militant?"
She then goes on to angrily attack "the appeasers" for faciliating the upcoming apocalypse:
Religion is threatening the every foundations of our society and if left unchecked, it will destroy science, the very thing that will take humanity to the edges of what was once thought to be unachievable miracles. Why should we encourage the malignant tumour of religion? Why, appeasers? Because you people are a bunch of spineless pushovers?
The pro-science advocate thinks the "spineless pushovers" are being duped:
The cowardly appeasers and their commitment to keeping religion immune to criticism would surely be welcomed by none other than the religious themselves, even if the appeasers are currently too deluded to realize that they are being used. After all, what else do you expect from a bunch of spineless pushovers?
She also informs us that this is WAR:
Contrary to what appeasers think, this is not about one issue or another. It is not about young earth creationism, ID, evolution, climate change, stem cell research, marijuana or the latest hot-button issue. These are merely battles in the course of the real war — the war between rationalism and superstition. In this war, only one side will be the winner. There is no room for appeasers, and the superstitious, at least, will have none of this cowardly garbage. They may be ignorant, deluded, liars or plain kooks, but they are certainly not cowards, and that is more than I can say for the appeasers. Remember, no change has ever been achieved by shutting up and bowing down to oppressive institutions. If we fail to make our voices heard, superstition has already won.
Gee. Whatever did they do to deserve the title militant? After all, according to Shalini, the only thing the militant, fundamentalist atheists are doing is exercising their human right to free speech and pointing out that there is no logical basis for the unusual respect accorded to religion in society. In other words, it's only war.
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
LOL!!! Oddly enough, complaining about religion is alive and well - as Shalini herself demonstrates, even though her tirade is aimed less against religion than at her fellow atheists for not complaining enough about religion. Go figure…
Comment by Joy — July 22, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I find it rather ironic that Dawkins et al. have inspired more extremism and fanaticism than a love of science and reason.
Comment by MikeGene — July 22, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Well, if their real motivation isn't actually science, then it does make a certain amount of sense. Extreme fanatical science seems a contradiction in terms, as well as self-defeating to the public support of science (since it's the public that pays the bills). Extreme fanatical religion and its opposite - extreme fanatical anti-religion - is just the same old same old.
Comment by Joy — July 22, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 4:34 pm
As far as I can recall, the word "militant" is generally used as a weasel word by news outlets who don't want to call terrorists "terrorists". And now it's used as a weasel word by religious folk who want to equate being insulted with being decapitated–it's a sort of meeting-in-the-middle thing.
Yes, we shall certainly never forget the day that jumbo jets were crashed into the Vatican by militants screaming "Dawkins Akbar!"…
What's that? The extremism and fanaticism have consisted of writing angry letters and cussing on blogs? Why, bring hither my fainting couch; I may descend into a paroxysm of indignation.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 22, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Hi grendelkhan,
According to the dictionary, "˜militant' is defined as "vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause." Listed synonyms are belligerent, combative, contentious.
Actually, the term "˜militant' is being used by some atheists to distance themselves from other atheists. Didn't you notice that blog posting was in response to the 'appeasers.'
The dictionary defines a fanatic as "a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics." Listed synonyms are enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant.
Comment by MikeGene — July 22, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Actually, in the war between rationality and superstition, I don't think there is going to be a clear winner any time soon.
Comment by onething — July 22, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:19 pm
RBH (Dr. Richard B. Hoppe) is one of the most respected Darwinists at PandasThumb and respected at ARN and by his opponents. He is one of the most successful lobbyists in Ohio against ID.
Well done Shalini!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 22, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Shalini certainly has convinced me that people who exalt rationality over superstition are always doing a good thing.
Shameless plug.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 22, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
July 22nd, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Well now here is something I actually agree with. Only, I think most of us will be surprised at finding out who ends up on the winning side.
Comment by Randy — July 22, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 pm
In the absence of any real power to do something about all those backward religious types, options for action may indeed be limited. To really get going, the agenda needs to be combined with power.
As alluded to by angryoldfatman, it would take between 6 and 14 times the death toll of 9/11 to match the French Reign of
ReasonTerror.But for real results, who can top atheist dictator Stalin, who managed to notch it up multiple orders of magnitude? Other atheistic dictators make a run for (dis)honorable mention.
The basic problem faced by all atheists, even when they have power, is that there is no nice way to stamp out the persistent and determined tendency toward religious belief. If they want to make sure that "superstition" (in their view) doesn't last, angry letters and cussing blogs just won't get the job done.
Comment by eric — July 23, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Because if there was one thing the Reign of Terror had a surfeit of, it was reason? Do you believe that because the Reign of Terror created an unthinking cult and called it "Reason", that the concept itself is discredited? I have a long line of crusaders, inquisitors and other No True Christians waiting with bated breath on that one.
Because Stalin was cursed with an overabundance of humanism, reasonableness, skepticism and rationality which led him to commit his monstrous crimes? I had no idea; please do explain.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 24, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
And yet you didn't use any of those. It's quite a coincidence that none of those words have been used as weasel words for 'terrorist'.
The posting which asked those throwing around the label to "stop this loaded branding of us as 'militant' when all we did was to speak up and exercise our rights" I'm not seeing it used by atheists to describe themselves, only to describe other people. If you've discovered that you've got so much in common with those who Shalini decries as "appeasers", perhaps you're making her point for her.
And yet I don't see you decrying all those darn enthusiastic atheists. Are you trying to tell me that it's just a big coincidence that you're using words commonly associated with terrorists and crusaders, that you're stunningly unaware of their connotations?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 24, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
grendelkhan wrote:
Any idea of a pure concept is discredited if one adheres to the strict materialist philosophy. There should be no such thing as a pure concept in your world, if you are a true materialist. Concepts can only be observed once they are put into practice, and there has never been a pure concept in practice, since human beings are the progenitors and filters of concepts and humans are not pure.
Thus, when one measures the results of the concept Reason versus other concepts you would call irrational, Reason is much more deadly to our species than Irrationality.
Darwin would have predicted as much, since we have survived without Reason for much longer than with it, and since the supposed rational strain of the species is in the minority, making them less fit.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 24, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Are you telling me that I can't conceive of, for example, the number three? That seems a little bit odd. I'm not sure what you think "strict materialist philosophy" consists of, but I assure you, it's compatible with the existence of the concept of the number three.
People are imperfect. Are you aware of anyone who doesn't know that? (Weird use of the word "pure" aside.) This is why it's an empirically poor idea to, say, vest power in a hereditary monarchy, and a somewhat better idea to provide guarantees of basic liberties and make the government accountable to the electorate. I'm a little fuzzy on what you're trying to show here.
Most of that doesn't make any sense, and the part that does make sense is wrong. You're asserting that there are two concepts of Reason and Irrationality, diametrically opposed and reliably coordinated by reliably heritable genes, which influence everything a person does in all areas of life equally; that's quite an assertion to make, and I'm wondering if you can back that up.
I'm also still not clear on whether or not the aforementioned crusaders and inquisitioners discredit Christianity in your opinion. If not, how can you say that a manifestly unreasonable Reign of Terror discredits the use of reason?
Comment by grendelkhan — July 24, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
grendelkhan:
The reign of terror was led by some who considered themselves to be guided by reason. Eric is pointing out that evil can be done in the name of a cause be it reason or religion. One person's reason can be considered superstitious by another. The focus ought to be on the perpetrators of the deed and less attention should be paid to the cause they cite as it is likely a self-serving identification anyway.
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
If there are people who think that by using a certain magic word (be it 'reason' or 'religion'), they can make themselves immune to barbarity, please let me know where they are so that I can avoid them.
But that's not what eric said; eric was attempting to use the existence of the Reign of Terror to discredit reason as a concept, not just pointing out the fact (which I did note myself) that great evil can be done in the name of pretty much any concept.
That's a bit postmodern, don't you think?
I can't argue with that. It's a bit vague, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. I should add that causes do matter–though it's mighty sketchy to use one nut to discredit an entire ideology–and that the implications of a philosophy should indeed remain topics of discussion, though not to the exclusion of the individuals involved.
Comment by grendelkhan — July 24, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Most people who commit wrongful acts will rationalize their behavoir. Jails are full of inmates who never commited the crime they were convicted of. Rationalization of wrong doing is much more common than you seem to think it is.
I agree that great evil can be done in the name of any concept. I suspect Eric was taking a poke at Dawkins' interpretation of 911.
Comment by Bradford — July 24, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
July 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
I agree as well. If there was a poke, it was indeed inspired by grendelkhan's telling of "the day that jumbo jets were crashed into the Vatican by militants screaming "Dawkins Akbar!""¦", followed by the implied claim that the worst that has been done by extreme and fanatical atheists is "angry letters and cussing on blogs":
No, I was not discrediting reason as a concept. That was your suggested interpretation.
I do say that atheism has no inherent moral restrictions, and so is not constrained with regard to action. Reason needs material to work with. The absence of any necessary moral premises means that there is no essential contradiction regardless of whether atheists decide to help the poor or decide to kill thousands or millions.
Consider this statement (but just don't call it militant!
):
According to your own view, you might consider Stalin guilty of "monstrous crimes." Nevertheless, he and other atheist dictators who have killed thousands and even millions were simply following through on a logical consequence of fulfilling an agenda to extinguish "superstition" from their realm. Those actions were not in contradiction to atheism.
Comment by eric — July 29, 2007 @ 5:03 pm