Rob Knop on Gnu Athiests

[Ghel]

He then goes on to suppose that his own suggestion might seem "outrageous," but goes on to say that it isn't at all.

That's him anticipating an objection and responding to it before it's made.

He could have said the same thing in a manner that doesn't appear to have been written more for the shock value than for the honest sharing of ideas or insights.

It says a lot about your way of thinking that you consider those quotes "shock value".

It is true that it is impossible to tell someone nicely that they've wasted their lives. No amount of tact is going to help when you say "there's no good reason to believe that a god exists." The person is going to feel hurt, but what you're telling them is the truth. And it is almost always better to face the truth than to believe a comfortable delusion.

Plus, now he's likening those who follow religion to dogs. A step up from parasite-puppets, but still not particularly respectful.

A step up? In what way? A life is a life. No living thing is more evolved than another. No living thing is intrinsically better than another. Both creatures must cause harm to other living things in order to survive. And to my way of thinking, it is better to be a wild creature than a domesticated one.

And I would rather be compared to an ant or a dog than a sheep, which is what the Abrahamic religions call their followers.

[Andara Bledin]

There's a difference between respectful disagreement and disparagement.

Where that line is, as you've noted, is difficult to determine.

However, I think an atheist would react to being referred to as an "unfeeling, unimaginitive machine" along the same lines as one who was religious being called a "credulous, irrational worshiper of some sky fairy."

You mention Daniel Dennett specifically and about how he "went out of his way to be fair and polite." And yet, in the very opening of his book, he calls religion (among other things) a host-destructive parasite and then goes on to make sweeping generalizations about "good" Christians and Jews. For good measure, he also includes secular humanists who fight for Democracy, Justice, and Truth, too, so nobody can feel picked on, I guess.

From his book, Chapter 1, the opening paragraphs (note: due to the way quotes are italicized, I have tried to replace all italics with bolding):

You watch an ant in a meadow, laboriously climbing up a blade of grass, higher and higher until it falls, then climbs again, and again, like Sisyphus rolling his rock, always striving to reach the top. Why is the ant doing this? What benefit is it seeking for itself in this strenuous and unlikely activity? Wrong question, as it turns out. No biological benefit accrues to the ant. It is not trying to get a better view of the territory or seeking food or showing off to a potential mate, for instance. Its brain has been commandeered by a tiny parasite, a lancet fluke (Dicrocelium dendriticum), that needs to get itself into the stomach of a sheep or a cow in order to compete its reproductive cycle. This little brain work is driving the ant into position to benefit its progeny, not the ant's. This is not an isolated phenomenon. Similarly manipulative parasites infect fish, and mice, among other species. These hitchhikers cause their hosts to behave in unlikely - even suicidal - ways, all for the benefit of the guest, not the host.

Does anything like this ever happen with human beings? Yes indeed. We often find human beings setting aside their personal interests, their health, their chances to have children, and devoting their entire lives to furthering the interests of an idea that has lodged in their brains. The Arabic word islam means "submission," and every good Muslim bears witness, prays five times a day, gives alms, fasts during Ramadan, and tries to make the pilgrimage, or hajj, to Mecca, all on behalf of the idea of Allah, and Muhammad, the messenger of Allah. Christians and Jews do likewise, of course, devoting their lives to spreading the Word, making huge sacrifices, suffering bravely, risking their lives for an idea. So do Sikhs and Hindus and Buddhists. And don't forget the many thousands of secular humanists who have given their lives for Democracy, or Justice, or just plain Truth. There are many ideas to die for.

He then goes on to suppose that his own suggestion might seem "outrageous," but goes on to say that it isn't at all.

The comparison with which I began, between a parasitic worm invading an ant's brain and an idea invading a human brain, probably seems both far-fetched and outrageous. Unlike worms, ideas aren't alive, and don't invade brains; they are created by minds. True on both counts, but these are not as telling objections as they first appear. Ideas aren't alive; they can't see where they're going and have no limbs with which to steer a host brain even if they could see. True, but a lancet fluke isn't exactly a rocket scientist either; it's no more intelligent than a carrot, really; it doesn't even have a brain. What it has is just the good fortune of being endowed with features that affect ant brains in this useful way whenever it comes in contact with them. (These features are like the eye spots on butterfly wings that sometimes fool predatory birds into thinking some big animal is looking at them. The birds are scared away and the butterflies are the beneficiaries, but are none the wiser for it.) An inert idea, if it were designed just right, might have a beneficial effect on a brain without having to know it was doing so! And if it did, it might prosper because it had that design.

This is not the way to inspire anyone who doesn't already share your ideas to be amenable to hearing them out. He could have said the same thing in a manner that doesn't appear to have been written more for the shock value than for the honest sharing of ideas or insights.

I also find it amusing that he likens the dog's relationship to man as similar to man's relationship to God (I will assume he refers to the Judeo-Christian God based on the capitalization, as he makes no distinction) and says, "The dogs of today are the offspring of the dogs our ancestors most loved and admired in the past; without even trying to breed for loyalty, they managed to do so, bringing out the best (by their lights, by our lights) in our companion animals. Did we unconsciously model this devotion to a master on our own devotion to God? Were we shaping dogs in our own image? Perhaps, but then where did we get our devotion to God?" And yet, dogs have been domesticated for 15,000 years, while the Judeo-Christian God has only been a concept for less than 1/5 of that time. This is quite sloppy in someone who is wants to be regarded as some form of authority on the subject. Plus, now he's likening those who follow religion to dogs. A step up from parasite-puppets, but still not particularly respectful.

To be honest. after reading several pages, I don't think his writing style is capable of being inoffensive to any subject he doesn't agree with. But while he's preaching to the choir, if you'll pardon the phrase, it's quite suitable.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Again, how do you expect atheists to behave, then? Do you expect them to hide their views on religion when every religion in the world is vying for the attention of the masses? Do you expect them to keep silent when religions and religious individuals are doing objectively harmful things in the name of their religion?

You mentioned newatheist.org. Even though it's clearly a website of personal bookmarks, I wanted to draw attention to the first video on the site. It's a 2007 video called "The Four Horsemen," in which Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens discuss issues that are important to them. They start the discussion complaining about how they're frequently accused of being strident, arrogant, shrill or vitriolic in their advocacy for atheism. Dennett mentions that in his latest book, he went out of his way to be fair and polite towards religion, putting the book through several revisions, and he was still accused of being combative. He notes that religions have made it impossible to disagree with them without being rude.

And that's the point, really. We humans can have heated debates about almost any subject (sports, politics, preferred OS, etc.) and come away from the debate still friends. But once the subject of religion comes up, it's either off-limits or those who are critical of religion are declared rude. There's no good reason that the subject of religion should be immune from criticism. If a particular religion or religious person is doing something that's clearly harmful, it's right to call attention to it. If a particular religious dogma is contrary to reality, it's right to call it out. And despite religious individuals' accusations, it is not rude to do so.

[Andara Bledin]

Bingo.

Religious people are going to be turned off of science due to the vocal disparagement a number of notable individuals as well as random unknowns they encounter have to say regarding religion, even if those people are the minority.

Precisely in the same manner that science-minded people are going to be turned off of religion based on the quite vocal opposition made by what is, unarguable, a minority of actual religious people.

Too many people can't manage to separate the two fields. Hell, most people in North America can't manage to get past that there's a religion other than the many flavors of Christianity. But attacking their faith is only going to make them more likely to cling to it in defense. It's counterproductive to attack the faith of someone if your ultimate goal is to somehow pry them away from that faith.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

All sorts of people make statements about science. You and I have both made statements about science, as have probably half of the people registered to this forum.

So you mean that if I say something disparaging about religion, such as that most religious claims are false, then I say something about science, such as that evolution is as close to scientific fact as we ever get in science, that a religious person reading both those statements isn't going to believe me about evolution. Well, I don't expect them to. I'm not an authority on anything. (Not that arguments from authority are acceptable in science.) I would hope that any statements I make regarding science would encourage people to do some research themselves. Read about what the current scientific consensus is. Read what experiments and research have been done. But I don't expect anybody to take my word for it.

Now if we were talking about a published scientist (Richard Dawkins, say) and he says something to the effect of: we don't need to posit a God to explain the current state of our existence, evolution by natural selection explains it quite nicely, it is possible that religious folks won't accept his statements regarding evolution because of his statements regarding religion. But I don't see how that is Dawkins' fault. Is he supposed to remain silent regarding his views on religion just because some people disagree with him? Is he supposed to defer to theists just because they're the majority? Is he supposed to say "Go ahead and believe in your Bronze Age myths - they're still relevant in modern society."? Is he supposed to say "There's boatloads of evidence for evolution, and there's not a dollop of evidence for God, but that's ok, let's base our research on the Bible anyway"?

Science and religion don't get along. That's a fact. We're only talking about attitude because that's the last thing that religions can complain about. Any other claim about reality falls under the purview of science.

[Hyena Dandy]

Can we skip all the talking about who does and doesn't call themselves a new atheist? The point isn't what they or anyone else call themselves.

If it'll help the point, we can change the name to something else. How about spaceships. Or grapefruits. Or power rings.

The point is that we're trying to talk about the attitudes, not just the term and whether it does or does not apply in any specific case.

[Andara Bledin]

It's interesting to note that of the referenced links that are supposed to support that "New Atheism" is a movement, none quote any atheists applying the term "New Atheism" to themselves. It's always non-atheists applying the term to atheists.

You keep getting hung up on the label. Screw the label. The label is merely a shortcut, the meaning of which has been explained to the point of absurdity already. Whether you or anyone that the label may describe agrees with the label is completely irrelevant. Merely a straw man.

Well, who else do you expect religious individuals to hear statements about science from? I'm still trying to understand who it is that you think is making both anti-religious statements and statements about science AND who would be listened to by religious individuals.

All sorts of people make statements about science. You and I have both made statements about science, as have probably half of the people registered to this forum.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

2) Well, we could go with the wiki article on New Atheism, instead. It may not be accurate all the time, but it is a good representation of how the populace at large thinks.

It's interesting to note that of the referenced links that are supposed to support that "New Atheism" is a movement, none quote any atheists applying the term "New Atheism" to themselves. It's always non-atheists applying the term to atheists.

3) I said individuals and I meant individuals in both instances. If I had meant teachers or students, I would have used those words.

Well, who else do you expect religious individuals to hear statements about science from? I'm still trying to understand who it is that you think is making both anti-religious statements and statements about science AND who would be listened to by religious individuals.

[Andara Bledin]

2) Well, we could go with the wiki article on New Atheism, instead. It may not be accurate all the time, but it is a good representation of how the populace at large thinks.

3) I said individuals and I meant individuals in both instances. If I had meant teachers or students, I would have used those words.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

2) Seems that the people behind NewAtheist.org disagree.

People? All I see is a website created by one person that has no original content, only links to a bunch of atheism-related videos and websites. That's not a movement, it's someone's personal set of bookmarks.

3) You've mis-interpreted the position. Religious individuals are less likely to accept the statements regarding science from individuals who also express anti-religious sentiments. Regardless of why this is the case, it is still the case.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Are you saying that you think science teachers should avoid making anti-religious statements in the classroom in order to avoid closing the minds of religious students to scientific principals? If that's the case, I agree. Neither pro-religious nor anti-religious statements should be made in a science classroom.

4) I suppose I'll have to buy the book, scan it, and highlight every instance for you, since you have no interest in spending money to learn more about positions which you do not already support.

Don't go out of your way for me. If cases of this sort of discrimination were more prevalent in scientific fields than in other fields, I would think we'd hear about it. If Eklund's book collected this sort of data, I would think that it would be mentioned in one of the book reviews or articles she's written. Where are the statistic showing how many discrimination lawsuits have been brought by scientists against their employers compared to workers in other fields?

[Andara Bledin]

1) The only place religion should be taught is in courses that are specifically structured to be about education on the subject of religion. Of course, it would be nice if the reverse were true: That science not be brought into classrooms (et al) where the topic is religion.

2) Seems that the people behind NewAtheist.org disagree.

3) You've mis-interpreted the position. Religious individuals are less likely to accept the statements regarding science from individuals who also express anti-religious sentiments. Regardless of why this is the case, it is still the case.

4) I suppose I'll have to buy the book, scan it, and highlight every instance for you, since you have no interest in spending money to learn more about positions which you do not already support.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

We’re discussing several different points here, and it looks like we’re getting confused as to which discussion item goes with which point. So I’ve decided to make a numbered list to hopefully clear up any confusion. Feel free to add numbered points to this list.

1. I hope we can all agree that religion should not be taught in science classrooms. The only place it belongs is in social science classes (as AA already pointed out), perhaps in a comparative religion class.

I also hope we can all agree that proselytization should not be allowed in public schools.

2. Some individuals express anti-religious sentiments. This point I will concede. It is obvious that this happens, but what hasn’t been demonstrated is that it’s part of some concerted movement (such as Knop’s claims about “New Atheism”). Also, it does not follow that

3. Individuals expressing anti-religious sentiments prevent religious individuals from accepting science. Not only has this not been demonstrated, it seems extremely unlikely. The more likely culprit seems to be religious indoctrination and the magical thinking that goes along with it.

4. Scientists expressing anti-religious sentiments actively discriminate against religious scientists solely on the basis that they’re religious. This has not been demonstrated. The one detailed example given says only that she "is in so much fear of discrimination herself that she won't even discuss her religion in a scientific setting”. Unless her research has something to do with religion, there’s no reason for her to discuss religion in the workplace. Additionally, this doesn't say that she was discriminated against, only that she feared discrimination.

It is possible, even likely, that scientists who frequently express support for false or untestable religious claims are seen as lacking critical thinking skills, and thus could be passed up for promotion or tenure indirectly because of their religious beliefs. I could see colleagues expressing concerns about bias in overtly religious scientists’ research. But if there were discrimination solely based on the individual’s religious affiliation, we should expect to see lawsuits, since that is one of the protected categories for which discrimination is prohibited.

[Andara Bledin]

And I still haven't. You haven't linked your references.

I can't link to a book. The previews available through Google and Amazon are not only not linkable but change fairly quickly, so beyond giving page numbers from the work in question, there is nothing to link.

That was my thought exactly. If you can't demonstrate that the behaviors in question are actually counter-productive, then we have nothing further to discuss.

Ecklund wrote a whole book about the topic based on years of research.

It would also help the discussion if you would stop ignoring the statements that you either can't or won't support with evidence.

This discussion is supposed to be about specific attitudes and how they affect the general acceptance of science by the populace at large.

From Science & Religion Today: "As with the first celebration in 2006, hundreds of congregations around the globe are planning to take steps to elevate the quality of the dialogue about the compatibility of religion and science."

It's not even necessary for those attitudes to actually exist (although it's undeniable that they do, if even for only a small fraction of the population), as much as merely the perception of their existence.

There is an interesting essay at the Progressive Living website titled Religion, Science, and Philosophy: Putting an End to the Culture War.

Any attitude that is prejudicially disposed to dismiss the value of any mode of thought out of hand is doing a disservice to anything they then attempt to endorse. With that in mind, anti-religious sentiment is not conducive to the acceptance of scientific advancement in the community at large, the majority of which are and will continue to be religious in some fashion.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

You said you didn't see "any mention of discrimination."

And I still haven't. You haven't linked your references.

Please stop moving the goalposts.

I apologize. I was not very specific when I asked for references to discrimination. I should have explained better. A single case (or even "several cases") does not demonstrate that the scientific community is systematically discriminating against religious individuals who would otherwise have successful carreers in scientific fields. I said I hadn't seen any mention of discrimination because, if there was some discrimination going on, I would have expected to see it mentioned in at least one of the articles that had been linked so far.

Either a person can understand the issue or they can't; continued repetition is no more useful than banging one's head against a wall.

That was my thought exactly. If you can't demonstrate that the behaviors in question are actually counter-productive, then we have nothing further to discuss.

It would also help the discussion if you would stop ignoring the statements that you either can't or won't support with evidence.

[Andara Bledin]

You said you didn't see "any mention of discrimination." I gave you a mention of discrimination. Please stop moving the goalposts.

Since I've already quoted Knop in answer to your second question after linking the article where he spent the first three paragraphs defining precisely who he is referring to, and then paraphrased it myself in this very thread, I don't see any point in doing so again. Either a person can understand the issue or they can't; continued repetition is no more useful than banging one's head against a wall.

^-.-^