tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post3499684828963625174..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Going off the rails - the Aikin and Talisse teachable momentRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-43007619951335551452011-03-15T00:45:11.302+11:002011-03-15T00:45:11.302+11:00Michael Fugate is damn right -- their "clarif...Michael Fugate is damn right -- their "clarification" was just more sneering. FWIW, I do think "a careful reading of the piece" could have anticipated a lot of A&T's later clarifications. They didn't say the things many thought they said, but they went out of their way to imply it -- though I found that on a second reading, their consistency in implying-but-not-stating certain things was very obvious.<br /><br />In their reply, A&T ridiculed the notion of "citing sources" when your source is an anonymous e-mailer. But that's either a disingenuous evasion, or just fucking completely missing the point. That they never <i>said</i> it was anonymous e-mails engendered untold confusion. Now, I will say on a second reading, I guessed they were talking about anonymous e-mails... but they went out of their way to hide this fact in the original piece, and to imply otherwise without actually saying anything false.<br /><br />The original piece, I believe, was written so as to intentionally provoke, for the purposes of getting attention for their book. I guess that's not sooo big of a deal, but they were definitely kind of being dicks there for a minute.Mariahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09018918148698101001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4202930595962854492011-03-14T10:35:57.877+11:002011-03-14T10:35:57.877+11:00I wonder how many emails they really got, and if t...I wonder how many emails they really got, and if they'd be willing to publicize them without identifying their senders. If it's only one or three emails, then it wasn't worth their even writing about it.<br /><br />Frankly, I smell a Johnson here.Jerry Coynehttp://www.whyevolutionistrue.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-17816314403110960712011-03-14T10:34:54.967+11:002011-03-14T10:34:54.967+11:00It's an odd piece from Aikin and Talisse; how ...It's an odd piece from Aikin and Talisse; how did they confirm the source of the criticisms? Were the emails from anonymous@newatheists.com? Or did they say 'Speaking as a new atheist, you are a pair of accommodationists!'?<br /><br />It would be nice to see the texts of the e-mails, and since they're anonymous, I can't see there should be any problem in that.<br /><br />Since the Tom Johnson affair, it's plain that theists are prepared to Poe to justify their bizarre beliefs, so it's as well to be sceptical of any such reports.Mark Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04982524614308121228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9443963877052440052011-03-14T09:26:20.636+11:002011-03-14T09:26:20.636+11:00Fair enough, Pete - and if this has been partly an...Fair enough, Pete - and if this has been partly an attempt at "branding" themselves for commercial reasons, it's worth noting that they have lost some potential customers. And you know, a slightly more apologetic tone in their follow-up piece would have been helpful, to say the least.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-45050446494748268852011-03-14T03:43:37.707+11:002011-03-14T03:43:37.707+11:00Russell, you are right. They need not to apologize...Russell, you are right. They need not to apologize, but only acknowledge that their writing may have contributed to the initial misunderstanding.Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-32726243705057165942011-03-13T23:41:47.761+11:002011-03-13T23:41:47.761+11:00I read this piece last month, and found the whole ...I read this piece last month, and found the whole column to be hugely ironic, though that was almost certainly unintentional. A&T named not a single critic, quoted not a single complaint, misrepresented New Atheist positions, and in short constructed an elaborate strawman 'argument' against New Atheists. The irony is that by doing so they're according us vastly less respect than they're demanding for believers. Piss on 'em. I determined at that reading that if this was the best they could do, then their book wouldn't be worth reading. Your post here hasn't changed my mind, Mr Blackford.<br /><br />Pete MoultonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-15941223972869536082011-03-13T21:57:42.027+11:002011-03-13T21:57:42.027+11:00New Atheists = Stalinists
Accommodationalists = T...New Atheists = Stalinists<br /><br />Accommodationalists = TrotskyitesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-63348397993348815142011-03-13T20:29:23.682+11:002011-03-13T20:29:23.682+11:00I should also say that I'm not a great fan of ...I should also say that I'm not a great fan of that sub-title for the book myself. I find it slightly annoying. That's not because I am against showing respect to religious people, <i>as people</i>, but because the sub-title in itself sounds like the authors are trying to distance themselves from all those gnasty <i>disrespectful</i> atheists.<br /><br />However, I wouldn't have been worried about this in isolation. Titles and sub-titles are formulated largely for marketing reasons, and not too much weight should be given to them one way or another. The real proof of the pudding will be in the reading of the book itself. From what we know about it so far it sounds like it might be good.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-9773936554081804382011-03-13T20:24:09.264+11:002011-03-13T20:24:09.264+11:00I don't see any reason to accuse these perfect...I don't see any reason to accuse these perfectly respectable, known people of simply lying. I get weird emails too, and not just from David Mabus, so I find that part plausible enough. But they could have said in the first place that that's all it was. It's not a good set of events to use as a hook for an article.<br /><br />I'm not even particularly interested in getting people to apologise, but otherwise I think Michael Fugate above has nailed it.<br /><br />A pity, because Aikin and Talisse are people who probably should be, and ultimately probably will be (when the smoke clears), our allies. But they opened a hornets' nest, and I think it's worth reflecting on how this can have happened.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-82281439485756767032011-03-13T19:42:45.534+11:002011-03-13T19:42:45.534+11:00Of their critics: "Who are these people? We ...Of their critics: <a href="http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/03/take-two-accommodationism-and-atheism.html" rel="nofollow"><i>"Who are these people? We have no idea."</i></a> -- Aiken and Talisse<br /><br />To paraphrase Hitchens, sometimes the best refutation is to simply underline what they say.Dave Ricksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80187939168066395322011-03-13T19:18:52.911+11:002011-03-13T19:18:52.911+11:00Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. We are told the...Excuse me, but this is ridiculous. We are told there are people writing emails, "without leaving their surname", who accuse those philosophers of accomodationism. I'm not arguing one way or another until I have seen those emails. Do they exist ?<br />And I most definetely disagree with them on one thing: Being religious most certainly makes one irrational, and not just wrong.Rorschachhttp://furiouspurpose.menoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-39722742334646149722011-03-13T17:43:15.757+11:002011-03-13T17:43:15.757+11:00What's "obvious" to one person isn&#...What's "obvious" to one person isn't necessarily obvious to another person who (for example) had a totally different socialisation. We can ask people to try to step out of their socialisation and consider how things look without the overlay, but that's another thing. <br /><br />I think that objective morality, libertarian free will, and various other things that a lot of atheists find plausible, are wildly counterintuitive - just as counterintuitive as theism or religion. But I don't go around saying that people who believe in these things are crazy.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-81603654523170647502011-03-13T14:51:35.334+11:002011-03-13T14:51:35.334+11:00I found their reply to be extremely condescending,...I found their reply to be extremely condescending, for instance the first sentence of paragraph four reads, "But a careful reading of the piece cannot sustain the reading many of these critics have proposed." They place all of the blame on their critics and accept none for unclear writing. They should have apologized for writing a piece that many, many intelligent people thought said something they now claim it didn't.Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.com