Athée Canadien
Critical Thinking
Prayer does not stop volcanos from erupting
Nov 6th
Indonesia’s Mount Merapi – one of the world’s most active volcanoes – recently erupted, killing over a hundred people. What makes this tragedy even more unfortunate is that some of the victims had ample warning of their impending doom from scientists, but chose to stay because of the words of a spiritual leader. The 79-year-old “gatekeeper” of the volcano was on a quest to pacify the grumbling spirits of the volcano when it erupted and buried him beneath burning clouds of ash. Many people stayed because of his stubbornness, and to wait for clearer signs such as “clouds in the shape of a sheep’s fleece”, which apparently would have indicated that an eruption was imminent.
This is a pretty obvious example of how bronze-age superstition and mysticism can be directly dangerous to one’s health. Moreover, it made me think more about the root problems that cause these things to happen time and time again in our modern, scientific world. Those people died unnecessarily because they were ignorant and were very religious, but it would be unfair and unhelpful to equate them with all religious people. There are many reasonable religious people in Canada who are very rational, critical thinkers, very supportive of science, and very open-minded. They, for whatever reason – be it tradition, culture, or psychology – believe in god, but they don’t let that belief guide their lives the way fundamentalist religious people do. They understand that the message is more important than the belief, and are very amenable to reasoned discourse when issues of values, ethics, science and politics are raised that might contradict their religious doctrines. It is these people that should be an ally of us who value rationality and critical thinking. We should be working together to stop children from being slaughtered on suspicion of witchcraft, or to decry messages from the pulpit on the sinfulness of birth control.
We shouldn’t be making blanket statements like all religion is bad, or all religious people are delusional. It isn’t, and they aren’t, and we should recognize that if we want to build a movement that will last.
Skepticism 101 with Michael Shermer
Nov 4th
By Andrew Komar
Michael Shermer, the founder and editor of Skeptic magazine and demi-god of the skeptic community, was in Montreal a few weeks back for a pseudoscientific symposium hosted at McGill. You can watch the whole lecture series for free online, also including David Gorski from Respectful Insolence, Ben Goldacre, and the Amazing Randi. I had the privilege of attending this lecture in person, and Mr Shermer even signed my book! The lecture itself was a classic skeptic lecture, and a little review of the basics of skepticism are never out of order.
The primary thesis was the fact that our brains are essentially pattern seeking organs, which has been a very successful adaptation in evolutionary terms. Shermer termed this tendency”patternicity“, which is our ability to find meaningful patterns in noise, both meaningful and meaningless. Patternicity leaves us open to two main types of errors in finding these patterns. Type 1 errors, or false positives, are when we think we see something that isn’t in fact there. From an evolutionary standpoint, this type of error is low cost, because you will be more cautious if you think a tiger lurks in the bushes, even when there is no tiger. The second, type 2 errors, are much more costly in these terms. This is the assumption that there isn’t a tiger when there is, which results in lunch for the tiger.
Our modern lives are far removed from these life-or-death errors, but we still have the same basic caveman hardware. This cranial ‘misfiring’ is what causes optical illusions, because our brain’s shorthand draws conclusions about what we are seeing, even if it is impossible. Patternicity gives rise to pareidolia, for example, seeing faces in meaningless noise.
More troubling, this patternicity can be primed with other information. If we are told to look for something, our brains can ‘edit out’ conflicting information, such as in the classic gorilla basketball experiment. Other times, we are virtually powerless to see other interpretations of the data.
Pretty dolphins, right? Or did you see something else? (Pervert)
This pattern seeking tendency seeps into our entire lives without us ever noticing it, and it often influences our decisions. More troubling, the more uncertain or random the data, the more likely we are to see patterns in the noise. This fact explains superstitious pigeons as well as our own, often bizzare superstitions. I have little doubt that the roots of many religions today have some part in this same basic brain error. Michael Shermer concluded, the first step in overcoming the screw-ups is knowing they are there in the first place.
The great Richard Feynman once said: ”Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” With the lessons from Michael Shermer’s lecture, we are all better equipped to stop fooling ourselves.
The Dangers of Rhetoric
Oct 28th
I’ve been listening to the audiobook of Sam Harris’s The Moral Landscape…
While I have no doubt some atheists will thoroughly enjoy his neuroscience based advocacy of utilitarianism, so far, I’m less than impressed.
The neuroscience bits are good, and I think he has some interesting things to say about utilitarianism, but for the most part it seems like he’s fitting the facts to his theory, rather than deriving a theory based on the facts. Harris wants a science-based morality, even though the entire idea of ‘morality’ comes to us from a time of superstition. I’m not denying secularists can have ethics, of course, but just as Harris rejects “freewill” in the supernatural sense, I think morality talk is sloppy thinking.
Something that disturbed me, was the part where Harris states equivocally strongly implies throughout a whole section, that religious belief is clinically delusional.
(Edit: Harris states “The boundary between mental illness and respectable religious belief can be difficult to discern.”
This is true with many sorts of beliefs, mental illness has many levels, but his chief examples are extreme and religious.
Harris does end the section with this comment about a specific case: “there is no reason to believe that any of them suffer from a mental illness. It is obvious, however, that they suffer from religion.”
I’ll accept half an *idiot-boy* on this one, my bad for not checking, and thanks to the reader who sent in the text.)
I find this extremely irresponsible.
Some of you will no doubt agree with him.
When Dawkins published his book, The God Delusion, I had similar objections in the conversations I had with other atheists. Some would say, its just a title, he’s just being provocative. Others would go further and say religion was an actual mental disorder.
But I think both are seriously flawed. First, although its true that there are plenty of religious people who are clinically delusional, and some religions may have their origins in delusional individuals, merely believing something strange is nothing like real mental illness. If you’re just going to use this word as an insult, you’ve sunk to the level of calling people names, not to mention trivialized a real medical problem that can destroy peoples lives.
Second, those who state ignorantlyimply, as Harris does, that religious belief is equivalent to delusion, do so, not to address the “problem of religion”, but rather to dismiss it. Using ‘science’ as a tool of discrimination against minorities and women has a long horrible history…
But, maybe, I’m over-reacting, is it really such a slippery slope?. That is history, after all, we’re better now…
In an article published this summer, Mr. Sennels declares that “massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1,400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool.”
“The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings,” Mr. Sennels wrote.
Skepticism isn’t just about criticising others, critical thinking demands we examine our own beliefs too, and with the same veracity.
Defending the tribe
Oct 27th
Like a lot of people, I’ve been following the drama of the climate change debate for some time. And I believe, what seems like an overwhelming consensus amongst reputable scientists that human caused climate change is a reality.
I should say though, that I am not a scientist, and based on my limited knowledge of the difficulties in predicting complex systems, I’m probably more open to criticisms that are sometimes directed towards climate science. I also know that science is a human activity, and I am familiar with how that can cause problems for even the rigorous method of science.
I am a skeptic at heart, and so after reading this article, I’m somewhat conflicted.
Although many of the skeptics recycle critiques that have long since been disproved, others, she believes, bring up valid points—and by lumping the good with the bad, climate researchers not only miss out on a chance to improve their science, they come across to the public as haughty.
Getting the facts right, especially given the global impact, strikes me as being the most important part… but human nature can be an obstacle for even those trained in science. Being skeptical is the hard road.
Gnu Atheist Questions
Oct 26th
By Andrew Komar
The factually challenged wingnuts over at the Discovery Institute have asked the scary new atheist movement some questions. I’ll do my best to answer them, but if the courtier’s reply applies, I’m going to use it. I’m an engineer, damnit, not a doctor of philosophy.
1) Why is there anything?
One of the defining principles of quantum physics is the fuzziness of reality, provided you are looking close enough. Call it the uncertainty principal if you want, but nature as we know it has some inherent randomness ’built’ into the universe. One of the stranger aspects of this is seen in the phenomenon of virtual particles, which are bits of stuff that pop into and out of existence in time spans shorter than we generally notice. This weirdness also manifests itself in the decidedly spooky Casimir Effect, but the take home lesson is that points of what we think of as empty space actually are teeming with vacuum energy.
The laws of reality allow matter and energy to pop into existence, given small enough time frames and small enough distances. Our cosmological model has that the early universe being of just this fuzzy size, so small and energy dense that time itself got squished into another spatial dimension (see: A Brief History of Time). This was just before the inflationary epoch. which expanded the size of the universe by a factor of 10 followed by 43 zeroes. If Stephen Hawking and the string theorists are correct, than a self-consistent understanding of physics demands that universes can and will be spontaneously created from nothing. We’re just lucky enough to be in a universe that happens to support our kind of life and allows these questions.
Now, it should be noted that we are beyond any experimental evidence regarding the ‘creation’ event, even in theory. As for the ‘why’ bit, that implies intentionality, which is straight up silly. Try asking gravity ‘why’ it is keeping your butt in the chair. Moving along.
2) What caused the Universe?
Again, ’caused’ implies intentionality, but I think I’ve just explained that the universe is essentially self-caused, randomly, as a necessary outcome of the way physics operates. This question also seems to require time existing independently of the universe, as causality requires time for a sequence of events. Asking about sequences ‘before’ the universe, or what caused the universe without time existing is as meaningful as asking what is north of the north pole.
3) Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?
I’m going to invoke the anthropic principle here, it’s doubtful that we’d be here to ask that question if the universe wasn’t ordered enough for complex life to arise. If our universe is a probabilistic fluctuation in some grander design, than there are also an infinite number of other universes that would not have perceived regularity, because their variation on the laws of nature wouldn’t allow for beings capable of observation. Call it a self-selection bias with a sample of 1.
Besides, just because we call an observed pattern regular doesn’t make it so; ask the financial markets. The two theories that best explain different properties of our universe are mutually incompatible, but we consider both laws. All we can do is attempt to characterize our observations in a systematic fashion, incorporating them into self consistent models that explain and predicting relevant aspects. Science is the endeavor of weeding out the bad explanations based on evidence, but you are still left with models that are limited by what we know, or even can know.
4) Causes in nature proposed by Aristotle (material, formal, efficient, and final), which of them are real? Do final causes exist?
Buh? Anyway, I don’t know what injecting a thinker who didn’t even get inertia has to do with a modern scientific understanding of the universe, but honestly, I have no idea what to say to this question.
5) Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?
I think consciousness, an intrinsically subjective experience, is a property of a functioning brain. The specific mechanics of this process are still an active field of research, but I think we have the basics mapped out. We certainly understand the underlying behavior of chemicals, but the 100 trillion or so neurons all interacting with each other in potentially infinite ways is a particularly difficult problem to tackle, but I suspect it is all our neurons firing in a time-dependent fashion that causes our subjective consciousness. That is, mind is what brain does, and consciousness is an epiphenomenon. The fact that it isn’t ‘real’ in some objective sense is no more consequential than the fact that this website is no more than a series of ones and zeroes being interpreted by machinery.
6) Why is the human mind intentional, in the technical philosophical sense of aboutness, which is the referral to something besides itself? How can mental states be about something?
Courtier’s Reply. I don’t really know what is being asked, but if this is some question intended on injecting some mind-body dualism into the mix, I’m not biting. Mental states are, as far as I’m concerned, a product of neuro-biological phenomenon in time, and it is an unnecessary step to include some soul. You are your brain, and your brain is you.
7) Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)
I think it is much more likely that ‘moral law’ is something humans made up to help us make sense of the world as it relates to us. That is, right and wrong are words we use to describe events that happen to humans, as opposed to some set of events that are objectively right and wrong. By this definition, we can understand how moral law has changed through human history (see: slavery, genocide, CO2 emissions) because moral law is simply how we define the rightness of any given action.
However, to assert that your particular preferences on right and wrong are some objective feature of the universe is offensively self-centered. All I can say with any certainty is what I think is right and wrong, and if we agree on those definitions, than maybe we can build a society together that implicitly respects our definitions. We might even build institutions (like a church, or a police force) to enforce those definitions, but they are not, nor have they ever been, objective things in a universal sense.
8) Why is there evil?
Evil is a matter of definition, overwhelmingly as actions relate to us (see the last answer). Sometimes, events like earthquakes happen that affect humans, but the events themselves are not intrinsically evil, because they are the result of a non-thinking process that is incapable of intentionally causing harm. The universe on grander scales is completely indifferent to the trials and tribulations of the little apes on the pale blue dot, but what we do have in our control is how we act towards each other. We are what we choose to be, and if our fellow monkeys choose to act in a way we think is evil, we have the choice to accept or challenge that.
Ultimately though, ‘evil’ will die with the last human being that understands what is meant by evil. The universe got on just fine for 13.7 billion years before us without our metaphysical hand-wringing about evil, and I suspect it will do just fine when the only remains of humanity are our electromagnetic transmissions speeding endlessly through the cosmos.
Any questions?
Miracles, Faith Healing and the Placebo Effect
Oct 17th
By Andrew Komar
Today marks an important day for Canadian Catholics, as the Vatican is making the first home-grown Canadian into a saint. Alfred Bessette, known to the faithful as Brother André, lived out his humble life in Montréal during the second half of the last century, where he developed a remarkable reputation for ‘miraculous’ healing. Though he denied any such powers, attributing the supposed healing to St Joseph, pilgrims soon flocked to Montréal to seek him out. The chapel he built on mount royal (now the sight of the humble St Joseph Basilica) soon became the home of thousands of canes and crutches, left by the devoted after they were apparently cured.
The church takes the claims of miracles quite seriously; the foundation of their doctrine rests on miraculous events. They even have a special commission set up during the canonization process designed to assess the validity of miracles. Larry Moran over at Sandwalk has done a superb job detailing the supposed miracles of Brother André, so I shall not bother with the take down here. The ‘infalliable’ church claims that there is a rigorous process to determine exactly when the laws of nature have been violated. Even more spectacularly, they also claim to be able to differentiate when said miracle is only the result of prayer to the deceased person in question, which is a prerequisite for inclusion in the holy club. 
Why the catholic church considers itself the supreme authority on science given their demonstrably abysmal track record (Galileo anyone?) is beyond the subject of the post, what is intriguing is the reason so many of the faithful felt they were cured by the ‘miracle man’. These miracles closely resemble the altar call healing that America’s evangelist movement is (in)famous for, where the sick are magically cured through the power of the holy spirit. Compellingly, these desperate cases rise from their wheelchairs, praising god and making a very convincing show for the faithful present. The problem? Many of the ‘healed’ still require their wheelchairs and canes after the adrenaline of the altar call has faded. In an investigation into the faith healer Kathryn Kuhlman, most of the miracles disappeared after the fact. All of those who claimed that Kuhlman cured their cancer continued to have the disease, and in at least two cases, the cured actually died shortly after visiting the healer. Faith healing has similarly abysmal records in healing amputees, who are beyond god’s apparent omnipotence and benevolence.
The Amaz!ng Randi, a legendary skeptic and ‘debunker’ who took down faith healer Peter Popoff, suspects that faith healing has more to do with (unintentional) self deception and ignorance about how the body works, otherwise known as the placebo effect. The power of the mind in alleviating pain and suffering is well documented, but the placebo effect is most strongly observed when the patient has strong expectations and conditioning. For the evangelical faith healers of the world, they prime their targets with bright lights, dramatic dialogue and authoritative assertions about the power of prayer, then tell them they are cured in front of thousands of people. The adrenaline rush one would naturally get from this situation could easily be mistaken for a cure under the spotlights, but there is no miracle in neurochemicals.
For our miracle man in Montréal, the faithful are primed first with a gruelling 200+ step climb on their knees. I’ve simply walked those steps a number of times, and I can assure you, the exhaustion and relief you get upon reaching the top is anything but divine. Breathing heavily and lightheaded from the climb, the faithful then descend into a dark room of thousands of canes and crutches, surrounded by candles and incense, and are told that they are in the presence of a miraculous healing power. With adrenaline still coursing through their veins and no other explanation, especially with the expectation that the will be cured, the placebo effect takes over, and they feel they are cured. At no point in this situation has anything other than the mundane occurred, and I strongly suspect that these pilgrims will soon be feeling sore and in need of more crutches in the near future. 
As for Catholic claims of miraculous recovery from cancer, comas and other severe illness, the strange world of statistics combined with the healing power of modern medicine is ignored. My dad worked in the terminal cancer ward of a hospital for 20 years, and sometimes even the most malignant tumors would disappear. However, in the vast majority of cases though, the patients would eventually die as a result of their diseases. The fact is, some people will naturally recover from these severe situations purely as a result of chance. These occurrence can be mapped out in the standard normal distribution anyone who has ever taken a course in statistics will be familiar with. Michael Shermer writing for Scientific American, explains that many of these ‘miracles’ must occur simply because of the law of large numbers. It’s rather intuitive, really. Any event that is one-in-a-million will happen to at least 34 unique Canadians, but this reality is not, nor has it ever been a miracle. 
Those 34 Canadians may attribute their result to talking in their heads to the deceased Alfred Bessette, a dead two thousand year old carpenter, or (to quote Dawkins) the great JuJu under the sea, but the statistical outcome would be the same in any case. With enough people, some very improbable things must happen, but this does not make these things miracles.
Of course, the church has a vested interest in ignoring statistics and science; just today thousands of devoted Catholics were in St Joe’s to celebrate the canonization, with millions more flocking to Rome for the ceremony. Did Brother André, or any of the other 10,000 saints perform miracles? No, but the idea that they did is really sexy to the billions of faithful who, despite statistical reality to the contrary, believe that miracles could happen to them, too.
Harper is a postmodernist…
Oct 16th
Watching this video reminded me of the variety of both content and quality that exists, both in academia, and at the click of a mouse.
In this case, not a good thing. Only someone ignorant of history, or disposed to believing conspiracy theories would be taken in by this nonsense.
First, Stephen Harper, if he is anything, is a Fundamentalist. Unfortunately, many people use this term pejoratively, without really understanding it.
To oversimplify a bit, it all goes back to the Protestant Reformation. Apart from the political concerns, the reformation was about freedom from the church.
Before the reformation, in the west, priests presented themselves as the conduit to the divine. Catholics still hold to this (Traditionalist) view, which is why confessing, to a priest, is so important. Protestantism, rebelled against this, and asserted that even lay people had direct access to salvation through prayer and reading the words of the bible. No priest required.
This “common sense” view of salvation not only broke the power of the church, but also led directly to ‘biblical literalism”. Before the reformation only highly trained priests, and a few literate others, had access to the words. English translations, and the printing press gave a wider range of people access to the ‘word of god’. Later, in America, this literalism, or lay-interpretation of the bible, would be used against modernism.
Modernism is really a child of the European Enlightenment. Before the Enlightenment, Traditionalists would talk of the “Great Chain of Being”:
God
Angels
Man
Animals
Plants
Regardless of how one reads Genesis, literal or not, an important distinction is made. Man has his place in a hierarchy; he was created separately from the animals, and is given dominion over them.
Now, to understand how this changed in the Enlightenment, you need to know one word: progress.
The theory of evolution, the industrial revolution, and even ‘the American dream’ of getting rich, were all part of this idea of progress, and improvement.
An eastern parallel was the shift from the Hindu caste system, as a ladder to nirvana, to the Buddhist idea, that regardless of caste, one could attain spiritual enlightenment in their lifetime.
Those who are paying attention, will note that evolution doesn’t actually work this way. Man is not the pinnacle, the most ‘evolved’. Rather, biological evolution tends to move sideways, its generally about adaptation to circumstance. Its not about progress towards perfection, or a goal.
The process of evolution is more in line with… wait for it… POSTmodernism. Contemporary ecology no longer refers to the ‘food chain’, because that implies a hierarchy that is not really present. Food web, better describes this. Some biologists are even questioning the somewhat arbitrary hierarchy of species. This doesn’t mean that differences don’t exist, but rather that the way we categorize is based on useful assumptions, not something implicit to the natural world itself.
A serious problem with postmodernism is that many people define it too narrowly, insisting that it belongs to this or that philosopher. However, there is postmodern architecture, art, quite diverse philosophy, and literary criticism.
A second problem is that due to the ‘science wars‘ of the 1990s, postmodernism is seen by many to be anti-science. Postmodernists may be critical of scientific ‘method’ and the modernist idea of progress, but this is quite different from throwing the baby out with the bathwater and dismissing the accomplishments of science entirely.
One important aspect of postmodern thought, is the prominence of contextual truth and subjective experience. If one were inclined to compare postmodernism and fundamentalism on a very superficial level this is where one might find similarity. And this is the tenuous link that appears to be the subject of the video.
The problem here is that fundamentalism doesn’t advocate for subjective/relative or context centered truth, but rather for absolute truth that is divinely revealed to the individual.
The difference isn’t trivial. It is central to both the fundamentalist and postmodern worldviews. Calling Stephen Harper a postmodernist is like calling Deepak Chopra a quantum physicist.
It is true that many fundamentalists are now using the language of both science and postmodernism to forward their political agenda, but that doesn’t mean that they are no longer fundamentalists.
If you are going to defend science you need to know where the criticism is coming from, and not just ignorantly charge into battle at the first sign of criticism.
The Atheist Disposition: A Response
Oct 13th
I’m under the impression that my message was misunderstood. For clarity, this is my position, quoted from my response to Crommunists article, which is later in this post:
The world is hostile to our point of view, but that doesn’t mean we can’t carefully consider how we present our ideas. If we don’t, it’s not hard to see that we could end up shooting ourselves in the foot when we stand up for what we believe. And, unfortunately, some stereotypes are true, or have elements of truth to them. For example, the vast majority of super-rich and super-powerful people in the world are from certain countries. This is a fact, but it could also be a stereotype. Let me be clear that I’m not advocating stereotypes, rather, I’m pointing out that some have elements of truth to them, and that it might be pertinent to investigate. Another fact is that, in North America, the majority of the criminally incarcerated are males. This could easily be translated into any number of stereotypes.
Just because a claim is labeled a “stereotype” does not mean it doesn’t have elements of truth to it. I’m certainly not advocating racism or bigotry, what I am advocating is an investigation of the stereotype [that atheists are hostile or unfriendly] to understand how it is being promulgated and why. In this particular case, evidence from my everyday experience leads me to believe the claim that some atheists are unnecessarily unfriendly and hostile is true, especially in regards to points of view they don’t agree with. Evidence from this blog has only strengthened that position. My point is that the hostility is, in many cases, not necessary, and that, in some cases, it’s actually profoundly counterproductive.
Unfortunately, the discussion either deteriorated into childish swearing, or people ended up missing my point more or less completely.
Which is fine, but my point still stands: How we go about saying things can be just as important as what we say. And I think we should more carefully consider how we say things to outsiders, both in private and en masse. I’m not advocating that we stop standing up for what is true, rather, that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot while doing so. I think many atheists have been doing a poor job of considering how they go about saying things, and that our long-term goals are being harmed by this.
Someone fairly pointed out that some people are hostile to our positions simply because of who we are, which is certainly true. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to turn away the undecided by acting like assholes. The idea that we should just be dicks because some won’t listen to us does not fly with me.
Anyways, I’m going to keep saying what I’m saying, because I’m concerned with the success or failure of the atheist movement, despite what many might believe. Clearly, the problem of counterproductive hostility won’t go away just because we stop talking about it, in fact, it will only get worse.
What follows is a lengthy critique of the responses to my post
First, Cromunist’s response
The fist portion is just insults, whereby the author explains that he thinks I’m wrong, and uses the word “crap” a lot. This is fine, but needlessly inflammatory.
The substantive argument begins here:
My position, boiled down, is that there absolutely must be people who are not afraid to stand up and make their opinions clear, regardless of if those in the majority get their feelings hurt in the process.
I don’t disagree with this position necessarily, nor did my post. My post questioned whether the position that “firebrand” atheists take is actually making a net positive difference, and if what they say could or should be tempered somehow, to avoid pissing off people who disagree with us, while at the same time challenging the oppositions claims.
Then follows:
But the issue at stake here (in this steaming pile of crap) is not simply whether or not “firebrands” are right or wrong, it’s the complete lie that is painted about atheists.
Really? There’s no truth to it whatsoever? Considering I’ve just been needlessly sworn at several times, I find it hard to believe that no one could possibly perceive that atheists act like caustic assholes quite frequently.
There’s this ridiculous caricature that has been cultivated by believers that atheists are these angry, bitter, misfits who rail against religion and foam at the mouth whenever anyone has the temerity to say “bless you” when someone sneezes. Before I knew anything about Richard Dawkins, for example, I knew that he was a smug, arrogant prick with a bug up his ass about God. Of course, once I actually bothered to read any of his stuff and watch him in debate, I found out that he was a nebbish British biology professor with a soft spot for literature – not at all what I pictured.
So I’m to suppose that it’s a conspiracy promulgated by the religious right? There’s no evidence whatsoever that some atheists are needlessly hostile? I’ve read Dawkins too. I agree with most of what he says. But his tone is often condescending and it wouldn’t be hard for an outsider to perceive Dawkins as unreasonably hostile to religion.
It’s a lie. It’s all of it a lie. Atheists absolutely do not have sour dispositions, any more than the rest of the population. We are not stand-offish or unfriendly in the least.
Well, I spend a lot of time with a lot of different people. I find the opposite. Proportionally, I find that the atheists I know are more likely to be annoying and needlessly argumentative. Certainly not all of them are, and that’s not what I was arguing.
As far as being socially awkward goes… Brent, I say this with great affection, but go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty spike.
Well, in my circumstance it’s perceptively true. Sorry, chap. What do you want me to do? Deny the evidence? It’s not like I’m making this up. The fact that we have people within the atheist movement that spend a significant portion of their time justifying their unnecessarily hostile behavior is only evidence for this claim.
At this point, you’ve completely abandoned any kind of critical thinking and have just wholeheartedly embraced the same kind of ridiculous stereotyping that is enjoyed by anti-gay bigots and racists.
No, I’m not. I didn’t realize I was the same as an anti-gay bigot and a racist. Nor did I realize that’s what I was arguing for. I’m surprised you didn’t invoke the reducto-ad-hitlerum. Calling for a more careful approach to how we present our ideas is clearly tantamount to promulgating hatred. Obviously there’s no possible merit to the claim that atheists are often needlessly hostile.
This is the level of criticism we’re dealing with here. The kind of criticism that is happy to abandon any reasoned investigation into why black people are imprisoned at higher rates than whites, or why gay men have higher rates of HIV, and instead chalk it up to some kind of dispositional issue. It then becomes the job of the stereotyped group to fix the problem:
The world is hostile to our point of view, but that doesn’t mean we can’t carefully consider how we present our ideas. If we don’t, it’s not hard to see that we could end up shooting ourselves in the foot when we stand up for what we believe. And, unfortunately, some stereotypes are true, or have elements of truth to them. For example, the vast majority of super-rich and super-powerful people in the world are from certain countries. This is a fact, but it could also be a stereotype. Let me be clear that I’m not advocating stereotypes, rather, I’m pointing out that some have elements of truth to them, and that it might be pertinent to investigate. Another fact is that, in North America, the majority of the criminally incarcerated are males. This could easily be translated into any number of stereotypes.
Just because a claim is labeled a “stereotype” does not mean it doesn’t have elements of truth to it. I’m certainly not advocating racism or bigotry, what I am advocating is an investigation of the stereotype to understand how it is being promulgated and why. In this particular case, evidence from my everyday experience leads me to believe that the claim that some atheists are unnecessarily unfriendly and hostile is true, especially in regards to points of view they don’t agree with. Evidence from this blog has only strengthened that position. My point is that the hostility is, in many cases, not necessary, and that, in some cases, it’s actually profoundly counterproductive.
The completely false picture of atheists, or blacks, or gay people, or communists, or secularists, liberals, immigrants, etc. etc. etc. is one that is always based on an intentional mischaracterization of that group, from a position of privilege enjoyed by the majority group.
Again, some stereotypes have merit, others don’t. It seems rather ridiculous that it’s all some majority conspiracy. I’ll certainly agree that perhaps we are mischaracterized in some ways. For example, when we are called “baby-eaters,” or when people accuse us of having no morals. However, that doesn’t mean than any claims made against us have no merit. If we are accused of being hostile or caustic, I think there’s good reason to believe that there is merit to that claim.
Whenever someone disagrees with the majority position, if the argument can’t be defeated on its own merits, the next step is to demonize the minority group based on stereotypes – “It seems to me that many people in group X are like this…”
Sure, we are demonized, but that doesn’t mean we can’t carefully consider what we say and how we say it.
Since the majority have never come in contact with a member of the minority, they’re happy to buy into the idea that these people fit the stereotype. The lie then makes its way into the public conscience, becoming more and more popular, until members of the minority can’t even speak up on their issues without someone tagging them with completely false attributions.
But what if the claim has some merit? Then, presumably, some within the minority will be hostile to anyone who actually is willing to carefully investigate the claim to see if it has merit, and try to silence discussion on the issue. This is exactly what Crommunists response is.
The most frustrating part of all of this is when it comes from within the minority group itself. When we’re not fighting against bigotry coming from those who oppose us, but from those who are supposed to be our allies – happy to throw us under the bus in the name of appeasing the completely fraudulent stereotype of members of the majority who just want to be left alone.
Again, maybe that dissent from within the minority is actually legitimate, and shouldn’t be cast aside so lightly, or dismissed as a grand conspiracy.
Utter, elemental, pure mountain springs of crap. I’m ashamed to have anything of this type associated with me, and I will not allow it to pass uncontested.
Needless rhetoric. It amounts to “How dare you.” That’s the kind of silencing rhetoric I would attribute more to the religious than to atheists. But, in light of present evidence, perhaps I shouldn’t be so surprised when this kind of thing happens anymore.
Now I will consider Zak’s response
It seems silly having to defend atheism to atheists but c’est la vie.
I’m not attacking atheism. I’m attacking being unnecessarily hostile to people who disagree with our positions. Being hostile is not tantamount to being atheist, unless you accept that you have to be hostile to be an atheist, which is just silly, because you don’t.
And yet I tend to save my meanness for atheists, since I always thought they knew the difference between a heated debate and a type of emotionally filled bigotry I’m now apparently being accused.
I wasn’t accusing you, necessarily. But if you are been being a dick to people you disagree with, well then what can I say? Your probably aren’t going to make a positive difference if you are dismissive or rude to those whom you disagree with. You’ll feel good about yourself, but you aren’t building any bridges.
it’s unfortunate to see a new bunch of whining accommodationists getting some good press. Oh well, my thoughts are we can just pat them on the head and send them off to bed so that the grownups can keep talking.
Well I apologize for dissenting. I won’t speak up and say what I think next time, since it’s so very clear that your position is infallibly correct.
We have a prime minister who thanks his imaginary friend after every speech. I think that’s stupid and have no trouble calling him out on it. And yet the accommodationists want me to be polite, as if schizophrenia is something I should just ignore because it might make Stephen Harper feel bad.
I think it’s stupid too, but I’m not about to go shooting myself in the foot by presenting my view in a way that turns off everyone (besides atheists) to what I have to say. I don’t necessarily want you to be polite, I want you to stop pissing off people who would normally agree with us.
I can’t even buy into the notion that the new atheists are offensive. Religious people don’t have a problem with our so-called militant atheism. Any religious moderate worthy of the name realizes that writing books isn’t extreme. They may (and certainly do) disagree with our opinions but are fully capable of telling the difference between an extremist who writes a book critical of creationism in the classroom and one who blows himself up on a school bus.
It’s not what they think, it’s how they express what they think. If they are expressing what they think in a way that pisses off more people than it converts, then we aren’t making any progress.
While I realise that accommodationists aren’t bad people (many of my friends are accommodationists, ha), they don’t realise that by condemning me for expressing my opinion is tacit support for our mutual opponents.
Accomodationists are people too? Again, first of all, I’m not necessarily condemning you. And if I was, I wouldn’t be condemning you for expressing your opinion. Rather, I would be condemning you for the way you express what you think. If you are doing more harm than good when you express your opinions in a hostile way, perhaps it’s time to take a look at how you express yourself.
They think I am negatively affecting the cause by saying mean things about my religious friends. And yet, by not attacking the silliness and stupidity found in all religions, they’re denying that the cause even exists, which I find even more damaging and disturbing. Atheist activist groups have PR problems, we all know this, but fluffy feel good sentiments don’t attract donations or media attention.
I think there’s good evidence to support the claim that you are negatively affecting the cause if you are not considering how you go about challenging positions you don’t agree with. I’m not advocating that you stop attacking stupidity. I’m advocating that you do so in a way that doesn’t shoot us in the foot. Media coverage that will make us look like caustic assholes is not good media coverage.
Accommodationists know this and so should be shamed for attacking the only people trying to do something.
This is ridiculous. “Accomodationists” are just as committed to the cause as you are, they just want you to stop screwing it up for everyone.
Perhaps the whole debate boils down to simple jealousy. Anything Dawkins et al. publishes instantly becomes a bestseller while the lethargic boredom published by people like Paul Kurtz is read by no one. Yes, controversy sells, which is why the new atheists are successful. However, it’s also why the accommodationists have jumped on the bandwagon and gone after us. Because they have nothing interesting to say or anything new to add, the accommodationists have had to manufacture their own controversy in an attempt to become relevant.
Why would I be jealous of people who behave in a manner that not only unnecessarily pisses people off, but damages our cause in the process? This is poorly considered, at best.
So to all you accommodationists out there; I will patiently wait for you to grow up. You’re certainly welcome to hang around and do your thing but stay out of the fridge. The rest of us have bigger and better opponents to worry about.
It’s paradoxical that those arguing for a more carefully considered approach to how we do PR are the ones being told to “grow up.” And how should I grow up? Should I start swearing at those whom I disagree with? Should I call them stupid, or tell them to “grow up?”
I’m just as committed to atheism as you are. The bio in the authors section proves that. I just want to stop the inflammatory rhetoric that is shooting us in the foot.
More on accommodationism
Oct 12th
It seems silly having to defend atheism to atheists but c’est la vie.
I’ve never been able to defend myself against the accusation that atheists are mean and unfriendly. I admit I’m not very friendly but that’s only because I think you’re a moron. And yet I tend to save my meanness for atheists, since I always thought they knew the difference between a heated debate and a type of emotionally filled bigotry I’m now apparently being accused. Since I find it frustrating to have religious garbage shoved down my throat every day, it’s unfortunate to see a new bunch of whining accommodationists getting some good press. Oh well, my thoughts are we can just pat them on the head and send them off to bed so that the grownups can keep talking.
We have a prime minister who thanks his imaginary friend after every speech. I think that’s stupid and have no trouble calling him out on it. And yet the accommodationists want me to be polite, as if schizophrenia is something I should just ignore because it might make Stephen Harper feel bad.
I can’t even buy into the notion that the new atheists are offensive. Religious people don’t have a problem with our so-called militant atheism. Any religious moderate worthy of the name realizes that writing books isn’t extreme. They may (and certainly do) disagree with our opinions but are fully capable of telling the difference between an extremist who writes a book critical of creationism in the classroom and one who blows himself up on a school bus.
While I realise that accommodationists aren’t bad people (many of my friends are accommodationists, ha), they don’t realise that by condemning me for expressing my opinion is tacit support for our mutual opponents. They think I am negatively affecting the cause by saying mean things about my religious friends. And yet, by not attacking the silliness and stupidity found in all religions, they’re denying that the cause even exists, which I find even more damaging and disturbing. Atheist activist groups have PR problems, we all know this, but fluffy feel good sentiments don’t attract donations or media attention. Accommodationists know this and so should be shamed for attacking the only people trying to do something.
Perhaps the whole debate boils down to simple jealousy. Anything Dawkins et al. publishes instantly becomes a bestseller while the lethargic boredom published by people like Paul Kurtz is read by no one. Yes, controversy sells, which is why the new atheists are successful. However, it’s also why the accommodationists have jumped on the bandwagon and gone after us. Because they have nothing interesting to say or anything new to add, the accommodationists have had to manufacture their own controversy in an attempt to become relevant.
So to all you accommodationists out there; I will patiently wait for you to grow up. You’re certainly welcome to hang around and do your thing but stay out of the fridge. The rest of us have bigger and better opponents to worry about.
On another note, we need a new name for the accommodationists. The word is too long and hard to spell. My spell checker keeps changing it to ‘extortionists’ which I find ironic.
The Atheist disposition?
Oct 12th
The discussions on this site are usually interesting, but most of the time I end up bashing my head against my keyboard and screaming. As I’ve often said I have no problem with people disagreeing with my positions – I am happy to admit that I don’t know everything and am overjoyed when someone approaches me with a cogent, well-reasoned refutation of a position I hold. I am married to exactly none of my ideas, except insofar as nobody likes to be told that they’re wrong.
The thing that frustrates me is when the opposing position is completely brainless:
I know this is going to sound like a bit of a rant, but an idea just occurred to me. I’ve noticed that atheists, quite frequently, have sour dispositions. They’re often stand-offish, critical, and unfriendly. I notice they are also quite frequently socially awkward, but that’s a different issue to tackle.
Crap. Crap crap crappity crap crap.
We need to work on our image. I’m not sure where to start, but perhaps approaching the problem from the ground up is a nice way to start tackling the issue. What I would suggest is for atheists everywhere to be a little more friendly to not only one another, but also to others outside their atheist circle of friends.
Depressingly crappy craptacular crap.
The point is that the great atheist leaders that many atheists regard so highly are often viewed by outsiders as extreme, unreasonable, and ridiculous. Even those who agree with our cause often feel this way. Which means that if we’re trying to get the public on-board with our ideas and opinions, we’re failing.
Unadulterated, pure, unprocessed, certified organic CRAP.
All of this crap, brought to you in this particular case by CA author Brent Kelly, is in reference to an argument that I’ve talked about a few times, the virtue of confrontational atheism. My position, boiled down, is that there absolutely must be people who are not afraid to stand up and make their opinions clear, regardless of if those in the majority get their feelings hurt in the process. Some things are more important than feelings, and I would offer human rights and the future of our society among those things.
But the issue at stake here (in this steaming pile of crap) is not simply whether or not “firebrands” are right or wrong, it’s the complete lie that is painted about atheists. There’s this ridiculous caricature that has been cultivated by believers that atheists are these angry, bitter, misfits who rail against religion and foam at the mouth whenever anyone has the temerity to say “bless you” when someone sneezes. Before I knew anything about Richard Dawkins, for example, I knew that he was a smug, arrogant prick with a bug up his ass about God. Of course, once I actually bothered to read any of his stuff and watch him in debate, I found out that he was a nebbish British biology professor with a soft spot for literature – not at all what I pictured.
It’s a lie. It’s all of it a lie. Atheists absolutely do not have sour dispositions, any more than the rest of the population. We are not stand-offish or unfriendly in the least. Saying that we are critical is a fair charge, since criticism is part and parcel with skepticism, and the two camps share close ties. As far as being socially awkward goes… Brent, I say this with great affection, but go fuck yourself sideways with a rusty spike. At this point, you’ve completely abandoned any kind of critical thinking and have just wholeheartedly embraced the same kind of ridiculous stereotyping that is enjoyed by anti-gay bigots and racists.
I know this is going to sound like a bit of a rant, but an idea just occurred to me. I’ve noticed that blacks, quite frequently, have lazy dispositions. They’re often stupid, apathetic, and superstitious. I notice they are also quite frequently criminals, but that’s a different issue to tackle.
I know this is going to sound like a bit of a rant, but an idea just occurred to me. I’ve noticed that gay men, quite frequently, have effeminate dispositions. They’re often hyper-sexualized, promiscuous, and over-the-top. I notice they are also quite frequently HIV positive, but that’s a different issue to tackle.
This is the level of criticism we’re dealing with here. The kind of criticism that is happy to abandon any reasoned investigation into why black people are imprisoned at higher rates than whites, or why gay men have higher rates of HIV, and instead chalk it up to some kind of dispositional issue. It then becomes the job of the stereotyped group to fix the problem:
And be open to their ideas too, you might even learn something. Do whatever, just don’t get into a shouting match and reinforce the stereotype that atheists are argumentative, unfriendly, and annoying.
Cee Are Eh Pee – CRAP.
The completely false picture of atheists, or blacks, or gay people, or communists, or secularists, liberals, immigrants, etc. etc. etc. is one that is always based on an intentional mischaracterization of that group, from a position of privilege enjoyed by the majority group. Whenever someone disagrees with the majority position, if the argument can’t be defeated on its own merits, the next step is to demonize the minority group based on stereotypes – “It seems to me that many people in group X are like this…” Since the majority have never come in contact with a member of the minority, they’re happy to buy into the idea that these people fit the stereotype. The lie then makes its way into the public conscience, becoming more and more popular, until members of the minority can’t even speak up on their issues without someone tagging them with completely false attributions. The member of the minority group then has to spend her/his time fighting against a lie rather than dealing with the real issues.
The most frustrating part of all of this is when it comes from within the minority group itself. When we’re not fighting against bigotry coming from those who oppose us, but from those who are supposed to be our allies – happy to throw us under the bus in the name of appeasing the completely fraudulent stereotype of members of the majority who just want to be left alone.
Utter, elemental, pure mountain springs of crap. I’m ashamed to have anything of this type associated with me, and I will not allow it to pass uncontested.
Comments