New Atheists: A Reaction to 911
by MikeGeneIn his review of Dawkins' anti-religious book, evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr writes, "scientists are once again writing about religion, apparently provoked this time by the controversy surrounding intelligent design." I have seen this theme several times now, where the ID movement is said to have provoked atheistic scientists from their slumber, effectively triggering the New Atheist movement. Yet I doubt the ID movement has played any major role in sparking the New Atheist movement. I think this movement is just one more reaction to 911. Let me offer one piece of evidence in support of this position.
Just as the ID movement centered around the books and personalities of Michael Behe and William Dembski, the New Atheist Movement clearly revolves around the books and personalities of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Yet did these authors write their books as a reaction to the ID movement?
In the case of Sam Harris, the answer is clearly no. Harris has said, on many occasions, that his first book, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason was inspired purely by 911. For example, consider his reply from this interview:
Campus Progress: You started writing The End of Faith right after 9/11, I wondered if you could talk about what inspired you to do that?
Sam Harris: It really was my immediate response to September 11 th and continues to be my response to the fact that every time I open the newspaper, fully half of the news, often unacknowledged, is coming out of the religious divisions in our world. We are continually bearing witness to how maladapted and unnecessary these religious ideas are.
Harris' second book, Letter to a Christian Nation, is effectively a follow-up of his first book, as he replies to the many angry letters he received concerning it.
But what about Dawkins? In Sept. 2006, he said he wanted to write his anti-religious book six years ago:
I wanted to write The God Delusion six years ago. American friends counselled against, and my New York literary agent was horrified. Perhaps in Britain you could sell a book that criticized religion, he said. But in the US, don't even think about it. He hated to admit it, for he was an atheist like most American intellectuals, but religion was off limits to ridicule. You had to respect religion even if you didn't subscribe to it. Wendy Kaminer was exaggerating only slightly when she remarked that making fun of religion is as risky as burning a flag in an American Legion Hall. Concentrate on science, my American friends advised. Hands off religion. Let the grandeur of science speak for itself, and religion will die a natural death by ignominious comparison. I gave way and wrote The Ancestor's Tale instead.
But that would take us to Sept 2000, one year before 911. Yet I would guess that the "six years" should not be taken too literally, as it is clear 911 sparked a more militant attitude in Dawkins that is now expressed in his book, speeches, and web page. Consider the fact that just four days after 911, Dawkins set out to blame all of religion for the terrorist attack. He did this in an essay entitled, Religion's misguided missiles and concluded:
To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
Sometime later that same month, Dawkins wrote another essay for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, where he effectively declared his new war on religion. The essay was entitled Time to Stand Up. Here are some telling excerpts:
"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.
Those of us who have renounced one or another of the three "great" monotheistic religions have, until now, moderated our language for reasons of politeness.
My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say "Enough!"
Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. "All is changed, changed utterly."
So it is clear that the Dawkins who now openly preaches that all religion is evil was born the day the Twin Towers collapsed. But what caused Dawkins to finally get around to publishing his book, over five years after 911? Was it ID? No. It was President Bush:
I don't regret that decision, for The Ancestor's Tale is the nearest approach to a proud magnum opus that I am likely to achieve, and I could not wish it undone. But how different the cultural landscape looks today. After four years of Bush, my literary agent changed his tune. He started begging me to write The God Delusion.
In a future posting, I'll explore some more ways in which 911 has shaped both the ID movement and the New Atheist movement.
March 17th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I think you are on to something. The argument is well documented.
Comment by Bradford — March 17, 2007 @ 8:59 am
March 17th, 2007 at 11:12 am
You seem to see 9/11 as the one thing that caused atheists to want to express themselves for the very first time in history.
You quote Dawkins as saying that he wanted to write the book 6 years ago, but he couldn't because of the religious climate.
After 9/11, the climate had apparently changed enough to allow Dawkins to write his book.
Then it's a clear case:
Atheists have been fed up with religious nonsense for a long, long time. They wanted to express themselves all along. The events of 9/11 were merely an enabler.
Comment by jwbats — March 17, 2007 @ 11:12 am
March 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Hi Jw,
Yes, atheists have complained about religion for a long, long time. I'm simply pointing out that the recent books from Harris and Dawkins were a reaction to 911. With Harris, the point is undeniable, as he himself has admitted this many times. With Dawkins, the case is strong.
The books of Dawkins and Harris have functioned as a rallying cry for the New Atheists. I would point out that the New Atheist movement is a rather extreme expression of atheism, complete with evangelistic zeal. Thus, it is not surprising that such extremism was birthed from 911.
Comment by MikeGene — March 17, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
March 17th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Hi Mike,
While I do agree with most things that you say (regarding science, not rabbits:smile:) I think I have to differ somewhat from your thesis here. I think that the rise of ID science is a very large factor and is for many (such as Dawkins) very frightening…
– Richard Sternberg has two Phd's in evolutionary biology.
Comment by William Brookfield — March 17, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
March 17th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
And here is what a real terrorist looks like:
http://creationevolutiondesign...
Most suicide bombers anywhere in the world appear to be normal. Study after study has shown that suicide terrorists are better off than average for their community and better educated. They are also rarely suicidal in the pathological sense. Ariel Merari, a psychologist at Tel Aviv University who has traced the background of every suicide bomber in the Middle East since 1983, has found symptoms of mental illness or drug and alcohol abuse in very few. They don't have to be Islamic extremists either, or even radicalised by faith. True, the London bombers were all Muslims, as are the vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. Yet many of the suicide bombers in Lebanon in the 1980s were from secular Christian backgrounds. And one of the modern pioneers of suicide terrorism, the Tamil Tigers, are secular Marxist-Leninists."
Dawkins is so wrong he's not even wrong.
Comment by endoplasmicMessenger — March 17, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
March 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Yes, endo, Dawkins is wrong. Political scientist Robert Pape wrote a book — I think it's entitled Dying to Win — in which he studies all the cases of suicide bombings. The main motivation for all of them was a desire to get a occupying military force to leave what they considered their country. Which explains why most of the 911 suicide bombers were from Saudi Arabia, a country we had military forces in until recently.
Comment by Bilbo — March 17, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
March 17th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
From the source referenced by endoplasmicMessenger:
He accepts many things uncritically. This reminds me of another articulated reason cited for opposition to ID, namely that it is based on an objective, dispassionate assessment of scientific evidence. Is there a word describing the linking of an erroneous cause to a phenomenon when the actual cause is an unmentioned motivation?
Comment by Bradford — March 17, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
March 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
"Yes, atheists have complained about religion for a long, long time. I'm simply pointing out that the recent books from Harris and Dawkins were a reaction to 911."
And I'm simply pointing out 911 was an enabler.
No matter what they've written or said, the key point here is that atheists have always had a need for expressing themselves. The attacks did not create that. They merely enabled it.
"The books of Dawkins and Harris have functioned as a rallying cry for the New Atheists. I would point out that the New Atheist movement is a rather extreme expression of atheism, complete with evangelistic zeal."
I would point out that evangelistic zeal is characterised by irrationality and a strong community of faithful people.
Atheists are rational people who, like the gays and blacks have done decades ago, are now demanding respect.
Atheists don't form communities and force their views on other people. Just like gays aren't trying to turn everybody gay and the blacks aren't trying to turn everybody into negros.
If the 'zeal' is necessary to provide this religious world with a good dose of rationality, then this says nothing about atheists… and everything about the religious.
"Thus, it is not surprising that such extremism was birthed from 911."
What extremism?
I'm all over the atheist movement and what I see is a lot of YouTube videos in which people use rational argument to break down religion's web of inconsistencies.
Extremism is only found in people who want to force belief-sets onto others.
Atheists don't want that.
Trying to rally atheists is like trying to herd cats.
Comment by jwbats — March 17, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
March 17th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Hi jw,
If you read the words of Dawkins and Harris, there seems to be more than enabling. But maybe you are right. When Islamic terrorists brought down the Twin Towers, it was awful convenient to use this as a rallying cry to attack all religions.
I would point out that the New Atheist movement is a rather extreme expression of atheism, complete with evangelistic zeal. This movement centers around the writings of Harris and Dawkins and their books were a reaction to 911.
Evangelistic zeal also seems to be common among the New Atheists. For example, Harris has argued that even atheist scientists who don't recognize religion as The Problem are part of the problem.
Yes, the New Atheist movement is trying to borrow from previous movements, thus the Atheists now claim to be Victims.
I guess that depends on the Atheist. These atheists want to make "it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16." Did you know Dawkins originally signed that petition and prominently linked to it on his official web site?
Nothing like zeal in the name of reason.
Defining religious parents as child abusers, for example.
Yes, I was impressed.
Do you think it is impossible for atheists to be extremists?
Comment by MikeGene — March 17, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
March 17th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
The level of myopic insight found among the attitudes and ideas even transient ideas of religionists is always amazing to me. Mike decries Dawkins and others outcry to not inculcate the young at tender ages those not yet empowered with critical thinking skills, tantamount to brain washing, while I would wager he and others of his ilk have shuddered at the stories of Wahabists brain washing young Muslims in hate-think towards themselves the Xians. I'd wager most Xians would have little trouble supporting a rule ensconced in Muslim countries that young minds must reach an age of understanding of reason before being allowed to encounter certain extreme memes.
In truth Mike, you ARE an ATHEIST, and all your ilk the same. You are merely an atheist to only one less god than I and my fellows. Or to put it another way, you are atheist to all the same gods that I am also atheist to except for one. I reject them all, you happen to believe, I assume, in Yahweh.
In truth I am an atheist to ALL human invented religions while remaining for now and the foreseeable future agnostic to whether or not a first cause exists. This is not because I see evidence for one, indeed I see more to the other side of that issue. It is merely because for now I cannot know whether one exists or not.
I don't think that believers in Intelligent Design are keen to have the Hindu creation myth taught as the truth in biology classes alongside evolution. Nay, they would not accept Marduk and Tiamut in the ancient Sumerian creation methos being held in such esteem either. The truth is you all have only one god in mind for your intelligent designer though most publicly try to feign ignorance of just who their designer might be, which is itself a lie, and that is Yahweh of the Hebrew creation myth. But here the last laugh would be on you because it is the ancient Sumerian myth that the Hebrews copied.
You see a child that may have had the advantage of learning rationally about the origin history of ALL religions could make that connection and therefore thinking critically realize that Yahweh is just an ancient human invention with a facelift.
When your ilk cry for prayers in school it is not the 5 times a day Muslim prayer regime that comes to your minds. It is not incense and ritual bowing to a Shinto shrine you wish to see the tender young hearts emulate. Again you have one myopic view of which prayers and to which god that you have in mind. Luckily this is illegal and against the USA constitution… hope springs eternal!
However, as alluded to above I support teaching about religion to the young. Indeed I support the historical fact teaching of the origins of religion and how religious thought arose right alongside all the silly practices of all religions. Also helpful would be evolution and the evolutionary psychological underpinnings that make human beings susceptible to irrational ideation and follow a single leader pathos.
You want ID taught, ok fine, but in fairness, that trump card you like to deploy, you get with that all of the above. Research proves that the best way to create an atheist is to get a person to objectively read the bible.
One final thought on the 9/11 angst and the so called "new atheist movement". First there is no new about it. It is just the straw that has finally broken the camel's back. When you have an administration that was appointed to office by zealots with the not-so-secret goal of aiding Israel so that the 3rd temple can be built so that so called prophecy may be fulfilled, talk about self fulfilling delusional thinking, and add o all this 90 million plus zealots in the USA supporting this, lost and near brain dead in their "Left Behind" dreams (nightmare fiction to the rational) — then the rational have realized that the irrational are on a suicide tear that we the rational must assuage them from or we are ALL doomed and no fuzzy wish granter in the sky is going to come clean up after our silliness. Who will mourn the 'Late Once Great Planet Earth'?
Comment by FutureQ — March 17, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
March 18th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Hi jwbats,
You don't seem to realize that atheism is a faith based position. As such its adherents can be, and some clearly are, extremists.
Militant or crusading zeal can justifiably be attributed to some atheists to which Mike is drawing our attention. He is clearly not putting blanket over all atheists. Hence I don't understand why are you denying the obvious, non-rational stance of these "New Atheists". They are giving bad name to, I would say, vast majority of other atheists who do not subscribe to such outbursts that we hear from Harris and Dawkins.
And comparing atheists with gays and blacks you are making a category mistake.
Comment by inunison — March 18, 2007 @ 3:08 am
March 18th, 2007 at 5:26 am
"You don't seem to realize that atheism is a faith based position. As such its adherents can be, and some clearly are, extremists."
I'm sorry, I didn't know your opinion was superior.
Atheistm is clearly not a faith based position.
I can defend that position to the end. But I've gained the insights necessary to defend atheism just for myself, so that *I* would know why *I* am an atheist.
It's just for me.
I forgot that for a second and I made the mistake of getting tangled up in the views of you people, who, in my humble opinion, do not (or can not) accept reality as it is.
I don't care for your opinions. They add nothing to my personal intellectual enlightenment.
Engaging in conversation with you does no good at all. None of these religious conversations have *ever* resulted in anything. They only serve to make us feel better about ourselves.
After all, if a religious person *really* wanted to understand what reasons there are to adopt atheism, he could just look it up on the net. Not all atheists are cursing and swearing while denying the holy spirit. There's plenty of quality material ou there that lays bare the inconsistencies and impossibilities of religion.
There's no need to hear it from me personally, *unless* there's a need to *make* it personal.
I understand religious people are upset about the onset of atheism. No wonder people react with blogpostings like these. And they have every right to. But since the onset of atheism is to my own benefit, I should not mingle in these blogposts.
I am of the scientific mindset, and I am obviously not compatible with this blog or its readers. Therefore, we should stay out of each others way so that we can all be happy with our own superior opinions.
That, and I don't want to be on the receiving end of your christian love.
Signing off.
Comment by jwbats — March 18, 2007 @ 5:26 am
March 18th, 2007 at 7:33 am
"I don't care for your opinions. They add nothing to my personal intellectual enlightenment."
Thus spoke a member of the Rational Atheists.
Comment by Krauze — March 18, 2007 @ 7:33 am
March 18th, 2007 at 8:01 am
My only hope is that jwbats is actually a theist troll trying to make us atheists look bad.
Comment by Mesk — March 18, 2007 @ 8:01 am
March 18th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Mike,
I do not dispute that 9.11 is important to the new atheist movement, such as it is. However, I don't see your case for 9.11 explaining the magnitude of the anti-ID response. Without 9.11, I still believe that the reaction of mainstream science would have been just as strong in the face of textbook stickers, attempts to make ID explicit in the curricula, an all-science mantra in the light of secret Wedge documents, Vice strategies, public wagers over the death of evolution, near-cult-like (in my opinion) uncritical followings based on unsubstantiated claims and faulty mathematical arguments, zero (in my opinion) to-date scientific experimental output, flatulence-laden animation, etc. It is hard for me to believe that all those things needed the additional 9.11 component to reach a boiling point.
Regarding jwbats,
Actually, I agree with him about one thing: I don't think atheism is a religion or faith based. I don't really understand why so many believers make this argument. (Well, from a political viewpoint I understand"”if atheism is religion and religion must be kept out of science class"¦)
Atheism is more or less: things are as they are because that's all there is"”it's just the way they are.
To call that faith based, or a religion, renders the terms meaningless. It just makes them synonyms for philosophy or world-view. Sure, if every world view is a religion, then everyone is religious"”but that completely neuters the term.
Yes, you can say they have faith that the life arose from non-life, and that the universe came into existence by some sort of quantum fluctuation or phase transition, but that is clearly a different kind of faith than we believers have in the redeeming blood of Christ. The faith of the atheist, that science can more-or-less explain everything, is closer to an "expectation" while the faith of a believer is close to "trust" and "hope." It's not the same thing at all.
Comment by David Heddle — March 18, 2007 @ 8:06 am
March 18th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Actually, Mike's comments weren't directed at atheists as such, merely at the subset "Evangelical Atheists". But just like violent Islamist tend to act offended on behalf of all Muslims, Evangelical Atheists like to portray any criticism of their claims as an afront to all atheists.
Comment by Krauze — March 18, 2007 @ 8:24 am
March 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Hello FutureQ,
You write:
Rather than decry, what I did was to point out that Dawkins attempt to create and propagate a meme that equates religious parents with child abusers is an example of the extremism that jw was looking for. As we can see, jw's response-for-reason was to walk away.
As an American who highly values the 1st Amendment, I would indeed be strongly opposed to a law which prohibited Muslims in our country from raising their children in the Muslim faith.
I have never wanted Intelligent Design taught as truth in biology class alongside evolution. In fact, I am an evolutionist. So why are you preaching to me? For someone who decries myopia and supposedly champions reason, why do you lean on the crutch of stereotype?
Yes, this is one of the talking points for the New Atheists. At some point, do you plan on lobbying school boards to teach like this?
I want ID taught? You posture as if you are the Ambassador or Reason, yet you are enslaved to simple-minded stereotypes.
So called? Are you having trouble acknowledging that you are part of a movement? Let's read your own words:
And this nicely supports the point of my original blog. Your atheism entails the belief that religionists are about to Destroy the Planet. Thus, you are on a Crusade to Save the World. It's this belief that causes the New Atheist movement to express itself with extremism and evangelistic zeal. But you have put yourself in a dilemma. Since your opponents, by definition, are irrational, just how do you ever plan to assuage them? It sounds like you have left yourself with only one tool "“ coercion. And this would explain why some atheists are signing petitions to make religious indoctrination illegal.
Comment by MikeGene — March 18, 2007 @ 9:39 am
March 18th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Kruaze mumbles in his best Joe McCarthy-esque impression:
"Actually, Mike's comments weren't directed at atheists as such, merely at the subset "Evangelical Atheists". But just like violent Islamist tend to act offended on behalf of all Muslims, Evangelical Atheists like to portray any criticism of their claims as an afront to all atheists."
Way to go, way to lump rational thinkers in with suicide bombers making for the simple minded their two different claims one and the same. It's called false analogy and guilt by association. It's a propaganda technique, something ID'rs are apparently schooled in by all appearance so far.
It doesn't fly. Anyone with a mind of their own sees straight through it. If ad hominem is the style here, I doubt I'll remain either.
For Mike, apparently my scan reading did me no favor. I appologize for not getting your exact allignment correct. But I did get the gist that you were defending ID'rs and their brand of belief, am I wrong?
Umm, look around man, portray truth as irrational reactionary response but the truth is the truth and in this case it hurts. Look into Dominionism. Ask yourself why the right wing Xian dominated Texas STATE legislature tried to pass a bill that said "Israel can do whatever they want with their lands". Tell me why the 'state' of Texas has any interest in that or any business medling in foreign policy?! Why they did it plain as day if you look for it.
Look up and look around. I do not apologize for my stand that is the same as Dawkins and Harris. It is time to stop being polite and letting people get away with irrational beliefs when those beliefs lead us down paths of serious detriment. Why is the environment predominantly NOT on the radar, in a positive conserve it manner, for right wing Xians? Because who needs it if Jesus is going to burn the whole thing down?
You may wish to act like you take the higher ground with your stance but what will you say if a third world war happens because of these Israel can do no wrong policies? What will you say when Global Warming takes a billion lives and trillions of dollars and oops Jesus forgot his itinerary?!
Oh and just for good measure, why the hell is it suddenly wrong for atheists to prosyletize and be zealous and for thousands of years it has been expected from the gawd camps? Wow that's fair.
Comment by FutureQ — March 18, 2007 @ 9:46 am
March 18th, 2007 at 11:21 am
David Heddle:
It's is not a political but a legal viewpoint. You are right that atheism is not an example of faith as biblically defined. However it is intensely religious in nature. It is the negation of a core religious tenet i.e. not God. Atheists are generally well informed as to Judeo-Christian doctrines and devote no small amount of effort and time discussing and arguing about it.
It is more. Having grown up in a home with a dominant parent who was a new atheist years before the term was coined, I know that some powerful side views and emotions are attached to the that's all there is mantra. A compulsion to express hostility toward religion is one (Apologies Mesk. There are exceptions to every rule.) As for causality, atheism commits one to a very definite philosophical pathway. No God infers an unending regress chain of causes that is no more rational than its alternative. Did I mention that an assumed copywrite on rationality goes hand in hand with atheism?
Atheists have neutered or at least distorted the term faith. For them faith is an irrational belief in something and devoid of any reference to what is real. That's why the favor is often returned by believers who reference atheists' own concept of faith when the exchanges get to a "you also have faith in…" type of exchange.
True.
I think there is more to it than this. Nancy Pearcey has eloquently laid out the case that science is more to them than a tool by which x and y are expected to be explained. It is the determinant of truth and it is at the fringes of science, where interpretation is rampant, that battles are fought over the truth turf. It is also a big clue as to why ID would be opposed even if all its advocates were behavoirally perfect.
Comment by Bradford — March 18, 2007 @ 11:21 am
March 18th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Hi FutureQ,
You wrote:
This is not an issue of getting the "exact alignment" correct. I wrote a post demonstrating that Harris and Dawkins wrote their pivotal books as a reaction to 911. You came here accusing me of wanting to teach ID in the schools, wanting to put prayer in schools, and being opposed to letting Muslims raise their children in the Islamic faith. In other words, you came here preaching from a position of ignorance and stereotype. Yet in the same breath, you also want to posture as some type of Ambassador of Reason.
Yes, you are wrong. I made the following claims. 1. Some people think that Harris and Dawkins wrote their books as a reaction to ID; 2. Harris and Dawkins wrote their books as a reaction to 911; 3. the books of Harris and Dawkins are important in the New Atheist movement.
All three points stand.
As for the rest of your posting, I'll get to it later. Right now, I'm simply setting the record straight.
Comment by MikeGene — March 18, 2007 @ 11:26 am
March 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am
FutureQ, this is hilarious in light of the lumping of "religious extremists" with other religious people by Dawkins and other atheists.
Comment by Bradford — March 18, 2007 @ 11:30 am
March 18th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Bradford,
Yes, this is why we have to go deeper than religion and science in describing our species. We need a word or descriptive phrase which will define us as first needing some metaphysical rooting for our lives. Out of this comes religion and the treating of science as an alternative to religion. It also helps us understand why some theists like to call atheism a religion. None of us are "just the facts" kind of people. We have this inherent need and drive to put the facts into a coherent philosophy of life which creates meaning and stability. I really don't know what to call this aspect of our nature, but we do need a clearly descriptive handle for this. I just like to say, that we are all metaphysicians first.
Comment by bj — March 18, 2007 @ 11:48 am
March 18th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
bj writes:
I think you have the descriptive handle in your last sentence. We are all metaphysicians. I like the sound of it. Next time someone asks me what I do that will be my response. I'm a metaphysician.
Joy has pointed out that the real problems come when one group of metaphysicians insists on a predominant place at the table for their ideas. Metaphysical tendencies are a unique property of our species.
Comment by Bradford — March 18, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
March 18th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Bradford,
If we understand what is at our depths and know that we all seek meaning, purpose and stability (a psychological word), we have a way of meeting and greeting our contemporaries day to day. We are all metaphysicians. This is helpful.
But, Joy has used the phrase "dueling metaphysicians". "Dueling" then becomes a key word. We also seem to be "possessed" of the notion that our own particular take on meaning is largely correct and beyond much doubt. How does that cause us to view our fellow man/woman? As those in the category of "incorrect", possibly "defective", maybe "dishonest", certainly "ignorant". I view this as a significant problem. Culturally, in the US, it is one that we are struggling to overcome.
Comment by bj — March 18, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
March 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Hi David,
You write:
But keep in mind that there is a significant overlap between the community of new atheists (including scientists) and the community of ID critics. For example, are we to believe that without the ID movement, someone like PZ Myers would not be such a blowhard? On the contrary, thanks to Dawkins and Harris, we now know that people like Myers have an agenda that is far larger than "defending science" against ID. These guys love the ID movement because it gives them a platform for their sermons. After all, have you noticed just how few critics are willing to celebrate the post-wedge world with us?
But I think it is precisely the issue of magnitude that 911 explains. For years, we have seen a distinct element of fear among the critics (something we often call "˜threatiness' around here). Where did all the fear and hysteria come from? We've seen many scientists fret about theocracies, conspiracies, and the End of Science. How is it that these scientists abandon their critical thinking skills when it comes to reacting to the ID movement?
I think my thesis of sensitization is indeed in play. The ripple effects of 911 are not simply this new strain of anti-religious extremism that is put on obvious display in the writing of Dawkins and Harris (who are not anomalies nor considered outsiders in academia). Another ripple effect is Bush's war on terror and his war in Iraq. I'd bet those things also raise hackles among many of your colleagues upset with the ID movement. What's hard for me to believe is that the critics you encounter can consider the ID movement as a stand-alone distinct from the religious right and its relationship with Bush.
When I consider your list of antics from the ID movement, I would predict that most scientists are completely unaware of everything in this laundry list. For those who are not, they have been dependent on people like Myers to inform them of this. What is most likely is that they don't follow this debate closely and believe ID is just a form stealth creationism that the religious right is trying to impose on the public school systems (this is the standard message that is played out in mainstream media outlets). Of course, the ID movement itself makes it very easy for them to believe this. But it doesn't explain the Fear.
Comment by MikeGene — March 18, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
March 18th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
FutureQ (cool handle, btw) wrote:
Yeah, people with irrational beliefs never before led us to a whole lot of detriment. But now that it's happening, we should act.
As a non-American living in the USA for almost 20 years, I suspect I share with you an extreme distaste for almost every aspect of what I might call the culture and politics of the American Right. I'm also pretty appalled by much, maybe even most, of what passes for religion in this country, not least the widespread Biblical fundamentalism and pseudo-Biblical lunacies that get peddled as Biblical teachings.
I detest US foreign policy in the Middle East.
I'm also a theist. I believe that a strong rational case can be made for the philosophical Argument from Design in its more sophisticated versions, as well as a strong case that evolutionary naturalism is not at all entailed by the findings of evolutionary science, nor even particularly supported by those empirical findings. I think that too often, members of the scientific community have consciously or unconsciously given a misleading and unfortunate impression to the contrary.
Ok, you mentioned the danger of irrational beliefs. I think it's irrational, indeed immoral, to do damage to the public reputation of the philosophical positions I hold by improperly associating them with the wild-eyed Christian Right as part of a political campaign to discredit the latter, or indeed to do anything to squelch the discussion of these philosophical ideas in appropriate educational settings—which in my view should certainly not include public school science classes.
Given my views, I say a plague on religious fundamentalism. But I also think, for example, that Richard Dawkins is guilty of the kind of irrationality that can feed spirals leading to detrimental consequences. Will some future Dawkins-inspired political leader lead a secularist-atheist crusade to conquer Islam because, 'as we know' (Dawkins has told us), religion is a terrible blight on the face of the Earth? I certainly hope not. But is such a notion all that far-fetched?
It's not that long ago that the regimes of sundry virulently materialist-atheist ideologues (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Hoxha, etc) enslaved and slaughtered tens of millions of people, a consequence of their determination to re-make societies on explicitly materialist and anti-religious principles.
I think that one should not do anything to feed the beast that is the irrational American Right. But I suspect noisy campaigns directed at it will do just that. As for stopping US policy contributing to Armageddon, I fully agree–we should. But I'd place combatting the cosmic-religious fantasies of the Religious Right somewhere behind in importance ending the Iraq War, and not attacking Iran.
Though a strong believer in combatting the overweening power of corporate capitalism in general, I trust that its pragmatic rationality of self-interest will be sufficient to fend off the machinations of Religious Right whackos aimed at hastening a literalist End Time. I just hope that in 50 years time, the world will not be dominated by imperialist, anti-Islamic and anti-Hindu mega-corporations controlled by 'brights' who manipulate is into dreadul wars in the Middle East or India so as to bring about a reign of purely scientific culture and trying to technologize our existence to the point where it becomes not only post-religious, but 'post-human'.
And I'll take my answer off the air. Thanks!
Comment by stunney — March 18, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
March 18th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
FutureQ:
Your issues with "right wing Xians" belong on a forum dedicated to the debate between them and the 'New Atheists'. This is not that forum. We do have Christians of various stripes and no stripes commenting here, along with EAs (Evangelical Atheists). That's fine if comments don't derail discussion of the actual blog posts.
It wouldn't hurt do look around a little bit before engaging. The 'New Atheists' are fun to watch for their obvious contradictions as well as their stereotypes, but they're not speaking *as* or *for* science in this thrust, they're speaking for themselves and their own metaphysical belief system. Which doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there are telic processes in nature that could be better understood from a telic design approach than from the denial approach of NDS.
NDS is getting its bad rep from within science and education these days, and that's not the ID movement's fault or the fault of telic thinkers. The public debates are just what a few people do on the net. Meanwhile, the textbooks and the approach have changed, and incoming researches are tending not to even bother with the requisite NDS lip service much anymore. Science is intelligently designed to follow the evidence, not ignore evidence for the sake of "orthodoxy."
Blaming that on others is psychological projection. Science's provisional theories are bound to change as more is learned.
Comment by Joy — March 18, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
March 18th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I like how FutureQ talks about me doing a "Joe McCarthy-esque impression" right before complaining about "guilt by association".
Comment by Krauze — March 18, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
March 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Speaking of "guilt by association", here's what FutureQ had to say earlier:
I guess the medicine doesn't taste as good when he's the one having to take it.
Comment by Krauze — March 18, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
March 19th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
But surely metaphysical positions (theistic or atheistic) can just as easily be posited as core hypotheses (the hypothesis that there is a God and the hypothesis that there is no God). In this manner "metaphysical beliefs" can (and should in my opinion) be turned into scientific form and then assessed as to their scientific (evidentiary/logical) validity. Fundamentalism (non-science) occurs whenever core hypotheses are embraced dogmatically and doubters are treated with contempt (by the high priests of the-ism or athe-ism). For my part, I support the comprehensive application of science and I reject all forms of fundamentalism. For this reason I refer to myself as a "scientist" and not a "metaphysician"
Comment by William Brookfield — March 19, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
March 19th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
It may be more accurate to say you are a scientist with metaphysical values. I'm not convinced that our attempts to nail down evidence to support or debunk a hypothesis can always be successful and for that reason think that science has boundaries. I certainly sympathize with those who have been the victims of high priests as you phrased it.
Comment by Bradford — March 19, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Bradford wrote about atheism:
If it's not a legal view point then how is Atheism protected under the US constitiution? (I think most people here agree that it should be protected.) I have heard some legal scholars argue that Atheism is protected by extension of the free expression clause in the first amendment of the constitution. In other words, non-religious belief and expression is actually protected under the broad umbrella of the freedom of religous expression. Was that what you were driving at Bradford, when you wrote "It's… a legal viewpoint?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — March 21, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
March 21st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
Go back to Heddle's comment for context.
Heddle: Actually, I agree with him about one thing: I don't think atheism is a religion or faith based. I don't really understand why so many believers make this argument. (Well, from a political viewpoint I understand"”if atheism is religion and religion must be kept out of science class"¦)
I understood Heddle to mean that the labeling of atheism as religion might be traced to a political motive i.e. if it is a religion then the establishment clause would apply to doctrines that are associated with atheism. My response that this would not be political but legal refers to court decisions that outlaw the teaching of viewpoints identified (correctly or incorrectly) with Christianity through the creation concept. The actual comment again:
Bradford: It's is not a political but a legal viewpoint. You are right that atheism is not an example of faith as biblically defined. However it is intensely religious in nature. It is the negation of a core religious tenet i.e. not God. Atheists are generally well informed as to Judeo-Christian doctrines and devote no small amount of effort and time discussing and arguing about it.
Comment by Bradford — March 21, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
March 24th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I agree that "faith" is not simply a synonym for "world-view". It does point to aspects of belief that go beyond direct experience and what can be proved. Nevertheless, there is clearly an important faith basis to atheism, and appealing to "science" doesn't escape that reality.
If by "science" you mean something that should have an a priori/axiomatic commitment to the assumption of materialism, then faith that science "can more-or-less explain everything" is equivalent to faith that materialism "can more-or-less explain everything". That is faith in the same sense.
If by "science" you mean an objective and reasoned pursuit of truth about nature that is willing to put all ideas to the test (regardless of the indirect implications for ideologies such as theism or materialism), then you lose the ability to claim in advance that the answer will be favorable to materialism. For that, one needs faith in materialism, not just in scientific investigation.
For example, as things stand, the evidence indicates that mindless matter does not have any observable tendencies toward inventing language and using it to create information (e.g. the information needed for cells). Intelligence is the only observed mechanism with that capability. Reasoning from the evidence as we have it, one could not conclude that life as we know it arose from unguided natural processes. To hold onto that belief requires faith (e.g. in future, as yet unseen and unknown discoveries) that is contrary to what we see so far. That is sometimes called blind-faith. That doesn't prove it is "false", but it definitely is "faith".
As for the origin of the universe, "nothing" is not the same as "space". One cannot appeal to events that might happen in "space" as an explanation for the origin of space itself. "Nothing" would have no ability to fluctuate or to transition phases or to do anything at all.
Consequently, the atheist still needs to have faith in some reality we can never experience that is before and beyond the nature we do experience (i.e. outside this space-time continuum) that causes it to exist. By contrast, while atheism requires faith in something that is inherently beyond experience, theists hold that their faith is in something that can be experienced and that can leave marks and evidence in this world. Consequently, atheism requires at least as much faith, if not more, than the theistic position regarding the origin of the universe.
Comment by eric — March 24, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
March 24th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
William Brookfield made an important distinction between a hypothesis that is put to the test vs. positions held dogmatically.
I would offer quibbles about a couple points of wording. I would reserve "fundamentalism" for its inherent meaning of someone who adheres to the fundamentals of an established position (e.g. in contrast to later revisionists). Also, any devoted follower of any position is capable of treating doubters with contempt. That would be a character trait of the individual, but not necessarily a reflection on the position itself.
The issue of central importance raised by William is whether or not a hypothesis is held dogmatically rather than allowing it to be "assessed as to their scientific (evidentiary/logical) validity". Thus, the efforts of some Darwinists to oppose any critical evaluation of Darwinism within science curriculum is one clear example of the error of dogmatism.
Comment by eric — March 24, 2007 @ 1:58 pm