February 07, 2011
Accommodationism and Atheism
by Scott Aikin and Robert B. Talisse
Our book Reasonable Atheism does not publish until April, yet we have already been charged with
accommodationism, the cardinal sin amongst so-called New Atheists. The charge derives mainly from the subtitle of our book, “a moral case for respectful disbelief.” Our offense consists in embracing idea that atheists owe to religious believers anything like respect. The accusation runs roughly as follows: “Respect” is merely a euphemism for soft-pedaling one’s criticisms of religion; but religion is a force of great evil, and thus must be fought with unmitigated vigor. Atheist calls for respect in dealing with religion simply reflect a failure of nerve, and must be called out. Anything less than an intellectual total war on religion is capitulation to, and thus complicity with, irrationality.
In our case, the charge of accommodationism as a failure of critical nerve is misplaced; anyone who actually reads our book will find that we pull no punches. But we also think that, as it is commonly employed in atheist circles, the idea of accommodationism involves a conflation between two kinds of evaluation which should be kept distinct. Some clarification is in order.
When it is aimed at rational persuasion, argumentation has two closely related objectives. The first is the obvious aim of demonstrating that the view that one favors is true. We engage in argument in order to make explicit the grounds upon which we base our beliefs; in making them believe explicit, we simultaneously provide support for our beliefs. The second aim of argumentation is easily overlooked. When we argue, we also engage in a diagnostic project. We aim not only to demonstrate the truth of our own view; we additionally endeavor to understand how our opponent arrived at her view, how she conceives of the relation between her view and her evidence. Put another way, in argumentation, we aim to discover where our opponent has gone wrong. Being able to identify others’ errors is often a crucial part of persuading them to change their views. Furthermore, being able to diagnose our opponents’ mistakes is intimately related to fully grasping our own views. Knowing an issue means not only knowing the right answers, but also where the wrong turns are. As Mill observed, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
This dual-aspiration of argumentation maps on to the elementary distinction in epistemology between truth and justification. Consider: One can believe what is true and have good reasons for believing as one does; one can believe what is true on the basis of bad reasons; one can believe what is false, but on the basis of good reasons; and one can believe what is false for bad reasons. It is by means of the distinction between what is true and the quality of one’s reasons that we are able to distinguish between, say, knowing that Kennedy died in 1963 and correctly guessing that he did. This distinction also enables us to make sense of the claim that, despite getting nearly everything wrong, Aristotle was a great mind.
This distinction also enables us to recognize that there are two distinct kinds of epistemic evaluation: belief-evaluation and believer-evaluation. Evaluating beliefs is a matter of seeing what evidence there is for holding them. Evaluating believers is a matter of examining whether the evidence someone has indeed supports the belief he or she holds (and if so, to what extent). It makes perfect sense to say that Aristotle’s physics is wrong (a belief evaluation), even though he was a brilliant natural scientist (a believer evaluation). Given the evidence he had and the tools at his disposal for gathering evidence, Aristotle was highly justified in holding his (false) beliefs. He was entirely wrong, yet frighteningly smart.
These distinctions help us to see that the diagnostic ambition of argumentation involves the attempt to devise a responsible believer evaluation of one’s interlocutor. Part of what is involved in the attempt to rationally persuade someone is to try to disclose what evidence he has and how he sees his evidence as providing support for his view. In doing this, we may discover that he has an insufficient conception of what evidence there is; or maybe he has misinterpreted the evidence; or maybe he has simply drawn the wrong conclusion from a proper understanding of the evidence; and so on. This endeavor makes the difference between the project of rationally persuading an interlocutor and simply persuading them; it also makes the difference between rational persuasion and browbeating.
This much is elementary. Yet the distinction between being wrong and being stupid is essential to our cognitive lives. We affirm in Reasonable Atheism that we believe that distinctively religious beliefs are false, and that religious believers are therefore wrong. Yet having false beliefs does not make one stupid; it simply makes one wrong. The stupid person is one who believes against what he takes to be evidence. And, as it turns out, there are very few stupid people. Yet there is a lot of false believing going on; in fact, we hold that in matters of religion, there is a lot of belief in what is demonstrably and obviously false. What could explain this?
The answer is straightforward. Religious believers have an inflated sense of the strength of the evidence in support of their view and a correspondingly deflated estimation of the power of atheist arguments. It is worth noting that this kind of distortion is precisely what one should expect in a society that fits the description offered by the New Atheists. They say, correctly, that our society is infused with religiosity and superstition, that religion “poisons everything” and amounts to a collective delusion. Given this, it is no mystery why religious belief is so widespread and persistent. The social ubiquity of religiosity causes individuals to overestimate the strength of the case for religion.
It is important to note that so far, we are very much in agreement with the New Atheists. Most religious claims are demonstrably false, and religion’s cultural influences have distorting effects on how believers assess the evidence. The religiosity of the background culture explains the persistence of religious belief.
But once this kind of explanation of the persistence of religious belief is adopted, the charge of accommodationism, as it is typically wielded, is rendered facile. One can wholeheartedly and unequivocally deny the truth of the religious believer’s commitments without thereby impugning his integrity as a cognitive agent. The claim that religious believers deserve respect, therefore, need not entail any degree of positive regard for religious belief; the call for respect rather is a call to respect religious believers. And respecting religious believers qua believers involves adopting the working presumption that, though they are mistaken and perhaps obviously so, they are nonetheless not stupid; instead, they are mistaken about what evidence there is and what weight it has.
The proper response to this state of affairs is to address religious believers as fellow rational agents, to elicit from them their best arguments and their conception of what evidence there is, and to make a case for one’s own view. Correspondingly, it is foolish to begin with an effort to discredit the intellects of religious believers or to diagnose them as benighted, foolish, and intellectually cowardly. To be sure, there are plenty of religious believers who fit these descriptions. But there are plenty of atheists who do too. It is here we part ways with the New Atheists, as what makes one a fool is not what one believes, but rather how one’s beliefs are related to one’s evidence.
A further point follows. Part of what fuels the charge of accommodationism is the view that religious believers should be treated with contempt. The view has it that those who are contemptible are not worthy of respect. This seems true as far as it goes. But notice that to hold a person in contempt is to ascribe to him a capacity for responsibility. Accordingly, we do not hold the mentally deranged in contempt for their delusional beliefs; rather, we see their beliefs as symptoms of their illness. To see religious believers as proper objects of contempt, then, is to see them as people who should know better than to believe as they do. It is hence to see them as wrong but, importantly, not stupid. Thus it is a confusion to regard religious believers as both contemptible and cognitively beyond-the-pale. Atheists must decide whether to proceed as if religious belief is a kind of mental disability or rather an error. If we choose the former, it is a mistake to see religious belief as a failure of intellectual responsibility; if we choose the latter, we must engage with religious believers in a way which manifests a proper regard for their cognitive capacities, and accordingly seeks to hear and address their best reasons and arguments. In Reasonable Atheism, we take this latter path. If this amounts to accommodationism, then atheists should be accommodationists. We, at least, will gladly accept the term.
Posted by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse at 12:50 AM | Permalink
Comments
Very nicely argued and I mostly agree, but I don't think the anticipated criticisms from the New Atheists will materialize.
They also engage with believers and are respectful except in some contexts (polemical debates with strident religious figures, for example, where they can't be blamed for giving as good as they are getting). I thought Dan Dennett was very respectful in his book (Breaking the Spell). Even the writing of a book carefully and methodically laying out one's arguments is a respectful act, I would argue.
What the New Atheists have pointed out repeatedly, and which you do not address here is that religions have managed to attach to themselves a special dispensation whereby they are exempt from ANY normal criticism, and the minute their practices (sometimes horrendously immoral by most standards) are questioned, they are able to cry "disrespect", or worse. This is the modern equivalent of blasphemy, a way of shutting up your opponent. It is as if simply to claim that a religious person is wrong is disrespectful. There seems to be an asymmetry, at least to me, which is also reflected in the popular opinion polls which show that believers think of atheists as amoral or even immoral people while atheists do not broadly generalize this way about the religious, limiting their critiques to specific immoral practices.
In other words, the danger that I see in being too respectful when criticizing religion is that we may accept the believers' account of what it is to be disrespectful which in reality is just their historically well-developed strategy to keep their brand of irrationality immune from questioning.
It is also interesting that the religious accomodate other religions just to maintain this immunity from criticism for their own religion. Think about this: it is a historical fact that Mohammad claimed to be the last prophet of God, but Christians do not believe this (that Mohammad was the last prophet from God). In their opinion, what does this make Mohammad? But they will not (usually) explicitly say what is clearly the logical consequence of their beliefs because it would be "disrespectful" and would then encourage others to question their own beliefs in the same way, and this they can't have.
Religion really does get an unfair pass, and that is what the New Atheists have complained about and I agree with them. But I also agree with you about not thinking of religious people as crazy!
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Feb 7, 2011 5:33:46 AM
Abbas Raza puts it very well indeed. It does not seem at all that the "New Atheist" position is that all (or even the majority) who hold religious beliefs are stupid or deficient in an intellectual since. The authors themselves will perhaps acknowledge that the "New Atheists" will agree with their assessment of Aristotle!
The point is that the religious tend to make the diagnostic or any other project impossible by placing the questioning of certain things out of bounds (as Raza says).
>> yet we have already been
>> charged with accommodationism
Is this online? A link would be useful.
Posted by: Ludwig | Feb 7, 2011 5:53:58 AM
Why is it, I wonder, that you fail to give even a single quote of the heinous charges that Gnu Atheists level against accommodationists? Is it really a coincidence that pretty much every single statement in your first paragraph is demonstrably false? Should you not care enough about the truth of your premises to find and present the actual evidence for them?
Apparently, you didn’t even read the latest overview posts on the very point that you are trying to make, e.g. Russell Blackford’s “Gnu Atheist” doesn’t mean “nasty”; “accommodationist” doesn’t mean “nice”. Which is disappointing, to say the least.
Speaking of things you should have read:
This I would consider a pretty good description of, for example, The God Delusion. Which makes one wonder what your point is, exactly.
You and your contributions are certainly valued; but I’m afraid this post of yours appears to be utterly baseless.
Posted by: Peter Beattie | Feb 7, 2011 6:42:46 AM
Part of what fuels the charge of accommodationism is the view that religious believers should be treated with contempt.
I would think that a bigger part is this assumption about new atheists, that it is their propensity to mock the religious to their face, shout forced laughter at them, and call them “stupid,” “ignorant” and the like.
Posted by: Ken Pidcock | Feb 7, 2011 7:31:41 AM
"What the New Atheists have pointed out repeatedly...limiting their critiques to specific immoral practices."
With respect, this entire paragraph seems to encapsulate a whiny position on the part of apologists for the new atheism that never comes with specific examples, in the case of believers crying foul. I'm sure they happen, but are they significant? If so, let's trot them out and have a look. And as for the noble position new atheists take in restricting themselves to actual cases while avoiding blanket dismissal. I say hogwash.
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 7, 2011 9:42:23 AM
For me, the role of religion or spirituality is to provide a framework within which we can search for a purpose in life that transcends simple behaviorism. My problem with most organized religions is their error in believing that all the great questions have been answered. When subverted from its quest for knowledge, religion becomes a totem for the fearful and a tool for the corrupt. Marx wrote that religion is the opium of the people. He also believed that most people needed religion as an antidote to their fear of staring into the Abyss.
Posted by: BobbyV | Feb 7, 2011 10:31:05 AM
Thank you for the essay, Scott and Robert. On the grounds you cite, and others, I agree it's no good to look at religious people with disrespect, and it is crucial to distinguish the person from the belief.
I think there's more to the picture. To stop buying a faith-based explanation for everything that has a scientifically demonstrable explanation is an acceptance that better evidence (the craters of the moon through the telescope) than one's own has been produced, but it need not prevent everyone intelligent from remaining passionately religious. In Marilynne Robinson's case, for instance, she writes that since childhood she has had an acute awareness of the presence of God. That the idea of God, once she learned of it, only fit what she already felt as real. Respectfully arguing her out of this is not going to happen, because you would not be going up against her beliefs, however respectfully, but contradicting her deepest experience, as well as attempting to prove a negative. So, not very logical.
Sufis speak of the country of the heart, and we would have only schoolroom remarks to offer in the way of derogating from that interpretation of experience -- if we were willing to be disrespectful. To persuade people that their experience is not their experience, but a subjective state that owes to brain chemistry happening not to pertain to the persuader, is not the same as making a strong and reasoned argument. A religious person might tell me, for example, that I had no awareness of the presence of God, and that would not convince me that He was there -- the Author of Creation, in Whom I disbelieved.
Even if you are prepared to argue that the experiential is but a form of wrong belief, and could produce science-based evidence of that, you would nonetheless be using reason and logic where they famously don't apply -- at least, not as far as your interlocutor is concerned. As well to tell a girl in love that it's all a giant hormonal schuck; if she's been doing her homework, she might answer back that she understood that, but that it was you who were actually missing something.
Refraining from calling believers crazy or stupid on the grounds they lack, as yet, the evidence that would lead them to agree with you, is probably not the better part of respect. It's a good basis for not taking potshots, and reasoned dialogue on those terms alone will get farther than in a mere set-to between the mouthier Brights and the most entrenched fundies. But if the very purpose of such a reasoned dialogue is to enlighten and to persuade, then how would science-based evidence be convincing to people who are inured to its relevance? The relevance of what you offer is, perhaps not so logically, of much greater interest than whether you're right. There is such a thing as being merely right.
Three hundred and some years ago, when the Jesuits were a mighty force not only for conversion but for education, they came up against "savages" they could neither convert not educate, and decided not to list them as lost souls, condemned for eternity, but to designate them "invincibly ignorant." There is nothing in that usage to suggest respect for a point of view the Jesuits did not hold, but it hints at a certain capitulation: Though our medicine is very powerful, you have to be of a mind for it.
We may speak glancingly to the _rights_ of religious people to believe as they do. To what extent do those rights, and the rights of the rest to freedom of intellect and association, coexist? This, and not the question of showing respect in arguments and address, is where the rubber meets the road. For there is ignorance to which it poses world-scale danger to have the right. And education-based superiority, with science on our side, does not prevent our participating in it. For anyone who thinks it does, I have just one word: Monsanto.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Feb 7, 2011 1:10:14 PM
BTW: It is especially ironic that the authors of this post, whose first paragraph could give hayfever to a horse, once published a paper titled “Two Forms of the Straw Man”. Maybe they’ve just hit upon another form of inadequate speech act, which, given the ferocity of the imaginary foe, should perhaps be called “crying Gnu”. :)
Posted by: Peter Beattie | Feb 7, 2011 2:41:45 PM
Nature or nurture, I've come to the conclusion that it is, to paraphrase Pogo, us.
I'm definitely a non-believer. Militant believers, and I include many atheists in this category, give me intelectual heartburn. Our species has apparently evolved to the point where we are aware enough to be terrified of uncertainty. Let's face it, Homo sapiens is a pain in the ass.
Posted by: James F Traynor | Feb 7, 2011 4:33:36 PM
"Accommodationism", as I understand it, means taking the position that religion (as understood in the West) and science are compatible.
In fact, they aren't (e. g., evolution is an undirected process; therefore scientific evolution is incompatible that humans were the intentional outcome of a creative process).
That doesn't mean that there aren't smart believers; for example every gnu atheist that I know of considers Francis Collins to be highly intelligent.
Sometimes smart people hold rather odd and irrational ideas.
Posted by: ollie | Feb 7, 2011 8:36:41 PM
"Part of what fuels the charge of accommodationism is the view that religious believers should be treated with contempt."
No it isn't, at least not in any sense that matters. No doubt there are scattered comments on blog posts that say something like that, but it's hardly a central or serious claim. Many "new" atheists think and say that many or most religious beliefs should be treated with contempt, although many more say that religious beliefs should be treated with the kind of respect that takes criticism and disagreement for granted. In any case the distinction between criticizing beliefs and/or treating them with contempt and treating believers the same way is a very important one, and one that gets lost way too often when "new" atheists are taken to task.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | Feb 7, 2011 9:15:37 PM
What Ophelia said.
You seem to be committing the fallacy of the excluded middle. The New Atheists, those bad guys, treat religious believers with contempt; you, the good guys, think believers are "fellow rational agents". It's wrong at both extremes. There are individual believers who deserve to be treated with contempt, but mainly we're concerned with the foolishness of their beliefs. And if you think the True Believers are acting as rational agents (or similarly, that atheists are all rational agents), then you're in for a very rude surprise.
Maybe you need to consider the possibility that we're dealing with bad ideas held for irrational reasons.
Posted by: PZ Myers | Feb 7, 2011 10:36:49 PM
What Ophelia said, indeed. Before the authors attempt to argue against "accommodationism" they really should try to learn what the term means in this context. They might begin with Ollie above. Without that understanding, the entire post is one long straw man argument.
Posted by: giotto | Feb 7, 2011 10:58:16 PM
what a load of crap. I've rarely seen such a bunch of sophmoric solipsistic crap stretched over so many words. I don't think you could be more unserious if you tried. Is this some parody trying for humor? No, the ignorant fools who believe in their sky master deserve to be considered sane and reasonable, not stupid and pathetic, sure...
Posted by: one true | Feb 8, 2011 12:14:47 AM
I am an atheist but I would not dream of being so patronising and foolish as to condemn Archbishop Tutu, Martin Niemoller , Paul Tillich , or the Dalai Lama for what they believe . Nor would I have the gall to point out the error of their ways.Their sense of things is different from mine. The evangelical appetite of some atheists to convert their ignorant brethren makes me uneasy.Self-righteousness is ugly, regardless from whence it comes.
Posted by: Judith Mason | Feb 8, 2011 6:43:05 AM
I second what Ollie and Ophelia wrote. Accommodationism is the belief that, usually for purely tactical reasons, atheists who consider religion to be incompatible with science should keep silent about it. And everybody agrees with "disrespect the belief, respect the believer", as you will find if you actually read blogs like PZ's, Jerry Coyne's or Ophelia Benson's. You are cunningly defeating straw men.
As for the rest of your post: well, it depends. There are surely beliefs so outrageously moronic that every person of average education who holds them could be seen to necessarily fulfill your own definition of stupid, as in willfully ignoring evidence to the contrary that is available to them. And for examples of such outrageously moronic beliefs, the core dogmas of mainstream Christianity or Mormonism come to mind - if you actually spell them out, which most people try to avoid, considering how embarrassing they are.
But is being told that you are stupid about something really such a grave insult? I guess we all are, about some things. It is just another word for irrational.
Posted by: Alex SL | Feb 8, 2011 6:52:00 AM
It doesn't matter much if we consider religious believers as rational agents, they don't act as rational agents. Therefore they are not amenable to reason. True religious believers have an entrenched position from which no amount of reason, logic and data are going to dislodge them. So they are not the ones we are really concerned about. The folks we seek to convince by reason, logic and data are those who are rational agents. If presented with rational, factual arguments it is to be hoped that they will convince themselves.
Posted by: sailor1031 | Feb 8, 2011 8:39:55 AM
Well, having read this nicely presented piece I certainly want to read your book.
And I think that anybody attacking you merely on the basis of the subtitle of your book should shut up until they have read it.
However, it seems that the meaning you ascribe to 'accomdationism/ist' is not the one that I am used to.
You say "But we also think that, as it is commonly employed in atheist circles, the idea of accommodationism involves a conflation between two kinds of evaluation which should be kept distinct."
Whereas, in recent debates the term has meant the adoption of a position which denies that science and religion are in conflict. For example Gould's concept of non-overlapping magesteria.
On contempt: I would say that I hold (many) religious beliefs in contempt, and if I become engaged in a prolonged discussion with a believer I will let them know this. However, I find it quite possible to go for months without haranguing anybody in person!
On the other hand, if I meet somebody on a train, I do not automatically class them as somebody whom I respect. I will treat them politely, and not let them know that I find their (religious) beliefs contemptible. But treating them politely is not, in my book, the same as respecting them.
And of course one can respect people for certain actions whilst not for others. For example, it would be possible to respect Tony Blair for wishing that the people of Iraq should be free from repression, whilst abhorring him for using lies to allow the invasion to proceed.
Posted by: Felix | Feb 8, 2011 8:47:24 AM
I think the authors underestimate the desire to believe, and the work that the religious put into buttressing their beliefs. The byword among them is "keep the faith." They mean that literally. The inspirational literature written by believers for believers isn't so much about argument and evidence, but about getting somehow "beyond" that, about commitment and practice and living a faithful life. So no, argument isn't that useful in diagnosing why people believe, because argument isn't how and why most people believe. The notion that argument is diagnostic in this sense presumes a commonality that doesn't exist. The difference between the believer and the non-believer is more fundamental.
Posted by: Russell | Feb 8, 2011 11:42:05 AM
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/02/accommodationism-and-atheism.html
Posted by: RBH | Feb 8, 2011 4:34:47 PM
Nuts. Screwed that up. I'll try to rewrite my lengthy comment later.
Posted by: RBH | Feb 8, 2011 4:36:24 PM
Aikin and Talisse wrote
Have the authors ever tried that with the average 'believer in the pew'? I have, to no avail. For them, faith necessarily trumps empirical evidence.I suggest the authors read the thoughts of Kurt Wise and Todd Wood, both influential Christian creationists with biological science Ph.D.s from secular universities (Wise under S.J. Gould), summarized here. Wise wrote
And Wood wroteThose are not the words of "rational agents." How does one present evidence-based arguments to someone who rejects the very epistemic relevance of empirical evidence?And I'll add that respect must be earned; it is not awarded for merely existing.
Posted by: RBH | Feb 8, 2011 4:42:55 PM
I'd never heard of your book until this post, nor had I heard any accusations of accommodationism surrounding it. And I still haven't since you don't bother to quote your alleged critics. Instead you proceede to erect a demonstrable straw man:
As has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments that is not what the opposition to Accomodationism is about. Accomodationism is the claim that science and religion are "compatible" because there are religious scientists and such--a definition of compatibility that would render adultery to be compatible with marriage. But the fact is that science and religion are *epistomologically* incompatible, with religion having no objective truth discerning mechanism. That is what opposition to Accommodationism is about, not about disrespecting people. I would say it is disrespectful to lie to believers about the epistemological compatibility of science and religion. Your post with its unsourced allegations and straw man arguments reminds me of Mooney (Unscientific America) and Plait (in his DBAD speech).
I had no opinion of your book prior to this post, but based on your straw man attack in this post I'm not inclined to think it will be intellectually honest, no more so than Unscientific America was.
Posted by: Scote | Feb 8, 2011 5:51:28 PM
I'm sure you'll get some arguments here, but I've heard repeatedly from people who identify with New Atheists/"confrontationalists"/"incompatibilists"/gnus that believers in general are not necessarily stupid, just wrong. What they /do/ have a justifiable reputation for is being very ready to call specific people people stupid, which is more of a cultural disposition than an actual ubiquitous principle. I don't know what kind of criticism you have gotten/will get over time (Woe to the person who incurs the wrath of the Gnu Atheist blogosphere!), but I don't think you break from the New Atheists on any substantive issues.
Posted by: Sean | Feb 9, 2011 12:42:18 AM
Also, you score about 113/400 on my subjective and ultimately meaningless scorecard of bad clichés in criticism of New Atheists (lower score is less inaccurate criticism).
Most of those points were gained due to speaking vaguely about New Atheists based on general impressions without mentioning names or sources, and due to talking about how some believers are smart as if somehow the gnus were unaware of that, or thought that there just happened not to be any smart religious people.
Posted by: Sean | Feb 9, 2011 1:06:54 AM
And so we see even now the facets along which a temporary atheist hegemony will ultimately fracture into myriad denominations.
I can't wait until the atheist mega-seminars evolve filling abandoned football stadiums with their message of health and prosperity for those who believe in disbelief and can afford a good-thought offering of $100, or more, for which they will receive a handsome thank you certificate suitably framed, a handy tote bag adorned with a Darwin fish, and a selection from the works of Dawkins bound in fine simulated leather, and specially chosen for them.
Posted by: DAS | Feb 9, 2011 4:12:36 AM
For the record - the book really is not another Unscientific America or similar. It argues for serious argument with theists, not for silence or coddling or euphemism.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | Feb 9, 2011 6:45:28 PM
I'm an Auld Atheist (in years) who thinks that all this nattering around about who's being "contemptuous" of whom is a waste of time. To some extent, the whole controversy seems to be about manners: "those unmannerly Gnus, using such language about believers!"
It seems that the Internet, in its few short years on this planet, has somehow produced a huge flock of people whose vocabulary consists at least 65% of obscenities, and how the Internet Gnus love to hurl them at the believers! (Many believers can give as good as get, too. As I read the Apostle Paul--which I am doing a lot of these days, preparing to write about him--he would probably use pretty salty language if he were a blogger, as well.) Having been brought up long before the Internet arose, I prefer to use polite language in my arguments against believers in gods. I still disagree fundamentally with them in the field of metaphysics.
The other question is the famous one of whether religion and science are "compatible." I think that's much too broad and sloppily phrased a question to give a simple answer to. It depends on what kind of religion you're talking about (John Dewey, for example, considered himself religious in his own way, and I don't think he would disagree with evolution or other scientifically established theories) and what specific propositions, religious or scientific, you're talking about. Once you specify precisely what propositions are in question, then whether or not they are "compatible" (if "compatible" here means "logically consistent with each other," and I don't know what else it means) is a simple matter of logic. Contempt or non-contempt has nothing to do with it.
Where the violent emotions arise, I think, is here: some religious people have very strong convictions which they feel are constitutive of their very existences, and get very aroused when these convictions are challenged by anybody (including other religious people with different religious beliefs). They will always shout that they are being "disrespected" by anyone who disagrees with them. And contrariwise, many atheists also have very thin skins and love to ride around on high horses. Personally, I think all those folks look pretty foolish, but then again, I guess it's the people who feel passionately about things who usually get those things done, and we mild-mannered types get left in the dust.
Posted by: JonJ | Feb 9, 2011 7:15:55 PM
Isn't this just more evidence for a meme protecting itself?
As Lenny Bruce pointed out:
"If you can't say fuck, you can't say fuck the government".
By preventing examination and analysis, these toxic parasites are protected.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 9, 2011 7:29:09 PM
"They will always shout that they are being "disrespected" by anyone who disagrees with them."
Again. Who? Where? Link!
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 9, 2011 10:28:54 PM
For Carlos...who cannot seem to find his own links...
http://www.religioustolerance.org/intrelhate1.htm
Posted by: Bill | Feb 10, 2011 3:40:45 AM
You know I'm slow Bill. How does that page relate to the topic at hand?
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 10, 2011 5:29:05 AM
I am going to start an atheist snakehandling cult. My followers will be able to safely handle serpents, scorpions, poisonous spiders, etc. not by the grace and protection of God, but because we have thoroughly and scientifically studied all of the critters we handle and know how to do so safely.
Our primary purpose will be to show the superiority of the scientific method in protecting us from the dangers of our world.
We will be persecuted, as all righteous sects are. There will be those who claim we are abusing animals. But we are merely handling them in a way that is safe to both animal and human we will shout to unhearing ears.
Others will harangue us for making light of science. Why aren't we applying our learning to more useful activities such as the curing of diseases? But we are addressing a major issue: the irrational fear that people have of the world, and the fruitless ways they go about addressing them. What more worthy a blight is there in need of scourging from this world?
Others will merely trivialize us as a second-rate circus act. But we shall not be ignored. We shall not be trivialized. We shall not be stopped. The people of this world must come to know that the scientific method is the only sure route to salvation.
Apersons.
Posted by: DAS | Feb 11, 2011 8:22:12 PM
That's not a snake, it's a noodle.
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 11, 2011 10:07:46 PM
I agree with a couple of the other commenters here about "New Atheists". I am probably what would be considered a "New Atheist". I try to engage in respectful discussions, but I certainly do not respect any idea unless it has merit - I respect people. Having read and watched a lot of stuff from the Four Horsemen I also think that the author of the post paints a straw man argument. While Dawkins, et al. can use forceful language in their books, I have always witnessed them trying to engage in intelligent conversations based on respect. I tend to agree with the points made by the first commenter Abbas Raza. In my anecdotal experience it has been the believer that falsely cries "Disrespect!" at any logical argument about their beliefs.
I have no idea the quality of your book. Perhaps I will read it. But if you want New Atheists like me to read it perhaps you should not start by attacking us based on an incorrect perception on your part.
Posted by: Jason | Feb 13, 2011 10:23:59 PM
"Aristotle was highly justified in holding his (false) beliefs. He was entirely wrong, yet frighteningly smart"
The entire argument presented here rests on that statement, but the argument is faulty. Aristotle, given the updated knowledge would have updated his views... he had the capacity to go from "wrong" to "right", because he was intelligent. Believers, deny what is known, because they are NOT like Aristotle, they are stupid. One CAN absolutely place the belief and the believer in the same camp. We ARE what we think and if we don't think we ARE not worth mentioning or debating. Should we debate the reason for their stupidity? Sure but that's a different debate, about education and critical thinking.
Posted by: Tracy | Feb 16, 2011 4:04:46 AM
"Our offense consists in embracing [the] idea that atheists owe to religious believers anything like respect."
I owe every human person "something like respect," because s/he and I are of the same species, equally stuck in the bodies, minds and environments we inherited at conception. There is nothing another human or I can do to change that simple, obvious fact.
If that isn't grounds for humility and mutual respect, what would be?
Posted by: Ralph Dratman | Feb 18, 2011 9:00:32 AM
I agree with you here, and yet, I am still a fan of the New Atheists. There are some times when I think that jokes, cartoons, etc. are appropriate (especially against ideas and powerful religious leaders and groups). However, the jokes should come with a good argument, and in many situations, I think the argument is preferable alone.
Based just on this article, you don't seem to be accommodationists like those who "New Atheists" criticize. (Although, I don't really like the dichotomy, as Ophelia Benson pointed out. A person can have different views and approaches, depending on which particular religious person or denomination they're talking about.)
As others have pointed out, there are certain religious believers who even get upset at the kind of criticism that you're suggesting. There are those who get upset about signs saying that people are "Good without God". I think those who would ask atheists to just pretend not to exist or pretend that science and religion are compatible (for those who believe it is not) are the ones I'd consider accommodationists.
Anyway, you books sounds interesting, and although I disagree with you characterization of the New Atheists, I agree with many of the other points you make.
Posted by: Ani Sharmin | Feb 23, 2011 11:27:07 AM
"And, as it turns out, there are very few stupid people."
I'd be curious to see what is your evidence for *that* statement.
"Accordingly, we do not hold the mentally deranged in contempt for their delusional beliefs;"
Fine but we also don't give undeserved respect for their view points either.
"The proper response to this state of affairs is to address religious believers as fellow rational agents"
That is usually how they are treated in all serious debates that I have seen and yet even after these they still cling to their discredited beliefs (or lie to that effect) and we are supposed to disregard this evidence for them being either stupid or liars? Why should we do that?
As for this wrong vs stupid "distinction", there isn't much of one to begin with. We call people stupid when they are constantly wrong about something and have no ability to explain logically why they persist in that way. The word stupid is not taboo, it actually means something and can be used when needed and appropriate.
Posted by: Jack Lewis | Mar 10, 2011 2:34:17 PM
Post a comment