Posted by Hemant Mehta in Maria, a liberal Catholic commenter on this site, had a few questions she wanted to pose to readers:
Recently, several books have been written about atheism. The three main authors that we have heard about most have been Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. What is everyone’s opinion on each of these authors? What do you like/dislike about them, what they have said, and their books? Do you feel their tones are too strident or not forceful enough, and why do you feel this way? What do you think are the good points they have made and the mistakes (if any) they have made? No doubt there has been much controversy over all the books and the authors, some good, some bad, and some mixed. What are you feelings/opinions on that? How fairly do think they have been characterized in the media? Has anyone met or directly spoken with any of these authors, and if so, what was that like?
…
Also, what do you think about the Rational Response Squad?
Here’s my answer: I greatly appreciate the authors. There has been more discussion about atheism in this country than ever before thanks to them. There are also plenty of new authors (I include myself in this group) writing about atheism who may not have had that opportunity if the interest in atheist literature not been there.
It doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything they say. For example, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens both talk about how teaching religion can be considered child abuse. In some cases, I agree. Teaching children that God created the world in six days, or that people who think differently from you are going to spend eternity in Hell, could rightfully be considered mental child abuse. At the same time, I know that I was taught a lot of religious lies (like the concepts of reincarnation and prayer), and I know I wouldn’t considered myself abused. So maybe they do take that concept too far…
Still, despite that, there are people who have never heard their arguments before. It’s wonderful to have those ideas put in their heads. What they do with those ideas is up to them. But everyone should learn to critically think about their religious beliefs and that’s what these authors have forced some people to do.
These authors are passionate about their (non) belief and, as a result, they mistakenly get criticized as being too “fundamental” or “militant.” Without getting into that whole debate myself, they have done more for atheism than perhaps any force in history, so there is something to be said for the tone of their rhetoric. But now, we do need atheists who can communicate their ideas in a “friendlier” way to those religious people put off by the authors’ strong stances.
I’ve met Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens before… I’ll tell my stories and then get to the point I want to make.
During a particular conference overseas, I saw a group of people walking on the same path I was on. A friend of mine was in that group and she introduced me to the people she was with. The last person, she said, was Richard Dawkins. (Of course, I knew this, and was just speechless, because he’s like a hero to me.) He simply said, “Hello, I’m Richard Dawkins” in his British accent and shook my hand… and I don’t know what I said in response because I was dumbfounded. Later that evening, I saw him again, was re-introduced to him in a more formal way, and I asked him if he would autograph some of his books I had brought with me (it was nearly half my luggage). He graciously signed all those books. I remembered that in the preface to one of his books, he mentioned how when one of his new books came out, people would line up at book signings and have him sign, not the new book, but his first book, The Selfish Gene
When I met Christopher Hitchens, it was also at a conference (The Amaz!ng Meeting 5). He showed up at a hotel party that was for the members of the James Randi Educational Foundation forums– I don’t think anyone wanted to kick him out, though. When I got a chance to talk to him, he was (as usual) holding a small glass of liquor. I asked him to tell me the best dirty joke he knew. He was Christopher Hitchens– He had to know a hilarious one. He said he knew one, but it was very long. We had time. So he started telling the story. A crowd began to gather and after a *very* long setup, Hitchens told the punchline. It caused one of the girls in the crowd to slap the contents of the glass of liquor out of his hands and onto his shirt. That was pretty funny (moreso than the joke, anyway)… once he cleaned himself off, he was seen having debates with various people on subjects such as why women weren’t funny, Mother Teresa wasn’t good, etc.
My point is this. I think if you see Christopher Hitchens in an interview, what you see is what you get. In person, he acts pretty much the same way he does on TV. So criticisms (and praises) of his personality are usually in the ballpark of being accurate.
Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, gets a bad rap for reasons unknown. He was unbelievably nice to me, and other atheists I know have said the same thing. He’s one of the kindest guys you’ll ever meet. He may come off strong in The God Delusion, but it’s only out of his passion for the subject, not because he has horns growing out of his head.
As for the Rational Response Squad, I think the Blasphemy Challenge was a wonderful idea because it focused on the “Challenge” (not necessarily the “Blasphemy”) of coming out publicly as an atheist. There were a few horrible videos made, but mostly, they were positive and exciting to see. Obviously, they got a lot of publicity as well and atheism was exposed to many more (often young) people as a result.
You may not agree with the tactics of everyone I just mentioned, but I do think it takes all kinds. I think most atheists are on the same page with their goals– and I quote from the Secular Coalition for America’s mission statement– to “increase the visibility and respectability of nontheistic viewpoints in the United States.” Sometimes, atheists will hurt that cause, but for the most part, atheists help it. And sometimes, it’s just the reaction to our very existence that gets out of hand and ends up reflecting poorly on us.
[tags]atheist, atheism, Catholic, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Rational Response Squad, God, child abuse, religion, The Selfish Gene, The Ancestor’s Tale, The Amaz!ng Meeting 5, James Randi Educational Foundation, Mother Teresa, The God Delusion, Blasphemy Challenge, Secular Coalition for America[/tags]
I think this must be based to some extent to the medium in which one reads the God Delusion. Written words convey so little of emotion, compared to a voice. On the other hand, listening to the audiobook version, Dawkins comes off extremely friendly, passionate, intelligent, and caring. And the fact that he alternates passages with his wife makes the whole thing sound like a loving family affair. The problem with the atheist position is that it is essentially based on things like logic, observable evidence, historical trends of absue in religion, etc. in addition to being on a topic where most people hold fairly strong views. The words can sound cold without the personality behind them.
I agree that this was a terrific idea. It’s ironic that people find the idea more offensive than, say, reciting the Nicene Creed. That’s the real reason that it’s necessary, also: there are so many people out there who think that atheism doesn’t really exist or that the mere statement of our beliefs offends theirs. That sentiment will never be countered without a large bloc of people willing to make a simple statement like this.
As for the RRS in general, they seem rather amateur to me. Take the home video they released of their trip to the debate with Comfort and Cameron: we have a few people in a car shaking a video camera around, swearing and talking about getting drunk. RRS may have nailed the debate, but they certainly lost the pre-debate.
I actually haven’t read any of these books (except yours), yet I have an opinion anyway…
I’m glad these ideas are on the table of public discourse.
One thing that seems completely clear to me from observing people is that people don’t spontaneously question (or even recognize) their basic assumptions without external motivation to do so. People in a majority religion are often practically incapable of questioning the belief that their religion is the source of all virtue and that imposing their religion on others is a great kindness. This is why I almost always like people from minority religions better than people from majority religions: they have some concept of what freedom of religion means. It’s not a question of intelligence, it’s a question of experience.
If you’ve heard rumors of some of the arguments against Christianity, then you’re more likely to think about questions like whether the Bible is good and right, and merely being aware of these questions is beneficial in terms of realizing that imposing religion on others requires justification — it is not a self-evident good.
That said, I think the goal of “deconvert the world” can be a hindrance for succeeding at more important goals, as I’ve discussed here: Is religion the problem?
Maria, (I address this to you since you asked the question)
I appreciate all three for their clear, forceful statements against religious obscurantism, in their no-holds barred broadsides against religious hucksterism, and their unwavering insistence that there is no such thing as a supernatural explanation of a natural phenomenon. There are no miracles. Period. I’m grateful to them for saying that.
My criticisms of all three can be extended to most atheists: a tin ear for human emotion. A stone heart, too. They are deaf to the reason why religion is successful: religions give people a replicable means of affiliating with other people. They appeal to the emotions in a way that atheism doesn’t. They bind people together. That is no mean thing.
The Rational Response Squad is a perfect example of my problem with other atheists. To me, their stunts amount to “Atheism for Adolescents.”
With the disclaimer that I’m too apathetic to read any of their books, I think they all deserve credit for giving atheism some media attention. Dawkins seems to receive much more criticism than he deserves. He rarely agrees with the extreme positions attributed to him. The RRS is a much better example of “extreme” atheism, but don’t expect me to hate them just so I look better in the eyes of moderates. As for Hitchens, no one seems to agree with him, at least not among liberals. Perhaps there are libertarian atheists who like him a lot?
Wonderful wonderful response Friendly Atheist!
I think ultimately Hitchens will get more publicity precisely because he is not as sharp and Dawkins is.
Dawkins’ intelligence makes him Teflon. No one can beat him in a debate. What choice do theists have but to villainize him with vague dismissals and faces of distaste.
Hitchens on the other hand is easily stumped by theist arguments that are as old as the concept of God itself - arguments that he should already know and be ready for.
Hitchens is by far the sweeter target and thus will end up with more air time, shaming us all. Our very own Anne Coulter.
Dawkins: I’ve read most of the TGD, seen him on video a few times and live once; I know his scientific work mostly by reputation. He’s gentle and soft-spoken in real life, even when provoked, but he says what he thinks and never bullshits. His scientific reputation is flawless (although, like all scientists, he’s not always right). I get the sense that he truly loves people, but he loves the truth more. He’s a solid but not ground-breaking philosopher.
Hitchens: God is not Great is a polemical masterpiece. My admiration for his polemics does not, however, at all transfer to any admiration for his politics. There’s no atheist party line, and he has a right to his opinion supporting the war in Iraq, and, much as I despise Islam (my wife is a Muslim apostate) I have a just as much right to hold him in contempt for that opinion, which I do. Still, no one, not even Dawkins, so thoroughly and mercilessly exposes religion’s hypocrisy, contempt for happiness and indifference to the human dimension of suffering even among the so called religious “liberals”.
You missed Daniel Dennett: The best philosopher I’ve ever read, bar none. If there were a God, Dennett would be Her prophet.
Harris: I’m glad that his work has provided a lot of exposure to atheism, but he’s a naive philosopher, even by my own amateur standards. I consider many of his positions not only mistaken but also stupid.
I don’t really care how strident or conciliatory anyone’s tone is. Everyone has to use his own voice. Dennett is the most conciliatory, Dawkins the most strident. All but Harris are pretty much spot-on as far as the truth goes. Neither do I much care for how people are portrayed in the media; the media is dominated by talentless hacks sucking up to the economic elite who couldn’t spot a blatant contradiction if it bit them in the ass and didn’t bite them in the ass.
Sorry… Hitchens is the most strident, not Dawkins.
I’ll do the Rational Response Squad question first. I think they have their place and for the most part they put out rational and educated information. At times I think they go a bit overboard and become a bit distasteful- ie the Blasphemy Challenge. Other than that I highly support what they are trying to do.
Now for that other questions:
I appreciate Dawkins and Harris’s ideas (I haven’t read Hitchen’s yet), but I think it could be psychologically damaging to yank the rug out from under religious extremists. It needs to be gradual and they need to learn alternatives to their current beliefs. To suddenly take this security blanket from them would be to cause them great anxiety and they would not know what to do with themselves. If someone suddenly convinced you that you cannot worship your god, you cannot speak of your god, you cannot attribute anything to that god, you’d be going nuts trying to figure out what to do with all those things, if they did not show you alternatives.
Very few people become atheists, non-theists, or agnostic overnight. It is a gradual thing which, for a lot of people involved questioning their beliefs, researching, asking questions, more research, until what they thought they believed they realize that they don’t believe it. I grew into my Humanism and I am still growing, but I learned an alternative along the way and I’m still learning.
Alternatives are the key to human fulfilment. Simple, but minor example- human life passages (or rites of passages). In churches one has baptism, marriage, and death. If you gave up religion would you have any clue of knowing that there are non-religious alternatives to those passages unless someone told you? Or would you be dreading dealing with rites of passages because you know no other place to turn to but the church to fill those needs?
Harris leaves those little life things out in his book “End of Faith”. Dawkins makes no mention of them from what I’ve seen and read. The Rational Response Team leaves them out entirely.
Human Beings have social and personal needs that need fulfilling and to suddenly pull the rug out from religious extremists, or anyone for that matter, could be disturbing if they don’t know of alternatives to fill those needs.
Given this, they lack some human compassion concerning human fulfilment and in that respect they are too forceful. However, they have pointed out what is irrational and supernatural about religious beliefs in the age of post-enlightenment and scientific discovery. They have shown what is harmful to human beings as a society concerning religion. They have pointed out that they are very spiritual in light of being non-religious and how. These are good things, but they lack explaining how human needs can be filled without religion and until that is done, no one will see that life without a belief in the supernatural can be more fulfiling and rewarding than the shame, guilt, and indignity religion puts on people. The good life can be had and be very fulfilling without feeling bad about one’s self, belief in a supernatural being, or belief in an afterlife.
I’m not sure they have been portrayed fairly in the media though. In all honesty, they are not the diabolical trio.
As for meeting them, I have not, but I know Bishop Spong has met Dawkins. He spoke very highly of Dawkins and said that Dawkins believes in the same god he does. Now don’t be confused, this is not the Christian God, a supernatural being, or anything like that and to explain it more fully would take up a lot of space in one post and you may still not understand it.
I hope that answers your questions and if you have more, I will be glad to answer them, but beware, my answers will be humanistic, as is a lot of what I have said here is.
Dang it! My reply didn’t post again!
I love Dawkins’s and Harris’s books. When I first read “The End of Faith” I had to stop in the middle of the first chapter to tell my husband, “OMG, someone GETS it.” I could not believe that someone had the guts to actually say what I was thinking about so many issues. I don’t agree with everything either of these authors says, but so what? I don’t agree with everything any author says. I have to give them credit for coming out so boldly and stating their beliefs (or lack thereof) so forcefully and honestly.
I think the term “militant” is completely misused regarding these authors because, although they are not beating around the bush in any way, they are only talking and writing. They are not committing or endorsing any acts of violence. They’re not even advocating civil disobedience. They are merely advocating free speech and equal treatment for everyone, regardless of whether they adhere to any faith or not.
Bravo! is my reaction.
I also enjoyed Hemant’s book and Nica Lalli’s “Nothing: Something to Believe In” for their more personal takes. Not everyone is interested in scientific arguments or any type of debate and I think there’s a place for personal narratives that foster discussion and show that we are all human and we all bleed the same color blood and cry the same salty tears when we are hurt by others who don’t respect us. As one person commented above, sometimes emotion is left out of the equation in some of the more academic books, and that cuts off a huge part of the potential audience. Most people like to hear human interest stories and see how other people live and feel and that’s the best way to touch their hearts, usually a required first step before reaching someone’s mind.
I think Hitchens is an entertaining ass, but I haven’t read his book.
I give up! It’s up to you, Hemant, if you can find it. If not, I can try later to repost it- I think. If the blog will let me.
I’m afraid the only thing I’ve read along these lines is “The Blind Watchmaker” and it’s a spectacular book for explaining how evolution is understood to work.
It’s not about atheism, but it’s definitely worth reading.
Why wasn’t Hemant Mehta on your list?
The Barefoot Bum said “You missed Daniel Dennett: The best philosopher I’ve ever read, bar none. If there were a God, Dennett would be Her prophet.”
Oh Barefoot Bum you beat me to it. Yes “Consciousness Explained” was a paradigm shifter for me. Great book!
I agree with Dawkins and Hitchens that teaching children religion is a form of child abuse. It’s inherently divisive, self-defeating, and takes up space and focus that should be reserved for facts and useful knowledge. Children don’t know how to maturely use that teaching, so they often end up using it as a weapon. The non-religious see this; the religious do not. I personally regret the religion I taught to my children in my ignorance. Luckily for me, it did not prevent them from finding their own way with respect to religion, just as my brainwashing—though it was difficult to overcome—didn’t prevent me from working my way to the light.
Are these authors too tough; too strident? Do we rather need a softer approach? It takes all kinds of approaches to meet all kinds of people. In my view, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris are strong medicine, and they are the urgent treatment of our national illness. What threatens us now is not the moderates and progressives among religions, but the fundamentalists. These authors are a response, perhaps a reaction, to the idiocy that has for too long gone unchallenged. They provide cover for the silent—I hope–majority who have needed a champion, a David to confront our Goliath.
Diana said:
I doubt that the authors are unaware and unsympathetic to the human needs for community and emotional support. If I had to guess, I would say that, at least for Dawkins and Harris, that their atheism is not the locus of their connectedness and emotional experience. Dawkins is a family man; I don’t know about Harris except that he is studying meditation. These men are not stone-hearted, but may seem cold because they are making rational, evidential arguments, not appeals to emotions. In my view, once the rational matters are put to rest, one may explore the other ways of building community and connectedness to the world and life. Religion is not necessary to be fully human and fully alive.
UnboundSet, you said you think Hitchens is
That is loose talk, and a slander on anyone. Give the man his due. For me, he’s honest; she’s not. He’s educated; she’s not. He’s no hypocrite; she is. He’s right; she’s wrong. Their only commonality is that they both love to sell books.
Oh there it is. Thanks Hemant.
You are a dear.
Dawkins. I’d love to go into EP but I’ll repeat that any scientist who thinks you can apply probability models to the supernatural claims of religion needs to go back and study just what it is math and science can do. I’ll also point out that he has ridiculed the other side for doing exactly what he did. His claims applying evolutionary concepts (the evolved God nonsense) is even more pseudo-scientific. It has quite literally no basis in logic or science. None. That some atheists who claim to be interested in reason and science cheer when he does this doesn’t do much for their credibility. His signing that petition to outlaw teaching children under the age of 16 about religion (which he recanted in the face of criticism) didn’t surprise me.
No more than that Hitchens, a neo-neo-conman, would do the same. How easily he seems to be forgiven for his lies about Clinton and his promotion of the illegal invasion of Iraq. I’d imagine he might well be calling for war crimes prosecution of Clinton if he had invaded another country like Bush did. I’m pressed for time or I’d try to find out what he said about Clinton’s Kosovo intervention.
Harris, actually I think someone above said it all. Maybe he should finish his degree and show us some science, then we’d know if there’s anything to that. Other than that, he’s just another hate monger.
Dennett, if he’s the best philosopher you’ve ever read you couldn’t have read much. I’d suggest John Dewey or Paul Weiss or any of about a thousand others.
James Randi, now that old fraud is an interesting case. But you haven’t asked about him. I’ll just say that anyone who cares about science and also believes that most of his debunking is valid as science is also not thinking. Just about any experimental science, certainly just about all of psychology including some EP would fall even more easily under the same standards. You do realize the man’s never produced a line of science in his life, don’t you?
Darryl said,
I don’t know. In this interview where he stumbles around quite a bit he claims to “know Evil and to have felt its presence.” Sounds like supernatural talk to me. Can you still call yourself an Atheist if you believe in Spirits and Magic?
I will agree with you about his being “Right.” He’s not always correct, but he does indeed swing “Right.”
Darryl, you do know that this contradicts your claims that religious teaching is harmful, don’t you? Do you also advocate keeping children from watching TV and movies and reading junk and playing video games because I can guarantee you that the large majority of children in the West do a lot more of those than are exposed to religion of any kind.
So, I guess that’s it for that First Amendment stuff, huh?
olvlzl, no ism, no ist,
You’re coming on a bit strong there fella. You mean you have nothing positive to say about these guys?
Only if you’re a shallow thinker. You have to read my posts very carefully.
Educated people know the literature and can use metaphors all day long–isn’t that amazing?!
Good question! I just assumed everyone here had read and liked Hemant’s book. I did.
So, what did you all think?
Good question! I just assumed everyone here had read and liked Hemant’s book. I did.
So, what did you all think?
Dawkins — Read TGD and Ancestor’s Tale now, and thought they were very good. He’s in my heroes list for sure.
Sam Harris — I’m reading End of Faith, and finding it well written and interesting.
Hitchens — haven’t read him. I did see a copy of the Penn & Teller Mother Teresa episode that he was in: if he’s like that in real life he better get his liver checked regularly. I don’t know about him at all, and the pro-Iraq war stance seems so badly thought through.
Dawkins, No.
Hitchens, No, no.
Harris, No
Dennet, No
Randi, There was that fake faith healer he exposed by picking up his wife talking to him through a hidden radio reciever. Other than that, no.
There are altogether more admirable atheists out there. I’m just sorry to see people going for these guys instead. Paula Poundstone.
You’ve got to take your food where you find it.
You can find a link to the review I wrote about his book some where around here.
scroll up and click on Book Reviews on the menu on the right.
LOL! Yes but do they “feel its presence.” Your putting meaning into his text is starting to remind me of a Christian interpreting the Bible Daryl.
Its always interesting to watch someone come face to face with the clay feet of their idol.
Disclaimer: I haven’t yet read any Harris or Hitchens. I have read a few reviews of Harris’ work but that’s about it.
After reading “The God Delusion” I felt a little disappointed. “The Selfish Gene” changed the way I looked at the world but, to me, there was nothing new in “The God Delusion.” Richard Dawkins is obviously a genius so I was expecting something with a little more nut-meat. Sure there were a few factoids and anecdotes that were new to me (FSM, IPU) but I was expecting something mindblowingly deep and fresh and new — not The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.
In terms of his tone, I think Dawkins can be a little harsh. The tone of his books certainly do nothing for the arrogant atheist stereotype. After reading “The God Delusion” and participating in the Blasphemy Challenge, I wondered if there were any “friendly atheists” out there. So I Googled the term and that was how I found this site.
Perhaps Dawkins can be forgiven, he is a scientist. And British. For his science, I have no criticism for Dawkins. However, as an advocate for atheism, I do have some criticisms. First and foremost, I don’t think Dawkins understands the full power of religion. Whether referring to the sense of community (hence, “Communion”) or the sheer memetic hold religion has over its adherents, I don’t think Dawkins really gets it. If he did get it, I don’t think he would expect his “why God almost certainly doesn’t exist” to convert anyone. The idea of God, amung many other things, has this unfortunate characteristic of being in infinite regression. “God is the mathematicians X.” “God is von Neumann’s Catastrophe to the Nth degree.” Some theists accept natural selection, they say evolution is how God does it. It’s going to take a lot more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster to get rid of the God-meme.
As for the Rational Response Squad and the Blasphemy Challenge, where to start? I seriously think they are a bunch of clowns. The Blasphemy Challenge was their big joke. Yes, some of the Blasphemers made good videos, but the majority (subjectivity alert!) of them were kids being kids. I was going to link to a news report done on the Blasphemy Challenge but it was removed from blasphemychallenge.com. In it two reporters were asking why kids would do this and it was easily dismissed as “kids being kids and not knowing what they’re saying.” This is the image of atheism that is going to get us respect in the media? From what I’ve seen of the RRS members, they are kids themselves. I think “anger” is a stage of atheism (like the 5 Stages of Grief) and I think it’s the stage the RRS members are stuck in.
What Dawkins (and Harris from what I’ve read about his books) and the Rational Response Squad are missing is a Grand Strategy. Yes, because of them atheism is in the news, it’s a hot topic, it’s trendy. It will be up to an author or atheist group to seize the moment with a solid strategy, reasonable goals and a defined plan.
Lets show them what the biblical stories were probably really about originally.
Lets show them how the idea of God can be so powerful without God having to exist.
Forget about trying to explain how God would have had to have evolved and show them how the IDEA of God has evolved from the (simple) Animistic gods prior to the Agricultural Revolution to the (complex) Abrahamic God (amung others) we have today.
There are plenty of approaches us atheists can take that would be far more strategic. Lets figure them out and do them.
Incidentally, I mentioned earlier that I had participated in the Blasphemy Challenge. Here is what I had to say. Hemant gave it two thumbs up!
Unbound,
You’re a good sport. I like the “feet of clay” thing; although it dates you. Hitch is not my idol; Miko is.
cheers
You so know that “feet of clay” has its origin in the Bible, don’t you?
Sure you can. You can also believe in big foot, UFOs, the lochness monster, esp, ghosts, etc. none of those things depend on god(s).
She is the one that tells unfunny jokes about her cats right?
HappyNat, consider what the post says about Hitchens’ joke telling ability. How about Barbara Ehrenrich? I adore her.
I’ve wondered how Harris gets on with the Kurtz cult, him being somewhat a heretic of their Index of Prohibited Ideas. And I’d like to hear more people on what Dawkins said to Randi about having to pay up on his phony challenge. Maybe the Kurtz cult is going off the old fraud.
olvlzl, I still don’t get where you get the idea that there is a Kurtz cult. I really wish for that to stop. The man is recoverying from heart surgery. Give him a little break.
Actually I did not know that, but that’s ok - so does my distaste for religion.
Thank you Darryl. I’m just frustrated with how many young men seem to have Man Crushes on that guy.
UnboundSet, I’m probably old enough to be your grandfather and Darryl and I sort of have a dialogue going. If you don’t think I’m going to answer someone who implies I’m a “shallow thinker” you are mistaken.
Mriana, sorry as I am to hear that he’s having health problems that changes nothing about his history or the various groups he’s set into motion. He and his colleagues have had no qualms about going after other people whose only crime is violating their rigid ideology, causing them pain and distress, some of whom were simply doing their jobs as scientists. As to my talking about his cult, it’s kind of ironic given the ease with which atheist fundamentalism identifies cults all over the place. I am finding his name or presence in just about every place I look, it’s not in my power to find the full extent of that presence but it certainly seems to be pervasive.
Great post! I loved the story about Hitchens.
As for the main question, I don’t have any problems with Harris, Dawkins, or Hitchens in terms of their atheism, but then I’m horribly biased. As for the RRS they can be a little juvenile, but they aren’t that bad. There are groups within the larger Christian community, like those “god hates fags” people, that hurt Christians much more than groups like the RRS hurt other atheists. Every group has it’s eccentric characters, extremists, or bad apples but I’m glad to see that in general atheists seem to lack the truly dangerous fanatics, unlike other groups.
I don’t know about their rigid ideology, but it sounds to me as though you have an axe to grind. Did you ever take it to the CFI board or something? I don’t know, you just remind me of someone.
Mriana, I wouldn’t take anything to them and it’s impossible that we have crossed paths in real life. I wouldn’t want anyone you might believe to be me to suffer through misidentification.
My reason for looking into these things is exactly what I told you. One of his lackies attacked me earlier this year and refuesed to correct the lies he told about me. On finding out the connections I decided to start researching Kurtz, which led me to Corliss Lamont. They have also led me to research CSICOP and the other organizations that have been sending me lurid come-ons for decades. I’ve never belonged to any of those groups having always thought they were kind of dodgy and rigid. I have been finding that a lot of the more extreme atheist fundamentalism on line is directly related to them and a lot of it certainly seems like an echo of them. There are other, less well supported atheist voices who are more in favor of free thought. I would like to encourage anyone who promotes free thought.
Well, until I see differently, I will continue to be a card carrying member of CSH and AHA. I’ve never been treated badly by them yet. Nor have I seen anything wrong with Corliss Lamont- of course, I don’t think he is alive anymore.
Izzy,
I don’t think you’re a shallow thinker, but I think sometimes you’re so anxious to rejoin that you’re not careful. You do seem to have some axe to grind. Why are you so negative?
Anyone? Then why not Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens? Iconoclasm is a kind of freedom of thought in my view.
Corliss Lamont- of course, I don’t think he is alive anymore.
Quite long gone. You don’t see anything wrong with Corliss? Maybe you haven’t gone through what’s known of his younger days. He was a rather bigoted fanatic.
And I’d never advocate anyone not being a member of any group they’d want to be in.
Izzy,
I hope that’s I. F. Stone, one of my heros.
I never advocated that Dawkins, Harris or even Hitchens not say what they wanted to, just that they not get away with having the last word as some kind of authority unable to make total fools of themselves on occasion. That’s what fundamentalists do to their heros, not free thinkers.
You know I’ve been told that I’m too coldly logical on occasion, maybe I’m balancing it out here.
No, all I have by him is the Philosophy of Humanism.
Olvlzl,
You should explain your opinion of Randi and/or CSICOP on your blog. I’d be interested enough to read it. Here, we only get little scraps of your reasons, and an overall impression that you have an axe to grind.
While you are at it, what do you think about Robert Price, who is with CSER, which is a part of CSH?
miller, I’ve written this piece about pseudo-Skepticism which actually has quite a bit of my problem with that phenomenon. I’ve also written a bit more on the topic. Actually it was a rather harmless statement I made about Penn Jillette which led to some rather nasty flames that prompted me to write the piece. I’ve followed up on the topic in other posts. It’s kind of long but the arguments leading up to the conclusions are sufficiently novel that I thought it was a good idea to repeat them several times. I’d write the same piece today, though differently. The comment thread is a pretty good indication of the kind of hate mail I get and of the fact that some people don’t do a very good job of reading what was right in front of their eyes. You will notice a point I had to make to a “Whispers” who claimed that atheists were the target of the piece, the word “atheist” doesn’t appear once in the piece. It was exactly this lie by “Whispers” that was repeated by one of Kurtz boys and which he refuesed to retract. The lying blogger mentioned the comment specifically but neglected to mention my correction of it.
The reason that Dawkins was used as an example in the pice was because he is the most famous current member of CSICOP, not specifically because he’s also the most prominent atheist. Interestingly enough, it was my pointing out that some reviewers of his book had found , as I did, that Dawkins hadn’t done much research for his most recent book. Call me innocent but it’s pretty shocking that a book that badly researched, written by an Oxford professor could win such acclaim. I would have liked to link to the review in Harpers, by far the best review I’ve read of it, but it didn’t really fit the theme of my post.
James Randi has done more for “the least of these” - the poor, gullible, sick, uneducated and disenfranchised of our society - than 99% of religious people will ever do in their whole lifetimes. He has exposed numerous scam artists like Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne, Uri Geller, Ernest Angeley and myriad others who rip off vulnerable people and give religion a black eye.
I don’t know what kind of pissing contest you’re in with him, but he’s a hero to me and he was to my dad also.
Izzy,
I read your piece that you cite above, and I picked out this paragraph for comment.
You touch upon three subjects in this paragraph the second of which is the central topic of your piece: freedom of belief, positivism and your general negative view of it, and what I assume is human fate or some future state.
Allow me to restate them:
1. People should have freedom of belief and not be harassed by positivists about the content of their beliefs. You qualify the positivism of the harassers, but they are positivists none the less.
2. People should have this harassment-free freedom of belief if, or so long as, they do not attempt to enforce their beliefs on the unwilling.
3. Not certainty about our knowledge will save us (from what you don’t say), but our tolerance and fairness.
The first idea is of course two ideas: 1) People should have freedom of belief and 2) believers should not be harassed by positivists about the content of their beliefs. I assume you accept both ideas. May I assume that you did not mean to limit the obligation to not harass believers for only positivists but for anyone?
Concerning the second idea, did you mean to say that believers may be harassed by positivists (or anyone) if the believers are enforcing their beliefs on the unwilling?
There’s a lot in your piece that I can agree with, but I think its central point about positivism is, so far as I know, a given among philosophers of science, and is actually trivial in light of our present national and global circumstances.
I agree that people are free to believe as they choose, and this freedom of mind should not be denied them.
Except for committed philosophical positivists, which I think are rather rare, positivism is usually a sign of the novice, or someone who is not a professional scientist, or, in general, someone who does not understand the limits of knowledge.
What I think is an unrealistic condition in your argument is “if they don’t try to force their beliefs on the unwilling.” When in human history have the religions that are the particular focus of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and others not tried to enforce their beliefs on the unwilling? We are confronting horrible fundamentalism out of necessity. Freedom of belief and the limits of knowledge have little to do with our present challenge.
I must take issue with your third idea. Certainly an unrealistic certainty about unknowables is a problem that can lead to turmoil and division, but a practical trust in factual knowledge and experience is the only thing that will save us from any future disaster. Under the condition that you named, we ought to be tolerant and fair with all people, regardless of their beliefs, but tolerance and fairness are only extended to those who are tolerant and fair. This is a grand bargain we have struck. Intolerance cannot be tolerated. Injustice cannot be abided. Tolerance of the intolerant, and fairness with the unfair are the ingredients of a disaster, and they will not save us. This is the grave mistake that the English are making.
Olvlzl,
That actually wasn’t so bad. I can agree with the general point that skeptics need to be held to the same standards as everyone else. But your general tone comes off as pretty angry. It’s like saying “I’m tolerant unlike all you hateful people.” I’ll be the last one to try to discern tone on the internet, where everyone sounds angry, but just fyi.
Just had a question: what is Dawkin’s position on religious moderates/progressives/liberals? I ask b/c in his book, he seems to say that he thinks moderates are part of the problem (if he means that they haven’t spoken up enough, I agree with him. If he thinks they are as bad as extremists just b/c they have beliefs, I must disagree-I’ve met plenty of decent moderates who support separation of church and state and other freedoms). But I’ve constantly seen him talk with moderates-from Richard Harries, the Bishop of Oxford (and in the interview he is very quick to point out that Harries is nothing like the Ted Haggards of this world), to Alister McGrath, to others. He’s always very polite and decent about it (which is good). I’ve also seen him say in an interview when someone asked him “do you think all religious people are stupid, even the moderate ones?” He said “no, of course not”.
He seems very much to want to engage in peaceful dialogue with them and seems quite happy when they agree with on evolution. He obviously thinks they are worth talking to and dialoging with, and while I’ve noticed him often be puzzled as to why they still believe in God, I’ve never seen him attack any of them for their beliefs or try to make them change their minds. What I’m saying is, his words in his book when he talks about moderates seem much more strident than his actions when he is actually with them. I’ve heard some say that this is because he’s very passionate about what he’s writing about so it comes across as more strident than he actually is. I guess that makes sense to me. I am just wondering what is everyone else’s opinion on this?
I thought that those of you who have read more of his books and seen more of his interviews might be able to provide some insight into this. I’ve only just started reading the God Delusion. I’m an agnostic myself, but I do have several friends who are liberal but religious. We get along. As long as they don’t push their beliefs on me I really don’t care what they believe. Many of them have asked me what Dawkins thinks about people like them and I find myself saying “well, I’m not quite sure”, for the reasons mentioned above.
Also, does he say anything about beliefs such as Wicca/New Age? I noticed he seems to go after the “big 3″ more than anything else, but Wicca/New Age people are by no means atheists and do believe in something, some believe in more than one god. Just curious. Any answers would be great, thanks.
Darryl, there are so many different varieties of positivism or scientism around these days that the list needed to name them all would have been prohibitively long. I used “positivist” to stand in for all of them. I do find that in the culture of the left these days that the thought police most often encounted fall into that general category. I believe this is the signal success of CSICOP and other of Paul Kurtz propaganda efforts. The target of the piece were the pseudo-Skeptics, afterall.
Anyone who wants to talk about something to other people is free to say it but they don’t have the right to force other people to listen against their stated or demonstrated unwillingness. I’m saying that people have the right to express even the most eccentric ideas and people who want to hear those ideas have the right to do so without the thought police jumping on them. That isn’t granting them a license to preach to unwilling listeners. On a blog comment thread it’s easy enough to scroll past things you don’t want to consider.
Positivism shouldn’t be a given among scientists because it isn’t an idea that can be validated by the methods of science. It is prevalent in the culture of science, as is scientism, but both of those are not only unsupported by science, the more you consider them the more unlikely they appear. Very little in life, even most of the important questions of politics and law are the product of the lessons of history, dealing with the world as is manifested in real life communities. You can read the last post on my blog to see that even someone who is favorably disposed towards evolutionary psychology sees that there are dangers in applying theories of science to these areas. The writer of that piece has a stake in EP, I think his view of those dangers is unrealistically dismissive. I think that like other aspects of scientism they are already having a damaging effect on democracy and liberty. I believe they are the reason that large numbers of educated people don’t seem to think that freedom is possible or necessarily a desireable assumption. Democracy can’t exist with an educated class that dismisses its essential precursors. That is the only reason I deal with these things. Otherwise I’d rather be talking up universal free education, radical enviornmental protection and progressive taxation.
Miller, about the angry tone. I grew up in a large and very verbal family. I’m used to raising my voice to be heard. It actually takes a lot to make me blow my top. Though that is possible. I do have a deeply negative view of some of the people mentioned in that piece. And it was in response to an obnoxious fan of Penn Jillette.
That should be
Very little in life, even most of the important questions of politics and law are the product of science but result from the lessons of history…
Karen,
any of this list who were bilking people of their money is a fair target of debunking, Randi, however, went a lot farther than that. His “debunking” if applied to most empirical science would “debunk” it just as effectively. He’s a magician, like Geller, if he didn’t make fraudulant claims and post fraudulent “challenges” against legitimate scientists I’d never touch the guy. That famous “challenge” of his is a fraud, you now. He’s said that he always has an out. He’s become quite well off apparently, like Geller, you think that some of those folks handing over money aren’t falling for his schtick?
olvlzl, who do you like? It sounds like you don’t care fore anyone. It also sounds like that if people don’t live up to what you think they should, you can’t stand them. Anyone involved with CFI, you don’t care for them.
There are some great people there and I’m sorry you have an axe to grind with them.
I challenge your notion that positivism is a given among scientists. I have never had a scientist espouse or defend positivism to me. Most scientists are working not philosophizing.
This idea confounds me. It is not scientism (whatever you think that is) but ignorance (as always) that is the danger to liberty. It is not an over-confidence and over-dependence upon science that is our problem, but a combination of ignorance about what science is, and the mindless application of it.
Who are these large numbers of educated people that dismiss freedom? Where are they? Are they the average people–those that have little or no knowledge of science, who, polls tell us, believe God created the Earth less than 10,000 years ago? They haven’t the foggiest notion about evolutionary psychology, and just the word “evolutionary” puts them on guard. They haven’t got to the table yet–they don’t even know the questions being considered. They’re concerned about paying the electric bill this month, and filling the truck with gas this week. That accounts for at least half of our population.
Maybe these large numbers of educated people are the liberals who voted for John Kerry in 2004, who are royally pissed off at the present administration for undermining our constitutional form of government, ignoring the rule of law, and curtailing the protection of our civil liberties?
Perhaps the people to which you refer are the few, the proud, the intellectuals. Those that dwell mostly on college and university campuses, or in think tanks, or that make their living selling books designed to impress the masses or their ‘base.’ Of those, a good number are prepared to nuke another country in defense of liberty and freedom, so I guess they’re not the ones. Others of them are considered so far out of the mainstream that they are by contrast regularly vilified in the media and used as ratings-boosters. Understanding nothing about these “radicals” and “extremists” and their views, the average people know them with the help of Fox News and dismiss them out of hand. Knowing this, the pandering politicians side with their constituents and rail against these dangerous radicals that are corrupting their children. Education is everywhere being threatened today. Who is endangering liberty and democracy more?
Help me out here: locate these educated people for me. Help me to understand why and how they are such a threat to liberty that your obsession with them is warranted.
Darryl, as a sometimes visitor of Sciencblogs I’d say you should go there to see some of the popular version of those two philosophies. A few weeks back on one of them quite a swivit was had when I suggested that science was not the only means of finding the truth and that a lot of important things were entirely outside the range of science, the separation of church and state, specifically. Your statement about the general ignorance of scientists about philosophy is all too true, starting with the various philosophies of science. This leads to a quite childlike form of scientism in too many of them.
Positivism and scientism are curious cases in philosophy because the strictest logical analysis and scientific investegation don’t support them. According to their basic tenets, both of them have to be false.
olvlzl, who do you like?
Mriana, I believe in this thread alone I’ve identified I. F. Stone, Barbara Ehrenreich and Paula Poundstone. You’ll have to narrow the range a bit before I can give you an answer that will satisfy you. I adored Bertrand Russell and had a deep regard for Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin among many dozens of others I could name off the top of my head. And we haven’t even gotten to religious believers yet. I believe Gould was a member of CSICOP as had been the CSICOP heretic, Marcello Truzzi. Who I also liked though I though his most famous idea was quite absurd. Carl Sagan stealing it and rephrasing it didn’t do anything to make it less false. I’m hard put to think of a single member of that group these days who I find appealing.
I’ve heard Randi say on occasion that he always has an out: he’s right. I also heard him say that if he lost, he would be happy to give away the money, for he would have discovered something wonderful. I’m not exactly sure what’s wrong with that. Even if the challenge is truly rigged, I don’t think there are any evil intentions going on. I am of the opinion that people don’t need to be perfect to be called skeptics.
Except for Russell and Poundstone, I have no idea who you are talking about, Olvlzl.
Personally, I’ve always admired Sagan. Sagan, Hawkings, Roddenberry, and a few others. Almost everyone you have said you do not care much for, I’ve always adored. Something tells me the issue here is a matter of preference, who we can agree with even a little, and other little things like that. It’s a matter of preference as to who we don’t care much for also because we don’t agree with them. Basically petty little things that come natural to all humans when they decide what and/or who they like or don’t like.
The operative word there is popular. You cannot get a measure of anything by looking at blogs, for reasons that are well-known.
That is not what I said. I have no idea of the levels of ignorance about philosophy among scientists. What I suggested was not their ignorance, but their disinterest. They’ve got better things to do with their time.
You’re making assertions for which you provide no evidence. If you state opinions, then fine, but you’re making statements in the form of facts.
I don’t find you credible on this subject.
A scientist who is disinterested in the philosophical basis of science, defining what it is, what it can and can’t do, what it’s methods do and are for, is an oddly incurious scientist.
Mriana, I. F. Stone, Barbara Ehrenreich, Stephen J. Gould, Richard Lewontin, these aren’t nobodies. They will be read and discussed when Sagan and Roddenberry are trivia items.
And as for Marcello Truzzi, don’t you think it’s kind of odd that I’d know more about the history of CSICOP than you would? Could that indicate that I might just know what I’m talking about? Darryl’s skepticism not withstanding?
OK then why haven’t more people heard of them?
I seriously doubt with so many people seeing Sagan and Roddenberry as heroes, they will be more than JUST trivia. Gene had many awards under his belt as well as being distinguished and decorated in WWII. He maybe in trivia, but I believe he will be a lot more than just trivia. He has influenced so many lives, in a variety of ways, on top of all of that.
I have to say, to be honest… it was a Roddenberry quote that tipped me into atheism.
I have to say, to be honest… it was a Roddenberry quote that tipped me into atheism.
Sort of a road to Damascus experience?
Mriana, my guess would be that there are a lot more people who have heard of Pat Robertson than have heard of Sagan or Roddenberry. Certainly more who have heard of Mohammed or Jesus or Moses….. The limits of the Kurtz celebrity machine are going to turn out to be quite limited. And that’s even with Sagan’s last wife joining in the effort.
Back to the original question…
I’m not going to sit here and trash guys that many of you clearly view as heroes. However, for those of you who are interested in the honest opinion of someone who is not already an atheist, if this is your goal:
most of these guys are not helping.
BTW, just FYI for those who care, the “mental child abuse” thing is extremely offensive and I was sad to see that even Hemant seems to agree with it. If that’s your honest opinion then I suppose it’s no use arguing about it - I certainly can’t change your mind. But I will say that if there’s anyone here who values genuine dialogue and cooperation between the religious and non-religious then I’d advise you to stop using this line of argument as soon as possible. There is no way any religious person is going to take it as anything but an insult and a threat.
Unavoidably, there are some lines that must be drawn at specific points. Mike, this is one of them. What today may seem self-evidently normal to you will tomorrow likely be seen for what it is–a barbarous sidetrack on the path to tomorrow.