Ho hum, I’m quoted in Nature again this week (do I sound convincingly blasé?) It’s a short news article on Francis Collins’ new book, The Language of God, which I find dreadfully dreary and unconvincing, and I find his argument that “The moral law is a signpost to a God who cares about us as individuals. God used a mechanism of evolution to create human beings with whom he could have that kind of fellowship” to be ridiculously unscientific garbage.
Many scientists disagree strongly with such arguments. Some suggest that science is on the defensive today — not just in the United States — and that society needs exactly the opposite of what Collins suggests: less talk about faith and more about reason. Religious concerns are largely behind the US law restricting federal funding of stem-cell research, for example. And many feel threatened by the influence of intelligent design in science education.
In the United States, “the default position right now is to assume that religion is perfectly OK”, says Paul Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota in Morris and author of the popular science blog Pharyngula. “Collins is taking that default position, and while a large majority of scientists will shrug their shoulders, a few voices will be shouting out, saying ‘wait a minute, this is nonsense’.”
Hmm, the author left off the context. She asked whether I thought Collins was being courageous, speaking out for religion as he was. Obviously, I don’t think anyone speaking in favor of greater religious meddling in the United States is taking a brave stand at all.
It’s nice to see the company I’m keeping, at least.
“I cannot see how this could be good for science — supernaturalism is fundamentally anti-scientific,” says Richard Dawkins, a biologist from the University of Oxford, UK. “Scientists work hard at trying to understand. Supernaturalism is an evasion of this responsibility. It’s a shrug of the shoulders.”
Dawkins acknowledges that, particularly in the United States, there might be tactical reasons for trying to get on with religious people. “That is a perfectly reasonable political stance, but it has nothing to do with truth.”
I’m not so pleased with Eugenie Scott’s comments, though.
Others welcome Collins’s book, however. “I think it’s helpful when scientists of Francis’s prominence speak out on the compatibility of faith and science,” says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a group based in Oakland, California, that lobbies against creationism.
Scott agrees with Collins that so far the harshest voices have achieved most prominence, and that this situation doesn’t help either side. “Creationists love quoting Dawkins and Daniel Dennett,” she says. “But those individuals don’t represent the fairly sizeable proportion of non-theists who are not out to destroy religion.”
Neither Dawkins nor Dennett (nor I) are out to “destroy religion”: we want exactly the same thing Eugenie Scott wants, that religion be kept out of our government, our education, and our science, and treated appropriately, as a personal choice for an individual’s private life.
Check E (2006) Genomics luminary weighs in on US faith debate. Nature 442:114-115.
Repeating myself but germane to topic:
(1) A true scientist or true rational person can only go so far with god belief and religion for god’s sake (say to the cultural and/or socially motivated aspects of “religion” — and public embracing of certain feel good tenets like “Love thy neighbor”). To move up the scale of “belief” would require thinking so foreign to their intellectual nature (barring mental illness) that it seems implausible.
(2) The results of science can serve us quite well without belief in god. But more to the point: no sane person with adequate knowledge and intellect would chose god over science when the rubber hits the road. So what does god belief really mean to a sane and rational person? For example, would they accept prayer over good and effective medical treatment? Most people (assuming they be sane and somewhat rational, and they have INTEGRITY)if they test their “god belief” they’ll find it rather shallow and of little real utility I would bet.
“I find dreadfully dreary and unconvincing”
Just how could a book on religion be convincing, when there is no evidence to support it? Given that, and given that it is a whole book, it is likely to be pretty dreary, too.
There are plenty of secularists (not all of whom are atheists) who *do* want that, but both Dawkins and Dennett *have* gone beyond that stage and it is simply silly to deny it. In particular Dawkins would be quite proud to be called an enemy of religion.
It is curious how the purported desire of atheists to ‘destroy religion’ has gained currency. Is this recurring theme a vestige of the godless Red Scare days? A collective persecution complex of many theists? An unrelated stupidity attendant to the theist mind? Curious.
Leave some room in Nature for the rest of us!
Come on now, PZ, I think this statement is a bit misleading. In these pages, you have referred to religion as a cancer and as an addiction, in addition to other things. After all of your pontificating on not only the silliness of religion but on the objective harm of religious beliefs to the individual and society, do you really expect us to believe that you don’t want to destroy religion?
No, they actually are being persecuted. They wouldn’t whine about it if they weren’t.
I apologize for any blown-up sarcasmometers.
The people who talk about atheists who’re out to destroy religion typically conjure images of forced deconversions, of Soviet-style murder of priests, and of children being taken from their parents’ homes simply because their parents are religious. As far as I can see, nobody’s advocating that, not even Dawkins.
J. Badger,
Dawkins’ quotes and commentary are easily found all over the web. Feel free to post anything suggesting his desire to “destroy religion”. Or, failing that, feel free to define going “beyond that stage”. Thanks.
I’d be happy to be called an enemy of religion, too — but I’m not out to destroy it. I want it eliminated as a privileged voice in the public sphere, no more. What other people believe is not something I can dictate, nor would I want to.
Having read Dawkins’ new book, The God Delusion, I can also say that he definitely isn’t out to destroy religion, either (but I can’t say more, yet — the book won’t be public until October.)
Now I think you are splitting hairs (or perhaps I am). I wouldn’t want to outlaw alcohol, but I’d love to destroy drunk driving. While you may not want to outlaw religion, I do think you’d love to destroy it–destroy it through persuasion and ridicule, but destroy it nonetheless.
Watch his documentary “The Root of all Evil”. While it has not (to my knowledge) been shown on US TV, you can download it through Bittorrent quite easily. It’s a lot better than relying on mere quotes (which are often doctored or taken out of context anyway).
It’s quite simple: Secularist position “Eh, religion, whatever. Just don’t teach it in public schools”.
Going beyond that stage. Saying publically that religion is stupid and/or evil. It doesn’t mean that they are in favor of shooting priests.
Splitting hairs?
As a Red Sox fan, I consider the NY Yankees an enemy. That doesn’t mean I want to “destroy” them.
If I’m a Democrat, I could consider Republicans to be enemies. That doesn’t mean I want to “destroy” them.
Shygetz, you are also mistaking intent and possible satisfaction with a result. For example, I would be quite happy to see no more drunk driving. But I’m not “out to destroy” the alcohol industry. I think you could reasonably infer from the statement “I am an enemy of X” that a person would be content to see X removed from the world, or at least indifferent. That is a different thing from stating that said person is making it one of his personal goals to see X removed from the world.
Parsing these shades of meaning shouldn’t be so difficult.
It’s idiocy like this particular Collins that made me realize that I wasn’t eben any kind of deist, but an atheist who believes (conditionally) in a lot of unexplained, and perhaps imaginary, weird stuff. This “god-person” gunk, at least as you allow him to be portrayed here, is ç©ã¿éããããã. Pardon my Japanese.
That’s because you are really just being jocular. You really aren’t an enemy of the Yankees in any meaningful sense.
Well, this is more analogous to the “enemy of religion” situation. You would certainly want to see the power of the Republicans destroyed even if you don’t want them killed.
J. Badger,
So is that really what you think “out to destroy religion” is? Simply saying intemerate things about it or it’s adherents?
Ooops. Make that “intemperate”.
Yeah, we live in a world where religion is in such a precarious position that Dawkins and Dennett are mortal threats to it. [roll eyes]
Now I think you are splitting hairs (or perhaps I am). I wouldn’t want to outlaw alcohol, but I’d love to destroy drunk driving.
Indeed, Shygetz. ‘Drunk driving’ is to alcohol as a ‘privileged voice in the public sphere’ is to religion.
Being out to destroy religion means, in my opinion of the phrase, actively working to end religion entirely as a current cultural phenomenon. It would be equally valid to say that members of MADD are out to destroy drunk driving or Amnesty International is out to destroy torture. Just because PZ hasn’t taken a shotgun to ministers doesn’t mean he isn’t out to destroy religion, he merely uses different (and more effective) measures. If PZ doesn’t have as one of his goals the destruction of religion, then why does he spend so much time and energy denouncing it repeatedly and energetically, instead of just saying “meh, religion”? Note, he doesn’t just denounce religion in public policy, he denounces it period. Just because PZ doesn’t expect to succeed in destroying religion doesn’t mean that he isn’t out to destroy religion. Just because he doesn’t use any means necessary doesn’t mean he isn’t out to destroy religion. He takes action in attempts to eventually eliminate religion as a cultural phenomenon, doesn’t he?
Also, please note, I am not saying that destroying religion is a bad goal. I just know that PZ is fond of calling a fish a fish, and from where I stand, PZ is out to destroy religion.
No, ‘drunk driving’ is to alcohol as religion is to philosophy–one is viewed by some as a dangerous abuse of the other that leads to bad consequences. Note, PZ doesn’t just rail about religion’s privileged voice in the public sphere, he denounces religion in general and in all forms.
So, no matter whatsoever that PZ actually says, “I am not out to destroy religion.”? The more he denies, the more he lies kind of a thing going on here? Or maybe he doesn’t know he’s out to destroy religion? Maybe he’s really just kinda dumb?
(Not that PZ needs my defending him. Forgive me Professor Myers.)
Just how could a book on religion be convincing, when there is no evidence to support it? Given that, and given that it is a whole book, it is likely to be pretty dreary, too.
Ah, but what if it was a book about a religion involving magical puppies? That’d be pretty uplifting, I think.
Defensive much? No one has called anyone a liar, or dumb. PZ has called religion a cancer, an addiction, a delusion, etc., and railed against it in instances both specific and general. These actions are not consistent with someone who doesn’t want to destroy religion in general, but only wants to eliminate its privileged place in the public sphere. These actions are consistent with someone who sees religion in all forms as reprehensible, and is willing to take actions that, if successful, will eventually eliminate religion as a cultural phenomenon.
Myers says he is not out to destroy religion. Do you think he is lying? Or is unaware of his own desire to destroy religion? To be out to do something implies intent. If he does intend the destruction of religion he is then lying when he says he’s not. No?
Yes, I think religion is reprehensible and would like to see it fade away. If that’s “destroying” it, then I’m guilty.
Of course, if we’re going to insert meaning into ideas on that scale, now you’re going to have to deal with Eugenie Scott. She’s an atheist, too, you know…does her disbelief mean she’s out to destroy religion?
Consider these three phrases:
(1) vocally opposed to religion
(2) out to more or less destroy religion, to the extent possible by non-coercive persuasion
(3) out to destroy religion
(4) out to destroy religion totally, by any means necessary
To many people, 3 understandably sounds more like 4 than like 2.
“Destroy” sounds pretty extreme, and “out to” sounds like “willing to do what it takes” to achieve that total victory. That’s deceptive.
I’m not terribly familiar with Eugenie Scott’s atheist activities, but if she is as active as you are in publically denouncing religion in all forms, then yeah, I would say she is out to destroy religion as well, just as Operation Clambake is out to destroy Scientology. If she merely disbelieves but does not take numerous public actions to denounce religion in all forms, then no, she is not (although she may fit into the category of people who would be happier if religion were destroyed).
Contrary to previous allegations, I am not confusing intent with satisfaction in an outcome. The difference between “working to destroy religion” and merely being satisifed if religion is destroyed is the “working” part. PZ has made numerous public statements on multiple forums denouncing and ridiculing religion in general. If the purpose of those statements were not to weaken and ridicule religion in general, than I must have misread all of his posts.
Yes, I know she’s an atheist. As am I. But her organization (of which I’m a member) is dedicated to preserving science education in US public schools. Her point (which I quite agree with) is that the antics of people like Dawkins in no way help our cause. Probably a majority of people in the US support secular goals (if only because they fear that *their* brand of religion won’t be the one selected if religion is taught in schools), but only a tiny minority of people in the US are atheists. So she doesn’t go around alienating potential allies by saying that religion is stupid or the root of all evil.
Paul, I’m not denying that the phrase was intentionally chosen to be inflammatory. However, I still think that, if an uninformed Christian were to read PZ’s public thoughts on religion on this and other forums, they may well conclude that he is out to destroy religion. The fact that PZ isn’t willing to do anything necessary doesn’t change that in my mind–was Martin Luther King Jr. not out to destroy racism because he was unwilling to use violence?
There seems to be a domain-specific module in the human mind specifically devoted to conflating beliefs and persons. It’s how Dennett can make the perfectly sensible remark that he looks forward to the day when religious beliefs are kept in cages, and then be widely represented as having claimed he looks forward to the day when religious people are kept in cages.
I want to argue and persuade Christianity and Republicanism off the face of the earth. I do not want to round up Christians and Republicans and put them in concentration camps. I would wager that PZ and I and many other decent upstanding citizens are on the same page on this. So in a perfectly straightforward and unobjectionable way, I want to destroy Christianity. I don’t see why this should be the source of some sort of shame or guilt — unless people think the only way people can want to destroy something is by destroying the people who believe it.
Andrew, that is exactly what I am trying to say. Just because PZ (and you) are willing to only use ethical means to destroy religion does not mean that you are not out to destroy religion. It shouldn’t cause any shame or guilt in you or PZ. I understand why politically it is preferable not to be seen as wanting to destroy religion. However, PZ is not a fan of quieting the truth for political expediency, which is the only reason I brought it up.
I want to destroy religion.
But I don’t want to do it violently, by killing people for what they believe in. Sam Harris might (I won’t say he does, not having read his book), but I don’t. That’s a legacy of religion that I refuse to adopt.
Instead, I want to destroy religion by the simple effect of reason. I want to deconvert each and every religious person on the face of the planet. Not by compelling them, but by *convincing* them with logic and evidence and whatever psychological tools are necessary to overcome indoctrination and restore their faculty of critical thinking.
I want every human being in the world to realize that religion is a superstition with no basis in reality, and however much we may like our mythology as a source of metaphor or an inspiration for art, to believe that it is actually real is a serious and dangerous delusion. I want everyone to laugh at the pope, his ridiculous outfit, and his even more ridiculous claim of infallibility. I want the pope himself to realize that his life has been mostly based on lies, and turn over a new leaf.
I don’t think any of that is going to be easy and some of it may well be impossible. But it’s my goal. When religion no longer controls a single human mind, I don’t see how you could call it anything other than “destroyed”.
I believe that this is substantially Dawkins’s position as well (although of course I have no authority to speak for him, so I could be wrong), and I would be quite surprised if it wasn’t PZ’s. So I think this is probably a semantic issue – PZ doesn’t want to be equated with wanting to *violently* destroy religion, and since that’s one of the leading connotations of the verb “destroy”, he probably prefers some other word less susceptible to misinterpretation (or deliberate distortion).
But seriously – you want to reduce the influence of religion, right? How low is low enough? Would you really stop trying to reduce it all the way to zero?
Can anyone explain why believing in “God” is ‘religion’ and not just superstition like Witchcraft, JuJu or Voodoo. I can’t see any difference.
Superstition:
1)An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2)A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
I wasn’t saying that there isn’t a sense in which PZ (or I) is “out to destroy religion.”
The phrase is ambiguous on several points—it’s not clear exactly what “out to” means, or what “destroy” means, or even what “religion” means.
Sure, I’m opposed to religion, would like to see it go away, and will continue to oppose it as long as it exists. In a weak sense, I have zero tolerance for religion—I’ll always say it’s stupid and people should get past it, so in a very weak sense I’m even “out to” destroy it.
But saying that I’m “out to destroy religion” is more false than true. To be “out to” accomplish something implies that accomplishing it is a possibility you take seriously. I don’t think any of the people in question, or anybody here, seriously entertains the notion of destroying religion by any means that they can stomach.
I think Martin Luther King is a bad example. Saying that he was “out to destroy racism” is less deceptive because people know who Martin Luther King is and what he was about—they know he was nonviolent, and that disambiguates the statement in a crucial way. They know that he didn’t advocate coercive measures against his opponents.
Similarly, for people who really know where PZ or Dawkins or Dennett is actually coming from, saying they’re “out to destroy religion” isn’t particularly unobjectionable; it’s just kind of overblown.
But for many people, that reality check isn’t there. They don’t know what PZ or Dawkins or Dennett actually advocates, and simply saying that they’re “out to destroy religion” is irresponsible. There is an interpretation of that phrase under which it’s true, but there’s another obvious interpretation under which it’s false.
Eugenie Scott is playing with fire here. If she’s going to distance herself from her allies, that’s okay, but she should make it clear that it’s not because they’re bomb-throwing radicals who are going to confiscate your Bibles and put people in camps. She’s effectively calling people like Dawkins and Dennett extremists, without acknowledging that they’re not extremists, either, really.
The MLK example is instructive.
Consider the sentence “MLK was out to destroy the white establishment” vs. the sentence ”
What is this “moral law” that some people, even serious sceintists, find so convincing that they see it as indicating the existence of a god?
Seriously, I don’t understand what people mean when they say this.
Personally, I like to feel pleasure and I don’t like discomfort and pain. I figure others are the same, and since I want them to help me feel pleasure and avoid discomfort, I’ll try to do my part to help them. It’s the golden rule, and I don’t get any sense there is something supernatural involved.
Why can’t people realize that religion is a philosophy and science is a science. They ask and answer very different questions and are not mutally exclusive. Broadly speaking, science answers how things work and religion why things happen. Anyone using science to answer a philosophy question, or vice versa, will only look foolish. I really see no contradiction between the two fields and have always thought members of one who try and denounce the other have something to fear.
All I ever want is for religion to keep to its own sandbox and leave the rest of us alone. Where I, and I gather PZ, have problems is when religion injects its needs and wants and ambitions, especially proselytizing, into the public sphere. It should be confined to in its own churches or temples and private homes, but banned from government, public schools, or any scientific discipline. Such confinement is not destruction. At the same time a major element of everyone’s education should be to dispel the notion that superstition, which includes religion, has any redeeming aspects. Education is after all about countering superstition.
Whoops… that one got away from me unfinished, somehow. What I was saying was:
Consider the sentence “MLK was out to destroy the white establishment,” vs. the sentence “Some radical black activists were out to destroy the white establishment.”
In the case of MLK, it should be easy to see that the sentence is true, but only in a weak sense—he wasn’t out to destroy racism utterly, or to destroy white racists, or to destroy the structure of our society; he was out to “destroy” the “white establishment” as a white establishment, by reforming it into something better without violence.
The other sentence is harder to read that way. A few black activists were really out to destroy the establishment in a strong sense, by destroying the government and starting over, and even by killing a fair number of white people. If you bother to say it in such a strong way, it’s reasonable for people to guess that you meant the strong interpretation; if you hadn’t, you’d probably have just said something clearer and weaker, like “Many black activists opposed racism in general, not just government-enforced white privelege in particular.”
Many Christians are afraid of atheists in much the same way that many white folks were afraid of blacks in the 1960’s. They do not understand that atheists are generally nonviolent, moral people who wouldn’t violently oppress them, given the opportunity.
Eugenie Scott should be careful about that; when she distances herself from the more extreme elements, she should be careful not to reinforce the view that the more radical elements are actually scary extremists. Given that the religious right promotes exactly that view, she should be careful to rule out that interpretation.
Oh, come on people. The clear implication of PZ’s saying that the “default position is that religion is OK” and that the courageous “few voices will be shouting out, saying ‘wait a minute, this is nonsense’ is that religion is NOT OK. Not a particular religion or set of beliefs, mind you, but any religion. Look, I don’t mind PZ’s being a militant atheist, but if he then claims to be neutral on the topic of religion, I ‘m gonna cry bulllshit. PZ says he wants religion “treated appropriately, as a personal choice for an individual’s private life.” Yet in a recent post, PZ advocated screaming “YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT” in public at people who express their beliefs about the end of the world, the “Rapture”, etc. Now he is indignant at the suggestion that he is an enemy of religion? Eugenie Scott is taking, I think, an admirable step towards compromise, away from the shouting polemics in the fringes. So, from another standpoint, is Francis Collins. The whole “you are not pro-science enough for me, because you don’t scream “nonsense” every time a scientist mentions religion” is a stance much akin to the fundies, who label anyone who does not completely support their agenda as an evil enemy.
I suppose to put it in my words, I want to “destroy” religion in the way that astronomers want to “destroy” geocentrism and flat Earth ideas.
Any thoughts on a better phrasing?
Bad analogy. The corresponding analogy to “MLK was out to destroy the white establishment” would be “PZ Myers is out to destroy the religious establishment”, which, of course, includes the religious people themselves. My previous analogy “MLK was out to destroy racism” is appropriate.
So your argument is that, while it is true to say that PZ is out to destroy religion, it is deceptive because people might think it means violence? I disagree. No one, even the fire-breathing religionists (as far as I know), have ever accused PZ of violence, even though they all firmly believe he is out to destroy religion. I would argue to the other way–it takes a preconception (or contextual clues) to jump to a presumption of violence given the statement “Person X is out to destroy cultural phenomenon Y.” For example, you felt it necessary to include the descriptive terms “radical” and “activists” in order to get your meaning across in your example. If your assertion was true, all you would have to say is “Some people were out to destroy the white establishment.” and we would automatically presume violence.
“Many Christians are afraid of atheists in much the same way that many white folks were afraid of blacks in the 1960’s.”
Atheism is the new black. Cool!
If atheists wanted to destroy religion you’d find more of them in church reading the bible aloud.
Notice the blogs subtitle: “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal”. Think there are alot of religious people that just stumble to this site, see what P-Zed has to say, and lose their faith immediately? All according to the EAC’s master plan?
Since there seems to be some confusion I built this simple chart:
Persecution
———
Fed to lions
Covered in tar and set afire as street lamps
Stoned to death
Not Persecution
————-
Being called an idiot by someone on the internet
The notion that this fello, this professor of biology, who happens to have a blog on which he occasionally makes less than kind remarks about religion and religionists, is “out to destroy religion” really is laughable. The only thing funnier is the semantic gymnastics being executed by some in here.
Why NOT destroy religion?
But the thing is, religions usually encourage their followers to spread them. That’s partly how they survive at all.
It depends on the cultural milieux, the brand of religion (deism, theism etc), the intelligence of the populace, the power reliigon has had in that area, historically etc…
PZ does not limit his anti-religious writings to this site (see Panda’s Thumb for an example). And I never said PZ is persecuting religionists, no more than MLK was persecuting racists.
I never said destroying religion was bad. I merely pointed out that PZ’s actions suggest he is trying to destroy religion, and in his grand tradition of facing politically inconvenient truths, I don’t think he should deny it.
And evolvealready, your ridicule of me wounds me deeply. However shall I recover?
Interesting question. When is one “out to destroy religion”?
One could look at what should be reasonably allowed:
– Promote secularity.
– Attacking the unjustified privilieged position of religion.
– Rationally judge religion and comment on bad consequences such as:
– Many incompatible religions.
– Fundamentalism.
– Conflicts.
– Evangelicism.
– Repression.
– Superstition.
– Rationally judge religious ideas and comment on bad ones such as:
– Sin.
– Soul.
– Rapture.
– Creationism.
– Comment on specific incompatibilities between the world explanations of science and religion such as:
– Supernaturals, dualism and origins as bad empirical explanations.
– Comment on fundamental incompatibilities between science and religion such as:
– Naturalism (observations) vs dualism (nature …. and something else besides).
As usual it is hard to make a clear demarcation, especially since the topic contains areas in conflict. Is it okay to say “YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT” as reaction on bad ideas in the public sphere? Would choosing such a reaction instead of a discussion cross a threshold?
So allowing the above as reasonable, would any of that be “out to destroy religion”? Isn’t the case that religion is selfdestructive if any of that would harm it? Should one make an attempt to lie and be passive in order to not “destroy religion”?
“Secularist position “Eh, religion, whatever. Just don’t teach it in public schools”.”
Besides asserting “the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion”, secularism also means “a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact” (Wikipedia). As such, a secularist have the reasonable possibility to comment and critique religion.
Sorry about the bad format of my comment.
Again:
Interesting question. When is one “out to destroy religion”?
One could look at what should be reasonably allowed:
Promote secularity.
Attacking the unjustified privilieged position of religion.
Rationally judge religion and comment on bad consequences such as:
– Many incompatible religions.
– Fundamentalism.
– Conflicts.
– Evangelicism.
– Repression.
– Superstition.
Rationally judge religious ideas and comment on bad ones such as:
– Sin.
– Soul.
– Rapture.
– Creationism.
Comment on specific incompatibilities between the world explanations of science and religion such as:
– Supernaturals, dualism and origins as bad empirical explanations.
Comment on fundamental incompatibilities between science and religion such as:
– Naturalism (observations) vs dualism (nature …. and something else besides).
As usual it is hard to make a clear demarcation, especially since the topic contains areas in conflict. Is it okay to say “YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT” as reaction on bad ideas in the public sphere? Would choosing such a reaction instead of a discussion cross a threshold?
So allowing the above as reasonable, would any of that be “out to destroy religion”? Isn’t the case that religion is selfdestructive if any of that would harm it? Should one make an attempt to lie and be passive in order to not “destroy religion”?
“Secularist position “Eh, religion, whatever. Just don’t teach it in public schools”.”
Besides asserting “the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion”, secularism also means “a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact” (Wikipedia). As such, a secularist have the possibility to comment and critique religion.
Torbjorn–the only time your comment touches upon if someone is out to destroy religion is in the last part. The question here is not if it is rational or reasonable to “be out to destroy religion”, but simply if PZ’s actions suggest that he is. To continue a previous example, I think it is both rational and reasonable to be out to destroy racism. I am personally ambivilent on religion–I think it helps some people get through their day, although I also think that some people do some pretty awful things in its name and that it is largely silly.
And PZ’s comment “YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT” was directed at all who profess this particularly demented idea, not just those who do so in the public sphere. And yes, you could say that I am out to destroy apocalypsism (is that a real word?)
And I have no idea why that comment come out as mostly in passive mode. Perhaps it’s because I’m running a fever. Well, feel free to convert my questions to aggressive propositions as you wish.
Shygetz,
I was trying to say that if it is reasonable to make any of the things on the list, it isn’t clear if someone acting that ways is out to “destroy religion” first and foremost. I also claim that religion in this sense is self destructive. So the “destroy religion” reaction is worse than the “YOU ARE A DEMENTED FUCKWIT” one, really.
You are right on the comment. Strike “public sphere”.
Still, though… PZ Myers is “out to destroy religion?” Har-har.
Destroy religion?
How can you destroy beliefs that exists only in the brains of certain groups of humans?
Even if you “exterminated them all” it doesn’t take much for some other human to imagine the same fantastical crap, write it up in a book, and start a new religion.
Whatever. That Eugenie Scott is happy to pull punches in favor of religious pandering is old news. Francis Collins wears his Christianity on his sleeve so it’s inevitable that some bullshit is going to trickle out his mouth.
Now I think you are splitting hairs (or perhaps I am). I wouldn’t want to outlaw alcohol, but I’d love to destroy drunk driving.
Thank you for making the point so eloquently. Talking about “destroying religion” is just as stupid talking about as “destroying drunk driving” or “destroying oral sex.”
By convincing the population that those beliefs are not worth holding, through means either foul or fair (or both). For example, geocentrism, flat-earth, and hopefully (some day relatively soon) young Earth creationism. While the former two may still exist in a very minor component of the population, they could definitely be said to be destroyed (to at least the same value as smallpox has been eradicated). Same with alchemy, the idea of the humours, etc.
For example, geocentrism, flat-earth, and hopefully (some day relatively soon) young Earth creationism. While the former two may still exist in a very minor component of the population,
Are you kidding me? Please define “minor” and what population are you referring to. Surely you aren’t referring to the human population of planet earth.
Those definitions are *or* and not *and*. And secularism as defined by major civil rights groups like the ACLU is clearly the first and not the second definition; they have no problems with individual people making decisions based on religion so long as the government (and government-controlled institutions like public schools) doesn’t try to impose it on the unwilling; indeed the ACLU makes a point of the fact that the majority of their members are not in fact atheists (they are often falsely accused of being an atheistic organization when they defend the rights of atheists and non-Christians in general).
This is quite a different viewpoint than that of those who wish to propagandize against religion. There is nothing morally “wrong” with wanting to propagandize against religion (although I suspect it may do more harm than good in the battle against Creationism), but they *are* different.
“Those definitions are *or* and not *and*.”
Of course.
“And secularism as defined by major civil rights groups like the ACLU is clearly the first and not the second definition; ”
I don’t know how civil rights groups define it, but I accept your claim – it seems reasonable.
“they have no problems with individual people making decisions based on religion so long as the government (and government-controlled institutions like public schools) doesn’t try to impose it on the unwilling;”
But here we seem to arrive at the same conclusion on what secularists may do. Ie have the reasonable possibility to comment and critique religion.
“propagandize against religion.”
For me, that would be something like special pleading, for example ask for a privilieged position for nonreligionists.
Conversely, if commenting and critiqueing religion would be to “propagandize against religion”, I think that is special pleading.
Com$tock: The phrase “the moral law” is often taken from Kant, who (long story) regarded as basically the only argument in favour of god. (Kant, contrary to popular belief, was profoundly agnostic about religions, and his theism was not traditional.) You might want to try an online philosophy encyclopedia to read about this – it is quite involved.
MN_Chemist: However, there’s a case to be made that philosophy and science overlap in the realm that is the most general questions about reality and so on. I’ve written about that here previously; you may also consult my web page for more on this. Here’s one particular question: what is the most basic stuff? Matter? Minds? Nothing? Something else? This is a traditional metaphysical question, but someone who ignores (say) contemporary neuroscience in answering this is going to produce an obselete (at best) answer.
Bronze Dog: You want (as I do) to make the amount of religion in the world asymptotically zero by (in the limit) rendering it intellectually indefensible, emotionally unnecessary and socially redundant. Right? :)
In my experiences, theists get that impression because:
a) Not knowing any atheists personally (or at least none who are willing to admit to it around them), their main familiarity with atheists is via the public antics of the more outspoken types, especially the ones using the courts to “eliminate religion” (from the view of the theists) such as by removing “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance or from coins, objecting to prayer in schools or other public venues, etc. etc., or via atheists like Dawkins denouncing religion in the same tone as one would denounce pedophilia, etc.
b) Theists are often told (or reflexively believe) that “atheists” are responsible for [fill in the blank] evil or social ill or “attacks on religion” (real or imagined), even when the actual beliefs of the alleged perpetrators are unknown (because gosh, no fellow theist would ever do such a thing…)
c) A lot of theists seem to love a good persecution complex, so even minor slights (including “could you not preach in my face, please?”) are elevated to the status of being fed to the lions or attempts to “destroy religion”.
For numerous examples of these kinds of dynamics, see for instance the book: Persecution : How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity
If I may borrow the form of a phrase,
“Hate the belief, not the believer.”
Well, unless the believer themselves is a demented fulani.
There, that’s my Swahili practice for the day :)
To critique religion is quite a different thing than to propagandize against it. For example, even practicising Catholics may critique the Pope’s views on contraception as outdated and state their desire that a more progressive Pope should be chosen next time. To propagandize against religion is to argue that religion is stupid or evil; the goal isn’t to provide useful comments or criticisms.
“To critique religion is quite a different thing than to propagandize against it.”
It seems we agree.
“For example, even practicising Catholics may critique the Pope’s views on contraception as outdated and state their desire that a more progressive Pope should be chosen next time.”
Good examples.
“To propagandize against religion is to argue that religion is stupid or evil; the goal isn’t to provide useful comments or criticisms.”
I guess here is the area of contention. Personally, I feel that “stupid” and “evil” may be objective criticism. It is nicer to say “irrational, indefensible and superstitious” and “authorative and unneccessarily harmful” but it amounts to the same thing, and may be used to good effect.
I guess I’m not the nicest person, since I support PZ’s antics here. OTOH I understand if someone thinks this is too strong language.
“authorative and unneccessarily harmful”
Erhm! In order to be “evil” it should really be morally bad. Better add that to the list.
Whether or not Dawkins is “Helping the cause” is immaterial. He poses some great questions about the value of religion in society, and whether or not we would be better without it than we are with it.
I say that we are better without it and that people would see that morality is necessary not because “God created it” but as a means of continuance of the species. While I admire atheist scientists that are willing to work with non-atheists in protecting science from intrusion by religion; I think that the things that strident atheists have to say are very important and they do “help our cause.”
Remember, provocative speech is more interesting than speech which urges “common ground.” Dawkins public and frequent attacks on religion are very important because it helps pierce the assumption that we have to accept the dominance of religion in public life. One hopes that more piercings over a long enough period of time, will eventually lead to the understanding that secular society is more peaceful when one religion doesn’t dominate.
Causing unnecessary harm *is* morally bad. At least, as much as anything can be said to be “objectively” morally bad. (Moral badness isn’t observable and it’s therefore difficult, or impossible, to rigorously define in a non-arbitrary way.)
Yes, exactly. Most religious proponents are dupes, victims of a self-perpetuating belief system that undermines their ability to think. Few are actively and intentionally promoting views they know to be false.
How can they see all the evidence disproving their claims and still believe them to be true? Because they have been taught not to look at evidence but to stay “true” to their beliefs.
I want to destroy the virus, not its hosts.
“Destroying religion” isn’t the goal of Mr. Myers: the goal is understanding the empirical world. If that understanding destroys religion, it is an incidental by-product, not a deliberate design.
In much the same way, understanding of the germ theory of disease “destroys” the mechanisms of homeopathy, though that is not an explicit goal of germ theory.
Or he could mean something else altogether.
“Causing unnecessary harm *is* morally bad.”
Yes. I was too cautious.