1. The Group Delusion

Comment #110260 by zarcus on January 10, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Is this the final article to be published in New Scientist?

I sent it off to D. S. Wilson. I've been curious about the line in the Genes Still Central piece by Richard where he says: "and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him"

That is some power David has. I wonder how many pieces written by Richard and others will we see with a take off of The God Delusion title.

Add: Also, the David effect has reached other "wise and sensible" people, such as Massimo Pigliuuci. I would like to see a responce also from Richard to Massimo's recent Skeptical Inquirer articles - Beyond Selfish Genes and The Trouble with Memetics

2. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101421 by zarcus on December 20, 2007 at 10:48 am

NormanDoering Wrote:

The Tamil Tigers are indeed a terrorist group, and not a religious one, and they are indeed "Marxist." However, their founder and supreme leader, Vellupillai Prabhakaran, is a Methodist Christian. Their official spokesman, ANTON Balasingham, is also Christian.

Who are you calling a liar? Prabhakaran is a lapsed Baptist and Balsingham is dead as of 2006. Also, Balasingham was raised Christian but became atheist in adulthood.

3. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89611 by zarcus on November 21, 2007 at 8:47 am

Since 9/11, and Muslim extremism has been brought up, I thought I would offer something from edge.org.

http://www.edge.org/ - TERRORISM AND RADICALIZATION:

It is their most recent piece and is by Scott Atran, many here probably remember Scott from the Beyond Belief conference and the back and he and Harris had.

4. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88259 by zarcus on November 15, 2007 at 4:10 pm

I read Michael Brendan Dougherty's essay after reading most of Kelly O'Connor's response. I then came back to read the entire response and find it pretty goofy. Dougherty's essay is stupid in parts, but from a piece out of American Conservative it's pretty tame. If this the reaction to a piece like that then I would say someone needs a vacation.

5. The Psychology Behind Cults/Religion

Comment #87327 by zarcus on November 11, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Can someone tell me please, who the author is of this essay?

When I click on the name, mike, I get linked to a page, but I see no info. on the author. In the, about, section there is also no mention of the author[s]. I only see the side bar of, "about Michael".

I only ask because it is posted here and the research and conclusions seem lacking. I see no references, outside of general Wiki pages and no mention of studies.

So, who is this, anyone know?

6. The New Atheism rocks

Comment #86208 by zarcus on November 8, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Russell Blackford,

Since it appears you are advocating acting in unison, I wonder what you think of Sam Harris' opinions on this issue as presented at the AAI?

7. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #85408 by zarcus on November 5, 2007 at 6:51 pm

When will the first video become available? Or is it , I am getting a "no longer available message".

8. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82201 by zarcus on October 25, 2007 at 9:04 pm

I have no problem with using the term, Atheist.

This debate is idiotic. Besides, he went well beyond just a single term. Yes, I understand his point, I also think it's impractical, naive, and another in a long line of moronic statements made by Harris.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves "atheists." We should not call ourselves "secularists." We should not call ourselves "humanists," or "secular humanists," or "naturalists," or "skeptics," or "anti-theists," or "rationalists," or "freethinkers," or "brights." We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

9. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81525 by zarcus on October 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm

Richard Dawkins
As soon as the dopey audience heard him shouting..

Brilliant. It makes absolutely no sense to keep up this type of name calling. Perhaps I will be told, as offered in Free Inquiry, that I am engaging in "belief in belief", but to think headway is made making such statements is irrational.

.

10. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81165 by zarcus on October 24, 2007 at 10:06 am

Michael Shermer, In the most recent eSkeptic (the email newsletter from the Skeptic Society) has asked for input about this debate.

A quote from Shermer from the eSkeptic:

After watching my debate with Dinesh D'Souza last week I would be interested in your comments and constructive criticisms because Dinesh and I will be debating a similar but broader topic in December at Caltech ("Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil? & Can you be Good without God?" December 9, Beckman Auditorium, tickets available at the Caltech Public Events Office at 626-395-4652 or toll free at 888-222-5832).

Please email your comments to me at mshermer@skeptic.com.

Below are a few of my notes used during the debate. Most of the studies I reference about how atheists are just as moral as theists come from my book The Science of Good and Evil. The more recent studies are reported in either Skeptic magazine or in my Skeptic column in Scientific American. I had 25 minutes to cover five points.

As you see he offers his email address. I notice much of the opinions here seems to reflect a fairly negative view of Shermer's performance, so here's your chance to voice your opinion directly to Michael. Also, I see some who dislike Michael, it would be more beneficial to leave aside personal grievances and offer constructive criticism, lots of it to offer just going by this thread.

.

11. Critical Analysis of Case for a Creator

Comment #72535 by zarcus on September 21, 2007 at 1:24 pm

Quine on September 20, 2007 at 8:17 pm

If you haven't seen it, catch this BBC program on the ID Dover Trial (on youtube in 5 pieces):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAnIoXPLMdo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajcKn-qO3g8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsrmlST5sP4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTAC3h6gbKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqSgr-Jladk

Thanks Quine. Something that I think people in the U.S. may find surprising I found while looking into the Horizon: A War on Science was broadcast on BBC Two special the youtube links are from, was from the BBC special web site:

A quote from the page:

Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.

The survey was conducted by Ipsos MORI for the BBC's Horizon series.

Its latest programme, A War on Science, looks into the attempt to introduce ID into science classes in the US.

Over 2,000 participants took part in the survey, and were asked what best described their view of the origin and development of life:

* 22% chose creationism
* 17% opted for intelligent design
* 48% selected evolution theory
* and the rest did not know.

These statistics are similar to others in Briton.

.

12. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69517 by zarcus on September 11, 2007 at 3:07 pm

David Eller in an essay published in American Atheist made what I think is an excellent argument for Agnosticism as the basis for Atheism.

http://www.americanatheist.org/win03-04/T1/eller.html

I think Richard D's arguments about Agnosticism and Atheism in TGD were quite silly and needlessly confused. He didn't explain why Huxley coined the term Agnostic correctly either.

.

13. The Atheists Interviews

Comment #69487 by zarcus on September 11, 2007 at 12:58 pm

will strive to shed some light on these matters, to encourage those who might tend to give up on others, and to demonstrate which paths are the best to follow while trying to lead others to a natural view of the world we live in. Hopefully, we can learn from these new atheists.

I fully support this project. I have no doubt lessons will be gained. Thanks for doing it!

.

14. Rational Atheism

Comment #67070 by zarcus on September 1, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Comment #67040 by bayareadude on September 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm

I just cancelled my subscription to Shermers' Skeptic Magazine. He's become an apologist for the Religious Right, and I'm not going to support that with my money or any other way.

Brian Sapient recently shared views similar to yours:

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

Michael Shermer is not an apologist for the religious right. The article, Rational Atheism, in no way gives the religious right some kind of advantage. It has unfortunately become the case when concerns arise, or even outright disagreements, about approach to forwarding science and reason that there is a growing tendency to become alarmist and invoke the religious right. There is also a reactionary defensive stance of saying someone is or is becoming an apologist.

Whether one chooses to believe Michael Shermer is an apologist now, and is giving ground to the religious right, or not, this reaction I think demands some evidence. Now in turn by using the defensive logic, I may be seen as a "Shermer apologist".

Michael was forthright in his opinion, and I welcomed it, and I welcome the possible reply from the very distinguished persons mentioned in his article.

.

15. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #66847 by zarcus on August 31, 2007 at 7:04 pm

PZ Myers
we are approaching the question of god as a scientific problem ..

PZ Myers is someone I respect a great deal, as many here do also.

I would like to submit though, that the "question of god" can not be answered scientifically. In this sense it is insoluble and the attempt is as void as so called "proofs of god". Alternate explanations derived from science can account for many arguments for god, but there is no way to prove the negative. It surprises me to see PZ say such a thing. Perhaps I am misreading him.

The belief in god can be associated with other belief systems and in this way are accessible to fields such as psychology, evolutionary biology, etc. It would seem to me by making such a statement that perhaps PZ hasn't kept up with research into belief systems.

.

16. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #66806 by zarcus on August 31, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Comment #58695 by VinceMcD on July 25, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Hedges
His blind embrace of American imperialism and disregard for the rule of law makes him no better than the apologists for radical Islam and Christianity he seeks to discredit. His moral certitude and arrogance are no different. The consequences are as dangerous.


VinceMcD
I give up?

What is Hedges talking about?

If I were to guess, by assuming from the comments here that Hedges is politically liberal, that he is talking about Hitchens' support of the Iraq war, and the dismissal of criticism against Abu Ghraib.

Also, Hitchens has made clear his stance on "lefties", such as:

Hitchens
How shady it is that our modern leftists and peaceniks can detect fascism absolutely everywhere except when it is actually staring them in the face. The next thing, of course, if we complete the historic analogy, would be for them to sign a pact with it. And this, some of them have already done.

That was part of another in a fairly long line of essay's Christopher has written in the defense of the Iraq war. So, it's possible that some animosity might stem from other areas Hithcens has written about. I'm personally not aware of much writing of his on science.
.

17. The importance of doubt

Comment #66618 by zarcus on August 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm

While I don't agree with much in John Cornwell's piece, the history of Soviet suppression is valuable. The problem, as illustrated here, is it becomes easy to dismiss the lessons because of the false assumptions made by religionist who make sweeping generalizations about historic figures.

For a more complete treatment of the Soviet's attempts to suppress religion, I would recommend Paul Gabel's work.

Here is an essay by Gabel that is presented by the Skeptic's Society.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-05-30.html

.

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

Comment #65808 by zarcus on August 26, 2007 at 8:33 pm

What is interesting about some of the reactions, especially Brian Sapient's, is that there is no acknowledgment that this may work in their favor.

To claim Michael Shermer is an appeaser, is another way of saying he is offering an apologia for religion, or faith based claims to knowledge. This is the most common rebuttal to skepticism and concern voiced toward the 'confrontational' approach. The fact is, nothing could be further from the truth.

As for the author's mentioned in Michael's Sciam piece, I would imagine Sam Harris' reaction will be the most vitriolic. I come to this conclusion from long watching Sam's public reactions, such as in the Beyond Belief conference, debates with Scot Atran, and his recent 'correspondence' with Nature (obviously, there is many more examples I could use, but these appear, from what is on RD's site, to likely to be the most familiar). In this way, the more acerbic Sam is in response to Michael's piece, the more 'united' some who have shown absolutest negative responses may feel.

If in fact, Sam, Richard, and Christopher all respond the way in which others have here, it may be the best thing to happen for the 'confrontational' approach to forwarding Atheism. Perhaps we may see a call for a "gasping outrage" and call for a "united front" against Michael's piece.

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

Comment #65800 by zarcus on August 26, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Keith
Rather than inventing some apparition of your own, sometimes you have to tell your delusional friend that you simply don't see the invisible giant man that he claims to see.

Given that Michael Shermer has written copious amounts of informed scientific and philosophical treatise on what are delusional beliefs and belief systems he is in a position to tell anyone, and often does, that the invisible giant is a product of psychological, neurological etc. pit falls. He works to aid others to recognize their own biased assumptions as well as ways in which to explain them.

There is no doubt Michael advocates a positive skepticism, whether Religious or pseudoscience in general. It appears that much of the negative reaction to Michael's suggestions and concerns amount to an irrational defensiveness. Finer points on where Michael may be mistaken must be considered, but sweeping generalizations based on emotion is knee jerk and serves no purpose other then to garner a 'circle the wagons' mentality.

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

Comment #65797 by zarcus on August 26, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Brian Sapient
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.

This is ridiculous. To postulate that the 'zealots' have somehow scored one based on Michael Shermer's letter is simply a scare tactic. It is to be viewed that Michael is working against a united approach to forwarding, Atheism, science and reason.

Also, as far as I notice, the ones who first pointed out (I certainly have not) grammatical error's were in fact supports of Brian and RRS. I would consider Richard Dawkins to be an "uber" intellectual.

21. A Matter of Faith

Comment #65432 by zarcus on August 24, 2007 at 6:42 am

Thanks, TheHardProblem for the link.

http://www.buildupthatwall.com

I have my new desktop picture. Is that Frank Zappa? I think so...

Frank Zappa:

The Mystery Man came over
An' he said: "I'm outa-site!"
He said, for a nominal service charge,
I could reach nervonna t'nite
If I was ready, willing 'n able
To pay him his regular fee
He would drop all the rest of his pressing affairs
And devote His Attention to me
But I said . . .
Look here brother,
Who you jivin' with that Cosmik Debris?
(Now who you jivin' with that Cosmik Debris?)
Look here brother,
Don't you waste your time on me

An' you can't help me out
So take your meditations an' your preparations
An' ram it up yer snout
"BUT I GOT A KRISTL BOL!," he said
An' held it to the light
So I snatched it
All away from him
An' I showed him how to do it right
I wrapped a newspaper 'round my head
So I'd look like I was Deep
I said some Mumbo Jumbos then
An' told him he was goin' to sleep
I robbed his rings
An' pocket watch
An' everything else I found
I had that sucker hypnotized
He couldn't even make a sound
I proceeded to tell him his future then
As long as he was hanging around,
I said
"The price of meat has just gone up
An' yer ol' lady has just gone down . . . "
Look here brother,
Who you jivin' with that Cosmik Debris?

22. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65358 by zarcus on August 23, 2007 at 8:42 pm

Lauregon:

zarcus wrote;
Also, this is the final paragraph for the editorial.

Nature;

Collins is reaching out, from an exalted position in the world of science, to the realm of faith. By exploring, not least, how the Human Genome Project has added to our understanding of evolution, he hopes to provide a bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands, where religion is writ so large. Given the scale of the gulf, that is a laudable ambition.

Lauregon Wrote:
I seem to recall that Collins' revelation occurred when he was 27. I gather he's much older than that now, which leads me to suspect he didn't so much reach out to the realm of faith, but from it.

Francis Collins is reaching out to the faithful, many of whom share his Christian beliefs. As a geneticist who is also the Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute he is reaching out from his faith and his science.

As the Nature editorial highlights:

Nature editorial - July, 2006

To many scientists, religious contributions to public debates seem threatening and ill-considered. Religious leaders speak out against entire lines of enquiry — such as work on embryonic stem cells — in the name of God. They take stands against life-saving practices,such as condom use in areas of high HIV infection, in the name of morality.

Such contributions dismay the many scientists who are believers but who take a different doctrinal stance. They also irritate or enrage those (probably comparable in number) who are agnostics and atheists. After all, to many people, including scientists, the world simply makes more sense without the existence of God, and religious
interventions are either offensive or irrelevant.

Francis is a Christian, who is also a scientist that is one of those dismayed by proclamations from religious figures that counter science and reason. Francis, who does not mix his faith with his science in his professionalism is reaching out to fellow believers that are being blinded by ill informed religious leaders. This is done in a rather personal book.

The community he is reaching out to, to communicate science seem insulated from many in the secular community, by their own biases. Francis understands this also.

One area many in the sciences, as well as atheist, that seems to need addressed immediately and with vigor to a stubborn community is Evolution by Natural Selection. In this regard, Francis is an Evolutionist, who also finds his transcendence in what is called Theistic Evolution. This does not mean he interjects his beliefs in any professional manner into his science and understanding of Evolutionary science.

As the Nature editorial points out:

Nature editorial

The book is unsparing in its criticism of both creationism and intelligent design. Both are false and unscientific, says Collins.He even argues that both ideas endanger religion itself, because they rest on such shaky ground that their backers risk losing credibility.

Of course I'm being brief here, but Francis is part of the scientific community, indeed in a deserved exalted position, and there is little reason to dismiss his efforts offhand by asking for a unified front of scientist, and Nature, to show "gasping outrage" toward his book.

This is not to say points on science, and indeed his religious beliefs should be off limits. Science, and philosophical inquiry is a needed component to progress.

As a final note I would like to offer a Wiki quote, for what it's worth, to at least show a side of a scientist who is working for not only the betterment of science, but humanity.

Collins's commitment to free, rapid access to genomic information helped to make all data immediately available to the worldwide scientific community. With these data sets of DNA sequence and variation in hand, researchers around the globe work on the process of understanding the connection between genes and disease. Collins envisions as a new era of individualized, prevention-oriented medicine.

There is a certain similarity with Sam's correspondence piece and that of Richard's remarks to Joan Roughgarden at the Beyond Belief conference. Joan, as an Evolutionary Biologist, and also a Christian, is desperate to communicate the science she loves to fellow believers who are rejecting scientific truths. Joan, who also wrote a personal book, was told, "why bother?" to use biblical analogies, something she is intimately familiar, to communicate science with those that are using the same text to reject science. Joan also has not placed her religious views into her scientific professionalism.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

26. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65083 by zarcus on August 22, 2007 at 9:25 pm

After reading the July 13, 2006 editorial presented in Nature, I wondered how well Sam Harris remember the piece.

Sam Harris Wrote:

When the Catholic Church still preaches the sinfulness of condom use in villages devastated by AIDS, when the president of the United States repeatedly vetoes the most promising medical research for religious reasons, much depends on the scientific community presenting a united front against the forces of unreason.

There are bridges and there are gangplanks, and it is the business of journals such as Nature to know the difference.

Some words shared above seem to echo the Nature editorial.

Nature;

To many scientist, religious contributions to public debates are threatening and ill-considered. Religious leaders speak out against entire lines of enquiry – such as work on embryonic stem cells – in the name of God. They take stands against life-saving practices, such as condom use in areas of high HIV infection, in the name of morality.

Also, this is the final paragraph for the editorial.

Nature;

Collins is reaching out, from an exalted position in the world of science, to the realm of faith. By exploring, not least, how the Human Genome Project has added to our understanding of evolution, he hopes to provide a bridge across the social and intellectual divide that exists between most of US academia and the so-called heartlands, where religion is writ so large. Given the scale of the gulf, that is a laudable ambition.

I fail to see why Sam would tell Nature, or scientist in general;

"The Language of God should have sparked gasping outrage from the editors at Nature.."

Gasping outrage? Asking for a united front from scientist is a worthy aspiration. Simply assuming from a rather personal science book by Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, is a call for gasping outrage, is an absence in recognizing there are other scientist who are also Religionist. Who have every right to try and foster a better understanding of science to a community they recognize as their own. A community desperately in need for such an approach. Instead of the naysayers the Nature editorial points out.

Also, the editorial does not mention the Collins quote Sam highlight's of Collins' personal revelation. I submit that Sam is being misleading, and condescending for no apparent reason other then he has personal reasons to do so.

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

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.

28. Rational Atheism

Comment #64925 by zarcus on August 22, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Elli;

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.

I wonder if this sentiment would also apply to Sam Harris' open Letter to a Christian Nation?

Holding forth his comments as he has done, Michael Shermer, is welcoming a response. For those who acknowledged being dismayed by some of the negative responses, that would include how I view some also.