Actually, in my experience the decay is spread everywhere
A commenter made me aware of a conflict I’d completely missed. The FFRF, an organization I’ve always appreciated, published an article by Jerry Coyne. It was the usual anti-trans, anti-scientific, hateful heap of bogosity; the FFRF retracted it, too late; Coyne was chagrined by the retraction; and I just missed it all. Here’s a good summary.
If you believe gender-related issues are tangential to atheism, I assure you that religious conservatives believe the topic is perfectly intertwined with their faith. Just as they used religion to fight marriage equality and abortion rights, they’re using the Book of Genesis in defense of their anti-trans beliefs. If you don’t want religion dictating our laws, and you believe LGBTQ people deserve civil rights, then you understand why these are issues atheist activists ought to care about.
And yet some prominent figures in our loose movement have spent years arguing the opposite, allowing white evangelicals to control the debate on LGBTQ rights—and often taking their side. Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True and Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible, is another one of those atheists who has spent years spreading anti-trans rhetoric on his website. His blog is now mostly a cesspool of blockquotes from his favorite conservative writers. A deep dive through his “sex and gender” posts will rid you of any respect you may have had for him. (Coyne gave a similar anti-trans talk at the Center For Inquiry’s CSICon in October. Dr. Steven Novella, who spoke at the same event, rebutted it here.)
Accurate. That’s one of my complaints about the atheist movement. Coyne is still a member of FFRF’s honorary board; Richard Dawkins is still a big name in the atheist community; his handpicked agent, Robyn Blumner, still runs CSI. The rot isn’t just a scattered subset of the community, it’s rooted deep in the leadership, and it’s not going anywhere soon. It makes me wary of wading into even the shallow end of the pool.
As I pointed out on the Discord yesterday Coyne, Dawkins, AND Pinker are on said board:
https://ffrf.org/about/staff-and-board/honorary-board/honorary-board/
Slightly OT to start.
I have been an atheist since I was 12 (in 1968). My father made a deal with me, he would read one of my books if I read one of his. That included all 27 books of Halliburton’s translation of the Arabian Nights. That led to a deep dive into mythology. That led to history and the comparison of local gods/heroes and the way the Catholic Church repurposed them.
So…how the hell do you use Genesis to substantiate anti-trans? Eve was Adam’s clone, and then god switched the gender. So WhyTF do these people that claim to follow the bible have such a problem with trans?
These folks don’t have any point except hatred and punishment for their phobias.
And thank you. I found you early when you started, and you have helped keep my sanity through all the iterations of atheists that were just disguised bigots.
Slightly OT to start.
I have been an atheist since I was 12 (in 1968). My father made a deal with me, he would read one of my books if I read one of his. That included all 27 books of Halliburton’s translation of the Arabian Nights. That led to a deep dive into mythology. That led to history and the comparison of local gods/heroes and the way the Catholic Church repurposed them.
So…how the hell do you use Genesis to substantiate anti-trans? Eve was Adam’s clone, and then god switched the gender. So WhyTF do these people that claim to follow the bible have such a problem with trans?
These folks don’t have any point except hatred and punishment for their phobias.
And thank you. I found you early when you started, and you have helped keep my sanity through all the iterations of atheists that were just disguised bigots.
That’s what happens when you prioritize Famous Atheists.
At this point I’m caught between feeling suspicion towards atheists who continue to associate with atheist orgs, and feeling respect towards the very same atheists for continuing to fight from within. Props to them for pressuring FFRF to retract.
I just listened to a podcast where a Neo-Nazi group had a bit of a freakout when one of their members was a trans-man: https://www.didnothingwrongpod.com/p/episode-165-what-is-a-woman-dont
These “bare minimum” atheists can piss off for all I care. Yes we have read the dictionary, now grow some values or get the fuck away.
@Lethe
“So…how the hell do you use Genesis to substantiate anti-trans? Eve was Adam’s clone, and then god switched the gender.”
Actually some Biblical interpretations have the original Adam as intersex and they were split to create Eve and the later Adam (see Bereishit Rabba 8:1, circa 500 CE).
Why do some old Atheists turn hard Right in old age? I find myself, in my 80th year, more left wing than I was at 20!
I think it’s complicated. Some may have always been conservative but have over time increasingly cared less about what others thought of them.
Lethe @ # 2: … all 27 books of Halliburton’s translation of the Arabian Nights.
Perhaps you mean Richard F. Burton‘s translation? (Not the actor, but the 19th-century explorer/adventurer/scholar of the same name.)
Or maybe the guy(?) who named the oil-drilling etc corporation after him(?)self also translated books, I dunno… I only made it through the first four volumes of Sir Richard’s version, IIRC. Not stuff for most young kids…
They are atheists, no?
I don’t get why that’s not enough, but then I don’t get why people would organise about atheism, either.
Anyway, for them, PZ is not the proper sort of atheist, and for PZ, they are not the right sort of atheist.
(Atheism — just do it!)
Probably fair to say that any Bible point of view about transsexuality comes very much from what people read into it. Of crouse, that’s true of most of the things people believe are in the Bible. That may be particularly true of the creation myths in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 & 3. They are not from the same era. Genesis 2 & 3 is thought to be an older version of the narrative in which god’s creation is flawed. Genesis 1 is a latter update in which what god creates god sees as “good”, and also creates man and woman at the same time.
Why this need to form and join organizations you think aspire to the same things you do?
Part of the problem with organized religion is the “organized” part. In society, people with an agenda need to organize to get things done. As an introvert, my default mode is staying away from groups of people, including those with some agenda. Any organization is going to have, schisms, outliers, and its share of bigots and assholes. Organized atheism is no exception.
flange, political reasons for those who care about having representation for atheists — same as any other minority.
But that’s politics, not atheism.
@12 John Morales
Why do members of a highly social species organize around anything, like Star Trek fandom or home owners associations? I dunno, though seems with atheists it might be a shared perception of a beleaguered minority with a stake in the game of church-state separation…a politics of identity like any other.
Funny that some opinion leaders of atheism in the 21st century make an identity out of decrying identity politics then engage in the thing they mock. Some of them lump together under the right-leaning banner of Atheists for Liberty. Or they express such right-leaning tendencies under the badge of antiwokeness.
In addition to the political or civil rights aspects people lacking a church to attend still crave affiliation or social cohesion. Atheist or freethought groups provide that though this goes against the apparent trend of becoming unaffiliated, so maybe lumping atheists with “nones” as survey based categorization is a misnomer.
Are you a hermit or loner? You’re drawn here obviously as are others. For some atheism is part of that allure.
See, when you write “opinion leaders of atheism” I can tell you don’t get what I am saying.
Atheism does not entail gregariousness.
To imply that I’m suggesting that Coyne is not an atheist (or conversely, that Coyne thinks I’m not) is an irritating attempt at distraction. That is not and has never been the issue.
John Morales
Maybe such things don’t work that way for you. Could you see someone identifying as an atheist, since they lack belief in deities, and that identity drives part of their political behaviors? Lacking a belief in deities may make them wish to prevent being coerced into some overtly or covertly theistic behavior like standing for an opening prayer at a government meeting or taking an oath instead of affirmation in a court of law perhaps?
Someone may OTOH be mostly apolitical, so could their atheist identity drive them into joining an atheist or freethought group to meet likeminded people? Or follow a blog?
Maybe such things don’t appeal to you personally but can you project your strict view on what atheism means onto others?
[hopefully with PZ’s tolerance, more explanatory than pedantic, I hope]
Hemidactylus,
Q: Could you see someone identifying as an atheist, since they lack belief in deities, and that identity drives part of their political behaviors?
A: My identity is far more complex and nuanced than a mere attribute. So, no.
(One can be an atheist without identifying as an atheist, externally.
I was an altar-boy until I was 15, but I always identified as ‘me’)
Q: Lacking a belief in deities may make them wish to prevent being coerced into some overtly or covertly theistic behavior like standing for an opening prayer at a government meeting or taking an oath instead of affirmation in a court of law perhaps?
A: Sure. But that’s temperament, not ideology.
(Anthropology and sociology, not atheism)
Q: Maybe such things don’t appeal to you personally but can you project your strict view on what atheism means onto others?
A: Of course not. That’s the problem, this projection of some strict view.
Here’s my succinct view:
Atheism is a privative term, and uses the a- prefix to denote a lack of some attribute.
Theism is fancy talk for goddism; the belief in a personal god (or gods) that care about you.
(You know the old droll observation about others seeing your not being a stamp collector as your hobby?)
So that’s my “strict” view; but if you don’t care to share it, it bothers me not at all.
It’s my own view, of course. I’m not one of those whose opinions are borrowed from opinionators.
Righto.
Regarding PZ’s stance and the (in my mind, failed) Atheism+ experiment; yes, since atheism by definition allows for no god-given strictures or morality or ethos or whatever, the only remaining source of such things is humanism. Humanism in the broadest sense; that is, the best people themselves can come up with given their milieu and their circumstances.
That obviously has implications about social and political belief structures.
Also, the conflation between skepticism and atheism is a bit unfortunate.
(For example, one can be a total atheist yet be utterly credulous about other stuff; I know more than one apatheist in that category)
flange–
Lots of people enjoy doing things with others who share their interests, and some endeavours require the organised effort of many people to achieve. That’s why organisations exist. The problem with organised religion is not the organised part, it’s the authoritarian heirarchy part. Secular organisations with unaccountable power structures are just as guilty of protecting abusers such as Olympic gymnastics program doctors or football coaches or BBC hosts or Miramax producers or FOX News execs.
[related, contextual, topical]
Interesting snippet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Spirituality_and_philosophy
—
It is my personal belief that when people claim agnosticism, they really are atheists.
They just don’t want to, ahem, identify as such.
That’s the very simplicity of my definition; they do not believe in gods, so they qualify as atheistic.
Yes, they also do not disbelieve in gods, but that’s not part of my simple definition.
To sum up, I think too many people try to make this very simple concept very complicated and nuanced and full of implications.
It could hardly be simpler: “Do ya believe in God?”
(Discriminator is anything other than a yes)
John: It is my personal belief that when people claim atheism, they are really claiming a belief that there are no gods. Cue the silly word games.
“Cue the silly word games.”
Apparently, I’m considered the needler, Rob.
On the question of why all these people are conservative, i would point out that they are all white men. Mostly straight AFAIK
Religion has always been a less important axis of power than race and patriarchy
Looking at the very busy comments section on Mehta’s blog post, I see some of Coyne’s own regressive commenting thugs have invaded.
dangerousbeans —
And money. Not all of them are rich (I would expect Coyne to be comfortable but not wealthy on a prof’s salary), but quite a few are.
As I commented in the previous article ‘Do I want to hang out with atheists any more?’: ‘Wow, it seems as if bigotry is infiltrating everywhere.’ (as if any of us are completely free of biases and subtle bigotry) And, all the info about these organizations seems to confirm it. Our organization has been members of FFRF and we didn’t look at the honorary board, so we didn’t see the odious Jerry Coyne name on it. And, we do not like having our reputation compromised by association with bigots and hateful, intolerant people. We are going to have to pay attention to what transpires and consider renewal of our membership in FFRF very carefully. We don’t (to paraphrase PZ) want to wade into a cesspool. Are we correct in interpreting that the title of this article: ‘Why should I trust an organization that honors the worst among us?’ means that PZ’s opinion of FFRF has dropped like a rock?
Based on our evaluation (without consideration of the comments above) The clear distinction has been muddied, We see atheism is a statement about deities only. However, some atheists seem to espouse bigotry, hate and intolerance. Thus, we hesitate to be involved in organizations where they allow the waters to be easily muddied.
@14 flange wrote: Why this need to form and join organizations you think aspire to the same things you do? . . .Any organization is going to have, schisms. . .bigots and assholes
I reply: Good points. I have always thought that the reason for most organizations was to provide ‘strength in numbers’ to protect the members and better further their cause. And, while I agree that organizations can be (and some are) corrupted, I would hope that most organizations would be disciplined enough to prevent ‘rot from within’.
follow up to my @29: If I decide to be part of an organization, I need to look more closely for decency, honesty, tolerance, rationality (atheistic) and sufficient discipline to prevent ‘rot from within’.
It’s pretty obvious that people got into ‘movement atheism’ for a variety of reasons not having to do solely with their lack of belief in a deity. Being an atheist certainly doesn’t obligate one to engage with atheism as a political or social rallying point any more than an enjoyment of Star Trek requires one to attend conventions or do cosplay. Conversely, many athiests belong to religious communities, and simply participate there for their own reasons as well – some even serving as clergy.
Those of us who associated with what was then called New Atheism(blech) , loosely attached to the works of the ‘four horsemen’ (double-blech) all had our reasons. I was an edgy-post-teen Athiest who grew up with vague traces of family catholicism, but I just loved debate and discussion – and I could find lots of it with people in that movement. Friends from the era had different backgrounds, some had serious religious trauma, others had actually experienced religiously-based state oppression. We came because we liked the company. And most of us left when the company turned sour.
I look with some embarassment at my consumption of books/media from around that era: Hitchens (erudite but pretentious and warmongering), Harris (right about christianity, obsessed with his hatred of Islam, Muslims and lately immigrants), Dawkins (at his heart, a Tory. Rebellious only so far as it wouldn’t threaten his standing with the upper classes. Bigot.) Bhogossian (what the hell happened to him?)…. the list goes on. But hopefully we all get to grow up and move on.
About the only thing from that era that I still consume is, aptly, this blog. When the rest of them started succumbing to the rot flowing down from the head, PZ didn’t. That’s why I stuck around. Didn’t really comment for years though, but I’ve been here since the consecrated host.
@ snarkhuntr
Very good comment. And spot on pithy characterizations.