Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

by Brian Sapient, Rational Response Squad

Reposted from:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/9592

Michael Shermer recently wrote an article for Sciam which covers the same issues he spoke about while on our show.

Here is the full original article:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1551,Rational-Atheism,Michael-Shermer-Scientific-American

These two blogs offer an opinion that I align myself with...

In defense of Dawkins and the enemies of reason show.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2145124,00.html

Totally cool atheist chick on the militant/appeasers...
http://scientianatura.blogspot.com/2007/07/appeasers-spineless-pushovers.html

Shermer wrote:
Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins's always poignant prose, "raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled." Amen, brother.

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. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.

I don't see the link here. We should be cautious about irrational exuberance whether it is irrational exuberance by being too extreme or likewise… irrational exuberance about being too passive. I don't see how you've shown that the authors listed have ever reached an irrational exuberance. As you noted on our show you wrote a positive review of The God Delusion, consider Sam Harris a friend, and liked Hitchens book, you just take a different approach then they do. In fact I was surprised to hear you wrote a letter like this considering your recent appearance on our show where it sure seemed like you found quite a bit that you approve of in what we and the authors listed have done.

As we seemed to agree on that show, atheist diversity is acceptable and some will be more passive than others. People like Harris, Dawkins, and we here at the Rational Response Squad understand why someone would want to put a positive foot toward science as opposed to a negative foot toward religion when approaching life. Some people prefer this world outlook so much so that they'll always be like this. They may even live their entire life without being confrontational towards religious people or its concepts. I understand those people exist, can respect that, and think those people are important. In fact I wish I had it in me to be that type of person. People like Dawkins, Harris, and those close to me simply have a hard time thinking like that. We think we must speak up so that several generations from now our great great grandchildren don't have to.

I personally was one of these "respectful atheists" for a while. After 8 years of discussing religion online and 8 years of the Christian right gaining power I realized a different approach may be crucial to save our country from the interferences of religion in government. Unfortunately it seems that since our religious population tends to elect leaders that are religious or biased towards religion affecting change at the government level hasn't always been successful. It would seem then that another approach would in fact be to affect the people, the people who vote. While I very much support the extremely crucial litigious sort of work that several major atheist orgs do, I see changing the hearts and minds of the people as another way to cut off the beasts head. Changing the hearts and minds of the people will occur via a multi pronged approach. Some will best be served by becoming curious and picking up a copy of skeptic magazine. They may find breaking the chains of religion to be calming and enlightening through your magazine. However not everyone operates in this manner. Some people don't realize there is a reason to rethink questions like God when you pass the age of reason, they've been taught to embrace based on faith, and therefore critical examination hasn't crossed their mind on the issue. A case could be made that the authors listed above were the catalyst for a great many confused people that had no clue that they should turn on their thinking skills and abandon irrational god belief in order to find their solace in life. Different strokes for different folks. We respect that some people will be positively affected by a simply scientific approach and I think we all hope that you, Greg Epstein, and those that align their beliefs with yours find reasons to respect our blunt and yet honest approach. After all if it wasn't for us (and the authors listed) there would be a lot less attention for the community at large. As Brian Flemming noted in his blog during Epstein Gate, it's in poor form when atheists receive a platform from blunt talkers like Harris and then use their platform to talk down about his methods.

In response to your bullet points

Shermer wrote:
1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail.

I'd bet a few dollars that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett (why is Dennett even part of this list?) would all agree with your first point. I can find positive views of the world and how to live it from all four of the aforementioned gentleman. All of the men listed are well known for holding critical thought and reason on a pedestal. To infer that their movement is simply "anti-something" (I don't even believe this is a "movement") is to not know much about what the men listed are trying to accomplish. I am sorry to note but feel compelled to note that the view that this "movement" is simply "anti-something" by itself is a view typically held by those with such hate and vitriol for us that they prefer to hold a delusional outlook of our position in an attempt to impugn our character and efforts.

Shermer wrote:
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested…

You've included a man nicknamed Darwins Rotweiller on your list of "new atheists," there is certainly much championing of science and evolution from the crew listed. We make tons of positive assertions. For the most part we all agree and assert that "faith is irrational as a means for determining beliefs that are logical to hold" would you agree? It seems awfully odd that this is a point on the list, as I contemplate which positive assertions to list I realize that the list is hundreds of thousands of assertions long, that maybe you're just not inclined to see it that way, and that maybe I shouldn't even bother listing any (as I know that you're already very familiar with their work). Should you seriously not be able to find any positive assertions for science and reason from the works of books listed and from the efforts of groups like mine, I can provide a small list upon request.

Shermer wrote:
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."

While Sagan was an amazing man, other amazing men have said otherwise. Isn't it possible that there is rational middle grounds… can you see how a diverse approach from a diverse group can be rational? Engaging in ridicule doesn't make one irrational if they've come to conclude that the person they're speaking with has become semi-impenetrable to reason. Sometimes people need a reality check and sometimes condescension is just what one needs to kick them into gear.

Sam Harris brought up a good example in a truthdig interview…

"I think this is a war of ideas that has to be fought on a hundred fronts at once. There's not one piece that is going to trump all others.

But I think we should not underestimate the power of embarrassment. The book Freakonomics briefly discusses the way the Ku Klux Klan lost its subscribers, and the example is instructive. A man named Stetson Kennedy, almost single-handedly it seems, eroded the prestige of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s by joining them and then leaking all of their secret passwords and goofy lingo to the people who were writing "The Adventures of Superman" radio show. Week after week, there were episodes of Superman fighting the Klan, and the real Klan's mumbo jumbo was put out all over the airwaves for people to laugh at. Kids were playing Superman vs. the Klan on their front lawns. The Klan was humiliated by this, and was made to look foolish; and we went from a world in which the Klan was a legitimate organization with tens of millions of members—many of whom were senators, and even one president—to a world in which there are now something like 5,000 Klansmen. It's basically a defunct organization.

So public embarrassment is one principle. Once you lift the taboo around criticizing faith and demand that people start talking sense, then the capacity for making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we'll start laughing at people who believe the things that the Tom DeLays, the Pat Robertsons of the world believe. We'll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power."

Again, why is Daniel Dennett on this list?

Shermer wrote:
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.

I speak up because I see a travesty on our planet. I see a society with tons of promise and hope but its being hindered. The science that we hold near and dear is under attack, it's happened before (see: burning of Alexandria Library). At this moment in time it's important for us to call a spade a spade. Those who have a belief in a god are not able to logically, philosophically, or scientifically defend their view. We know that faith is not a valid means of determining the existence of anything, and we should be pointing this out… this is science! If I held a belief that I couldn't prove you can bet your life fortune that I'd want someone to call me out on it. I don't care if they're calling me out on it with all the kindness they can muster or all the hatred they can spew. I want to be called out on claims that I make illogically and I want to live in a world where it's ok and normal for us to do this all the time. So when you speak of the golden rule, keep in mind that from what I know of myself and all of the authors mentioned we are in fact acting exactly as we would want others to act towards us.

My last problem with this point is your first three points. You've implied or inferred inaccurately that that "new atheists" or the authors listed, or whoever you're referring to are simply anti something, don't embrace science, don't make assertions, and aren't rational… which to me is either one big "prejudgment" or one incredibly jaded and vacuous view of the position of those listed.

Shermer wrote:
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.

But religion does threaten science it does threaten our freedom, it has for a great many years, as illustrated in each of the books from the authors you've listed. You said you read their books, right? This last point of yours seems like you've given us an open pass. You say as long as it doesn't threaten science and freedom we should be respectful, but since it does threaten science and freedom one could infer that you think we can be disrespectful.

On the issue at hand… we noted in our podcast with you, we promote freedom of disbelief, I believe to some extent all of the authors you mentioned do as well, and inferring that they don't is a gross mischaracterization of their position.

Shermer wrote:
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."

Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion.

I agree with King. Through scientific understanding some day hopefully the majority of the planet will understand how in fact we are all connected, and that there is actual proof for the claim that we're all related. We care for the future of humanity and all humanity and that is why we speak up, not because we're Nazis, fascists, freedom haters, racist, or prejudice. I hate to have to point it out yet again, but inferring any of those negative stigmas again is a gross mischaracterization of the authors positions and an opinion typically held by those deluding themselves to reinforce theistic self delusions.

A Rational Atheist,
Brian Sapient

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 74 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #64927 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 12:10 pm

I agree with a fair bit of this, there are many good points in here.

Unfortunately, he got me in a bad mood at the start by talking about "A totally cool atheist chick". He doubtless meant this a compliment, but unfortunately merely made himself sound like a sexist child.

If you want to persuade people it is a good idea not to talk down to half your audience.

Other Comments by Corylus

2. Comment #64931 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Nice article. But again I hope that at least one if not all four of the men to whom the open letter is addressed responds in the coming days/weeks.

Off-topic: Referring to women as "chicks" is sexist? I suppose when I call my guy friends "dudes" I am being equally disparaging.

Other Comments by roach

3. Comment #64932 by Peacebeuponme on August 22, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Corylus - I have to agree. He's pulled the rug out from under himself there with comments that have no place in a serious debate.

It's funny because I was reading Madalyn Murray O'Hair's opening statement to the Supreme Court earlier, and was thinking how good it was that we had moved on from a time when even a woman used "man", "he" and "his" as general terms.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

4. Comment #64933 by Robert Maynard on August 22, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Corylus: If you want to persuade people it is a good idea not to talk down to half your audience.

And what if she is, in fact, a totally cool chick? :P
I don't want to turn this into a debate about feminism, and I don't find myself using the term much, but I don't think "chick" is particularly sexist. I think the implicit meaning has drifted safely away from its roots as a variant on "bird", or whatever.
It seems on the same level as describing someone as a cool dude. *shrug*

In any case, Shermer is a cool dude, and so is Sapient.
I like to imagine folks like Sapient becoming what you might call "second-generation" "New Atheists", easy-going non-scientist super-arguers milked on the literature of their forebears, who'll be in the front line against the next generation of creationists, people like.. for example, Bizarro Dawkins.
I'm about 7 years behind Sapient, but I also like to imagine I'll be able to contribute something solid to this conversation someday too. :P

Atheism looks like it will have an exciting future. All we have to do is stay media-savvy, and our battle is half-won. To that effect, the RRS has been doing a fine job so far.

/rambling

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

5. Comment #64934 by Corylus on August 22, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Roach

"Referring to women as "chicks" is sexist?"

I wouldn't be surprised if this is partly due to a tranatlantic difference of language. However, to my (admittedly snooty :-)) British ears, this does indeed sound sexist.

"Chicks" give the impression of extreme youth (and thus someone who can be talked down to) "dudes" does not have the same connotation.

Robert
Agreed that that this should not be a debate about feminism.

Lets talk about the article instead. It is just one of those words that raise my hackles - we all have them!

Other Comments by Corylus

6. Comment #64935 by BicycleRepairMan on August 22, 2007 at 12:39 pm

I dont really see the point of these tactics-debates, in my view, there is both room, and need, for both "reason" approaches, both outright hostile Hitchen attacks and subtle Dennett'ing, also throw in the comedy approach for good measure (George Carlin kicks ass) Not one of these approaches will deconvert the faithful, but in the fullness of time, they all play their little part. A devotee needs sometimes to hear that its possible to take the completely opposite view.

In large parts of the Islamic world, a popular method of indoctrination is simply "Denial of Existence" Homosexuals dont exist, atheists dont exist, sexual abuse doesnt exist, and so on, it may sound absurd, but its actually quite common. One guy on national TV going "Nope, there is no God, sorry" wont convert, but it may spark a fuse or two somewhere.

Its all trickle trickle, like evolution, it might take a few generations longer than we expect, but before we know it, atheism will flourish.

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

7. Comment #64936 by Janus on August 22, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Good reply to Shermer's letter. I prefer mine, though. :P

As for the people above me moaning about sexism, kindly get over yourselves.

BicycleRepairMan,

Just one comment about your comment: I don't think I've ever heard a "new" (i.e. forthright) atheist like Dawkins or Harris attack a fellow atheist for using a different tactic to criticize religion. I've only ever seen them attack those who attack their tactic!

Other Comments by Janus

8. Comment #64946 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Janus,

Where is your response? In thread connected to Shermer's letter? *Goes and checks*...Yeah that was good and I'd say better.

We shouldn't take the thread off course and start talking about sexism. Although derailing threads and taking them on elaborate tangents used to be a specialty of mine on other forums.

Other Comments by roach

9. Comment #65012 by kellym78 on August 22, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Just an FYI, I wrote the little blurb about the "totally cool atheist chick" and I am proud to be one myself. Some people are entirely too sensitive.

Other Comments by kellym78

10. Comment #65020 by sapient on August 22, 2007 at 4:38 pm

Kelly,

I swear I was just logging in to say the same thing, and there you are beating me by 3 hours. You're a totally cool atheist chick!

Other Comments by sapient

11. Comment #65056 by OhioAtheist on August 22, 2007 at 7:02 pm

I'm glad Shermer wrote his letter, and I'm glad Sapient wrote this response. (Though the grammar-policeman in me cringes at his form.) In my opinion, this is a much more constructive form of internal debate than Greg Epstein's attempt to cut the legs out from under Harris and Dawkins.

Anyway, as others have pointed out, there's plenty of room for various tactics in any successful movement. I suspect both Shermer and Sapient would agree.

P.S. I see that the Rational Responders themselves have commented. Brian and Kelly, you're doing great work with the Squad. Keep it up!

Other Comments by OhioAtheist

12. Comment #65057 by Yorker on August 22, 2007 at 7:04 pm

5. Comment #64934 by Corylus

I'm with you here, I've always found the word "chick" tasteless, it would embarrass me to use it. To liken a young woman to a young bird is not to my taste, even the British use of "bird" meaning woman shows a lack of taste also. Of course it may be the fact I'm an older and possibly "uncool" dude that makes me feel that way but no matter, I'd just kick the ass of any young cool dude who disagreed with me! :)

Other Comments by Yorker

13. Comment #65058 by Janus on August 22, 2007 at 7:09 pm

OhioAtheist said:

Anyway, as others have pointed out, there's plenty of room for various tactics in any successful movement. I suspect both Shermer and Sapient would agree.

Um, have you read Shermer's letter? He's _against_ the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens tactic. He wants them to _stop_ being so direct and forthright in their criticism of religion.

Other Comments by Janus

14. Comment #65065 by monkey2 on August 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Michael Shermers article was rubbish. Sorry. I think Michael Shermers article was rubbish. It was full of statements that made me shout "That's rubbish". I feel that my personal view has been vindicated by the number of posts and the 'Rational Response' response.

My original reaction to the article was that here was an atheist that was just having a bad day. Just as Bizarro Dawkins turns out to be a 20 year old virgin and we can all say "Ah poor thing. I know what he needs", so Michael Shermer may have been feeling a bit down in the dumps.

I wondered if there was anything we could do to cheer him up. I reread his article trying to find out what it was that he wanted. Apart from the silly reference to 'militancy' his article is fine until he gets to his numbered reasons. Suddenly the black clouds arrive almost as if he has cut and pasted them on a rainy day.

Don't attack religion or their numbers will increase. Confine yourself to the wonders of science. It reads a bit like a personal mantra. After such a distinguished career in the service of atheism perhaps he just wants to retire quietly and be left alone. There is no doubt his phone must have been ringing non-stop recently from journalists wanting 'Mr Skeptic' to comment on the recent attack on religion.

I suggest that, in order to cheer him up, we have an annual awards ceremony for atheists and that 'Mr. Skeptic' is nominated for a lifetime achievement award.

Other Comments by monkey2

15. Comment #65072 by zarcus on August 22, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Brian Sapient Wrote;

I personally was one of these "respectful atheists" for a while.

It is good to see Brian Sapient respects that "such people" still exist. How secular organizations have failed or prospered within the political atmosphere where a recognized "religious population" exists is no excuse to believe that hostility or a condescending attitude to which Michael Shermer makes reference will now aid the situation. This argument is used often when criticism of Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens is forwarded. Organizations such as Americans United for Separation for Church and State share a vital common goal with Religious Skeptic's. AUSCS is also open to all belief systems.

I am sorry to note but feel compelled to note that the view that this "movement" is simply "anti-something" by itself is a view typically held by those with such hate and vitriol for us that they prefer to hold a delusional outlook of our position in an attempt to impugn our character and efforts.

Perhaps it was elsewhere where Michael Shermer mentions, "movement", because it is missing from his Rational Atheism Sciam article, in the way implied. There are a great number of reasons to think Michael holds Richard to great esteem, including dedicating Why Darwin Matter to him. The author of Why People Believe Weird Things I am sure is a vital voice in the movement to forward science and reason. I tend to not think that individuals who recognized their beliefs in Michael's books would declare him to be a saint.

Stating that Atheist cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe, to me is self evident.

You've included a man nicknamed Darwins Rotweiller on your list of "new atheists," there is certainly much championing of science and evolution from the crew listed.

Here again I must point out that Michael does not use what is put in what appear to be misleading quotes, this time, "new atheist", in his Rational Atheism article. Michael has recognized and championed the work of Richard, and Dennett many times. The Skeptic's Society hold's the work of Richard out in the exalted position they deserve, both through their web site, and in Skeptic magazine.

Should you seriously not be able to find any positive assertions for science and reason from the works of books listed and from the efforts of groups like mine, I can provide a small list upon request.

Indeed, from reviews Michael has penned, he finds many positive assertions in The God Delusion and Breaking the Spell. In Michael's review of Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spell he speaks highly of Dan's work, supplying the readers with the subtleties found within the pages.

Michael states:

Through his many provocative books Dan Dennett has emerged as the adocatus diaboli of science, and his belief in belief concept is his most dangerous idea to date.

Michael's essay found in Skeptic magazine [vol. 13 no. 2] entitled The Skeptic's Chaplan, ends with these words that close a wonderful personal experience he and Richard shared;

Richard turned to me and said, "All of this makes me so proud of our species that it almost brings me to tears."

I can only echo the same sentiment about the works and words of Richard Dawkins

When I first read those words, I felt a great sense of acceptance and admiration Michael shared for a fellow scientist, and advocate for science and reason.

Brian Sapient Wrote;

Isn't it possible that there is rational middle grounds… can you see how a diverse approach from a diverse group can be rational?

This idea is brought to fruition with the claim; "Sometimes people need a reality check and sometimes condescension is just what one needs to kick them into gear."

I fail to see how this is rational. If striking a condescending tone is the remedy for forwarding science and reason, then it will in fact be answered in kind. Secularist are speaking with a greater united voice in recent years, with that has come on occasion finding common ground with Religionist who share important goals for the betterment of humanity.

I speak up because I see a travesty on our planet. I see a society with tons of promise and hope but its being hindered. The science that we hold near and dear is under attack,

I agree both in the practical application of this sentiment, as well as the emotive recognition of the power of accepting the future of scientific discovery. I know few others who would agree more then Michael Shermer. Michael has written many times on the importance of recognizing ones own biases so as to not allow for shunning informed reason, in the same way he has eloquently aided many to identify others biases, armed with this knowledge, a rational path to breaking barriers of scientific obscurantism may arise.

You've implied or inferred inaccurately that that "new atheists" or the authors listed, or whoever you're referring to are simply anti something, don't embrace science, don't make assertions, and aren't rational… which to me is either one big "prejudgment" or one incredibly jaded and vacuous view of the position of those listed.

This is a false assertion. Furthermore to view Michael's opinions as stated in his article Rational Atheism as jaded and vacuous is to announce oneself as not understanding the context of the piece.

I hate to have to point it out yet again, but inferring any of those negative stigmas again is a gross mischaracterization of the authors positions and an opinion typically held by those deluding themselves to reinforce theistic self delusions.

This appears to be what I have recognized when skepticism arises over approaches advocated by the author's mentioned, which is to imply an apologia to the claimant. If this is the case, it must be done without full knowledge of the breath of Michael Shermer's work.

But, then again, I may be wrong.

Other Comments by zarcus

16. Comment #65075 by troodon on August 22, 2007 at 8:46 pm

If theism were a single target, and we had only one arrow to shoot, Michael Shermer's strategy would probably be the best. But we live in a world of thousands of beliefs ranging from Osama bin Laden and Pat Robertson to the 80-year old grandmother selling cookies at a church rummage sale.

Perhaps our most important audience is young people, from school children up through about age 30.

There are a number of young adults and teenagers on this forum, so I have a question directed at them. How can we best reach out to their friends who are theists? Would they respond best to the warm, fuzzy approach like Michael Shermer? Honest, rational arguments? Ridicule of religion with humour like George Carlin and Bill Maher? Inspiring them through the wonders of science like Carl Sagan? Emphasizing the importance of human rights and protecting the environment?

With my own kids I had reasonable results with a combination of honesty, science and ridicule. Once they realize how silly religion is they don't want to be associated with anything so "retarded". George Carlin's "On Religion" was a great reinforcer.

But so much seems to depend on their friends and fitting with the group. Here in Canada the young people seem pretty secular but I can see it would be more difficult in the bible belt of the U.S.

I really want feedback from the young men and women here.

Other Comments by troodon

17. Comment #65088 by sapient on August 22, 2007 at 9:52 pm

JANUS SAID:
Um, have you read Shermer's letter? He's _against_ the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens tactic. He wants them to _stop_ being so direct and forthright in their criticism of religion.

On his podcast with us he said he accepts all of their tactics, and recognizes various approaches can be beneficial. I will try to upload all of the content for free soon, and alert you to the info in this thread. After hearing him on our podcast, I think you'll find his letter to be very odd and out of place.

Other Comments by sapient

18. Comment #65093 by zarcus on August 22, 2007 at 10:12 pm

This commentary has reminded me of Richard Dawkins' journal entries during his book tour.

It is important to understand the issue at hand and how Michael Shermer has presented his opinions.

This was the entry that came to mind after reading the above thread entries.

Richard Dawkins Wrote [November 10, 2006];

Pasadena was also a welcome opportunity to catch up with my old friend Michael Shermer who, with his Skeptics, hosted the event. Michael and I have a slight disagreement over the right tactics to employ in dealing with religion. He thinks it is not just tactically unwise but actually irrational to be too confrontational, and it was good to discuss the matter with him. I disagreed, but I am still thinking about it.

It is quite clear that Richard is aware of Michael's views on this matter. Perhaps others may recognize Richard's thoughtful consideration.

Other Comments by zarcus

19. Comment #65104 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 11:01 pm

zarcus,

Thanks for posting RD's entry. I have now recognized Richard's thoughtful consideration. So what? He still disagrees with Shermer on the "right tactics".

Other Comments by roach

20. Comment #65110 by 82abhilash on August 22, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I Just wanted to state that Brian Sapient's Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter... was precise and rational. Very much up to the point. Michael Shermer grew up in a time when it was considered 'the right thing' to be polite to people of faith. He seems yet to fully grasp the fact that it doesnot work, we need to be more proactive and he has told him why.

On another note I would like to add that this event is the best display of the tendency of reasonable people to self-critical, something the religious are not. We must always be suspicious of people who are absolutely certain, but donot feel complled to offer proof.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

21. Comment #65116 by Russell Blackford on August 22, 2007 at 11:50 pm

I prefer my response on the other thread, of course. ;)

I also prefer "dudette" to "chick", but that's just me.

Actually, this is a great response ... and I'd be prepared to endorse just about everything it says. Good for Brian. I still don't know what Shermer was thinking.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

22. Comment #65122 by Richard Morgan on August 23, 2007 at 12:31 am

kellyM78 :

Some people are entirely too sensitive.

"entirely too....?"
Oh dear : I'm sure there must be a more perfect way of using the English language. And I'm not suggesting that my perception of the correct use of grammar is the most unique in the world.
"entirely too..."
There are some linguistic memes up with which I will NOT put.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

23. Comment #65126 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 1:03 am

"more pefect"?

"most unique"?

I suppose I could be playing right into the hands of a linguistic joke. It's happened to me in the past.

Other Comments by roach

24. Comment #65135 by Peacebeuponme on August 23, 2007 at 1:56 am

Sexist or not, I just don't think "totally cool chick" helps in a response to a serious letter. It's not a skateboard forum.

Outside of that I tip my hat to Brian's and the Rational Response squad's welcome efforts.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

25. Comment #65156 by Richard Morgan on August 23, 2007 at 3:32 am

roach:

"more perfect"?
"most unique"?
I suppose I could be playing right into the hands of a linguistic joke. It's happened to me in the past.

Yip.
It's just happened to you again, sweety!
And strangely enough, I'm not just playing silly-buggers. Grammar is the protocol of verbal communication, and sloppiness in the use of words can lead to unpleasant problems of communication. This would be highly regrettable in a forum dedicated to truth and reason, since words are all we have for describing truth and demonstrating reason.
Like y'know, yer see what I mean, it's sorta, y'know like, wow and yoopee 24/7 innit?
Innit?
No?
OK - I'll just fetch my coat.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

26. Comment #65179 by pewkatchoo on August 23, 2007 at 5:12 am

For those who are worried about atheist chicks and their relative body temperature, you are in danger of missing the woods because of all those trees!

This is an excellent reply to Mr Shermer's rather poor piece. It also, of course, vindicates my own stance (^8, so I would say that. I think Michael Shermer is mostly OK, but it just sends a message that he, like everyone else, needs to keep on top of their game and not undermine other good work, deliberately or not.

It is very easy to produce stuff when you are having an off-day and I am sure that this piece simply reflects how Mr Shermer was feeling on a particular day. Even I have days where I am more fluffy bunny than my usual velociraptor mode. I prefer me in velociraptor mode though.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

27. Comment #65225 by Shalini on August 23, 2007 at 8:30 am

Kelly said:

Just an FYI, I wrote the little blurb about the "totally cool atheist chick" and I am proud to be one myself. Some people are entirely too sensitive.

I am also proud to be one myself and I take no offense at being described as such.

=)

Other Comments by Shalini

28. Comment #65257 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 11:12 am

Richard Morgan,

You're creeping me out. Next time break the prozacs in half.

Other Comments by roach

29. Comment #65262 by joaquinvalencia on August 23, 2007 at 11:46 am

Regarding "tactics", I have heard Dawkins (and possibly Harris) specifically state that he agrees that his tactics are not the only ones that should be used.
I have been watching "God's Warriors" on CNN and I find I can only watch 10-20 minutes at a time without becoming furious. The constant "assertions" of authority over other people in contravention of law makes me so angry that ONLY a little bit of Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens can calm me down.
After watching "Enemies of Reason part II" and listening to Deepak Chopra pull a Ted Haggard in calling scientists "arrogant" because they insist on defining words, I decided to read Chopra's latest: "Life After Death". He goes from broad assertion to broad assertion and the closest he comes to substantiating any of his hypotheses is the occasional anecdote: "I know a guy who sometimes sees the spirits of the dead leave their bodies"...followed by 12 pages of horse$#it about astral planes and vibrations.
I'm glad someone in the public eye is standing up and calling this drivel what it is!

Other Comments by joaquinvalencia

30. Comment #65266 by J.C. Samuelson on August 23, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Perhaps ironically, I agree with the overall thrust of both articles. It seems to me that some are reading far too much into Shermer's article. The way I read it, he was offering a caution against getting carried away with ourselves. It's all too easy for any human to get caught up in our own "righteousness" (so to speak) and become the very thing we abhor.

Civility doesn't imply political correctness, and it's quite possible to have a "civil smackdown" of religion; one that's not laced with ad hominem and intellectual brute force tactics.

Having said that, after reading Mr. Shermer's article repeatedly to try and see it from another perspective, I do admit one thing: His article was largely pointless with respect to Dawkins, et. al.. Those authors have been civil as I would define it, so I'm not really sure now why Shermer felt compelled to write it in the context of an open letter to them.

Dawkins, Dennett, and Shermer (at least) are all Brights, and as the founders note on their website, it's a constituency of individuals. There is no party line that every person must toe to be a part of the movement.

The day that True Atheism™ is defined by a set of rules to which we all must adhere is the day it ceases to be about freethought and becomes a dogmatic position no better than religion.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

31. Comment #65269 by howtoplayalone on August 23, 2007 at 12:25 pm

While I agree with most of his criticisms of Shermer's letter, the grammar is stunningly bad. This will prevent people who won't put up with such bad writing from taking it, or him, seriously (I don't agree with judging people on their grammar, but the fact is many people do. If you're trying to be taken seriously in an intellectual debate, or especially if you're trying to play a part in representing a "movement," it's best to at least know Darwin's from Darwins.) It's not, after all, just a blog post or even a comment, but is intended (I presume) to be a serious reply. It's embarrassing.

And while I agree with his points, his arguments are put forth about as well as when he dbated Mike Seaver. I mean, not very well.

I don't care much if someone says "chick," but using it in this kind of writing (on a blog or not) doesn't add much depth, nor does it suggest that one be paid attention to.

Mostly, though, what is Dennett doing on this list?

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

32. Comment #65277 by Ewan D on August 23, 2007 at 12:53 pm

Plenty of people have read TGD cover-to-cover and somehow kept their faith intact. As perplexing as that is, and as tempting as it is to dismiss such readers as stupid or immune to reason, there might just be something fundamental that we need to know about the way human brains respond to cognitive dissonance.

I've posted the following link elsewhere, but it is particularly relevant to this debate. There are known neurological facts which can potentially cut through mere opinions about the best persuasion tactics.

Scroll down and listen to the CAROL TAVRIS interview - and let me know if you think it leads anywhere!

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/

Other Comments by Ewan D

33. Comment #65280 by ghostbuster on August 23, 2007 at 12:59 pm

We do not respect fascism or communism because of the millions of dead people left in their wakes. Yet, we are asked to respect religion that has left millions of people dead in its wake? Sorry. Not me.

Other Comments by ghostbuster

34. Comment #65283 by sapient on August 23, 2007 at 1:06 pm

28. Comment #65257 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 11:12 am
Richard Morgan,

You're creeping me out. Next time break the prozacs in half.

Ditto. Just how many stuffy uber intellectuals have decided to call this site home? From usage of "atheist chicks" (colloquialism anyone?) to poor grammar... are the uber intellectuals up enough on their logic to know that neither grammar nor the usage of colloquialism reduce the logical value of that persons argumentation?

I really want to see a more united front amongst atheists but between a weak letter from Shermer and stuffy counter responses from uber intellectuals, the weak isn't turning out to be a great one. Score one for the zealots.

Other Comments by sapient

35. Comment #65286 by sapient on August 23, 2007 at 1:19 pm

J.C. Samuelson on August 23, 2007 at 12:01 pm
avatarPerhaps ironically, I agree with the overall thrust of both articles. It seems to me that some are reading far too much into Shermer's article. The way I read it, he was offering a caution against getting carried away with ourselves. It's all too easy for any human to get caught up in our own "righteousness" (so to speak) and become the very thing we abhor.

I don't see it as simply offering caution. I think writing it in a style of "simply offering caution" was his cover for an argument with no validity. I got the picture he was attempting to paint the people he was warning as if we'd already turned sour, not that he was warning us not to. I got that picture specifically from these two sentences "Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons." He's suggesting we raise our consciousness a tier and then goes on to present an extremely passive approach to the most dangerous meme to ever grace our planet. Not only is he off base, but I do in fact believe he was trying to infer in a politically correct manner that people in "the movement" and the authors listed were violators of these principles he'd like to see embraced.

Would you expect a backlash or for someone to school me if I were to write a letter to Shermer and Epstein warning them about the dangers of slipping into drag, becoming a crack whore, and going on a mass killing spree before ultimately killing themselves? This is how Shermers letter read to me. A warning that completely misses the mark and does little but help to thwart the very significant progress the authors (and the people aligned with this "movement" thing I keep hearing about) he mentioned have helped accomplish. Shermers arguments play right into the hands of the religious right, maybe he's ready for politics in America! (I can say the same for Epstein)

Other Comments by sapient

36. Comment #65288 by kellym78 on August 23, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Richard Morgan -
"entirely too....?"
Oh dear : I'm sure there must be a more perfect way of using the English language. And I'm not suggesting that my perception of the correct use of grammar is the most unique in the world.
"entirely too..."
There are some linguistic memes up with which I will NOT put.

Please explain how "entirely" cannot modify "too" and how "too" cannot modify "sensitive"? Technically, it's grammatically correct, but as Brian stated a colloquialism or possibly used for...*drum roll please*...emphasis.

And how about "more perfect" and "most unique"? Let me guess, you were being facetious? *pats you on head* Good job not ending your final sentence with a preposition--that would be very entirely too absolutely horrendous for Bertrand Russell to have dealt with!!

(edit: People weren't getting the joke--I was "asking" what the words were because I obviously don't know.)

Other Comments by kellym78

37. Comment #65294 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Crap. I agree with everyone, which means now I'm obligated to shoot myself for being so fucking wishy-washy.

When you read something you put a little of yourself in, particularly if the writing is vague. Shermer's piece hints at excess from the A-team, or maybe just the potential for excess if we're not careful. But he doesn't give any concrete examples of what he means. This leaves the door open for people taking his words in different ways.

The past few weeks I've been struggling with the word "atheist." Why is it so hard to use that word in describing myself to friends and family? I've concluded that my hesitation is due to the negative meaning - the objection to the notion that God exists. But what am I proposing as a better position? And am I trying to sell my better position?

I've concluded that I'm not interested in selling materialism, naturalism, or any particular metaphysical stance. I'm happy advocating for secularism, which is a practical, political objective that I believe is necessary for peace in the world.

Working through these feelings has made me sensitive to the problem of opposition without positive assertion. That's the part of me that resonated with Shermer's article when I first read it.

But I admit I'm uncomfortable with Shermer's advice to avoid excess without clear examples of what he means. Is the "A" campaign making him cringe? Was someone too scornful toward some theist or apologist recently? What?

Gotta be able to dump scorn when it's deserved. Ridicule is the weapon of civilized, peace-loving people, no?

In the end, doesn't matter what old farts like me think. Revolutions are decided by the twenty-somethings.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

38. Comment #65300 by phil rimmer on August 23, 2007 at 2:08 pm

Dr B.

I think the Hitch is right. The only slogan to have is

"...Build up that wall."

Other Comments by phil rimmer

39. Comment #65302 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 2:16 pm

sapient and kellym78,

I'm sure we've all poked around enough internet forums to know that worrying about other people's grammar, spelling, and syntax is a waste of time. This becomes quite clear when one considers that the internet is global and English is not the only language the world has to offer. I used to call people on their poor grammar but then I realized I felt like a complete tool for doing so. Luckily, as sapient points out, you don't have to have perfect spelling, grammar, and syntax in order to produce valid arguments.

Kelly, I think Richard's point is that "too" is unnecessary and out of place in the phrase "entirely too". "Entirely" doesn't allow for the increase in degree that the word "too" is supposed to describe. You'd have to say something like "much too..." Anyway, grammar games are fun at first until you realize there are better ways to spend your time. For example, watching paint dry, standing on your head and trying to drink soda, watching Pluto Nash and Gigli, etc.

BTW, loved you guys in the debate against the banana boys. That was you right?

Other Comments by roach

40. Comment #65304 by kellym78 on August 23, 2007 at 2:29 pm

Apparently, some missed the sarcasm in my post. Whatever. It is the internets, ya' know?

Roach, thanks for the post. I got his point and was just trying to be absolutely ridiculous.

And, yes, that was us in the debate. Thanks. It's nice to hear something positive about it considering the fact that we are still taking heat for not being the perfect representatives for every single atheist on the interweb.

Other Comments by kellym78

41. Comment #65306 by Richard Morgan on August 23, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Luckily, as sapient points out, you don't have to have perfect spelling, grammar, and syntax in order to produce valid arguments.

You're right, of course. The problem is that imperfect spelling, grammar and syntax could well prevent you from effectively communicating your valid arguments.
And with the best will in the world, I would find it very difficult to take seriously somebody who assures me, in a mocking way, that "sensitive" is a noun in this case.
(The word "sensitive" is used as a noun - by the woo-woos!!!)
Some of us are happy to be corrected, science is permanently self-correcting, but if you prefer watching paint dry, well, I guess the creationists in your part of the world can sleep peacefully tonight.
Where would you like me to send you the other half of my Prozac?

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

42. Comment #65308 by steve99 on August 23, 2007 at 2:40 pm

In the end, doesn't matter what old farts like me think. Revolutions are decided by the twenty-somethings.

As an old fart myself (a 40-something soon aproaching 50), I have to disagree. Those in power are our generation, or even older. What we think, and do, and how we vote, really matters.

Other Comments by steve99

43. Comment #65310 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm

sapient and kelly,

Yeah it's impossible to please everyone. But I think you both did an admirable job. And my approval is the only thing that matters.

Richard Morgan,

Keep that other half for later.

Dr Benway said: "Revolutions are decided by the twenty-somethings"

Uh oh. I hope this isn't true for all of your sakes. I'm 25.

Other Comments by roach

44. Comment #65317 by Dr Benway on August 23, 2007 at 3:11 pm

Hi Steve,

Neither money nor voting will make atheism catch hold like the Beatles. To spread far and fast, the godless meme must hit the nerve on the edge of what's next. The 20 somethings hang there, and they generally don't tell the 40 somethings where that rave is happening.

The best that could happen: high school kids and twenty somethings wake up to the danger of tactical nukes pulse God, and perpetual warfare in the name of fighting "terror". They see how numb adults have become to the bullshit around religion, and they start forming rock bands in earnest.

You Brits have a genius for this sort of thing. Go on, figure out how to invade us one more time.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

45. Comment #65330 by zarcus on August 23, 2007 at 4:36 pm

Brian Sapient Wrote:

Shermers arguments play right into the hands of the religious right, maybe he's ready for politics in America!

The arguments brought forward by Michael are the same he has championed for many years. Regardless of the issue.

It is, I would argue, more likely to play into the hands of the religious right by being hostile or condescending. Also, doing so causes many to lose sight of the ideal of forwarding science and reason.

I do in fact believe he was trying to infer in a politically correct manner that people in "the movement" and the authors listed were violators of these principles he'd like to see embraced.

It would appear by the reactions found on many sites that Michael's words have not been viewed as anything but direct. There are few who appose Michael's arguments who have had to squabble over definition and/or meaning.

Other Comments by zarcus

46. Comment #65342 by RiverStyxx on August 23, 2007 at 5:26 pm

I stumbled upon this site after reading Shermer's article in Sciam. I agree with Monkey2's humorous comment. I read the article and could not understand why it was in a science magazine be...cause it left me with the same nagging feeling I feel nearly everyday in my town... atheists should not be seen nor heard.

I am a closet atheist in good ol' PEI Canada. On Sunday mornings, my whole neighborhood is vacant. I subscribe to Sciam and order books online to keep my sanity. Shermer's article just seemed like more namby-pamby drivel meant to keep critical thinking in check. Shermer lost me as soon as he said he stays out of religion - I wish religion would stay out of science and education but since they're already butting in ... game on!

Positive spin - Shermer's article is great advertising for these books. I already have The God Delusion and God is Not Great. Breaking the Spell and Sam Harris's book sound intriguing. Controversy often leads down unpredictable roads.

Other Comments by RiverStyxx

47. Comment #65345 by J.C. Samuelson on August 23, 2007 at 5:44 pm

35. Comment #65286 by sapient

He's suggesting we raise our consciousness a tier and then goes on to present an extremely passive approach to the most dangerous meme to ever grace our planet. Not only is he off base, but I do in fact believe he was trying to infer in a politically correct manner that people in "the movement" and the authors listed were violators of these principles he'd like to see embraced.

Maybe. It's possible, in my opinion, to take more than one message from it. The tone-setting sentence for me was "Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb." So, combined with the rest, I took it as not specifically rejecting a more strident approach, but a reminder that stridency can lead to something worse. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.

It's a part of human nature that, when we believe ourselves to be on the right track, we want (perhaps even need) others to think the same way. This is part of the psychology of belief, and I personally don't see anything wrong with an occasional reminder that we keep ourselves in check. That said, upon reflection it seems that Shermer's article lacks meaning. Mostly, this is because the kind of civility I took him to be advocating isn't lacking in those he addressed. I'm more concerned with a lack of common decency, as when people sometimes resort to ad hominem. That's just not what's happened with the authors he's addressing (especially Dennett).

Of course, it was a little pointless, I think, for Dawkins to suggest during the 2002 TED conference that IQ has something to do with religiosity. That seemed to me to be gratuitously provocative; a kind of implied ad hominem that would accomplish very little except affirm theists' assertions about atheists. I don't know if it's a reaction to that, but Vox Day and some Clark guy are now asserting (with no basis in fact) that atheists are socially autistic (see here, here, and here. That is, if you weren't already aware).

By the way, you and Kelly are doing an outstanding job, and I really enjoyed the "civil smackdown" (it could hardly be properly called a "debate") of Kirk & Ray. :)

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

48. Comment #65350 by zarcus on August 23, 2007 at 6:05 pm

RiverStyxx Wrote:

Shermer's article just seemed like more namby-pamby drivel meant to keep critical thinking in check. Shermer lost me as soon as he said he stays out of religion - I wish religion would stay out of science and education but since they're already butting in ... game on!

Perhaps you are referring to Michael's quote of Charles Darwin? For Darwin, at that time, forwarding his scientific theory was paramount. The quote as a whole from Charles only illuminates the proposition Positive assertions are necessary.

Michael has written many times on religion. He continues to debate on the existence of God, and with creationist in public forums. The Skeptic's Society offers many books on religious skepticism, as well as public lectures by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and many others.

Michael, in his book, How We Believe offers succinct counterarguments to theistic arguments. What Michael adheres to with regards to science and religion debates may well be understood from the forward to his book, Why People Believe Weird Things, offered by Stephen Jay Gould.

Stephen's piece, The Positive Power of Skepticism, ends with these words;

~ "Skepticism's bad rap arises from the impression that, however necessary the activity, it can only be regarded as a negative removal of false claims. Not so-as this book show so well. Proper debunking is done in the interest of an alternate model of explanation, not as a nihilistic exercise. The alternate model is rationality itself, tied to moral decency-the most powerful joint instrument for good that our planet has ever known." ~ SJG.

I already have The God Delusion and God is Not Great. Breaking the Spell and Sam Harris's book sound intriguing.

I have little doubt that Michael would support your buying power for science and reason. He has written in support of The God Delusion and Breaking the Spell. Just about all of Richard's books are offered through the Skeptic's Society. Usually placed conspicuously.

Other Comments by zarcus

49. Comment #65388 by pewkatchoo on August 24, 2007 at 2:13 am

Agree with Steve99. What, some mistake pewk!

Our generation(s) (mumble, mumble sort of in the same ballpark as steve) has potentially more influence than any other generation before and definitely more than upcoming generations will have if we don't do something about what is wrong now.

I am not yet ready to lie down and let the barstewards have their way! So come on Dr Benway, gee yourself up for another few jousts. We could always call ourselves the brigade of atheistic old f*rts.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

50. Comment #65396 by automath on August 24, 2007 at 3:32 am

What's all the fuss about? There appears to be a lot of mountains being created from mole hills! Does this stem from a basic lack of thought about what is being written or just the limitations of the medium upon which we find ourselves.

Other Comments by automath

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last