Mahering the New Atheists
I was excited to see Bob Rees—a thoughtful believer if there ever was one—review Bill Maher’s pseudo-documentary, Religulous, in Sunstone (May 2009), but was ultimately disappointed. As is often the case with critiques of anti-theists like Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or Christopher Hitchens, the review chose to play the “Religion Shouldn’t be Ridiculed” card, rather than substantively engage the criticisms it raised. The New Atheist movement brings an opportunity for sharp debate, but instead the same tired criticisms are trotted out: “they don’t understand religion;” “they’re just as narrow-minded as those they criticize;” “that’s not what my religion is.” On and on it goes, but when it’s all said and done, we end up in the same place—nowhere, with no specific criticisms of the indictments levied against religion.
Rees, like those who have come before, prefers to ignore the criticisms being made and instead focuses on the rudeness of the one making it. As Rees points out, even non-believers have adopted this attitude. I find this problematic not only for its intellectual shallowness, but also because it seems so self-serving. There is less concern about whether or not someone like Maher is actually right as there is about him ruining the party. Progressive critics of anti-theists often treat the Mahers of the world as if they are grumpy spoilsports.
The attitude is somewhat understandable. Scholars—including non-believers—have spent entire lifetimes and careers studying, writing, and talking about religion, and then Maher has the nerve to come along and tell them it’s all nonsense. I’m reminded of the famous Saturday Night Live sketch when William Shatner appears at a Star Trek convention and berates the fans. “I’d just like to say…get a life will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it’s just a TV show! … You’ve turned an enjoyable little job that I did as a lark for a few years into a colossal waste of time!” It’s as if progressive critics of anti-theists hear Maher telling them, “You’re wasting your time—get a life!” This approach either hurts them or frustrates them, so rather than respond to Maher’s points, they simply say, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
Personally, I prefer the bluntness of Maher, Dawkins, et al, even with their flaws (and there are flaws) over the political correctness of others. In reality, their bluntness comes no where close to matching the bluntness of religion, but we’re so accustomed to religion critiquing everything but itself, we barely take notice. While Maher does say that religious belief is foolish, he only claims his mind and his opinion as an authority. Mormonism, on the other hand, has claimed God himself as an authority against believers of other faiths and non-believers. And God goes well beyond mocking or calling people fools; if the Bible is to be believed, He summarily executes entire populations who dare oppose his people.
Yes, I’m well aware that Mormonism and other exclusive faiths have tried a kinder approach in the past few decades. However, the canonized disapproval of any belief that is not theirs remains firmly intact: “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’” (The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History 1:19) Is this sacred scripture really any different than the derision provided by Bill Maher?
And what of the claim that Maher is somehow just responding to the worst of religion, conveniently ignoring all the good? This reminds me of the frantic efforts following 9/11 to portray Islam as a religion of peace. Certainly there are millions of peaceful, non-violent Muslims. But the effort to portray extremists as if they were merely a few dozen people living in caves was absurd. And so it is here.
It’s difficult to quantify, but opinion polls can give us a reasonable gauge. Fifty percent or better of Americans routinely align themselves with fundamentalist beliefs. These are not merely a handful of irritating loud-mouths. They number well into the tens-of-millions (if not the hundreds-of-millions) and they wield disturbing power and influence. We learned that Karl Rove, as Bush’s right-hand man, held a weekly conference call in the White House with religious groups that argued for the invasion of Iran as a way to hasten the Second Coming. We saw religious leaders interfere in the Terri Schiavo debacle. American religious fundamentalists influence our world on a macro- and micro-scale.
There are issues in Religulous worthy of criticism. But these have been overlooked by Rees, and indeed most critics of the film. That’s because critics want to appear thoughtful, reflective—“deep.” They want to mine below the surface and tell us what’s really there. But that’s tricky with Maher’s film because he lays it all bare. It is a superficial film, but only because Maher believes his subject is superficial. He truly believes there is no depth, no layers to peel away, no hidden beauty to religious belief.
Scholars need not agree with the anti-theists. But to continue to treat them as if they don’t have a place at the table is a mistake. They are a legitimate movement with legitimate points and legitimate responses to legitimate problems. In short, they are as valid an area of religious studies as any group, and shooing them away to the kiddie table like it’s Thanksgiving only makes scholars and believers alike seem insecure. Maher and his kind are growing in popularity, and the time when religions like Mormonism could demand recognition without scrutiny are over.
I really got into this. Thanks. It’s impossible to reason with folks who deify their own thoughts. In church today, someone prayed thanks to god for the hymns — and I thought, but these were written by humans. Whatever beauty and inspiration can be found there came from humans. Sad on so many levels.
Amos, I think you have an overall good point to make in the contention that anti-theists belong at the discussion table of our planet’s most important issues, that they have legitimate points to make and legitimate responses to legitimate problems that all of us should consider. Unfortunately, however, you’ve chosen here as your vehicle for this larger point an attempt to defend Maher’s film and level a critique of Rees’s review. As you yourself say, Maher’s film is superficial. Other than the fact that he had the guts to put out a film that attacks so much that is wrong and silly in the world and kinda sorta make the point you want to make about secular views deserving far more of a hearing than they are getting, I don’t think you really want Maher as a primary spokesperson. His humor and cache allowed him to make a film and get quite a few people to see it but his mocking tone, juvenile jokes, and extreme rhetoric ultimately hurt more than they could ever help. You like his bluntness. Bluntness is great, I agree, but only if the person has a genuine grasp on his subject. Sarah Palin is blunt but I can’t see you applauding her. Is Maher any less ridiculous?
I hope to see you someday straight-up make your case, based upon good thinking, research, and understanding here on the blog or in print. I would love to participate in a real discussion of religion versus secularism and solving the problems of the world. Calling something ridiculous and placing blame is easy. Bring good thinkers instead of comedians (not that these are always mutually exclusive) and let’s dig in on the real stuff.
A few points here.
First, I think Maher is far less ridiculous than Sarah Palin. Maher is well-read, intelligent, and a clever thinker. I can point out where Sarah Palin is factually wrong on multiple things and multiple topics; can the same be said for Bill Maher, not just on this topic, but many others? No it cannot. I’m not some Maher whore who thinks he’s infallible, but I will always strenuously object to oversimplified attempts to equate those on the political left and right as somehow being the same. There are very clear differences here that I’m happy to go into if need be. I will point out one thing: I said there are valid criticisms of Maher’s film, and I think one of them is that, much like Jon Stewart sometimes, he wants to be taken seriously on the one hand while absolving himself of responsibility on the other because he’s “just a comedian.” I do find that problematic. But I think it’s worth looking past that flaw at the substance of his critique.
There’s two overall points I’ve tried to make here: validity and legitimacy. I’ll get to validity in a second. As for legitimacy, Rees’ point, and it seems the point of almost every anti-theist critic, is that Maher, Dawkins, et al, are not legitimate because they don’t take religion seriously. They do mock it, they do harshly critique it. Is that a legitimate point of view? I’d argue it absolutely is. If you’re a non-believer who sees religious beliefs as akin to cryptozoology, then not taking it seriously as a belief system seems legitimate to me. Rees assumes a priori that religion is deserving of respect, rather than making the argument. So let’s hear the argument, why is it deserving of being taken seriously? And not in terms of its influence in our world, of which Maher takes very seriously. But why should it be taken seriously as a form of belief?
On validity: Are the points anti-theists like Maher, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc., making valid? Do they respond to real beliefs by real people? I think the answer is a resounding “yes.” And let’s get real. The reason critics of these people only respond the way they do–the illegitimacy route–is because there is no response to their claims. When millions of Americans don’t believe in evolution due to religious beliefs, and Dawkins systematically destroys that belief with facts, logic, and evidence, and points out the harm done by believing this, there’s really not much left to say without looking silly. So the response is, “Dawkins a big meanie who sure doesn’t speak about my religion!”
You will immediately label what they’re responding to as “the lowest of religion.” Fine. Call it whatever you like. But it IS religion for hundreds-of-millions of people worldwide. And this is why I think we end up talking past each other on this topic. As a non-believer, I really have no criticism with and no interest in thoughtful “highest” religion. So for me, your call to make the case of secularism vs. religion is beside my point. (Though I have a post coming up that tries to explain why I think skepticism is the most rational choice.) I’m not arguing for secularism over religion. I’m supporting denunciation of beliefs that do real harm on a daily basis to real people. Less than half of Americans say they believe in evolution. A huge percentage say they take the Bible literally. This is not something to admire or tolerate. And while on their face, they may seem harmless enough, in reality they can impact us in serious ways – everything from gay rights, to environmentalism, to family dynamics, etc. I don’t think this very serious problem can just just be waved away as “lowest of religion.” These responses to millions of people are valid, and I do not see them as in conflict with your beliefs and perspective.
One last point on respect, mocking, etc.
Obviously a lot of one’s responses depends on circumstances. If I was speaking with someone face to face who told me they believed vaccines caused autism and they didn’t have their children vaccinated, I’d probably bite my tongue out of politeness even though it’s a deadly serious issue and I think they’re ignorant and insane. One on one, I know I wouldn’t do any good calling them crazy and I’d probably try and reason gently with them, if they were willing to listen. But if I’m in a more public forum or I’m speaking my opinion, I’ll be much less circumspect. I don’t see a conflict here–to one degree or another, this is how we all behave.
Maher has a public audience and he’s speaking his mind. He and Dawkins and Harris have all acknowledged that much of this is (ironically) preaching to the choir. But rallying people through strong language and a common cause to fight ignorance and injustice is not a bad thing. Just like me above with the vaccine example, I think most people who read or see Dawkins and Maher won’t go to their family and say, “You’re a delusional idiot!” They’ll present the arguments in a much gentler way and they’ll make progress. That’s a good thing.
In producing Religulous, Bill Maher has only done what religions do to each other. I remember when the Godmakers film came out in 1983. It mocked Mormons mercilessly. Although most of us did not appreciate that tactic, most Christian Right churches showed the film and had a field day. Go into any Christian bookstore and look in the “Cult” section. Thumb through the many anti-Mormon, anti-Jehovah’s Witness, and anti-Christian Scientist materials you will find. Look at how gentle they are. Christians mock Muslims, Muslims mock Christians, each side has fire and brimstone waiting for the other when they die. It seems that mocking and dismissing religion–those that is not your own–is acceptable, but mocking them all creates an outrage.
I do agree that there are errors in the film. I thoughyt he was way off on Mormonism. I don’t agree that Maher did any real damage by his approach toward religion, however. I think he learned his tactics from the very bunch he was denouncing. Except he does not send anyone to hell.
Mormons are certainly among the nicest toward those we disagree with. Yes, we canonized God’s harsh denunciation of other religions in the First Vision story, and we portrayed protestant ministers as hirelings of Satan in the temple. But beyond our canonized mocking of other faiths, we tend to leave them alone. We don’t send them to hell, we baptize them for the dead. Certainly a step up.
When does tolerance come in to play? If a new religion rose up today that believed that little green men inhabit the moon and that the U.S. moon landings were a hoax, we would think the handful of followers were crazy. If they had a belief system that included a health code, other good habits, compassion for others, etc., we would still think they are crazy but harmless. Just how large would they have to become before we had to give them the same toleration and free pass that other churches get? When would their good fruits in how they live make it so that we could no longer say anything about their bizarre beliefs, or do so only in the kindest, most tolerant way? Would their size automatically earn them that right? It seems so to me. As the old saying goes, if one person believes something weird, it is mental illness, if many people believe it, it is a religion (or something to that effect).
I have been to debates before between atheists and Christians, more than once. Usually the atheist gives a well thought out presentation, and the Christian will respond by saying something “I may not have all this so-called ‘evidence’ my opponent is talking about, but when you have God in your life, he is all the evidence I need.” That gets his audience all riled up and applauding, and suddenly becomes the last word. I have seen it a million times. When Sam Harris debated a Christian once, the Christian was saying that we humans who try to understand God, it’s like an ant trying to understand the internet. Clearly debate is impossible. One side wants to magnify its mystery as its evidence, the other wants to show scientific facts. Is there really any way to communicate? If Maher hadn’t used humor, I think he would have gone insane.
One thing Maher has done, not just in Religulous but on his show, is that what seems normal to us seems weird to others. Normal is always the (weird) stuff that WE believe. A friend of mine was upset once that his daughter was being influenced by a palm reader. “That stuff is way out there” he told me. I said “What would you think if you were a stranger to Christianity, but was told told that the bad things we have done in life get forgiven because each week we eat a piece of bread and drink a little cup and water that represents the flesh and blood of the Redeemer…and that there are secret handshakes that help us get even further,” and so on. I don’t think there is anything that is really normal, just normal in the eye of the beholder. And if there are many beholders, that helps too. Maher has emphasized that one many times, to his credit.
S.D. Cupp, in her new book, Losing our Religion, claims to be an atheist who is, nevertheless, upset with the treatment Christians receive from the “liberal” media, because, after all, believers make up 80% of our country. If they were a minority they would be off limits for that reason, now they are off limits because they are the majority! I think Maher, in criticizing a large, powerful segment of our society, need not be treated as though he is hurting a defenseless kitten. S. D. Cupp can’t have it both ways and if anything, Maher, despite his weakness, has opened the door for something serious to talk about. If only there was someone to listen.
Great to have you weigh in, Big Z! Sorry your post got slowed up in the site’s moderation folder.
I really don’t disagree with much of what you say (and actually liked some of your analogies and examples). As I hammer in my responses to Amos, the main question for me is one of effectiveness if atheists or secular humanists ever want to be heard at a discussion table aimed at making real progress on planetary issues. No matter if they are responding in kind to how “religious” people treat those they disagree with, Maher and his cohorts will never be invited (just as the extreme religious rhetoricians won’t be invited either) to these kinds of meetings where real work can get done. To get things accomplished, those who disagree must be willing to treat their opponents respectfully. I know and love many people who believe in a literal worldwide flood or think there’s a possibility that how the fossil record is interpreted is wrong in terms of indicating the passage of millions of years. I think they are completely wrong in these cases, but I know they have good hearts and basic smarts–and this makes them worthy of my respect. (Heck, I was in my twenties before I ever really thought through such questions, and I had the chance to go to college, etc., where I chose to take the evidences seriously. Not everyone has those opportunities nor chooses, for a wide variety of possible reasons, to be open to shifting their position. And maybe they still will. We got to have our own journeys, why don’t we give them the chance to keep living and see what life might throw their way that will cause a shift?) But even if I think these people are way off in their thinking (and even hurtful in what they say or do or how their votes affect others negatively), I’ll never get anywhere with them in terms of actually persuading them to see things my way if I ridicule them.
Amos,
Thanks for the good replies. In many ways you have disarmed a lot of what I might have otherwise said by including your second comment recognizing that there are more and less respectful ways of talking with people and how mocking is rarely going to be effective in actually changing minds. As you say, and as I also acknowledged in my original reply, Maher got something done with his film. He rallied a particular base and at least put something out into the public square that needs to be out there. I can commend him for choosing to use his gifts to do this. My whole response was aimed at what a terrible messenger he was when it came to actual content for the film or the ability to be persuasive to religious persons. I’ll stand by that while acknowledging that I’m glad that he and the “new atheist” writers are at least priming things for a real discussion. I can’t acknowledge that they are actually willing to “discuss” things themselves, for they clearly show an unwillingness to get truly educated about religion (or the human condition in general, IMO), but by being out there with their views, they are at least stimulating better minds to weigh in and hopefully clearing space for real dialogue leading to real solutions.
Now to more specifics: Is Maher really that less ridiculous than Palin? “Factually wrong” is a very slippery term. I see them both as factually wrong in many of the same ways. That is, they each grab hold of just a few things to attack and make no real attempt to see the whole context. They may play with “facts,” but they aren’t even close to rising to the level of careful conclusions based on those facts. They each ignore contra evidence. They both go for the quick-hit, instant-impact, rhetorical score without having a real theory or realistic plan for making things better behind them. There’s a line I remember from the movie “The American President” in which the Michael Douglas character finally says of his opponent that he is interested in just two things: making us afraid of something we don’t like in our world and telling us who is to blame for this situation without having any real interest in trying to solve it. I agree that Maher strikes me as better-read and a more clever person than Palin, but if that is so, he also seems more worthy of blame for settling for cheap shots: “Where much is given, much is required” and all that…
Concerning legitimacy of religion, I think you undermine your own point by comparing it to cryptozoology and asking why we should take it any more seriously than we do that field (or I’m sure a zillion other fringy fields you could name). I also don’t think Rees is all that blameworthy for not making in a film review a case for religion being taken seriously as that case has been made hundreds and hundreds of times in science/religion books. Are none of the defenses of religion, none of the points about each having their own spheres and roles to play (“non-overlapping magisteria” etc.), none of the long history of discussions about different but co-legitimate types of truth (including the power and importance of myth), or none of the critiques of science being unable to touch our interior experiences as human beings but instead flattens it all out into what is externally measurable, worth at least acknowledging by Maher or these other “in your face” atheists? Why should Rees have to rehearse these in a film that showed no familiarity with them?
You have correctly anticipated my response to your validity section in terms of differentiating between thicker and thinner forms of religion. Yes, I hate much that’s done, said, believed, and voted on because of bad religion. But I also hate much that’s done, said, believed, and voted on related to bad secularism. (Most of our world’s bloodiest wars have been pushed by secular regimes.) Human beings tend to be dogmatic. We all want things to make sense; we want things tidy. Given this, I don’t see bad religion as being the fault of religion or the religious impulse as much as being the fault of human beings for whom it is natural to simply want things to make sense and will therefore kick and scream and fight until they can resist no more to not let contra-evidences affect their views of reality. And I see this same tendency in those who hold purely secular views just as much as in religious people. To be sure, religion “pumps up the volume” by imagining various things are the doings of Gods and that life’s stakes echo into the eternities, but this is not a reason to lump all religion together and argue that the world would be better off without it.
Awesome responses, I appreciate it!
I have no quibble with much of what you’ve said and your overall approach. It’s why I really do see this as an issue of perspective and approach than an issue of a right and wrong way to tackle this topic. It’s why I consistently argue for legitimacy for the New Atheists. I see them as an important bunch who are pushing a lot of the right buttons to really challenge the assumptions we make about the privileged status we give religion in our culture. I like that there’s someone there to say, “Hey, some of us see religion as pure silliness. And we have a legitimate, valid point of view.”
Which is why I still argue that these guys are not someone required to see religion as more than cryptozoology or other fringe absurdity. Why must they be? And if they don’t, why does that undermine them or me? Sure, there’s a whole history behind religious belief. There’s people who have written at great length about it and sometimes in very deep, thoughtful ways. It of course doesn’t make it true. It simply means it’s been around for a while and important enough to peoples’ lives that it’s garnered this kind of response. None of that precludes someone saying, “Belief in god strikes me as the equivalent of belief in Santa Claus.” Of course, religious people always cringe at the Santa analogy. But they never say why beyond, again, playing the Unfair Card. Why is Maher’s belief that God=Santa wrong for him? It doesn’t mean everyone must feel that way, but it strikes me as a legitimate point of view, in spite of the history and “magisteria” surrounding religion.
Let’s take my familiarity with Mormonism. While I don’t have the same interest in the theology that you do, I’m still largely familiar with it. I’m very familiar with Mormonism’s history. I’ve decided, as I’m so fond of saying, that there’s no there there. I know how easily humans find meaning where there is none. Many authors or filmmakers report hearing from fans who find meaning in their work they never intended and isn’t really there. I know how easily humans convince themselves of their own correctness, how they minimize the “misses” and enlarge the “hits.” Mormonism has a very deep, rich history, with very deep, thoughtful theology. But it doesn’t stop me from concluding that despite all of that, and it’s most important place in American history, that it is entirely the invention of a creative man. In that sense, I see it as no different than Star Trek; it’s just older and is taken more seriously by more people. This expectation of respect and seriousness towards all religion seems unfair to me.
Furthermore, you seem to be projecting your own views of religion and spirituality onto Maher and the rest of us and expecting some kind of agreement. I would disagree that science “can’t touch” our inner experiences as human beings. That it may not do so right now doesn’t mean it won’t some day, and even if it doesn’t, it certainly doesn’t mean religious belief, especially in its current popular forms, is the right way to go. Those are your beliefs, not mine and not Maher’s. And I think we have a legitimate claim to them.
You acknowledge “thin” religion and deplore what it does. But you go to a common dichotomy of “is it religion or is it human nature?” I think it’s more complex than that. Certainly human nature can lead to some of these things, but I think religion exacerbates that nature in ways other things can’t. Would Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson have gotten away with much of the appalling things they’ve said over the years if they didn’t have the title of “Reverend” in front of their name? (And again, I’m going to reiterate, these people have–had, in Falwell’s case–MILLIONS of followers. Thin religion is much more widespread than thick religion.) If they had been politicians, they would have been forced out of office long ago. Witness Trent Lott’s fall from grace after even indirectly endorsing racism by endorsing a Strom Thurmond presidency. Wrap something in religion and it gets away, sometimes literally, with murder. Or witness the New Atheists calling for the arrest of the Pope. People roll their eyes at such an outlandish notion. But can you name me a single other organization whose leader could cover up child sexual abuse and not be held accountable? Any CEO, politician, community leader, educator, etc., would have their head called for on a pike. Only because it’s a religion do people see the idea of arresting the Pope as absurd.
The New Atheists challenge this kind of thinking, force it into the public sphere, and I think that’s very important. That said, of course there’s room, even the essential need for thoughtful religious believers who also challenge this kind of nonsense from within. People to set good examples and gently reason with others. Thats’ why I’m always a bit perplexed by someone like Rees going after the New Atheists. My response would be to “get your own house in order” first. If you’re a religious person, I’d say you have a responsibility and work to do in your community (and I know Rees does that) to try and work for change away from “thin” religion. So why bother with the New Atheists? I’d argue someone like Rees has more in common with Richard Dawkins than he does Jerry Falwell.
Finally, I will concede one point. I do think Maher’s rhetoric in his film does become overly simplistic. I think you are correct that this film is a bad example of the kind of approach the New Atheists have. I do think it’s very funny and it’s a good film to laugh in, but your points have convinced me that it’s a poor way to think about religion. At the risk of relying on appeal to my own authority, I would defend Maher on other points, especially as being similar to Sarah Palin. I watch Maher’s show faithfully, I’ve read his books, and he’s an intelligent guy who does know his stuff and who does follow the news and who is capable of nuance in politics. Yes, like I pointed out, he’s a comedian and he will sacrifice nuance or subtlety for a joke plenty, but there’s a brighter bulb there than Sarah Palin. And at the risk of sounding both arrogant and oversimplified, as one who gets his news from plenty of sources and who evaluates it frequently, I know that Maher is…well…right. Palin isn’t. Maher may go for the easy rhetoric or the quick joke as a comedian, but he’s on the right side of most of these political issues. That’s why I jumped to the “factually correct” statement. Both Bill Maher and Sarah Palin may hit the rhetoric on “death panels” for healthcare reform, for example, but one of them is right and one of them is wrong. The facts make that clear.
I like your responses here, too, and agree that we’re not all that off on the major points of the New Athiests/secular humanists deserving a place at all discussion tables about the current state of the world and how to best move forward from here and that “thin” religion can be dangerous and that things that are wrong done in the name of religion should be treated the same way as things done wrong for any other reason. Where we disagree is about the need for advocates for whatever position they hold to be respectful and to do due diligence regarding the other advocates’ positions. While Maher and the other dismissive and rude dudes may get some rallying done among their troops, they can never be the guys who will ultimately get to sit at the table. As someone who would like to sit at tables such as these, I strive to always give people I disagree with the benefit of the doubt and consider them intelligent, wanting the best for themselves and the world, and worth my respect. Of course, they may prove themselves to be otherwise, in which case I will withdraw from my interaction with them and seek worthier conversation partners. If you see calling religion “silly” to your religious opponent’s face as a good strategy in a dialogue you are hoping to get something constructive accomplished by, I’d love to hear that argument. Otherwise, let’s just agree that Maher and Dawkins and Harris and Dennett all have done “something” that you are interested in seeing done but that their kind of approach is antithetical to the kinds of dialogue and “let’s solve problems” discussions I want to have.
I don’t really understand what you are really saying in your paragraph where you said that I “seem to be projecting [my] own views of religion and spirituality onto Maher and the rest of us and expecting some kind of agreement” and that you “would disagree that science ‘can’t touch’ our inner experiences as human beings. That it may not do so right now doesn’t mean it won’t some day, and even if it doesn’t, it certainly doesn’t mean religious belief, especially in its current popular forms, is the right way to go. Those are your beliefs, not mine and not Maher’s. And I think we have a legitimate claim to them.” Can you clarify?
If I were to restate where you seem to be jumping off of in my post about this, I would state that science can only measure things that can be noted or charted externally (for example, it can point out that the brain is in a state of stimulation). It cannot get at, and I don’t see how it could ever get at, whether the origin of that stimulation is external or internal to the person. If, as I argue (based on my reading in quantum theory), our brains (like the rest of everything that exists) are swimming in a huge field of energy with very fuzzy boundaries between where “we” begin and end in this field, how could science ever get at that question? (An analogy that I borrow from physicist David Bohm is that people—along with everything else!—are patterns of energy that are much like whirlpools or eddies in a flowing river. These, too, are patterns of energy but with very unclear boundaries between it and the rest of the river.)
I don’t think I ever said that “religious belief, especially in its current popular forms, is the right way to do” nor do I think I have tried to project that on you. For me, I simply try to be alive to mystery and possibilities of our getting/intuiting some really cool stuff out of this cosmic soup we’re swimming in (or web of interconnection we are tied into, or whatever metaphor you like best for this sort of thing), and I keep pressing you and my other friends who lean toward totally secular ways of seeing to reconsider keeping that possibility open too. I know you guys like science and math and want your worldviews grounded in empirical data, so I simply keep reminding that there are some things that at least many scientists and mathmeticians are drawn to that I think you are not stopping to at least consider. I don’t think what I’m saying is what you mean by “religious believe in its current popular forms,” so I can’t see where I am challenged by your critique here (but, again, as I said above, I would love clarification, as I very well may be missing your point).
My other comments here would be just quibbles with the “God/Santa” equation and how you see Rees going after the New Athiests when I read him as doing a film review. If you want me to address those, I will (let me know), otherwise this has been a long enough response for the moment.
Oh yeah, I also think Maher is generally more right than Palin in his view of “the facts” (remembering all the hesitations about this term), and I also think he seems to have a quicker mind.
“I hope to see you someday straight-up make your case, based upon good thinking, research, and understanding here on the blog or in print.”
There is a subtext here, Jonah, of which you seem to be unaware. It is dismissive and unfair. I have only read Amos’ original post and your first comment and I am already turned off.
Every anti-thesit need not be forced into making a Rogerian argument simply for the sake of civility and respect. Dawkins, Hitchens, and even Maher are making legitimate Aristotelean arguments. They are not addressing theists in an attempt to convert or even meet them halfway. They have placed themselves in an adversarial opposition to theists and addressing a third party,the audience, in much the same way the prosecution and defense do not address each other, but rather the judge. This is a perfectly acceptable rhetorical stance. It is honest attempt at openly aggressive persuasion, unlike the veiled paternalism that so often leaks into your comments. My apologies in advance for my open aggression toward you here, but I feel someone has to speak of it. The criticism of method has nothing to do with the substance of the argument these anti-theists are trying to present. It is you and Bob Rees who fail to marshal the evidence you demand of Amos while whinging about the lack of such civilized (and expensively high-maintenance) niceties as respect and tolerance. So what if they are being dicks. Attend to their message, not to their style of delivery.
Amos is simply expressing his disappointment with a respectable thinker like Rees who could fail to take on the anti-thesit ideas in-and-of themselves, settling instead for attacking their use of such rhetorical tools as ridicule, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, appeal to popularity. Yes, such rhetorical tools are often weak and ineffective with the strong-minded. Some are even fallacious; nevertheless, attacking an opponent’s rhetorical method is a red herring designed to divert the course of the argument from its substance –its core ideas, and it is a petty and unprofitable tactic.
Can’t see how I’m demanding Amos make any particular type of case. I’d love a conversation about how best to move forward on planetary issues with the athiests/secularists at the table. So far neither he nor Zachariah or you seem interested in that. Fine, you don’t want to play in the arena I’m primarily interested in. I’m not offended. The rest of your post about argument style and audience seems to simply support the rest of Amos’s, Zachariah’s, and my conversation.
As far as many critiques made by the athiests go, I’ve already also conceded those in Amos’s and my backs and forths on thin religion. Where have I not “attended to their message?” Also would love a more clear statement on the “veiled paternalism” in my posts.
>>Otherwise, let’s just agree that Maher and Dawkins and Harris and Dennett all have done “something” that you are interested in seeing done but that their kind of approach is antithetical to the kinds of dialogue and “let’s solve problems” discussions I want to have.<<
I see what you’re getting at and I understand why you see it as antithetical and wouldn’t personally want to go that route, but I don’t see them as in conflict. Any groups pushing for change or problem solving have varying degrees of radicalism. Plenty of black activists were frustrated with Dr. King’s direct approach, believing it would do more harm than good. Dr. King himself became frustrated with those activists more radical than he was. There are other examples of this notion of more radical groups pushing things mainstream, even though they aren’t well respected – PETA comes to mind.
Ditto here. There are people who will never agree with the approach of Dawkins, et al, even other atheists. But their bestselling books and Maher’s film have pushed the discussion more mainstream. It forces people to re-evaluate the truly silly things in their beliefs and perhaps, even grudgingly, re-assess things.
One final analogy: Mormons changed their Priesthood ban for a variety of reasons. I would argue that it was in large part due to what you argue for: respecting each other, coming to the table, having a discussion, and gently reasoning. But let’s not discount another part of it: the shaming aspect. Mormons were shamed into abandoning their institutional racism through public pressure, embarrassing statements, etc. We see this replaying now with Prop 8. I’m happy to see the church ridiculed and bloodied and bruised if that gets them to back down while gay rights marches forward. This seems to me a legitimate part of the puzzle, especially when dealing with such important issues.
As for the arguments for secularism, I put out there in my latest post on memory why I think skepticism is the best approach. You–Jonah–are fond of saying, “Just because something can’t be replicated in a lab doesn’t mean it isn’t legitimate.”
I’d agree with that assessment, but I’d argue that until it is replicated in a lab, skepticism is the best approach. Someday science may absolutely validate or even replicate spiritual experiences as real. But I know this won’t happen in my lifetime, so I’ve chosen a life of disbelief as a means to navigate the world. I have yet to see a good reason to question this decision.