Rob Knop on Gnu Athiests

[Sleepwalker]

I can't think of anyone in this thread who acts like that either.

"I really see little difference between the "New Atheists" and religious extremists.

To these guys, science becomes their religion, and heresy is something to be put down as ruthlessly as Galileo was."


After which you replied, agreeing. Having been equated with the inquisition and a word usually relating to terrorists, but lacking thumbscrews, c4 and pitch, I must withdraw.

Civility. Ahh, religion.

[Andara Bledin]

Reading the article you linked, and another describing her recent book, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think, it appears that advanced learning really has no appreciable effect on whether a person is religious. Which means that those who go into advanced science are skewed heavily towards those who are less religious.

Here is an article she wrote late last year at Big Questions Online. In it she explains that it wasn't religion that quit science, but that science became hostile to religion, to it's detriment, and of society at large.

At the center of these secularizing movements was science, and as religious ideas were subjected to the same kind of rigorous scientific scrutiny as other ideas were, they began to decrease in prominence. Soon, the academy was generally free from religious influence or support, and many scientists took up their own value system in which science was considered the superior form of knowledge. At the university level, the sciences stopped needing to engage with religion in any meaningful way.

These reforms were not without costs, historian Julie Reuben points out. Efforts to create a scientific objectivity that was also value neutral ultimately failed, she says, leading instead to a complete separation of facts and values. Science, considered to be completely fact-based, was separated from more humanistic fields such as English and history. And this separation left scientists with little vocabulary for thinking about the moral implications of their research or what kind of public translation of science works well.

This supports Knop's statement that hostility towards religion is counter-productive to the advancement of science, with her final comment being, "Such an initiative would be a forceful step toward waging peace on the science-and-religion battleground and advancing the public transmission of science."

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I interpreted that quote completely differently. What "there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences" says to me is that people who have had a religious upbringing find that science is in conflict with their beliefs, and thus decline to enter into a scientific field. That seems to me a large factor in why religion beliefs are less likely to be followed by scientists.

[Andara Bledin]

No, I said that Knop provided no evidence that atheists were behaving the way he was claiming.

Fair enough. Although I've also realized that it's entirely irrelevant to the overall point that such attitudes, regardless of who displays them, are counterproductive to acceptance, advancement, and growth.

So, obviously, there's more than one reason that scientists are less likely to be religious than the rest of the population.

Actually, this quote also supports the basic gist of the post - that such attitudes harm the adoption of science by those who are religious.

So, on one side, those who are religious people who avoid science do to the prevailing attitudes, and those that do go forward aren't comfortable stating that they are. A lose/lose proposition for both science and truth.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Ghel, you said there was no proof people acted like that.

No, I said that Knop provided no evidence that atheists were behaving the way he was claiming.

I posted the link to the blog post because I happen to agree that the actions highlighted in the "common behaviors" he attributes to "new/gnu atheists" are counterproductive to getting those who specifically aren't already atheists or considering discarding their religion will be turned away from everything associated with the messengers, regardless of the validity of any message they bring.

Again, Knop has not demonstrated that this is the case. Nor have you. I have never claimed to represent any community. All opinions I express are mine alone. If anybody else shares those opinions, it is largely coincidence.

First you claim that he "never specifies" who he's talking about when he spend the first three paragraphs doing only that. Then you state that if he's going to attribute these actions to "new/gnu theists" that he needs citations.

That's right. He never names names. He cites no references. He links no links to the behaviors he's claiming. He makes generalizations and bald claims which he refuses to back up, even when he's called on it in the comments on his own blog.

I provided you with citations based on your own activities here because you're one of the few vocal atheists I have any contact with, and so now it's no longer about the divisiveness of the tactics in question but somehow about you, personally?

It did appear that way, with your sample size of one. Even if I granted that my statements supported Knop's claims (and I don't), one person does not make a movement. And one anonymous person, at that. That seems to be all the support Knop has for his claims - anonymous blog posters. He either can't or won't support his claims with quotes from atheists who are willing to sign their real names to their statements.

Ecklund also discusses how there is a stigma against belief in God in the professional science community, which may have contributed to underrepresentation of religious voices in the field.

Wait a tick. I was talking about correlation - that scientists tend to be less religious, on average, than the overall population. This quote is talking about causation - one of (perhaps many) reasons that scientists tend to be less religious.

This article quotes the same scientist, but she cites a different potential reason here.

It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists.

So, obviously, there's more than one reason that scientists are less likely to be religious than the rest of the population.

[Boozy]

The moderators are getting somewhat concerned at the tone this thread is taking.

We do not want to see any discussions about a member's debate style. Those concerns should be addressed to a moderator via reports or PMs.

Go ahead and discuss Rob Knop's debate style. He's not a member here. Go ahead and discuss the debate style of "Gnu Atheists". But keep your comments generalized, please.

Many members will identify themselves as a member of a certain group, or align themselves with certain beliefs. That doesn't mean that you can shift focus to that member. The focus must remain on the group in general, or the set of beliefs in question.

For further clarification, please see my explanation in Site News.

[Hyena Dandy]

Ghel, you said there was no proof people acted like that. Andy provided proof. You can't refuse to argue that just because you were the proof.

[Andara Bledin]

I posted the link to the blog post because I happen to agree that the actions highlighted in the "common behaviors" he attributes to "new/gnu atheists" are counterproductive to getting those who specifically aren't already atheists or considering discarding their religion will be turned away from everything associated with the messengers, regardless of the validity of any message they bring.

First you claim that he "never specifies" who he's talking about when he spend the first three paragraphs doing only that. Then you state that if he's going to attribute these actions to "new/gnu theists" that he needs citations. I provided you with citations based on your own activities here because you're one of the few vocal atheists I have any contact with, and so now it's no longer about the divisiveness of the tactics in question but somehow about you, personally? I really don't think the blog post was about you, and neither is the thread. It's about people with an attitude that you happen to share and are an outstanding example for.

You and your ilk proselytize in a notably condescending and contemptuous manner. Some dress it up in polite terms, others are just outright demeaning. When you push for science in the same breath that you push for the marginalization or eradication of religion, you push those who are religious away from science. This is a Bad Thing.

Also, those figures from your link are likely unreliable:

Ecklund also discusses how there is a stigma against belief in God in the professional science community, which may have contributed to underrepresentation of religious voices in the field.

It's possible that there are as many believers in the fields of science as out, but it's likely that there are some who prefer to report as atheist or agnostic rather than admit to being religious because it's derided within the community.

It's likely similar to those who self-reported as heterosexual in the 50's. It wasn't acceptable, so many stayed in the closet. Currently, religion and science are viewed as incompatible, so those who are in science and religious tend to closet themselves to avoid the scorn you and your ilk can't help displaying.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

If that was directed towards me, I was commenting on the posters in this thread, not the content of the article.

I can't think of anyone in this thread who acts like that either.

[Ghel]

Andara, I thought this thread was about Knop's blog post, and his (unsupported) statements that (1) "New Atheism" is preventing religious folks from accepting science and (2) the renaming of "New Atheism" to "Gnu Atheism" has something to do with open source software. The biggest source of criticism against him, both in the comments on his own blog and on the response on Jerry Coyne's blog, which I linked above, are that he cites no references supporting either of these claims.

If this thread was merely a not-so-clever ruse to call me out on what you think is my bad behavior on this site, then I think this is not the place for that. If you think I have broken the rules of fratching, then by all means use the report button. If you merely think I'm rude, then send me a PM, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you privately. A public forum is not an appropriate place to air private grievances.

(BTW, your "support" for #3 on your list doesn't support it. What it does support is what I have actually stated, which is that scientists tend to be less religious than the overall population, which is supported by a number of studies.)

[Sleepwalker]

I had a five paragraph post typed up, but have deleted it in favor of a five word sentences.

Did you read the article?

If that was directed towards me, I was commenting on the posters in this thread, not the content of the article.

[Andara Bledin]

If Knop thinks the "New Atheists" are doing something wrong, he first needs to demonstrate that they're doing what he says they're doing.

You self-identify as an atheist and you, personally, have declared 1) that the world would be better without religion, 2) that religion and science are incompatible, 3) that any true scientist will become an atheist, and 4) believe that those who are religious are not entirely rational and are to be humored and ridiculed and "corrected." That list is a paraphrase of most of the points in the second paragraph.

Since you value evidence, I've included citations from the last couple of months of your posts to support my claims.

1)
* However, it takes religion to make a good person do evil things.
* And I still think that religion hampers the good that people otherwise might do.

2)
* That belief does not coincide with reality. (referencing the possibility of possession)
* Once one has learned the basics of logic and science, one can see that the claims of religion are either full of errors or unsupported.
* You know what really closes minds to knowledge? Religion, particularly theism.

3)
* If someone goes through college and realizes that the notion of god is logically unsound and is unsupported by evidence, they will likely discard that notion of god.
* As a person comes to understand how the universe really works, they're likely to give up their superstitions, their unfounded faith, or their comfortable delusions.

4)
* Yes. It has, and it can. Even if it didn't, I still think it's fair for people to ridicule ridiculous ideas - which most religious ideas are.
* But I still think that ridicule is a valid tactic in some situations.
* As soon as they state their beliefs as true, then they open themselves up to ridicule.
* Well, I must admit that it's hard not to laugh when somebody says something akin to "The universe-creating pixies forbid me from eating strawberries on Tuesdays."
* Let me push you in the right direction, and maybe you can figure out the answer to this one yourself.
* I hated having to break this quote into pieces, but there's just so much wrong here.
* That's right, you "hope." You do not have evidence. Instead of looking for your "higher power" to explain things, why don't you read some of the popular science books that are available? Learn about what we really know; it's far more fascinating than anything religion or mysticism can make up.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

If Knop thinks the "New Atheists" are doing something wrong, he first needs to demonstrate that they're doing what he says they're doing. He could have quoted something from a book written by an atheist. He could have said "so-and-so was applauded for saying such-and-such at an atheist rally on such-and-such a date." But he does no such thing. He cites no references for what he claims atheists are doing. He has not made his case that "New Atheism" is what he says it is. Until he does, it cannot be determined whether "New Atheism" is good or bad.

Respect what? There's practically nothing in the blog post that is worthy of respect. However, there is much that is worthy of scorn, starting with his misunderstanding of the term "New Atheism." The rest of Knop's blog post is built around that misunderstanding.

Edited to add: I just found an excellent blog response referenced in the comments on Knop's blog.

[Hyena Dandy]

I had a five paragraph post typed up, but have deleted it in favor of a five word sentences.

Did you read the article?

[Sleepwalker]

Respect towards what? People who say we are fundamentalists who are just as bad as the Inquisition and are going to hell to boot? Because we don't believe in doing what the pope says?



Civility is such a fun game.