tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post4102090077868015211..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Jerry Coyne and Mark Oppenheimer on the LA humanism conference (and some random observations)Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-50076086510676448072010-10-18T15:19:06.999+11:002010-10-18T15:19:06.999+11:00@JJ ... or it may have started before that with so...@JJ ... or it may have started before that with something nasty that Ruse said about Dawkin, or before that with .... whatever. You get the point.<br /><br />But what currently has people like me grouchy isn't any of that ancient history. It's the sort of claim made by Mooney, that we are wrong to put forthright, but thoughtful and civil, argument against religious views.<br /><br />If someone said, "Don't be uncivil", I wouldn't really agree because there can be a place for incivility. In many situations, a bit of snark is defensible, and if we abjure it unilaterally we're fighting a cultural struggle with one arm behind our backs.<br /><br />But what is being put by the Mooney/Kirschenbaum/Nisbet camp is that even <i>civil</i> criticism of religious doctrine is somehow beyond the pale - something that would never be said about critiques of political positions or ideologies.<br /><br />It's worth reminding ourselves of this. I'm prepared to make some efforts in the interests of civility, but I'm not prepared to shut up about my substantive points.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-49171144119082023382010-10-18T15:09:32.174+11:002010-10-18T15:09:32.174+11:00Probably not, but I was offering a note of caution...Probably not, but I was offering a note of caution in response to stevec (not necessarily contradicting him, just qualifying what he said): i.e. I do think it important to put actual arguments rather than just saying, "That's ridiculous."Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63651746010669280492010-10-18T14:52:41.159+11:002010-10-18T14:52:41.159+11:00"If all I'd ever encountered when I was a..."If all I'd ever encountered when I was a Christian was mockery and naked assertion, I'd still be a Christian."<br /><br />Perhaps so. But does this describe anyone's actual experience, anywhere, ever?Jeff Chamberlainnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63370534108792032052010-10-18T02:52:48.460+11:002010-10-18T02:52:48.460+11:00But they disagreed about how stridently to make th...<i>But they disagreed about how stridently to make those claims. </i><br /><br />If this had been a conference on how to deal with global warming or holocaust deniers would the question be framed in terms of how <i>strident</i> the response should be ?<br /><br />The mere existence of atheism is taken to be strident and fsm help you if you publish the most mild mannered critique of religious beliefs, that in any other context such as art, literature or politics would be the most gentle kind of kid glove handling.<br /><br />Atheists are going to treat religious ideas exactly like any other idea would be treated in the marketplace of ideas. Get used to it.steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28283338413509242942010-10-18T01:36:19.253+11:002010-10-18T01:36:19.253+11:00"Let's remember where all this current ro..."Let's remember where all this current row started. It was with a claim that Jerry Coyne should not have published his thoughtful, civil review of the books by Miller and Giberson."<br /><br />The row started long before that. I'd say that the debate as we currently know it got started with Dawkins' "Neville Chamberlain" atheist bit.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54450748239905428342010-10-17T15:01:21.670+11:002010-10-17T15:01:21.670+11:00That's right. That's what I've been mi...That's right. That's what I've been missing in your response to Kitcher—the point that the more complicated view of the religious population Kitcher advocates does not necessarily argue in favor of a more accommodationist approach. It's anything but clear that the messages Dawkins, Dennett and company deliver are actually ill-suited to "mythically self-conscious" folks, and so on. It seems to me that there's a case to be made that there's real value in forcing such "believers" to actually consider the difference between the creeds they recite on Sunday mornings and the things they actually believe; if our aim is to reduce the influence of religious ideas and leaders over society (and I think that's definitely one of our aims), that effort might well have salutary consequences.<br /><br />I haven't actually read Kitcher yet, and obviously you haven't finished responding to him, but going only from your first few posts about his article, that message—which I suspect you're starting in on here—seems to me to be one that needs to be delivered.Rieuxhttp://camusrieux@yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39273297722558489892010-10-17T13:44:05.952+11:002010-10-17T13:44:05.952+11:00I actually think that there's a lot of room fo...I actually think that there's a lot of room for thoughtful, civil critique (though, as you say, stevec, plainspoken) of religion. If all I'd ever encountered when I was a Christian was mockery and naked assertion, I'd still be a Christian. It was largely the arguments of (among others, of course) Bertrand Russell, JL Mackie, Paul Edwards, and (alas given what happened with him later) Antony Flew that persuaded me. These people used humour, satire, and mockery where needed to draw out the absurdity of a particular idea. There is a place for those things. But there was also intellectual substance. <br /><br />By and large, civil argument with intellectual substance is what Dawkins and Dennett provide - and even Harris and Hitchens are civil in their critiques.<br /><br />Let's remember where all this current row started. It was with a claim that Jerry Coyne should not have published his thoughtful, civil review of the books by Miller and Giberson. I actually think that a lot of religious people would have been fine with the review ... even some theologically conservative religious people are prepared to hear the arguments.<br /><br />It was, I'm afraid, people supposedly on "our" side - most especially Chris Mooney - who said that this should not be done. Presumably this means that the writings of Bertrand Russell, Mackie, Flew, Edwards, and so on should never have been published ... let alone the satire of Voltaire.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63041732282846484842010-10-17T12:32:56.711+11:002010-10-17T12:32:56.711+11:00There really is no polite way to say -- and say wh...There really is no polite way to say -- and say why -- you do not believe in the various Abrahamic religions. At the core, the claims these religions make are plainly ridiculous. There's no polite way to rationally disagree with them. Get over the need to be polite and just be honest say what you really think. Lots of people will be offended no matter how politely you try to explain your problems with their faith. Don't sugar coat it, don't cushion it, just rip it right off, like a bandaid, and let fly, say what you really think. It's the best way, I think.stevechttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03031509310091443835noreply@blogger.com