The New Atheists

[uncool2pillow]

Nothing in particular to add to this thread today except I really enjoyed catching up on it.

[Good Old Neon]

Since starting this thread I have intentionally refrained from posting in it, but also kept a fairly close eye on it. There are reasons for not engaging in the debate I provoked that I will get to shortly.

 

But first I would like to drag out a familiar metaphor: that of a fence dividing atheists and faithful. Most of the population, I would hazard to guess is populated fairly close to the fence, many even stradle it. The problem is the few people who sit too far away from the fence whose view of those on the other side is obstructed. Back in the nether reaches of the yard that these types of people inhabit the soil is rocky and they perpetually engage themselves in hurling stomes at the "them" on the other side of the fence. These stones largely fall clear of the multitudes in the middle, who can conveniently ignore them.

 

The traditional "religion vs. science" debate, or at least the part of it that is high profile, is carried out by those dogmatics lurking in the back of the yard.

 

The VC bunch seems like a fairly educated, reasonable bunch. By starting this I wanted to see to what degree the discussion would be that of neighborly openness and to what degree it would be throwing stones.

 

In his book "A Friendly Letter to Sceptics and Atheists" David Myers quotes anthropologist Richard Schweder: " Fanatics and Infidels have their ways of keeping each other in business." The subject of psychology has come up at least once here, and Myers would definitely have something to say about that. There's a good chance he wrote your psych 101 textbook. He is a man of science, and also a man of faith, and a person well-qualified to point out (these are my words not his) that a discussion of these two topics does not need to "Religion versus Science" but can also, and more productively be phrased as "Religion and Science." The two need not be competitive, and indeed they are both better served if treated as complimentary. The fence that separates believers from non-believers is NOT the fence that separates religion and science.

 

Dawkins and Hitchens are keen to write off religion as superstition and myth, but themselves seem unable to buy into many of the myths about religion, and in particular about religious people.

 

The Theory of Evolution is a prime example. Most Christians do not doubt it for a second, there have been prominent theologians such as Benjamin Warfield who welcomed evolution, and prominent evolutionary biologists, such as Theodore Dobzhansky, who were devout believers. Dawkins ignores there examples and instead focuses on those on the lunatic fringe of Christianity who came up with the theory of Intelligent Design.

 

While the fundamentalist Christian camp will still pitch their tent on creationist grounds, most have left for firmer territory. This, however, does not render the Bible false. It is ridiculous to think that a book written two thousand years ago can have anything to say about modern scientific understanding, and equally ridiculous to dismiss it because it has nothing to say about modern scienctific understanding. It is more than an outdated science textbook. There are still valuable moral teachings there, for believers and non-believers alike.

 

Incidentally, I am personally surprised at how well Genesis actually did without that 2000 years of science behind it. The sequence of events in the creation myth closely parallels the sequence that science gives us- from the big bang (light) through the creation first of galaxies and solar systems to the emergence of life and, finally, the emergence of human beings.

 

This is enough for now, but I would like to make clear my position in the imaginary yard. I'm sitting squarely on the fence, hoping I'll fall one way but suspecting I'll fall the other.

 

Organized religion has played, and has continued to play the role of aggressor and bully since its inception – so I take issue with your attempt to equate atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens with fanatics and dogmatists on the religious side of the fence. Dawkins is, by trade, a biologist, of the ten books he has written, one, The God Delusion, deals primarily with religion and religious belief. The other nine deal largely with evolution, and yes, some touch upon religion, but that is because, when discussing evolution, one must also make mention of its opponents and deniers. Until relatively recently Richard Dawkins was largely unknown amongst believers and non-believers. Since his appearance on the world’s stage, the religious right has attempted to paint him as a fanatic, as they have tried to paint the very real theory of Darwinian evolution as just another religion, and its proponents, the equivalent of religious followers – this is, of course, a slanderous fabrication – the reasons being too obvious to mention here, or at least they should be.

 

Christopher Hitchens has authored 17 books, and is the co-author of an additional 7 – for a total of 24 - of the 24, he is the sole author of one book dealing exclusively with religion, God is Not Great, and the co-author of another, Is Christianity Good for the World? – a debate. The remainder of his books cover a very broad range of topics, from Imperialism, Kissinger, literary critique, Orwell, and a host of other topics. He is, above all, a journalist and a gadfly. He, like, Dawkins, was relatively unknown prior to the war in Iraq, and more to the point, the publication of God is Not Great. The religious right has attempted to paint him with the same brush they’ve used to misrepresent Dawkins, Darwin, and the very real theory of evolution.

 

Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris should not go unmentioned, as they too are associated with the “new” atheist movement. We could, if we were so inclined, add Bertrand Russell and Mark Twain to the list as well. Twain is known to pretty much everyone, while Russell, though just as strident when defending reason and Darwinian evolution, remains obscure to the general public. The most likely reason being, he is dead, and as a result, cannot be reached for comment by news outlets looking to court controversy.

 

Rather than act as aggressors, Hitches, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett have attempted to defend science and reason from the rise of religious fanaticism, both domestically, and to a greater degree, the Middle East. They’re not holding rocks, nor are they throwing them, quite the contrary, if anything, they are holding shields. But the media, ever careful to portray both sides of a debate as equal, as if both sides have an equal claim on the truth, have fallen for the rights ruse, and portray them as they’ve been painted, every bit the equal of the fanatical and dogmatic as religious right – again, this is false. In defending evolution, they are no more dogmatic or fanatical as physicists might be in defending attacks made against the existence of gravity.

 

To use but one example from the culture war, if you can find evidence of organized atheists (or a group of organized atheists at all for that matter) attempting to block all attempts to grant equal rights to 10% of the population, by all means, trot it out, I’d love to discuss it. Or, perhaps you’d rather discuss terrorist attacks perpetrated by nebulous, though well funded groups of atheists in the name of atheism – I’d love to have that discussion as well. I’m not suggesting all or even a large margin of religious folks believe this way, the truth is, only a relatively small percentage do, but in this day and age, only the devout crash planes into buildings and attempt to deny equal rights to others, among a host of other topics.

 

Please, if you’re interested, watch the following discussion amongst Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett, and after having done so, report back and tell me they’re just another group of unreasonable, rigid dogmatists.

 

Part 1

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=CFE979715AE46A0E

[Winston Legthigh]

Certain people have employed Organized religion has played, and has continued as a stalking horse to play the role of aggressor and bully since its inception

 

Organized religion, on its own, is not the bully. Organized religion doesn't exist without humanity. Do you think the corruption that is a part of organized religion would cease to exist if we got rid of it?

 

Don't you think the plane hijackers would find a new stalking horse to pursue their agenda, or would it all play out like Lennon's lyrics suggest?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Organized religion, on its own, is not the bully. Organized religion doesn't exist without humanity. Do you think the corruption that is a part of organized religion would cease to exist if we got rid of it?

 

Don't you think the plane hijackers would find a new stalking horse to pursue their agenda, or would it all play out like Lennon's lyrics suggest?

 

I've been trying to say something to this effect since the thread started. If we took away all the religion in this world, we would still be left with organized groups, ideologies, and the whack-jobs that do and do not use groups as their means of inflicting terror upon the world.

[Good Old Neon]

Organized religion, on its own, is not the bully. Organized religion doesn't exist without humanity. Do you think the corruption that is a part of organized religion would cease to exist if we got rid of it?

 

Don't you think the plane hijackers would find a new stalking horse to pursue their agenda, or would it all play out like Lennon's lyrics suggest?

 

I don’t know, but outside of groups that take their cues from religion, can you find me other organized groups who, if they had their way, would block attempts to treat all people equally, regardless of their sexuality, reverse the advance of civilization through the use of violence and intimidation, treat women as mere objects, with little to no rights, would, if they had their way, run this (and other) countries like a theocracy, I could go on of course, but I don’t think I have to.

 

You can continue to claim other crazies would impose their agenda, but if that’s the case, outside of the religious variety, where are they? It is possible that religious fanatics would find some other cause to devote themselves to, but that doesn’t explain why the more secular parts of the world do not play host to as many crazies. Perhaps architects would rise up to take their place, warring over whatever it is architects might war over. Or, perhaps Steelers fans would take up arms against Redskins fans, dog people would attack cat people, and so on.

 

If we were to remove religious opposition to, say, same sex marriage, who out there would take their place?

[Guest Speed Racer]

If we were to remove religious opposition to, say, same sex marriage, who out there would take their place?

 

No offense, sir, but I would wager you have never personally encountered homophobia directed toward you, for you to make a statement like that.

[M. (hristine]

I become ever more convinced that religious fundamentalism and the New Atheism are parallel movements. They come from the same lack of understanding of spirituality which involves above all embracing paradox. We as humans barely know the questions to ask let alone have the answers.

 

I am joyful exploring the mystery. You all can keep your pedantic blah blah blah.

[Good Old Neon]

No offense, sir, but I would wager you have never personally encountered homophobia directed toward you, for you to make a statement like that.

 

None taken – homophobia CERTAINLY exists, but well organized homophobia is almost exclusively the terrain of religion. It, homophobia, is much easier to defend when couched in religion terms, when removed from religious protection, most people view it for what it is, appalling.

[Good Old Neon]

I become ever more convinced that religious fundamentalism and the New Atheism are parallel movements. They come from the same lack of understanding of spirituality which involves above all embracing paradox. We as humans barely know the questions to ask let alone have the answers.

 

I am joyful exploring the mystery. You all can keep your pedantic blah blah blah.

 

What is new about the new atheists? Atheists have been saying the same things for eons, the only difference, they’re on TV, and they’re a little more outspoken – as, for most of our history, much of what is now said publicly could literally get you killed. And still can in some places.

[Winston Legthigh]

I don’t know, but outside of groups that take their cues from religion, can you find me other organized groups who, if they had their way, would block attempts to treat all people equally, regardless of their sexuality, reverse the advance of civilization through the use of violence and intimidation, treat women as mere objects, with little to no rights, would, if they had their way, run this (and other) countries like a theocracy, I could go on of course, but I don’t think I have to.

 

You can continue to claim other crazies would impose their agenda, but if that’s the case, outside of the religious variety, where are they? It is possible that religious fanatics would find some other cause to devote themselves to, but that doesn’t explain why the more secular parts of the world do not play host to as many crazies. Perhaps architects would rise up to take their place, warring over whatever it is architects might war over. Or, perhaps Steelers fans would take up arms against Redskins fans, dog people would attack cat people, and so on.

 

If we were to remove religious opposition to, say, same sex marriage, who out there would take their place?

Neither Hitler, nor Stalin, though their private beliefs suggest that they were probably privately Christian, did not use religion as the backdrop and foundation for the genocidal programs that they all pursued. Pol Pot specifically targeted religious groups, though he did not launch his extermination program on a foundation of "God's commanding me to do this."

[Guest Speed Racer]

None taken – homophobia CERTAINLY exists, but well organized homophobia is almost exclusively the terrain of religion. It, homophobia, is much easier to defend when couched in religion terms, when removed from religious protection, most people view it for what it is, appalling.

 

But that's the thing - religious people are, for the most part, really damned nice to homosexuals on a one-to-one level. I've never, EVER had a problem, even with people who believe I'm hellbound and sinning just by breathing. It's easy to couch it in religious terms, yes, but the people who scare me the most (and the people who usually seek folks out to berate them) are the type that don't need a single damned reason to feel the way they do.

 

What is new about the new atheists? Atheists have been saying the same things for eons, the only difference, they’re on TV, and they’re a little more outspoken – as, for most of our history, much of what is now said publicly could literally get you killed. And still can in some places.

 

Hate to say it, bro, but atheists are turning into a dogmatic, organized group.

[Good Old Neon]

But that's the thing - religious people are, for the most part, really damned nice to homosexuals on a one-to-one level. I've never, EVER had a problem, even with people who believe I'm hellbound and sinning just by breathing. It's easy to couch it in religious terms, yes, but the people who scare me the most (and the people who usually seek folks out to berate them) are the type that don't need a single damned reason to feel the way they do.

 

But that sort of proves my point – why, if they enjoy the company of gay people, treat them as their equal, would they then turn around and vote in favor of restricting their rights? The answer – religious influence. Many of them allow their religious beliefs to trump what they otherwise might not object to.

[Guest Speed Racer]

But that sort of proves my point – why, if they enjoy the company of gay people, treat them as their equal, would they then turn around and vote in favor of restricting their rights? The answer – religious influence. Many of them allow their religious beliefs to trump what they otherwise might not object to.

 

Good god, I never said they enjoyed my company. There's a difference between acknowledging someone civilly and respectfully, and enjoying them.

 

And I don't believe that if you took away their religiousity they would magically be like, "Shitballs, they're just like me! Deserve the same rights!". For some, yes - but I also believe those people are far more likely to have a change of heart while maintaining their religion. For others, religion provides them with a justification for their fears that they would otherwise be too ashamed to admit. For still others I think that, if anything, religion couches their fear with a love and tolerance that wouldn't have without the religious influence.

[Winston Legthigh]

THAT was totally an episode of Southpark!

Oh. My. Science.

[Good Old Neon]

Good god, I never said they enjoyed my company. There's a difference between acknowledging someone civilly and respectfully, and enjoying them.

 

And I don't believe that if you took away their religiousity they would magically be like, "Shitballs, they're just like me! Deserve the same rights!". For some, yes - but I also believe those people are far more likely to have a change of heart while maintaining their religion. For others, religion provides them with a justification for their fears that they would otherwise be too ashamed to admit. For still others I think that, if anything, religion couches their fear with a love and tolerance that wouldn't have without the religious influence.

 

But you said yourself that same sex marriage should not be left up to the states (voters) to decide, otherwise, it might take forever until the right to marry is granted. If the organized resistance to same sex marriage is religiously based, why do you also think that religious folks who make up this opposition are more likely to see the error of their ways, as they are the ones who continue to shoot down equal rights amendments?

[Guest Speed Racer]

But you said yourself that same sex marriage should not be left up to the states (voters) to decide, otherwise, it might take forever until the right to marry is granted. If the organized resistance to same sex marriage is religiously based, why do you also think that religious folks who make up this opposition are more likely to see the error of their ways, as they are the ones who continue to shoot down equal rights amendments?

 

I don't think the voters really have a damned thing to do with religion, and I don't think most homophobic people in America actually need religious organizations to tell them "fruitloops" (thank you, Washington Post comments section) shouldn't get married. It's just convenient that they do.

 

I never said the religious folks who make up the opposition are more likely to see the error of their ways (please, PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth, and this will be much more productive). I said (and YOU quote), "For some, yes - but I also believe those people are far more likely to have a change of heart while maintaining their religion." SOME. Some of the religious people - who are likely NOT active in the religious opposition to SSM. OTHERS, who ARE a part of religious-political movements opposing SSM likely fall into the other two categories I described. Not ALL religious people are part of religious-political movements, and you know that. Lots of Venn diagrams here, and not all the circles overlap.

 

I imagine individual voters, many of which are not at all affiliated with groups opposing SSM, but simply vote, would have no problems continuing to vote down SSM simply based on cultural homophobia.

[Atticus]

in my experience most homophobia is rooted in upbringing/environment, rather than religion. it's the old-time fear of the unusual, the different. while some may attempt to justify/rationalize their fears with religion, I doubt it as the true cause

 

I say this because many of the same people, while they may say that they're opposed in religious principle, to for instance cheating, or lust/porn, or worshiping money, or racial prejudice, have little actual opposition in the practice of their daily lives. but have them encounter an openly homosexual couple in a starbucks and they spin into a fit

[Guest Speed Racer]

Or I could have said it like that and saved myself 500 words.

[Good Old Neon]

I don't think the voters really have a damned thing to do with religion, and I don't think most homophobic people in America actually need religious organizations to tell them "fruitloops" (thank you, Washington Post comments section) shouldn't get married. It's just convenient that they do.

 

I never said the religious folks who make up the opposition are more likely to see the error of their ways (please, PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth, and this will be much more productive). I said (and YOU quote), "For some, yes - but I also believe those people are far more likely to have a change of heart while maintaining their religion." SOME. Some of the religious people - who are likely NOT active in the religious opposition to SSM. OTHERS, who ARE a part of religious-political movements opposing SSM likely fall into the other two categories I described. Not ALL religious people are part of religious-political movements, and you know that. Lots of Venn diagrams here, and not all the circles overlap.

 

I imagine individual voters, many of which are not at all affiliated with groups opposing SSM, but simply vote, would have no problems continuing to vote down SSM simply based on cultural homophobia.

 

I disagree – I take them at their word. I believe opposition to same sex marriage is overwhelmingly based one’s religious beliefs. We can go back and forth on this all day, for weeks and months on end, but at the end of the day, opposition to same sex marriage is by and large religiously based.

 

I apologize if I’ve put words in your mouth, that was certainly not my intent.

 

As for the cultural and homophobia, I would argue that that too is largely a product of religion. But at the moment, I’m just sort of sick of arguing.

[bleedorange]

I disagree – I take them at their word. I believe opposition to same sex marriage is overwhelmingly based one’s religious beliefs. We can go back and forth on this all day, for weeks and months on end, but at the end of the day, opposition to same sex marriage is by and large religiously based.

 

I apologize if I’ve put words in your mouth, that was certainly not my intent.

 

As for the cultural and homophobia, I would argue that that too is largely a product of religion. But at the moment, I’m just sort of sick of arguing.

 

I don't believe this for a second.

[Guest Speed Racer]

We've never lived in a world without religion, and I think it's impossible to say what would and wouldn't happen in a world where it did not exist. I still think it's absolutely laughable to think that homophobia and opposition to SSM would just *POOF!* into thin air if religion didn't exist.

 

I don't believe this for a second.

 

Moments are fleeting, my friend.

[Good Old Neon]

in my experience most homophobia is rooted in upbringing/environment, rather than religion. it's the old-time fear of the unusual, the different. while some may attempt to justify/rationalize their fears with religion, I doubt it as the true cause

 

I say this because many of the same people, while they may say that they're opposed in religious principle, to for instance cheating, or lust/porn, or worshiping money, or racial prejudice, have little actual opposition in the practice of their daily lives. but have them encounter an openly homosexual couple in a starbucks and they spin into a fit

 

Public Opinion on Gay Marriage: Opponents Consistently Outnumber Supporters

 

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=424#4

 

The dichotomy between resistance to same sex marriage vs. same sex union is interesting, as a much greater number of religious voters are opposed to marriage, with a smaller percentage opposed when asked about same sex union - the catch being the word "marriage" - which, can we at the very least agree has religious connotations?

[Guest Speed Racer]

Marriage obviously has religious connotations, which is exactly why the large majority of people who identify with a religious cultural background (including C&E's and largely no-shows who were raised in Christian households) oppose gay marriage, in my opinion. Drives me absolutely nuts.

[bleedorange]

Moments are fleeting, my friend.

 

I hope so. It has definitely been some entertaining reading, except for the 1000-word quotations thrown in here or there, but that just comes with the territory.

[bobbob1313]

I disagree – I take them at their word. I believe opposition to same sex marriage is overwhelmingly based one’s religious beliefs. We can go back and forth on this all day, for weeks and months on end, but at the end of the day, opposition to same sex marriage is by and large religiously based.

 

I apologize if I’ve put words in your mouth, that was certainly not my intent.

 

As for the cultural and homophobia, I would argue that that too is largely a product of religion. But at the moment, I’m just sort of sick of arguing.

 

I think the problem with this discussion is that you very rarely are willing or able to give those who draw your ire the benefit of the doubt.

 

In this case, Speed Racer is giving the religious the benefit of the doubt that most who oppose gay marriage would do so with or without religion. Since you look at religion from your very rigid point of view, you refuse to accept this possibility.

 

I don't think you or anyone could disagree with the assertion that you are probably the most inflexible person on this board, at least when it comes to the topic of religion. Honestly, despite the fact that I don't necessarily disagree with you, I find it not worth discussing, and I generally find myself wanting to disagree with you because of your rigidity.

 

It's just easier to have a discussion with people who are willing to budge even an inch.