Posted by Hemant Mehta in There’s been a big brouhaha in the secular community over the use of the word “fundamentalist” to describe people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
The word just doesn’t seem appropriate, especially when that word is used to describe religious people who adhere to the literal words in a holy book regardless of what common sense and science will tell them.
The vocal atheists have reason and logic behind their beliefs. That alone makes them stand out.
Dawkins himself has said that we should not make the mistake of confusing fundamentalism with passion:
I don’t particularly mind being a bogeyman [for religious people] - I do mind being a fundamentalist. I think a fundamentalist is somebody who believes something unshakeably, and isn’t going to change their mind. Somebody who believes something because it’s written in their holy book. And even if all the evidence in the world points in the other direction, because it’s in the holy book they’re not going to change. I absolutely repudiate any suggestion that I am that. I would, like any other scientist, willingly change my mind if the evidence led me to do so. So I care about what’s true, I care about evidence, I care about evidence as the reason for knowing what is true. It is true that I come across rather passionate sometimes - and that’s because I am passionate about the truth. Passion is very different from fundamentalism.
But what name should we call those very outspoken atheists? Should we call them anything at all?
As a friend said, the last thing we need in the atheist movement right now is another thing to call ourselves.
Duncan Crary at the Institute for Humanist Studies (IHS) poses these questions in the most recent Humanist Network News.
Do you think it’s OK to refer to certain atheists as being atheist fundamentalists?
Is there a better term than “fundamentalist” to describe those non-believers who are uncompromising in their blunt criticism of religious beliefs?
What do you think about labeling certain atheists or humanists as extreme, militant or intolerant?
Do you believe that the non-religious should take a soft or a blunt approach to speaking out against religion?
How can “New Atheists” and “New Humanists” work together?
You can submit your thoughts to IHS by clicking here, or feel free to leave a comment on this thread.
In addition to the questions, there are also some interesting opinion pieces within the same page.
[tags]atheist, atheism, fundamentalist, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Duncan Crary, Institute for Humanist Studies, Humanist Network News, New Atheists, New Humanists, IHS[/tags]
Yes. How about atheist?
I like “ardent” atheists. There is the implication of the passion of which Richard Dawkins speaks with no suggestion of the rigidity and closed-mindedness of “fundamentalist”.
The whole “fundamentalist” thing is a pejorative invented by the religious to discredit atheists. It’s a red herring, because there is no “fundamental” text of atheism, no holy book. I see no reason for us to buy into it or be forced to choose another name. We are atheists. We do not believe in gods, we require evidence before accepting information, and we don’t respect people’s fantasies, religious or otherwise.
The first time an atheist bombs a religious congregation, and claims he did it in the name of atheism, then we can talk about what that fool should be called. Even then, I think a more appropriate term would be extremist, or lunatic.
[...] No, the true intellectual dishonesty is displayed by apologists who accuse atheists of being dogmatic simply because they have any opinion at all. I will not presume the right to speak for Richard Dawkins, but I can speak for myself. Like many atheists, I would be perfectly willing to change my mind if the correct evidence turns up, but no such evidence has turned up. (EDIT: Dawkins agrees.) [...]
Really, there’s no difference between the ‘fundamentalist’ Dawkins and say, the friendly Hemant except your styles of engagement. When I started reading your book I was afraid I would encounter a lot of Gouldian ’seperate but equal magisteria’ concessions, but even for an avowedly non-hostile atheist you make a lot of identical points to Dawkins in his Big Bad Delusion Book, which some on-the-fence agnostic/skeptic friends inform me is ‘just going a bit too far’.
Like Black Sun says, it’s just a pointless pejorative, a strawman. Some of us might be more amiable than others, but as long we’re all acting within the bounds of law and reason and don’t believe in any deity, we’re just atheists.
Just to clarify, the problem that some of us have with people like Dawkins or Harris have nothing to do with their being “passionate” or “outspoken” or “uncompromising”. It has to do with their tone of disrespect and attitude of hostility towards all people of faith.
As for what to call them, why not “anti-theist”? IMHO, that seems to capture well the main difference between the average atheist who doesn’t believe in God for themselves, and these “New Atheists” who seem insistent that no else should either.
Mike C,
I don’t know how many times this needs to be said: beliefs are respected for their truth value. It is up to theists to prove that their beliefs are true, and thus earn the respect of the reality-based community. If you can’t prove them, there is no more reason to respect your beliefs than the ‘beliefs’ of a garden-variety schizophrenic who prattles on about the ‘aliens in his ass.’ Would you respect such a person, no matter how hard they insisted there “really were aliens in their ass?” Would you not expect them to provide you some proof if they wanted you to take them seriously?
The only reason other equally absurd beliefs in gods and angels and cherubs and miracles had respect in some quarters up until now is that those people who respected the beliefs had their own unprovable fantasies in their own version of god. By ‘respecting’ other god believers, they kept up the illusion that the emperor was wearing clothes. Atheists are just pointing out the obvious: he’s freaking NAKED.
If you think atheists should be called “anti-theists,” then maybe people who don’t believe in aliens should be called “anti-aliens” or in the case of the people who didn’t believe the schizophrenic, “anti-ass-aliens.”
This is absurd.
Pay attention to what I actually said. I didn’t say that they lacked respect for our beliefs (they’re welcome to think whatever they want about our beliefs). I said they lacked respect for people.
IMHO, that’s a problem in any belief system, when you start to think that asserting the rightness of your beliefs is more important than treating individuals with kindness and respect.
Nope, didn’t say that either. All I said was that those few atheists who are hostile to people of faith ought to perhaps be called anti-theists. Non-theistic folks like Hemant and the many others on this blog who are content to coexist with and learn from differing belief systems are simply atheists, and I’m happy to call them such - and mean it as a term of sincere respect.
I find that people like Dawkins, Harris, and others tend to read the Bible just as literally as fundamentalist Christians or Muslims.
As far as I’m concerned, we should get rid of all beliefs. I don’t think any beliefs, nor people who are consumed by their beliefs, are worthy of respect. How can you take a person seriously who does not have a grip on reality? I can accept that such a person is a human being, and certainly should not be deprived of their human rights, but respect?? That’s asking a lot.
I can understand that some tendencies toward religion are innate, that people can’t help who they are, that these traits are an adaptation or a spandrel or whatever is ultimately discovered about the biological origins of this phenomenon of belief. I can understand that the anxiety-reducing and team-building qualities of religion have served the human race in the past. They have helped people cope with the fear of death and freed them up to concentrate on other things. I can understand all that as having been a part of the human condition for a substantial part of our evolution. But we know better now.
If I encounter a strongly religious person who is unwilling to give up their beliefs, I cannot respect them. I can have empathy for them. I can wish that person would become more grounded, I can hope they would want to learn why they feel the way they do and explore their psychology. But ultimately I cannot respect them, because they live in denial.
Many religious people practice cognitive dissonance, where they act rationally and normally in every other area of their life than their beliefs. If such a person proves trustworthy in every other way, I could split my response to them in the same way that they do internally: When they are acting as a rational and trusted person, I would respect them. When they are spouting religious nonsense, that respect disappears.
I don’t even have a problem with people who like rituals. I have many Jewish friends who go to temple–even my sister converted. But they don’t take it seriously, they just like the traditions and ceremony. If any of these people ever told me with a straight face they believed in the Old Testament, I’d be shocked.
Bottom line, as long as they keep their religion private, and don’t proselytize or let it pervade their day-to-day life, everything is fine. But if and when the religion takes over and they become some kind of zealot, they approach insanity. No one wants to be around those people–trust me–not even members of a different denomination. I couldn’t be friends with or work with them. And I certainly wouldn’t want them anywhere near my kids. Respect??
I also have less than zero respect for anyone who advocates or votes for theocratic laws (which would curtail my rights). This includes nearly all evangelical Christians or Muslims who advocate sharia law.
That should read: “… tend to read the Bible or the Koran just as literally …”
Atheism isn’t a belief system. It’s the absence of one.
Dawkins makes, purposely, I think, unqualified statements on a broad level. Statements like his claim, after 9/11 that it is time to stop holding religion above worldly blame, and point fingers at specific faiths if and when they are used as the basis for despicable actions. I think his is an uncompromisingly dissenting voice that is needed to balance our public discourse, if nothing else.
I understand that this feels uncomfortable to people of faith, especially those whose faith may be more personal and accomodative to dissent. Still, your point doesn’t mean anything unless you tell me about specific cases where Dawkins et al have been rude to specific theists with no mitigating circumstances. I only see cases of them making statements that are disconcerting to large groups of people, not unprovoked and excessive attacks on specific individuals, which is the behaviour you wanted to draw the line at.
Which is because it is those fundamental literalists that they are specifically reacting to. I have no problem debating various interpetations of scriptures with moderate theists on a purely philosophical basis, speaking for myself.
Aye, but people like Harris think that fundamentalists are the “truest of true believers.” This, too, is something that they have in common with religious fundamentalists.
I like the term “evangelical atheist,” which has also been used by Sam Harris and other. I comment on that and the other aspects of this controversy in my blog here.
[...] UPDATE: Friendly Atheist points out that Richard Dawkins expressed his own feelings about being called “fundamentalist” back in 2004! I don’t particularly mind being a bogeyman - I do mind being a fundamentalist. I think a fundamentalist is somebody who believes something unshakeably, and isn’t going to change their mind. Somebody who believes something because it’s written in their holy book. And even if all the evidence in the world points in the other direction, because it’s in the holy book they’re not going to change. I absolutely repudiate any suggestion that I am that. I would, like any other scientist, willingly change my mind if the evidence led me to do so. So I care about what’s true, I care about evidence, I care about evidence as the reason for knowing what is true. It is true that I come across rather passionate sometimes - and that’s because I am passionate about the truth. Passion is very different from fundamentalism. [...]
IMHO, it’s a problem with any belief system when you start to think that people’s feelings or need to feel validated are more important than speaking the truth or expressing an accurate description of reality.
It’s legitimate to say that an atheist is wrong; it’s not legitimate to say that an atheist should care more about whether they make you feel bad than about accurately separating truth from falsehood.
Mike C:
I’m with you - we shouldn’t have this tone, no matter what.
BlackSun:
A technicality, in my opinion. You can have fundamentalism without referring to any “holy book.”
jp:
Personally, I am precisely this kind of Atheist. However, there are those who would “believe” that there is no god. It becomes a twisted kind of “faith” for them, and that shouldn’t be.
I think we can thank such groups as the RRS for the continued existence of the term “fundamentalist Atheist.” After all, they do characterize (on their web site) theism as a “mental disorder” without the justification of sufficient medical evidence. I have tried to reason with Brian Sapient on issues such as the Blasphemy Challenge and bible recycling. It has done no good whatsoever. Is the RRS a “fundamentalist” organization? I think they’re getting there…
As a “Robert Anton Wilson agnostic”–or maybe a Karl Jung fanboy I find the whole atheist vs Christian dichotomy too constricting and (indeed) fundamentalist. As RAW said (paraphrase), a good agnostic has to hold at least 4 simultaneous models of reality–1) God exists, 2) God does not exist, 3) God both does and does not exist, and 4) God neither exists, nor does not exist.
And besides, openness to the spirit world makes ayahuasca more bearable.
I am againts anyone who acts like an inquistor, classifying people into good or bad, inot bright or moron not worth listening to.
Its a drooling, teenage attitude that characterizes the “fundamentalist atheists” like PZ. Of course, those exactly think they “cannot” be atheist and fundamentalist. hence, they cannot see that they are, by definition.
I say call them fundamentalist atheists and if they call you a moron for thta, thank them for making your point clear.
when reason is raised to a sort moral imperative, a religious, veneratove attitude develops towards it that is nefarious, and that has happened already in recent human history, with pathetic results (the 30’s)
Dawkins and PZ obviously try to push a “morality” of their own by always presenting a discourse of separation into good and bad, smart and stupid. These religious-like moralistic attitudes, who have nothing to do with science, are good reason indeed to label them “fundamentalist atheists”
Robert McNally: “I like the term ‘evangelical atheist,’”
The problem is that “evangelical” doesn’t convey what “‘fundamentalist’ atheist” does. Whatever vagueness the term “‘fundamentalist’ atheist” has, it pretty clearly describes an atheist who displays many of the negative traits as a real fundamentalist, such as intellectual sloppiness and demonization of the opposition. Several people have remarked that “fundamentalist atheist” is an oxymoron. To some extent, that’s the point. Calling someone a “fundamentalist atheist” is implicitly calling someone a hypocrite. It’s a way of saying, “Hey, you’re doing the very things that you bash the opposition for doing! You’re supposed to be rational, yet you pull crap like casting Ken Miller in the role of Hitler.” An evangelical atheist is simply one who passionately advocates for atheism, but one can be evangelical without acting like a fundie, as our gracious blog host knows firsthand.
Okay, lemme get this straight. If God neither exists, nor does not exist, does that mean that He exists, in spite of his non-existence? And if He does NOT exist, then does that mean that He DOES exist, in spite of the fact that He both exists and non-exists?
I am a SubGenius TransSubstantialExistentialUberPhilosopher. I know all about these things!
Mike C: I have just started reading “The God Delusion” for the second time. I don’t recall any such passages from my first reading, and I haven’t found any yet in the re-reading. Could you provide references to the passages where Dawkins shows disrespect and hostility towards all people of faith?
(I strongly suspect that you can’t, or at most that you have but a single small passage in mind, but feel free to prove me wrong.)
It goes a bit like this
“I cannot be pig-headed and dogmatic!! I am an ATHEIST!!” I have been purified by the baptismal forces of reason”
This kind of foolishnes of “I canb’t be wrong” is precisely the attitude to foster dogmatism and lack of self-criticism
Sorry Stephen, but I really don’t have the time to play the proof-texting game with you right now. I’ve read articles by Dawkins, seen videos of him online, read excerpts from the God Delusion, and read multiple reviews and interviews, and I find that same disdainful tone and hostility throughout most of it. But if you don’t notice it by now, then I doubt I could convince you.
But here’s a secret of good communication: sometimes you can’t just assume that what you’re saying is what others are hearing. If you say “I’m not being disrespectful” but everyone you’re talking about says they feel disrespected anyway, you might want to give a second thought to whether you’re really communicating effectively. That is, if you really care about being understood and about not being disrespectful towards others. If you’re fine with being offensive and misunderstood, then don’t worry about it.
BlackSun, as usual, you do an excellent job of illustrating exactly the kind of attitude I’m talking about.
Would it be legitimate to say that atheists are stupid or have a mental disorder, and that teaching atheism to children is intellectual child abuse?
Oh wait, I forgot, you’re right and we’re wrong, so it’s okay for your side to say that kind of stuff about us, just not vice versa, right?
Interesting that you say this, Stephen. I haven’t gotten around to reading my copy of GD yet, but the impression I get (from even the Atheist community itself) is that Dawkins DID step on some toes.
This is very good advice.
Yeah, learned the hard way. My wife can tell you that I’m often putting my foot in my mouth when I don’t even mean to.
I think the term “fundamentalist atheist” is absurd and is just one more example of the apologist noise machine using the “I know you are, but what am I?” defense, no matter how inappropriate.
For myself, I don’t see it as a constructive strategy to focus on deconverting people because I’d rather align with religious moderates to try to focus on common goals and foster a separation of church and state. At the same time, I’m fine with Dawkins and Harris speaking their mind about religion; I think it’s a good sign that religion is being subjected to some scrutiny.
I wish we could avoid this pointless polarization in the secular community, of saying “either you’re fighting to deconvert everyone or you’re telling Dawkins and Harris to shut up.”
Here another: sometimes you can’t just assume that what you’re hearing is what’s really being said. That’s why you are asked for examples of Dawkins saying what you attribute to him. Maybe you heard something that wasn’t really there. This is an especially serious issue given that you refer specifically to “tone” in reference written works, a medium where there is no tone of voice, body language, facial expressions, or anything else to express much “tone.”
Then again, maybe your perception is justified. Unfortunately, I detect no sense that you even recognize that misinterpretation of “tone” is possible, much less that you could be capable of it in this context.
You don’t even bother to define what you mean by “disrespect,” a word with many different possible connotations.
They are legitimate statements if they are factually accurate statements. If you can demonstrate they are true yet refuse to speak the truth out of fear of making people feel bad, then all you are doing is embracing lies.
Don’t presume that I employ some sort of “I can’t be wrong” attitude which you are exuding here.
I gather he did. He said quite a few things that may have upset some people’s comfortable assumptions. But as far as I can recall, he did so by attacking beliefs, by attacking assumptions of superiority on the part of (some) theists, and in some cases by attacking certain specific believers. I am fairly sure (but I’m prepared to admit I am wrong if someone can give specific passages) that Mike C’s snide generalisation of “disrespect and hostility towards all people of faith” is simply not what the book actually says.
I am watching a Dawkins YouTube video right now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28pNxgD-ldc
The “tone” I’m seeing in this video makes me wonder what I’m going to see when I get around to reading GD; will there be such terrible lambasting there? Or will Dawkins make his case reasonably and rationally, as he is apparently doing in his “live” presentations?
I see no hint of anger or agitation in this video. Am I missing something?
I think Austin is right that print vs. speech makes a big difference for tone, though more than just being hard to detect, there seems to be a strong tendency for people to sound a lot nastier in print than in person.
As for what Dawkins and Harris should be called, I’ve previously defended the term religion critic, as a way of setting them off from atheists who are happy to leave everyone else alone.
How about “cheerleader atheists?” They are quite good at rallying the troops, so to speak, and conversing with other atheists. They are quite horrible at getting religious people to listen to what they have to say.
I’ve done all of the above as well (and beyond), and I don’t find any disdainful tone or hostility at all, let alone throughout. And I’ve looked for it.
Admittedly, a few commentors here have pulled out one or two Dawkins quotes that did sound rude to me. So we can all agree that he isn’t God.
Clearly, other than perhaps than a tiny sample of quotes mined from decades of work and public appearances, this issue of “tone” is a matter of opinion.
Are you content to coexist and learn from athiests including Dawkins? By excluding certain atheists from your above paragraph, you imply that you don’t have respect for such people and yet you lament their alleged lack of respect towards you. In addition, atheists such as Dawkins are constantly clarifying that they lack respect only for religion and its institutions, and not an individual who holds those religious beliefs. I guess you don’t believe they are sincere.
The message I take from this is that atheists should either patronize religious people by softening their opinions through diplomatic language and gratuitous, friendly gestures, or just shut up altogether.
Most of the time, when people say “It’s not what he said, it’s how he said it,” what they really mean is that the problem is what was said because they cannot effectively counter the message.
Atheists have been “polite” to the point of silence for 100 years and more. For all the gentility of Bertrand Russell’s writings, there is no less hostility for atheism than there was during his lifetime.
If atheists don’t speak up loudly enough to be heard, they will continue to be ignored and treated with gross disrespect. Dawkins is being heard and is therefor being accused of “arrogance” and “disrespect.”
But why should the ideas of theism be given any respect at all? In the US, where the rights of a person to have any religion or belief they chose is enshrined in the constitution. But respecting that right has been turned into the assumption that every belief must be treated with respect.
If you want to hear the arrogance of belief taken to an absurd extreme, just take a look at the tripe Ann Coulter has served up in her book “Godless.” Now that is the disrespectful, arrogance and ignorance which typifies the treatment that atheism has received on a regular basis.
I have heard complaints from the moment The God Delusion was published that Dawkins is “disrespectful,” and “arrogant,” and that he is some sort of fundamentalist.
After reading TGD and watching “The Root of All Evil” as well as videos of the Beyond Belief Conference, I still have yet to see or hear any clear evidence of these assertions. What I hear, and read, is an articulate voice that clearly states a position regarding theism that is very unpopular. I also hear the voice of a well educated Brit. Perhaps it’s the accent that grates on the nerves of the red state rabble.
You can talk about it all you want, but it proves only that you’ve elevated kindness to high art. Congratulations! But you’ve yet to make a case for anything–except for the fact that you don’t want your beliefs messed with. So you claim the moral high ground, because you claim to be ‘nicer’ than your opponents.
It’s not about the tone, it’s about the substance. Truth is not a popularity contest, I’m afraid.
Mike C wrote:
I presume you’re trying to characterize Dawkins in this turnabout, Mike.
But on the contrary, Dawkins goes out of his way quite often to remark on the intelligence of many believers. I do not think he has characterized belief as a mental disorder either. He does not characterize believers as crazy or mentally disabled in any way.
He has DESCRIBED religion as a meme. You can use the word zeitgeist if you want. He’s a biologist, and so he uses a biological analogy with the way life of one type can spread through a population of life of another type.
It’s not the same thing as saying that “religious people have a mental disorder”.
He HAS said that he considers the indoctrination of children in religion a form of child abuse that he thinks should be changed by enlightening people and “raising consciousness” but not by any form of coercive or legal action. It’s a way too harsh term “abuse”, but I do share his feeling that light should be shed on the Jesuit “Give me a child until the age of seven, and I’ll give you the man” indoctrination of children.
Anyway, it’s not easy to stand up for Dawkins when he uses the word “abuse” here. But just know that he doesn’t use the words “stupid” or “mentally disordered”.
So what I’m really hearing from Mike C and the Apologists (that wouldn’t be too bad for a band name if any of you had any musical talent) is this:
Or:
Except aimed at atheists instead of a visually segregatable minority.
Well screw that, Massah. The truth makes uncomfortable the comfortable oppressors. Doesn’t make it any less true.
Okay,
Let’s take a youtube break and try something completely different:
That should give us a new python perspective!
I wouldn’t put Mike C in that category at all, Stogoe. Not one bit.
Aaaahhh…. broken link tags
Mike C: Dawkins is hostile towards all people of faith.
Stephen: Could you provide evidence of your claims?
Mike C: No. But I once saw evidence somewhere.
Ya see, this is a core difference between the naturalist and the supernaturalist. Mike C., you are not winning the probability game here. And for many naturalists, our entire worldview is based on the most probable:
Gravity has a high probability of existing based on the evidence.I have a high probability of being hungry for dinner in 4 hours based on the evidence.God has a low probablity of existing based the evidence.
To a naturalist, saying “No I won’t provide evidence”, as you did above, is a very difficult thing to do. We thrive on evidence. It is our connection to reality and each other.
As a postmodern supernaturalist, Mike, I understand that universal, objective reality and its measurements may not appeal to you. I think Dawkins is remarkably restrained and polite towards radical positions such as the denial of reality or invisible superintelligences floating in space.
I’d trust him with my kids.
Siamang: “But on the contrary, Dawkins goes out of his way quite often to remark on the intelligence of many believers.”
Only to describe atheists willing to work with them, like Eugenie Scott, as “appeasers.” See the link in my previous post above. He also more generally calls religious people “faithheads,” and that slur appeals to stereotypes about religious people just as using “whop” or “jap” implicitly appeals to stereotypes about Italians or Japanese. Dawkins’ intellectual forebearer is Robert Ingersoll, not Bertrand Russell. He’s a great communicator, but his rigor often slips.
Can I invite all of you to visit the site of the Brights.
http://www.the-brights.net/
What is a bright?
* A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
* A bright’s worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
* The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview
Best regards,
Stogoe,
Do I understand you to be applying the label “Apologist” to Mike C. and anyone who agrees in any way with anything he says (I am one such person who has done this)? And, if so, how does that differentiate you from any theist who labels Atheists “angry,” “fundamentalist,” or “militant?”
I shall stand here scratching my head while you go bake a pie and pick some cotton.
JJ Ramsey…
Where has Dawkins called Euginie Scott an “appeaser”? I could not find it in that linked article.. in fact it’s a confusing mess of an article.
IceSixxx,
I am currently engaged in private e-mail conversation with a “Bright” who has been prominent within your movement. He has clarified a great deal for me in my recent misunderstanding with The Brights’ Net (recorded in some of my recent blog entries). Nonetheless, I still feel that the Brights represent a fundamentally flawed and very useless effort, that being the registration of all Freethinking humanity under a banner (”Bright”) which is insulting and without any good purpose.
Why would I want to consider registering as a “Bright” when I can be an Atheist and a skeptic (and the term “Freethinker” even embodies both of those!) without having to register with anybody?
Siamang: “Where has Dawkins called Euginie Scott an “appeaser’?”
Page 66 of The God Delusion, in the section called “The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists.”
“in fact it’s a confusing mess of an article.”
It makes a lot more sense if you’ve seen Blake’s 7.
Patrick Craig:
Because the term “apologist” is a self-identified religious term. Haven’t you ever heard of “Christian apologetics?” There are a plethora of self-identified apologist websites out there:
http://www.carm.org/
http://www.christianapologetic.org/
Among many others. So to answer your question, no, it’s not the same thing at all.
I certainly have, Blacksun, but you miss a very important point of my question. Stogoe identified “Mike C and the Apologists” but never quite clarified just who “the Apologists” were. If Mike C is a “self-identified” Apologist, fine. But I am no such thing. Did Stogoe include all who took Mike C’s side in this discussion in his labeling? Did he lump me in with the Apologists rock band?
Let’s add a new term to ourselves, friends - “Atheist Apologist!” Amen!
Mike C,
Check out this site:
This is the site of Dr. Bruce D. McLaughlin, an Ordained Minister, Doctor of Science - Materials Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Master of Materials Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering, Kettering University
Here is a perfect example of what I described earlier. Here is a man whose achievements I hold great respect for, especially given his long list of papers and patents. On the other hand, if he opened his mouth in defense of Christianity in my presence, I would instantly lose all respect for that part of him, and rightfully so.
The same goes for Francis Collins.
Where he espouses science and contributes to human understanding with his work, he has my gratitude and respect. But as a public apologist, he argues for things which completely go against his training as a scientist. This is why I say there should be no respect for beliefs. If Dr. McLaughlin wants to make himself a “fool for christ,” (funny how theists seem to have no problem with that self-description, but get all upset when an atheist says it) then he has to be prepared for the repercussions for his reputation.
BlackSun: “Because the term ‘apologist’ is a self-identified religious term.”
I have also seen “apologist” used on IIDB to refer to atheists who’ve argued against Jesus-mythers. As a term of abuse, it is often used by the more “hardline” against those who either (1) provide partial defense of the opposition or (2) attack bad arguments that come from the hardliners. Generally, it’s a slur used to imply that those arguing against the “hardliners” are really members of the opposition. Kind of a “You’re either with us or against us” thing.
Why should we try to reason with theists over the definition of a concept, particularly one that is as embarrassing to them as ‘fundamentalist’? Is this a winnable argument?
As Austin Cline pointed out in prior posts, they are skewing the scholarly conceptualization of ‘fundamentalism’ to fit their personal opinions. As naturalists, we are used to supernaturalists skewing science for personal purposes (evolution, stems cells, etc).
The literature in fields like sociology, psychology, and political science, consistently and explicitly tie ‘fundamentalism’ to ‘religion’. Public Opinion Quarterly, which helps define concepts such as this for future research, laid this out in their Winter 2006 edition:
Several pieces in the Review of Religious Research over the past 15 years have addressed ‘fundamentalism’ (for starters, check out Tom Smith 1990, Christian Smith and colleagues, 2003).
Even EBSCO publishing, easily one of the world’s largest databases of scientific and political journals, uses “fundamentalists” as a religious content identification tag.
English professors seem to understand this. Dr. Nicholas Bromell at the University of Massachusetts wrote in the recent American Scholar:
Every atheist I have ever met is open to changing their minds. Dawkins states this… multiple times, over and over and over. Show me a miracle, and I’ll convert without hesitation. Find an out-of-sequence fossil in rock strata, and I’ll sign up at the Discovery Institute.
If the supernaturalists want to call non-believers who hurt their feelings “fundamentalists”, we can’t stop them. All we can do is add that to our long checklist of how supernaturalist skew science for their emotional wellbeing.
The term “Bright” makes me cringe every time I hear it. If you are “Bright”, then please use your “brightness” to understand that the majority of humanity recognizes humility as a virtue.
Since quizzes are so much fun, here’s one to consider. Using the word “bright” to describe oneself is an athiest’s equivalent to:
a) spending every free second at the gym, wearing a tank top to the office, and not turning on your monitor on your PC because it ruins the reflection when you practice your pose.
b) bragging to total strangers about the new “Axe of L33t Pwnage” your level 70 Paladin crafted in WoW.
c) popping your collar.
d) all of the above.
Wytann Erdy
Not necessarily. The brash and the brazen get noticed. Others profess humility, but it’s their social mask, pandering to the ‘majority,’ waiting for their moment in the limelight. As the saying goes, you can never be too rich, too famous, or too thin. Give your average person a chance to be the center of attention, and you get….American Idol. So don’t tell me people want to be humble. They just don’t like it when others aren’t. Hypocrites.
‘Bright’ isn’t referring to intelligence, (though there’s a strong inverse correlation between intelligence and religious belief), it’s a word like ‘gay,’ which was successfully used to transform what was formerly slurred as ‘homosexuality,’ a ‘disorder,’ into a positive political identity.
‘Bright’ will do the same thing for atheists over time. Maybe you don’t like the implications. But I’ll wear it loud and proud. Because the meek most certainly will not inherit the earth.
My point is, the term “Bright” is simply unnecessary. In addition, it implies that everyone else is somehow “dark,” and interestingly enough, humankind has a marked aversion to darkness. Just ask any amateur astronomer who is having a hard time finding dark skies due to encroaching light pollution…
Get out into that limelight if you will - just don’t insult others while you’re doing it. It gets everyone nowhere.
A simple “asshole” will suffice. I think that’s the best description of my stance.
Dude… think what you like, but I didn’t say I couldn’t produce evidence. Frankly I just don’t have the time and don’t think it would do much good anyway. You will see what you want to see.
I just don’t have time to go digging all over the internet and through books to try to pull out proof-texts to demonstrate why people of faith find Dawkins offensive. I’m too busy. I have a job and a life, and don’t really see a good reason to waste a lot of time trying to change y’alls minds. I’m sorry, but it’s just not that important to me.
In fact, frankly, I give up. If the majority of you really can’t see any qualitative difference between the friendly atheist approach that Hemant takes, and the approach of the “whatever-we’re-calling-them” atheists like Dawkins, et al. then I really don’t see how anything else I would say could convince you. It’s either obvious to you or it’s not.
And besides, if you guys like Dawkins approach - if your goal is to prove to everyone how right you are for being an atheist and how stupid theists are for believing in God - then more power to ya’. Let me know how that works out for you.
Personally though, I still think there are far more important issues to be drawing my battle lines on.
BTW, Siamang, I just wanted to clarify. I wasn’t just singling out Dawkins. My statement was more a composite of things that Dawkins, Harris, this RRS group, and several commentors at this blog have said at various times and in various ways. But I do appreciate your clarification about what Dawkins has and has not said. Thanks.
As a “Robert Anton Wilson agnostic”–
Okay, lemme get this straight. If God neither exists, nor does not exist, does that mean that He exists, in spite of his non-existence? And if He does NOT exist, then does that mean that He DOES exist, in spite of the fact that He both exists and non-exists?
I am a SubGenius TransSubstantialExistentialUberPhilosopher. I know all
Basically my opinion is that the term “God” an all the lumber associated with it is so meaningless–and our understanding of reality equally suspect epistemologically–that it is pointless to define oneself in relationship to God. At least I think that’s the case for someone like myself who was never “churched”.
Dude… if you come on an atheist website, make claims about popular atheists, and then refuse to back up your claims because you’re too busy… I’m sorry, but what is it you are trying to accomplish here?
What are we supposed to think about your intentions? That your position lasts until research has to be done? How can I differentiate between you and the several theists who also said “i don’t waste my time researching for online debates” when I’ve debated them on intelligent design, stem cells, etc… ?
Hemant rarely gives his point of view in these little comment debates, so I personally don’t know how he’d participate. And he stayed quiet at that Christian dinner he went to. Is this how you like it? How, exactly, am I supposed to disagree with your worldview while defending my own?
“Convincing” will not happen in the naturalist v. supernaturalist debate. All I seek, and all I think is reasonable to seek, is that the other side clearly understands your position and your justifications.
I know you don’t want to, Mike
Come on!
If you don’t have the time to support a claim, then don’t waste others’ time by making the claim. When you make claims you voluntarily assume an intellectual obligation to support them.
Whereas you are above such things and only see the truth?
Why do I get the feeling that you are completely blind to how you are exhibiting the same condescension, arrogance, and disrespect you accuse Dawkins of?
Oh, wait, I guess am only seeing what I want to see. It’s OK for you to make accusations about others’ tone, but perhaps I’m not accorded the same privilege.
My conclusion is that you’re just a poser, pretending to be a voice of respect and kindness when suits you, but quickly reverting to condescending disrespect when others don’t buy it. How many of your complaints about Dawkins and Harris are just projection?
Hi there,
Did you just go to the site of the brights and read the different definitions and actions? I am not going to copy/paste the website here so just go and read
http://www.the-brights.net . Otherwise, I’m pretty much ok with BlackSun. It’s a positive word by opposition to non-believer, atheist, agnostic, … I couldn’t explain much better than the definition you find on the FAQ ( http://www.the-brights.net/vision/faq.html ).
‘Bright’ came from the French “Lumières” (enlightenment). Its name was chosen in opposition with the ‘darkness’ period Europe was leaving, something called ‘middle-age’ and particularly during the ‘Inquisition’ period (’enquiry’ in English?) where slaughters and massacres of innocents naturalists (yes, witches!) where usual or during the Crusades. I consider that we are living a darkness area and I feel great to see a shade of light in there.
Concerning the ‘dark’ opposite of ‘bright’, can I suggest you the DarkBrights?
http://the-dark-brights.awardspace.com/
The definition of the noun bright doesn’t refer to light or darkness neither to intelligence.
Personnaly, I adopt the term bright as I am an atheist, secularist, naturalist, humanist, epicureanist, troskyst, skeptical and freethinker. Just easier.
I don’t catch why it could be an insult to anyone? When I say I’m a bright, I’m not saying that you’re a idiot. It’s just my way to say all of the above.
Can you read the difference between “I am a bright” and “I am bright”?
Scarily enough, Mike C, it is working out all too well - my “buddies” the RRS are getting lots and lots of media coverage in their labeling of theism as a “mental disorder,” and they are making the case that we Atheists are all “fundies” rock-solid and unassailable…
Yeah, guys, why are we spinning our wheels with Mike C here when, as Hemant says, “there are bigger fish to fry?” As we speak, an “Atheist” organization seeks to destroy our good reputation, while in Topeka, KS a so-called “Baptist” church continues to picket American soldiers’ funerals because of their outright hatred of homosexuals.
We need to get our damned priorities straight…
IceSixxx:
I don’t know why I can’t stop laughing. Perhaps I can explain:
Do I understand you to say that the term “Atheist” is NOT “a positive word?” Why wouldn’t it be? Why couldn’t it be? Do you understand that you’re replying to a post where Atheists are ALREADY being labeled something “not positive?”
Now, first you say
and then you say
IceSixxx, we have enough trouble getting this kind of doubletalk from our theist opponents. Please clarify whether the term “Bright” DOES or DOES NOT have anything to do with “darkness.” And yes - I do understand the difference between “Dark Ages” and “dark night.” Does’t matter.
I already clarified this.
If the Brights’ Net is doing so very well, why do you people feel the need to come out and proselytize or seek converts?
First of all, I am not such atheist expert you seem to be. Secondly, I am not doing proselytism. I didn’t ask anyone to refer as a bright but at the question “What do you call “Those” atheists?”, I just suggest the idea of going through the brights’site to take a look. Nothing more.
non-believer: it seems there are ‘non’ which is kind of negation
atheism: “disbelief in or denial of the existence of god or gods,… from Greek atheos: a (without) theos(god)”
from Wikipedia: “The term atheism was originally used exclusively in a pejorative sense, against individuals considered impious, godless, or to believe in false gods. These disparaging connotations have been maintained, as atheists may still be seen as immoral and willfully and maliciously repudiating God or gods.
I found that this is more negative than freethinker, humanist or so (or bright). But of course, imho it is very positive to be an atheist but the word is an opposition, a negation of theism.
It’s the French name “Lumières” which was chosen in opposition with the ‘darkness’ period Europe was leaving. And I feel some resemblance between “Lumières” and “bright”. Of course, when you hear “bright”, you always immediately refer to light or brightness. It’s the catchy side of the name. And I like it as I found we are living a Dark Age. This is my point of view and it engages only me.
The official definition of the word “bright”, as mentioned on the site, did not mention light, darkness or others luminosities. It do not say that all the peoples that don’t define themselves as “brights” are “darks” (as “gay” doesn’t mean that non-gay are unhappy people). It even propose the “super” term (for supernaturalist) which I found it’s bright (ok just kidding, sorry). It defines “bright” as a noun and not as an adjective. And it gives a completely new definition of it as a meme (I know, a Dawkins word). I just make a little difference between “the” definition and my perception of it.
All my sayings are just my humble opinion and doesn’t engage anyone but me. I am not the spokeperson of the Brights. I am a bright. I do not ask anyone to refer himself as one.
I hope I make you a good laughing again!
I hope I clarified all this.
I find Dawkins tone offensive too…but still find value in what he has to say. The trick is continuing to listen to his points after being offended! Its hard to calm down and listen for the meaning - it takes a high desire to understand anothers viewpoint. Its much easier to listen to a Hemant/Siamang/MTran style communicator….
Many humans, when faced with an opposing belief, are listening only long enough to pick up the nugget that allows them to dismiss everything being said. Then the person trying to make the point gets frustrated. Its hard to continue calmly tyring to make your point when you have been dismissed. So then strident tone starts. And things go downhill from there.
Thats why I like Hemants site, and the OTM blogs…people here are really seeking to understand each other. Its refreshing.
Austin, Anthony, Stephen, and BlackSun (were there any other Dawkins-defenders here making a big deal about this?) -
You keep demanding “evidence” that Dawkins and these others (e.g. Harris, the RRS, etc.) are truly offensive. But why is that a claim that requires “evidence”? The evidence is not in what they said, but in how people respond to what they’ve said. If they’ve offended both religious people and other atheists, then they are, by definition, offensive.
You may argue that they aren’t intending to be, or that they are right to be, or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact t