Friday Quote: The Atheist Meltdown
by JoyWell, they're having at it again over at Science Blogs. The usual dog-eat-dog bruhaha over "framing," and whether or not the 'New Atheism' and its mean, nasty culture warriors are helping or hurting the cause of force-converting humanity to their way of thinking.
It begins (as usual) with Matthew Nibet's "Framing Science" blog, where he dared to post an opinion that Atheism is Not a Civil Rights Issue, saying:
This false spin serves as a very effective frame device for radicalizing a base of atheists into an ever more militant "us versus them" rhetoric, an interpretation that is used to justify sophomoric and polarizing attacks on religious Americans.
Which naturally brought yet another self-important hyperbolic pants explosion from the ever-hyperbolic PZ Myers, in "Polarizing is a dirty word, so atheists should surrender. In which he opines:
The funniest part of their complaints is when they start whining that the "New Atheists" are "polarizing" "” which is shorthand for making the religious unhappy. Talk about missing the point "” yes, we are. We want to make the Pat Robertsons of the world very, very angry, and we want to make it clear that we are opposing their lunacy every step of the way, and we want to make the religious moderates ashamed of their meekness and apathy. The alternative to polarizing is to surrender and just let the one side have their way, as they have since Reagan. Since the gutless Christian moderates have allowed the religious right to walk all over them, I think it's about time the "New Atheists" rose up and provided some opposition. We're proud to be polarizing when the other side is such a catastrophic collection of stupid ideas; we are not hurt or remorseful when we are accused of being militantly against religious idiocy, and that we are trying to gather more to our cause. It's a point of honor, actually, so I'm deeply unimpressed with people so out of touch that they don't even recognize that basic issue. The lack of polarization has been a disaster for this country.
Well, there you have it. It's all-out warfare, damn the torpedos, kill 'em all let God sort 'em out. The usual. One particularly humorous comment from a Matt Penfold to PZ's tirade is worth citing, as it expresses so well the meticulous concern of atheists for the civil rights of religious believers in academic science, as evidenced by glaring tolerance of folks like Sternberg, Gonzalez and others who might have suffered real harm to their scientific careers if their atheist colleagues hadn't stood up for them and their rights so notably (yes, I'm being facetious):
I do not see atheists calling for religious people to not be given jobs, or sacked from jobs they have, just because those people happen to hold views on religion that are not shared by atheists.
LOL!!! Does this guy not know to whose blog he's commenting? Does he not know that PZ Myers has come out strongly for denying tenure - and even degrees - to scientists who believe in God? Wow. These folks are in total meltdown mode.
Many others in the science blogs community have weighed in, making it the day's "buzz" - so check it out if you've got a dark fascination with self-destruction. I obviously do, which is why I'm posting this. It's all quite interesting in a film noir sort of way. Plus, it's genuinely educational. Per what, exactly, the 'New Atheists' are attempting to accomplish, and how far they're willing to go (or, how far they want their acolytes to go) to accomplish those ends. Looks to me like some of those acolytes are finally growing up, and aren't as willing to do violence as their puppet-masters want them to be.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Ol' Steeltoes again. When he's not being a bully, he's clamoring that he's a victim.
Comment by MikeGene — June 29, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
About a year ago I had the privilege of hearing a businessman, who in the mid 1990's had sold his business and moved his family to a remote corner of the Amazon so that he could help a tribe of hunter gatherers adjust (develop a rudimentary economy etc) to the outside world. Because I had other plans that weekend I had only planned to attend the first night (Saturday) but after hearing Steve speak I cancelled those other plans because he was such an inspiring speaker. Ironically, though he wasn't a trained speaker or preacher he spoke on those four nights, on a different topic each night, for 30 or 40 minutes, without notes or an outline.
What did he talk about? He spoke mostly his own life's personal experiences. But also about faith, forgiveness and the impact people could have if they are willing to demonstrate truly selfless love towards their fellow human beings. I can't remember a single moment where he became negative or preachy. Indeed he had a great sense of humor and kept the crowd of 700 people most the time in stitches. He also had gone through some very tragic and dark experiences in his life; so dark, in fact, that I found myself momentarily thinking that I would not have blamed this man if he had renounced his faith and turned his back on God. However, it was then, through some real tears (ours and his) that he turned to us and inspired us to have real hope, because there is indeed real purpose and hope in life. Anger, hatred and cynicism are never the solution to life's troubles.
For some reason I thought about Steve again after reading PZ Myers little rant. What a contrast! Why are these people so full of hate? Self-righteous hatred no less! What has hate ever accomplished?
When missionaries I know want to convert a group of people they always approach those people with love, kindness and friendship. If they do preach, they preach against sin (selfish behavior) not the sinner. Is that what Myers doing when he wrote:
"We're proud to be polarizing when the other side is such a catastrophic collection of stupid ideas; we are not hurt or remorseful when we are accused of being militantly against religious idiocy"¦" I don't even remember hearing any of the fundamentalists preacher's I've heard being quite that nasty.
And of course this leaves me once again scratching my head and wondering, "˜what are these people really trying to accomplish?'
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 29, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
June 29th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I did an interview with Orson Scott Card recently about his book Empire, and he noted that the sort of polarisation we see today, and that PZ is apprently all in favour of, is exactly the sort of thing you saw in society prior to the civil war. A deep "unbridgeable" divide with neither side willing to give any ground.
Comment by thesciphishow — June 29, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
June 30th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Sciphi, you said:
What I want to see is tolerance: tolerance for religion, tolerance for non-religion, tolerance to consider and explore new ideas, like the ideas that are genreated when we explore ID. Does my side, the tolerance, the side that needs to give in? I guess I'm a little bit confused by your last statement. Please clarify.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — June 30, 2007 @ 9:19 pm