1. Comment #64794 by BAEOZ on August 21, 2007 at 10:29 pm

So I can't return fire on theists who declare that they "know" everything there is to know and I'm amoral and the inheriter of all that's nasty in the world (as well as hell bound), for not accepting their certainty of belief?

Bummer......

And.....First Post again!
Numero uno! Ichi Ban! Numerus unus! Number eins? etc. I need to get a life.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

2. Comment #64795 by 10 on August 21, 2007 at 10:55 pm

1&2: I suggest Pro-logic
3&4: Seem to refer back to the "militancy" of passionate debate. No one is suggesting violence. Personaly what I have found is that simple sparring will lead to dragging out the issues that lead to passionate debate eventualy.
5: Right, though the idea is making a more vocal Pro-logic (patent pending!) front is not the same as banning all religions. I'm not sure why we should continue to give Alogicists kid gloves treatment if they continue to generate problems amongst themselves and for the rest of us, via their misunderstanding of our species importance in relation to the universe.

Other Comments by 10

3. Comment #64796 by fonex_86 on August 21, 2007 at 10:58 pm

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: "An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

IMHO, this is semantic nonsense, especially the last sentence. What do you people want to achieve? Why, the rejection of an evil, of course!

2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: "It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science."

We've tried this for hundreds of years. It's nooooot workiiiiiiiiing.........

Time to start shelling them back.

3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people's consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in "The Burden of Skepticism," a 1987 lecture, "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it."

As much as I respect Carl Sagan, I must say... BULLSHIT! It's precisely this sort of attitude that has given those religious charlatans so much false credibility! We should call MORONS for what they are -- faith-intoxicated, turd-brained, head-up-their-ass FUCKING IDIOTS. Offensive? You bet your ass it is!

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart in Luther King, Jr., in his epic "I Have a Dream" speech: "In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong ful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

Is this guy serious? We atheists have been prejudiced in a negative light IN SPITE of our lack of misconduct! That's what PREJUDICE is, goddamn it! Screw this!

5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.

Finally, something I (somewhat) agree with..

Really, this article has begun to erode my respect for the good Michael Shermer..

Other Comments by fonex_86

4. Comment #64797 by Morro on August 21, 2007 at 11:14 pm

The word "militant" has to be the single most misused word in this entire debate. I would like someone to show one (just ONE) thing about the atheist movement that has been even remotely approaching militant. Is "outspoken" militant?

Also, I'd like to see where all this breaking of the Golden Rule is really going on - I've not seen it. Even Christopher Hitchens, characterized as the "meanie of atheism" is really only stating "your ideas are stupid." That is the golden rule in action - we state our opinion of their views, and I've yet to see an atheist who attempted to deny a theist their right to do the same. The say that the wording of the indictment is too strong is simply to coddle the opposition. That's not the golden rule, that's simply poor tactical decision making, not to mention dishonest.

I think there ARE a few atheists out there who are jerks, and I tell them so FAR more readily than I tell theists they are jerks, becuase theists don't reflect poorly on me. However, none of those people are among those atheists who get media attention. The five or six atheists who get quoted and interviewed and best-sellered are uniformly reasonable. I'm just not sure when "reasonable" became confused with "respectful." Not all ideas are worthy of respect, and it's not militant to put that truism into action.

Other Comments by Morro

5. Comment #64800 by roach on August 21, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I don't feel like writing or thinking much at the moment so I'll give a quick knee-jerk reaction to the article.


I didn't like it.

Other Comments by roach

6. Comment #64803 by monkey2 on August 21, 2007 at 11:49 pm

What's the point? We may as well give up. There's no hope. Whatever you say it will just make things worse. I'm just going to go and lie down. I wore myself out writing that article for scientific american. I still can't find my prozac.

Go to the Doctors Michael and get a new prescription. Please

Other Comments by monkey2

7. Comment #64805 by SteveN on August 22, 2007 at 12:02 am

As much as I admire Shermer for his quite prolific efforts on behalf of rationality, I find his "show respect for the liberal faithful because we need them on our side to fight the extremists" attitude simply wrong. I'm one of those who thinks outright ridicule of ridiculous beliefs is far more effective and, to be frank, more honest.

Other Comments by SteveN

8. Comment #64806 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 12:04 am

It would be pretty cool if all Four Horsemen replied to this open letter.

Edit: SteveN,

I concur. I always wonder why people agree that some ideas are ridiculous but then turn around and say that we shouldn't ridicule those ideas. What the hell? Apparently they don't know what ridiculous means.

Other Comments by roach

9. Comment #64810 by pewkatchoo on August 22, 2007 at 12:37 am

Ho hum. Yet another, keep quiet, mustn't upset the religites, article. What stuff and nonsense. Has this guy actually noticed? THEY WANT TO BLOW THE FSKCING WORLD UP WHILE I AM STILL ON IT!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

10. Comment #64811 by SteveN on August 22, 2007 at 12:51 am

I also think that the approach of "gradually wean the moderately faithful off their delusion" is pretty condescending, implying as it does that such people are incapable of living without the dummy (or pacifier) or their faith and that they would suffer distress if confronted with open criticism. It seems likely to me that most of the moderately faithful don't really give it much thought and just carry on doing what they, and their parents, have always done. More of a tradition than a deeply held belief, perhaps. A short, sharp shock such as that delivered by RD or The Hitch might be the trigger to get them thinking about what and why they actually believe.

Then again, I might be totally wrong of course.

Other Comments by SteveN

11. Comment #64812 by Eamonn Shute on August 22, 2007 at 1:01 am

"1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail."

Rubbish - what about the anti-slavery movement?

Other Comments by Eamonn Shute

12. Comment #64813 by AdrianB on August 22, 2007 at 1:09 am

Much as I can imagine many of us not liking this article, to be fair to Shermer I think we can all agree with him on his last point, which I think is the most important one.

As King, in addition, noted: "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."

This is essential in my opinion, and we need to hammer this home to our religious neighbours. We are fighting for the freedoms of the religious moderates just as much as we are for our own. We have only become a vocal presence in the last few years because we are the first to recognise the damage that is being inflicted by the religious zealots. Christian intolerance is spreading like a cancer in the US, and in Europe we have the Islamic equivalent, which will become the majority religion in a generation or two.

We need to fight this side by side with our enlightened religious friends.



Other Comments by AdrianB

13. Comment #64818 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 1:36 am

Ok

This is a clear and polite piece from a smart person so lets look at this calmly.

Point 1.

"An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be."

Well, I am glad that this is a quote and not actually Michael Shermer speaking,because I am sorry to say that this is complete BS. What a myopic understanding of political activism. When you reject something this is both a negative and a positive action. When you reject something you, by definition, embrace its opposite (unless you wish to put forward a third alternative). For example if you say that you reject racial discrimination, then by definition you embrace racial equality - unless you want to make silly alternative suggestions like apatheid.

Point 2.

It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follow[s] from the advance of science.

Advance science and learning - agreed. However, no direct arguments against theism because they are ineffective? Don't know until you try and if the sales of the above books are anything to go by....

Point 3.

If it is our goal to raise people's consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind.

Sentence 1 - completely agree. Sentence 2 - don't agree. You don't avoid debate simply because you are frightened by tu quoque.

Point 4.

If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

OK. Important to be kind and polite to everyone. However, the important phrase above is "unto theists do the same". If a theist wants to talk about giving to charity and helping people - great. If a theist (like the Bishop of Carlisle) wants to talk about floods which kill innocent being due to God's wrath over society's tolerance of homosexuals then ... gloves off.

Point. 5.

A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

Absolutely, completely 100% agree! Well said. (I'm with AdrianB on this one).

Also interesting that this is the one point in which Michael Shermer does not hide behind a quote from another person. Wonder why?

N.B. If anyone missed this the first time round - PZ Myers article in response to similar criticism is a fun read.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,926,We-aim-to-misbehave,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula

Other Comments by Corylus

14. Comment #64821 by nickthelight on August 22, 2007 at 1:42 am

...."If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same."

Theists cast a shadow upon themselves and others whom they indoctrinate - mostly the minds of innocent children. We must be a brighter light.

Other Comments by nickthelight

15. Comment #64833 by scooternyc on August 22, 2007 at 2:49 am

I like Michael's writings and enjoy his appearances, etc. but one must point out to him with all honesty:

WE MEET PEOPLE AT THE LEVEL OF THEIR OWN ASSIMILATION

If a religious person sets up the conversation to be argumentative or hostile, they may well be met with that attitude.

If a religious person sets up the conversation as to be indignant or sanctimonious, they may well be met with that attitude.

If a religious person deems the conversation to be rational and respectful they WILL be met with that attitude.

I've never seen those opposing religion start out angry or antagonistic.

The tone of the discussion is most, if not always, set by the religious person with whom the discussion is being had.

Additionally, if a religious person thinks it's okay to just drop a religious subject, term, or inference in a conversation, then it's open to discussion, debate or criticism based on the manner in which it was offered. You opened the door, I just walked through it.

There is no more respect for a religious belief above any other individual opinion.

Other Comments by scooternyc

16. Comment #64835 by Geoff on August 22, 2007 at 3:04 am

"Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe"

Err, yes they can; that is the precise definition of the word. Although the implication of embracing science & reason is there, it isn't a necessary condition for lack of belief in a god.

Other Comments by Geoff

17. Comment #64836 by NMcC on August 22, 2007 at 3:09 am

The more I read of Shermer and the more I read his writings, the more I believe that he's an idiot.

What on earth is his point in this article? As far as I can see, it is simply to say 'don't rock the boat. The more we realise that science cuts the ground from under religious claims, the more we should pretend that it doesn't'.

There isn't a single point listed in this article that isn't demonstrably false and even dishonest.

His dragging in Darwin, for example, is done in a completely dishonest way. Shermer's Darwin quote, as I recall, is part of Darwin's response to Edward Aveling's request to dedicate a pamphlet on atheism (the source of the ridiculous claim that Darwin turned down an offer from Karl Marx to dedicate to Darwin the first volume of his Capital) which Darwin politely declined for numerous reasons, some spoken and some unspoken.

What Shermer conveniently ignores is the people, place and time. As far as the people are concerned, Darwin was afraid of his own shadow and wasn't an atheist anyway, and Aveling was a disreputable cur. As to place and time, Victorian England wasn't exactly the open-minded society in matters religious as we have now in the UK and elsewhere.

Shermer's other points are equally dopey.

Was Martin Luther King not 'anti' racism? Shermer would have us believe that joining hands with those who would cherry-pick the 'nice' bits of ancient religious mumbo-jumbo and who give cover to the loons, is the best way to promote science and rationality.

Did Martin Luther King join hands with people who were only slightly racist and whose racism was expressed in the best possible taste?

I think not Shermer.

Other Comments by NMcC

18. Comment #64837 by steve99 on August 22, 2007 at 3:28 am

There isn't a single point listed in this article that isn't demonstrably false and even dishonest.

This is going way too far. Shermer is a very respected guy and deservedly so. He is certainly NOT an idiot. Just because he disagrees with your approach does not make him dishonest.

I think we need to be careful about over-reacting and use of language.

Other Comments by steve99

19. Comment #64838 by heathen2 on August 22, 2007 at 3:29 am

If "new atheism" is truly a movement, then we need the "militancy" of Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens to pave the way for the "rational" brand of atheism that Shermer suggests.

I, like others here, take exception to the term militant however. Theists are alarmed at the disrespect for their silly beliefs, so they label it "militant" in order to put a negative spin on valid criticism.

And please, Mr. Shermer, you do an injustice when you level the charge of "militant" against Dawkins. How many books has he written extolling the beauty of the natural world and promoting science? I think he has more than done his part in educating the public about science.

Other Comments by heathen2

20. Comment #64842 by tieInterceptor on August 22, 2007 at 3:46 am

as Hitchens points out again and again, 'reverend' gives credence to anyone who puts in in front of its name,

much as doctor use to be, until science got devalued on the eyes of the masses mainly by the faithful efforts.

we Must use every chance we get to ask serious questions to those who claim to know what they obviously do not know.

most people will believe the reverends and 'experts' of theology if no one treats them with the disdain they rightfully deserve.

once those charlatans are ridiculed enough, people will think twice about following them, no one wants to follow an idiot, but lots do thanks to the aura of respectavility,

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

21. Comment #64845 by Thor on August 22, 2007 at 4:19 am

All right, let's get into the fray here...

I very much admire Shermer and generally enjoy his writings - as I did with this piece, apparently unlike most others here. That doesn't mean I disagree with Dawkins, Hitchens et al. one bit. I am also a big fan of theirs.
I find pretty much all of Shermer's points here very persuasive and am rather disappointed that most commenters seem to throw him in with the "let's not be so uppity about religion"-crowd.
Read more closely, people. That's not what he is saying AT ALL.
Let's go by the numbers:

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail.

Some here seem to disagree, invoking the "anti-racism" of MLK: that's exactly the wrong analogy, because MLK was not anti-racist as much as he was PRO civil rights (or, in a larger sense, human rights). The same goes for whoever argued above that what people want to achieve is "the rejection of evil" - not in the world I know, they don't. The primarily strive for what they consider to be "the good".
Anyone who thinks that this is an automatism, that this is self-evident, logically equivalent or just an issue of "framing" is utterly missing the point (which I am happy to discuss, but not in this post)

2. Positive assertions are necessary.

Shermer's second point is a corollary to his first argument, but one that obviously needs repeating:
as long as there is no positively described and actively promoted, coherent worldview that argues from its own principles rather than predominantly against a theist concept of the world, we will always be on the defensive (a point that Michael Onfray often makes in his "Atheist Manifesto" with regard to Christian ethics in the West)

To avoid misunderstandings here - I have no problem with the current upsurge of "new atheism" (not sure if I like the term but everyone understands it, so...), but my attitude towards it can best be summarized as follows:
It is necessary, but not sufficient

Yes, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens etc. deserve great credit for the publicity atheism is getting (although Hitchens likes to point out that he sees himself rather as someone who has profited from a change in the zeitgeist than as someone whoe is bringing it about - chicken-and-egg problem, if you ask me)
This encourages many people to finally start thinking about their own beliefs more deeply than they have done before. A necessary first step.

3. Rational is as rational does..

I'll just say that the statements by fonex_86 above demonstrate most eloquently the point that Sagan was trying to make - unintentended though it may be...

4. The golden rule is symmetrical.

I have no problem with this - and I don't see why anyone would. The golden rule's symmetry, taken with a little nuance, doesn't necessarily prevent us from calling Jerry Falwell all the nice things that Christopher Hitchens said about him. It's still a matter of individual taste, but one where I personally very much agree with Hitchens.
However, it should give us pause before using the same words against, say, the Bishop of Oxford, with whom Dawkins has had some very friendly and amiable conversations.
I don't quite understand why this should in any way be controversial: treat kindness with kindness and RESPOND (never initiate) to aggression with all means necessary to defend yourself.
Now, there is the whole "moderates provide cover for extremists" argument - which I agree with. That shouldn't prevent us from respectfully telling moderates how and where and why we disagree with them while on the other and hand calling a fundamentalist crackpot a fundamentalist crackpot.

As for #5: I will just be dogmatic here and say that anyone who seriously disagrees with this statement I consider to be an enemy of any free society that I would want to live in.


Finally, though, I will admit that I sympathize and partly agree when some of you are not happy about Shermer's choice of the word "militancy".

Other Comments by Thor

22. Comment #64848 by pewkatchoo on August 22, 2007 at 4:40 am

Sorry Thor, with the risk of being fried by one of your lightning bolts, I have to disagree with you. It is very clear that softly softly does not catch monkey. I make no apology for being inyerface about my atheism and will happily confront anyone who tries to push it to me in any way. Even people who say things like 'god be with you', to me get a mouthful now.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

23. Comment #64849 by steve99 on August 22, 2007 at 4:44 am

It is very clear that softly softly does not catch monkey. I make no apology for being inyerface about my atheism and will happily confront anyone who tries to push it to me in any way. Even people who say things like 'god be with you', to me get a mouthful now.

And do you have any evidence that this changes anyone's mind? I am interested.

Other Comments by steve99

24. Comment #64858 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 5:23 am

Thank you Mr. Shermer for reminding me of stuff I already knew, but had back-burnered a bit.

It's true: positive assertions are more powerful than opposition. When you oppose something, people will ask, "what's to replace the value of the thing discarded?" So you have to address a positive value, no matter what.

Religion provides a set of small communities of mutual caring, reassurance, and optimism. Rituals reduce anxiety, by making community meetings predictable.

We have nothing to replace all that.

So I say, let's reassure religious people that we appreciate the many valuable social functions religion provides. There's nothing wrong with getting together with others in a beautiful building for music and inspiring talks. Keep all that.

Our beef is with unchanging dogma that's come unglued from reality. We think dogma, like other assertions, has to change as we get new evidence about the world around us.

When I first starting coming to this site, I said more frequently that I view myself as a secularist more than an atheist. Secularism is really a higher goal, as it supports a diversity of first person data, so long as all personal data bend the knee to our collective need for corroborative evidence.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

25. Comment #64859 by Dunc-uk on August 22, 2007 at 5:33 am

It is very clear that softly softly does not catch monkey.

I'm sorry, but the evidence suggests that this simply isn't true. I don't know of any poll that claims religiosity is increasing worldwide, nor in the US. See this recent article that got posted here:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

I'm with Shermer (and Thor), for the most part, I'm also quite disapointed with some of the comments in this thread, particularly fonex_86. If I'd adopted the sort of shrill, ranting style of some of the posts above when discussing religion with some of my faithful friends, I wouldn't have got anywhere near as far as I did.

Please, can we not rise above our own stereotypes?

Other Comments by Dunc-uk

26. Comment #64861 by ClemIsMe on August 22, 2007 at 5:39 am

I agree completely that the right of the theist to believe what they believe is paramount to our society, even if it destroys it. Same with the racist, the sexist or the nationalist. But this is, after all, discussion. No one is holding a knife to their throats. And frankly, King did not raise consciousness in a vacuum. He was the good, wise and noble face of larger and very complex movement. Recognize King or deal with X...

As has been pointed out the friendly nudging has left those of us in the States dealing with at least thirty years of downward spiral, and finally with George Bush Jr. who, I cannot stress enough, was elected to office twice. Half of the voting public thought he was a good idea AFTER four years of fail. And a vast portion didn't even care enough to bother voting at all. If we want to last long enough as s society to see a new enlightenment the gloves have to come off, conversationally at the very least. At it's heart this is not about atheism. It's about what I leave my son.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

27. Comment #64863 by Prufrock on August 22, 2007 at 5:49 am

Thank you, Dr Benway. In attacking the monster we must ensure we do not become the monster ourselves. The monsters are dogma, superstition and the downgrading of people who wish to believe evidence, not to remove from people the right to believe. I am for rationality and have no time to religion bash. We already understand the value of evidence based reasoning, it just needs us to ensure we constantly push its positive value and contribution, rather than continually undermine and demean. Leave that kind of pointless behaviour for the God Botherers. We are better than that. We believe in reason not dogma.

Other Comments by Prufrock

28. Comment #64864 by I'mNotAlone on August 22, 2007 at 5:49 am

I'm with Thor and Dr Benway on this. I'm an atheist, not an anti-religionist, and when I discuss it with people I put the emphasis on positive, i.e. why atheism is the course for me.
Of course some of the stronger-opinioned believers will get me wound up to the point of picking out the clear inconsistencies, but most of the time I'm talking to either very loose Xtians (there must be something up there) or very polite Xtians. Occassionally I try to drop in some of these inconsistencies but the emphasis is very much on the positive.

Other Comments by I'mNotAlone

29. Comment #64865 by geckoman on August 22, 2007 at 5:50 am

Re post #24 by Dr Benway:

Been struggling a bit with this myself. In fact, my wife has had a go at me for spending too much time on this site for reasons similar to those you mention.

She says that atheists like me are almost gloating at others' ignorance, patting theselves on the back for being so smart and defining themselves largely only by what they oppose. I have found it hard to refute her claims to be honest. She is not a believer; only she just does not think that atheism v religion is terribly interesting.

It's fine to say that I believe in evidence over dogma, that I appreciate the wonder of the world around me etc, but she still thinks I'm some sort of obsessive smart alec that gets wound up by all things religious but doesn't have much positive to contribute by way of alternative.

Can anyone help me provide a snappy response to this?

Other Comments by geckoman

30. Comment #64868 by UberStan on August 22, 2007 at 6:06 am

It's a litle disheartening to see such negative reactions to mild criticism. This instant polarization - lumping an article or author as either for or against - does not seem helpful to me. Having read a fair bit of Shermer's stuff, I must point out that he always only ever falls on the side of rationality, which seems to be a point widely missed by the audience here.

He raises a vital question: do we try to convince others that they have a choice about what they believe in, or do we continually insist that they are wrong in their beliefs? What's the rational answer to that question?

Dawkins is completely justifed in suggesting that religion is afforded way too much respect, but that isn't a reason to apply disrespect as a way of reversing the influence of religion.

It seems that people are confusing the end with the means by which we get there. The right to ridicule is where we are going, not where we should be starting from. Sure, it's liberating to scorch those who treat scripture as evidence, but only for you. For your opponent it's just more evidence of the "intolerance" of atheists.

Other Comments by UberStan

31. Comment #64869 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 6:07 am

Can anyone help me provide a snappy response to this?

I thought there was only one response allowed: "Yes, dear."

We have to attack bad ideas. But we ought to be mindful of what we might be asking people to give up. If we seem to be asking them to chuck their community, friends, family, that's too much.

I don't exactly know how to separate the baby from the bathwater. My weak answer, "Maybe the churches can evolve, so less emphasis is placed upon faith and supernatural ideas no one can prove."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

32. Comment #64870 by Thor on August 22, 2007 at 6:12 am

Dr Benway,
well put, I couldn't agree more with your statement about atheism vs. secularism - which, again, does in no way preclude us from arguing theist vs. atheist methphysics in other, more philosophical contexts.

ClemIsMe,
well, as you said there was "... a larger and very complex movement".
Which is what WE should also strive for, because as of yet we don't have that.

I am glad to see that not everyone here gets all worked up about some smart, nuanced and mild-mannered remarks by a fellow rationalist like Michael Shermer - who, by the way, went to great pains in the first paragraph of his column to point out his overwhelming agreement with Dawkins on some central elements of his worldview.

Other Comments by Thor

33. Comment #64871 by captain underpants on August 22, 2007 at 6:28 am

I have to confess that I've never been overly impressed by Shermer, but I think what bothers me the most is that he wrote the article as an open letter to the Gang of Four, thereby - whether intentionally or not - lending support to the tedious atheists-are-fundamentalists brigade.

Other Comments by captain underpants

34. Comment #64872 by pewkatchoo on August 22, 2007 at 6:32 am

Steve
I am not out to change minds with my particular approach. I just will not let them get away with even mild prosoletisation (is that a word? ed). And that also applies to my wife, bless!

If someone wishes to engage me in a full-on discussion, then I will happily intellectualise my views and discuss with reason. But just how reasonable can you be when your protaginists are totally unable to string together a reasoned argument in reply? Let us be honest about it, we have experience with the wee fleas and bizarros on this site so we know whereof we speak. Total bollox is the default argument position of all religious people. There is nothing we can do about it! Faith is the equivalent of a non-surgical frontal lobotomy. All in all, I think I would rather discuss quantum theory with David Beckham.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

35. Comment #64873 by Russell Blackford on August 22, 2007 at 6:38 am

I do find this piece by Shermer annoying, even though it has some suggestions with a degree of merit.

First, he didn't have to word it as an open letter to Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. That is framing the whole thing as something like an attack on individuals who are basically his allies.

Second, the use of such expressions as "militancy" is a red rag. He should know that this has unwanted connotations. He's just gone and given his prestige and authority to a usage that is deployed rhetorically against those who are of the party of freedom and reason.

Third, what is he doing by ending with the platitudinous comments about freedom? Since it is a letter to Dawkins et. al., the implication seems to be that they are somehow in danger of denying people their freedom. That, however, is ludicrous. The people concerned have no power to do any such thing - surely it's the religious folk who are much better placed to do this, via their political influence, and do it all the time. How often do we need to be reminded of the role taken by the Great Queen Spider Cult Vatican in trying to make, or keep, abortion illegal? How often do we need to be reminded of its opposition to stem cell research? How many times do we need to recall its success, very recently, in getting draconian laws on reproductive technology enacted in Italy? How many times do we need be told of its largely-successful opposition to gay rights? The enemies of freedom are not Messrs Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, Grayling, Onfray, Stenger, Myers, and so on. They have said nothing to indicate a wish to suppress other's beliefs. If you want to identify the enemies of freedom go and look at the websites of a variety of prominent and vocal religionists. Why was the open letter not addressed to them if the point was a peroration in praise of freedom? It could have been an open letter to Messrs Ratzinger, Haggard, Pell, and on and on.

Apart from this, Shermer totally misses the point that there is plenty of valuable secular thinking being done by people who are not among the "New Atheists". Why should Dawkins, etc., have to do everything? Where's Peter Singer when you need him? Where's Jonathan Glover? Where's John Harris? Where's Thomas Pogge? Where's Kenan Malik? Where's Ronald Dworkin? Answer, they haven't gone anywhere. Their work is still being done and getting plenty of attention, if not the current notoriety attaching to what Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., are up to. Even small fry like me are trying to make a contribution to secular ethics. It's totally unclear why Dawkins and Co. should have to bear all the burden of developing moral and political messages from a secular viewpoint.

And another thing while I'm on a roll here. I'm sick to death of the double standard, and I'll go on saying this. There is a wide spectrum of tones among the voices of the New Atheists. Hitchens and Onfray are extremely forthright and provocative, but Dawkins is far less so. I read The God Delusion again a second time a couple of weeks back, and was struck once more at how good-humoured, careful, and fair it is. Sure, there's some satire, but it is so much better natured than almost anything on any other subject of social importance that it's quite noteworthy just how mild it is. Dennett's book is even more so; it's absolutely gentle.

Compare these books with the writings of Leon Kass or Catharine MacKinnon or any political figure, or indeed anyone with a degree of passion who sees certain things as evils to denounce. The fact is that Dawkins and even-more-so Dennett are already writing in a very civil style, given what they feel about religion as a source of many (though not all) evils. How much more can Shermer really expect? And yet, the standard seems to be that books such as those by Dawkins and Dennett are too strident because they argue against religion. Their tone would be fine if they were about anything else. Give me a break.

Yeah, I really am annoyed at this article. It could have been so much better, so much more useful, so much less likely to give succour to Shermer's own opponents, so much less a brand-new stick, with nails stuck in it, with which those same opponents can whack Shermer's actual allies. What did he think he was doing, apart from being sensational and stirring things up? What was the need for it, especially worded the way it was with all its lashings of counterproductive rhetoric? What sort of friend of reason, and of the freedom he says he so loves, is Shermer being here?

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

36. Comment #64874 by Crazymalc on August 22, 2007 at 6:44 am

I think a good place to start is to define yourself in the positive as a Secular Humanist as defined by Wiki as

" [a] philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making."

Atheism then flows from that.

As Sam Harris points out in Letter to a Christian Nation, even the word "atheist" is a little shaky. If the evidence is so overwhelming, then why do we need a word for it? We don't need a word for people who don't beleive that Elvis is alive (apreslyterian?), so why one for God?

The best conscious raising idea I have heard is from Daniel Dennett: Make religion education compulsory in school. Have every student learn about all the major religions. I think when children see the silliness in all of the religions they're likely to reject all of them.

Good thinking Mr. Dennett.

The Christian Right and others will probably protest and insist that only Christianity be taught. To which an obvious reply is: "Oh, you don't think the truth of your religion can stand up to these other obviously ludricrous one?"

Other Comments by Crazymalc

37. Comment #64876 by Elli on August 22, 2007 at 7:10 am

I am a big fan of all of Shermer's work - and also enjoyed his spot last night on the Stephen Colbert show. His book "Why Darwin Matters" enjoys a front and center spot on my bookshelf.

I actually agree with most of what he has written. The only thing I don't understand is that the 4 people to whom he writes are not doing what he implies they are. For example, let's look at the most "aggressive" of the 4, Hitchens.

Shermer states: "A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others".

Given the nature of this open letter, it is sort of implied that the addressees should take heed of this advice. But how many times do we hear Hitchens, for example, say "I don't care what you choose to believe, just don't force it upon me" - or words to that effect.

So I want to echo the words of some of the above posters that I just do not see why Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett are viewed as hostile or militant. However, it is clearly the case - people out there really do view them this way. Even the more intelligent, rational and skeptical amongst us. A pity. Shermer could have written the exact same article sans the open letter bit, and it would have resonated amongst the target audience a lot better, I feel.

Other Comments by Elli

38. Comment #64879 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 7:15 am

I agree with you Elli. Drop the "an open letter" line and the essay is much better.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

39. Comment #64880 by J.C. Samuelson on August 22, 2007 at 7:17 am

Some random comments about the article and a few of the replies offered here.

First, I like the article. Shermer doesn't appear to be saying that atheists should keep their mouths shut, as some here seem to think. Rather, he seems to be arguing that our approach should be positive; an attempt to build up rather than tear down. Of course, it's appropriate that some things will be torn down in the process of building up. That's progress. But we perhaps should exercise some caution lest we end up 'carpet bombing' religion when a 'smart missile' would suffice. The following quote sets the tone for the rest of the article (though some apparently missed this):

Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance.

Second, calling someone a moron isn't going to convince them that they are, or that their beliefs are nonsense. All it does is reinforce (or introduce) the belief that there is something wrong with you. I've yet to engage in or witness a debate in which name-calling and angry rhetoric produced desirable results. That is, unless the desired result was to close the dialogue and put up a wall.

...direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public

I agree with this statement. The theist who desists in her profession of faith based on having been confronted with direct arguments is a rarity, and she was probably primed for it anyway. De-conversion is a painful, introspective process, not simply an "Oh! That's a great argument so I guess I was wrong" kind of thing. What it takes is a willingness to open oneself to the idea of scrutinizing one's own faith. I don't see that this is likely to be helped along if atheists are busy telling her how stupid she is for believing in the first place.

Beliefs are a matter of psychology and/or conditioning, not intelligence. Anyone ever felt that arguing with a theist is like arguing with a brick wall? That's why.

Moving on.

Maybe we should also be somewhat careful what we wish for, lest we replace religious dogma with non-religious dogma. Everyone knows that the atheistic regimes of the 20th century were not bad because of atheism, but it can't be denied that religion was rather vigorously suppressed. Freedom is a greater principle than is rationality, in my opinion. Here's a quote along those lines that might be food for thought for those of us who call ourselves atheists:

"We must be aware of the dangers which lie in our most generous wishes. Some paradox of our nature leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the objects of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion." ~ Lionel Trilling

And as for Shermer's concern about "anti-" movements, keep in mind he's also a Bright. One of the principles of that movement is: "The Brights movement is not by design an anti-religious force in society. The overall aim is civic fairness for all, which necessitates there being a place in politics and society for persons who hold a naturalistic outlook."

In short, I'm with Shermer, Thor, and Dr. Benway on this, with the qualification that I think Mr. Shermer misapprehends the addressed authors' approach.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

40. Comment #64881 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 7:17 am

I am a fan of Schermer who has done plenty to better the world for freethinkers. His points are good points, and should be taken seriously. I am disappointed though that his article came across as 99% criticism. I'll be surprised if he doesn't get some interesting letters back, and I look forward to them.

And most importantly, we would be better off if we had something better to rally around than a criticism of religion. The "brights" business is obnoxious, "atheism" is too pejorative and not positive enough, "secular-humanist" is too messy, and "free-thinkers" sounds too much like 1960's hippies.

EDIT: the following is a pretty good (if not wordy) description of what I am about:

"YOUR PETITIONERS ARE ATHEISTS and they define their life-style as follows. An Atheist loves himself and his fellowman instead of a god. An Atheist knows that heaven is something for which we should work now — here on earth — for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist thinks that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue, and enjoy it. An Atheist thinks that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellowman can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. Therefore, he seeks to know himself and his fellowman rather than to know a god. An Atheist knows that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist knows that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He knows that we cannot rely on a god, nor channel action into prayer, nor hope for an end to troubles in the hereafter. He knows that we are our brother's keeper and keepers of our lives; that we are responsible persons, that the job is here and the time is now."


~ Madalyn Murray (later O'Hair), preamble to Murray v. Curlett, U.S. Supreme Court, April 27, 1961


Other Comments by sane1

41. Comment #64887 by sidfaiwu on August 22, 2007 at 7:40 am

First full disclosure: I am a big fan of Schermer and am a member of the Skeptics Society.

Next, the most recent edition of Skeptics, which Schermer founded and edits, was largely a tribute to Richard Dawkins and the contributions he has made to skepticism.

Now I get to my opinion. Other than the unfortunate misuse of the term 'militant', I think Schermer has some good points. Much of it is a point that I've made a number of times: there is an important difference between being right and being effective. Using insults and taring other people down is ineffective, even if it is deserved.

Lastly, I can strongly identify with his quote of M. L. King's in this context. I am not an atheist, yet here I am, a theistic brother, present here today, and I have come to realize that my destiny is tied up with your destiny. And have come to realize that my freedom is inextricably bound to your freedom.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

42. Comment #64889 by sane1 on August 22, 2007 at 7:46 am

sidfaiwu: yup - here it is: http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/
I may have to get me a copy.

Other Comments by sane1

43. Comment #64890 by debaser71 on August 22, 2007 at 7:46 am

I generally like Shermer but it seems to me that when he points the finger at other's people's approaching regarding atheism he undermines the so called new movement.

IMO it must come from all angles. From nice accepting approaches to in your face no holds barred approaches. So IMO if Shermer wants to help he can do so without condemning the bigger named atheists. Maybe he's a bit jealous?

Other Comments by debaser71

44. Comment #64891 by ClemIsMe on August 22, 2007 at 7:47 am

Just a note: I am not entirely disagreeing with Dr. Shermer, but I do think there is a balance to be struck here. What I find, again and again, is that I am TOLD by the faithful (in whatever faith) how things are and then have to fight my way to a reasonable position. When I am asked by the faithful, or they offer an opinion (as opposed to a sermon) and allow me to argue against that opinion or answer that question, I end up making friends - or at least having interesting, civil dialogs with these folks. But I am also not shy about what I am and what I think, and if you presume with me you will get both barrels, as it were. I am too old and tired to play semantic games or act the wallflower. If someone offers equality and decency they receive it. If someone offers condescension they certainly better be able to back it up. I love a fight.

Again, let me stress, this is conversation. I think Dr. Shermer is a great writer, thinker and has always been someone I offer to the faithful as a welcom to reason as a life philosophy. Sagan and Shermer are great diplomats for criticism and ration. I wouldn't want him to change his methods of persuasion even if I thought he might. And he certainly has the duty and the right to express concern as he sees fit. I wasn't trashing him, I was simply making my case.

Other Comments by ClemIsMe

45. Comment #64894 by Dr Benway on August 22, 2007 at 8:22 am

J.C. Samuelson:

Freedom is a greater principle than is rationality, in my opinion.

I take a yours-mine-ours approach to truth. I have my personal experience; you have yours. We can create a set of shared, corroborated experience between us, so long as we agree upon some evidentiary rules.

One is free to embrace any hypothesis about the world personally. But our shared understanding of the world isn't free; it's entirely subject to a rational process of corroboration and debate. It's subject to evidentiary rules.

I do feel there's a place for pooping on religionists sometimes. Early in a conversation, when a religionist asserts first person data as equal in evidentiary status to third person data, I chalk that up to a bit of wool between the ears. I point out the rules and why we need them.

If the religionist tries to cheat the rules again and again, at some point I have to call them on their sadistic attempt to dominate me. I scorn them for their arrogance, cruelty, and egocentrism, with the hope they'll see the reality of their narcissistic position thinly veiled behind loving platitudes.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

46. Comment #64897 by Cato on August 22, 2007 at 8:38 am

Shermer entirely misses what's "new" in New Atheism -- the claim that religious moderates are guilty of giving religious extremists a free ride.

This is a very simple pro-justice, pro-truth, and pro-freedom movement.

Other Comments by Cato

47. Comment #64900 by Chayanov on August 22, 2007 at 8:46 am

Regardless of what atheists do, the religious moderates are not siding with us against the religious extremists. There's always that tacit approval of the extremists because, after all, they're religious so they must have something in common, more so than those atheists. These are the blinders that religion puts over the eyes and minds of otherwise sensible people.

Other Comments by Chayanov

48. Comment #64903 by fonex_86 on August 22, 2007 at 9:11 am

Thor and everyone else dissing me,

I'm so, so happy for you, who live where you can freely express your (dis)beliefs without fear of social, financial, or physical death.

I'm also glad that you seem to live in a very religiously and culturally diverse environment, no doubt enforced by the freedom to (dis)believe.

So maybe you could give me a break, because where I am your "moderate, sensible" theists simple don't exist, or are an endangered species.

For the past 5 years, I have been a civil person (despite my many rants here) to many religious peers, only to receive scorn. For my honesty, I have been rewarded with distrust. For my civility, I have received mockery. For my atheism, I have come close to that social and financial death you all are so safe from.

Some of you claim that my offensive approach has no merits. I dare say that you are gravely mistaken. I have successfully undone the religiousness of several peers, and a great part of it was owed to my in-your-face attitude -- many of them had never had their faiths challenged before, so my attitude was very much a slap in the face for them.

So you may go on agreeing with Dr.Shermer, wrong as he is, afraid to call stupidity for what it is.

And before you get all over me again, I know that it's not a matter of fear. Perhaps he's been drinking too much lately.
==========

We have to attack bad ideas. But we ought to be mindful of what we might be asking people to give up. If we seem to be asking them to chuck their community, friends, family, that's too much.

Why so? I did, and am still doing it.

Other Comments by fonex_86

49. Comment #64906 by Janus on August 22, 2007 at 9:23 am

Shermer is playing right into the hands of religionists.

Point 1 is the only good one, and it always has been understood by the four people the letter is addressed to.

Point 2 is simply false. Even something as basic as refuting the good old theistic arguments (cosmological, ontological, design, pascal's wager, etc) does work and needs to be done more often. Shermer seems to think that nearly all theists know that these arguments are flawed, but for the most part they don't. And if Shermer thinks that merely doing science is enough to make people more rational and more sceptical, he must have been living under a rock for the last decade.

Point 3 is a perverse and ineffective tactic, and rests on a false supposition. The truth is that religious believers do think like children where their religion is concerned, and the means by which they keep their beliefs from crumbling down are inherently dishonest. Condescension and mockery are the only natural and honest reactions to religion. The only real question is whether or not we should be dishonest and hide our true feelings. If our only goal is to convince religious people they're wrong this would probably be the best tactic, but Dawkins and the rest have made clear time and again that this is only part of their objective. The other part is to break the taboo which has brainwashed most people into being respectful of religious beliefs merely because they are religious.
You don't break a taboo by adhering to it.
And besides, it's not true that religious people will "respond in kind". In accordance with the aforementioned taboo, they usually respond by calling us intolerant. And they're not the only ones, atheistic appeasers are just as guilty of promoting this taboo.

Point 4 is just nonsensical. How, exactly, are we "prejudging" theists? By stating their beliefs are false and by calling them irrational, credulous, and delusional? That's not prejudging, it's just judging, and it's an accurate judgement. As for not wanting theists to prejudge atheists, I don't mind at all if a religious person comes up to me and tells me I'm wrong for such and such reasons. What is Shermer talking about?

Point 5 is the big one.
"As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe."

It's at this point I had to scroll up the page to make sure this article wasn't written by some postmodernistic nut.

Mr. Shermer, would you be so kind as to explain to us what, exactly, is the connection between the freedom to believe, and your statement that we should be respectful of religious beliefs?
What does freedom have to do with respect or the lack of it?

Why, absolutely nothing. Not once have I read or heard anything by Dawkins and the other three authors that even suggests that the freedom of religious people should be restricted in any way; have you? Why isn't it possible to uphold the right of someone to believe and say whatever he likes, while pointing out that this person is a superstitious moron?

To be tolerant means just that, to tolerate, not to respect.

Other Comments by Janus

50. Comment #64908 by ChrisMcL on August 22, 2007 at 10:04 am

Some of Shermer's arguments remind me of those made by African-American's in support of the policy of "Separate but Equal". Atheists should not be satisfied with with thier world view simply achieving an equal status of respect. If we achieve that, then what? We will see the same kind of subtle discrimination that Afircan-Americans are still subject to these 35+ years after Dr. King's struggle.

No, I say. We should insist that others regard their beliefs with the same skepticism, rationalism, and scientific information that we use. That is the only way that we will TRULY be equal.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL