Well, you know it's not going to be a good article when it's found on Newsweek's goofy "Beliefwatch" section, and it has this kind of inauspicious beginning:
It may not be fair to call what's happening in the atheist community a backlash, since atheists have always been and continue to be one of the smallest, most derided groups in the country.
Right. And since we're a minority and we're derided, why, we must be wrong! Of course, the facts are on the author's side—we are a minority. We need to grow. I think we'd all admit to that. What's weird right now is how journalists report it.
In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, only 3 percent of respondents called themselves atheists and only 30 percent said they'd ever vote for an atheist.
Lots of polls have consistently reported that a significant fraction of Christian Americans would never vote for an atheist. That's interesting, but what's even more interesting to me is that journalists always bring this matter up in articles about atheism. It fits their stereotype of the untrustworthy atheist. But that's the wrong place to discuss it! It's a much more useful factoid to drag out in a discussion of theists—when they're writing a fluff piece about a church's piety and purported tolerance, it would be much more interesting to casually mention that "oh, by the way, 30% of this religious community is so intolerant that they wouldn't vote for an atheist, or a gay man, or any other minority." When writing about the atheist community, it would be more relevant to quote statistics about atheist representation in politics — a number that hovers somewhere near zero — and how nearly all of them vote for theists.
But no, the point of this article is to portray atheists as weak, untrustworthy, and riven with internal dissension, all the better to dismiss us.
No, what's happening in the "atheist, humanist, freethinkers" community is more like what happens to any ideological or political group as it matures: the hard-liners knock heads with the folks who want to just get along, and the cracks are beginning to show.
No, this is incorrect. The appeasers have always been with us, and have been dominant for a long, long time. The atheist community has been a splintered mess, mostly ineffective, and the "folks who want to just get along" have pretty much been the majority. What's happening now is different. The internal conflicts are a side effect of a growing recognition that "just getting along" hasn't worked at all, and in fact has allowed the country to proceed down a path towards insanity. The writer, Lisa Miller, has it all backwards. This isn't an old movement splitting in its age. It's a new movement growing within an old and relatively moribund framework.
Those cracks are what you see when an egg is about to hatch and discard its shell. Complacency is going to be thrown away and replaced with activism.
But of course Miller wouldn't get this message from the subject of her article: it's Greg Epstein, who thinks he is the "center" of the controversy when he's really just those clingy bits of leftover membrane and slime that we have to clean off after our emergence.
At the center of this controversy is the humanist chaplain of Harvard University, a 30-year-old "secular rabbi" named Greg Epstein. In March, in remarks to the Associated Press, Epstein called the popular writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins "atheist fundamentalists." He accused the best-selling authors--he now includes Christopher Hitchens among them--of being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive; his own responsibility, he says, is to speak out for the positive aspects of disbelief. "My problem with the atheists," he told NEWSWEEK, "is not that they're saying God doesn't exist. What I'm saying is we've got to build something." (Harris calls the term atheist fundamentalist "an empty play on words.")
Ugh.
"Humanist chaplain."
"Secular rabbi."
"Atheist fundamentalist."
Notice a trend here? Epstein is one of those fellows who thinks inventing terse little contradictions is an exercise in profundity. He has turned being an oxymoron into a career.
That last term, "atheist fundamentalist", is revealing. I've never heard anyone use it who wasn't also exposing themselves as someone who wants atheists to sit down and shut up and "just get along"—people who want atheism to be dead ineffective and irrelevant. Harris and Dawkins are not fundamentalist in any rational sense of the word, and definitely not in the pejorative sense that Epstein uses. The "new atheism" (I don't like that phrase, either) is about taking a core set of principles that have proven themselves powerful and useful in the scientific world — you've probably noticed that many of these uppity atheists are coming out of a scientific background — and insisting that they also apply to everything else people do. These principles are a reliance on natural causes and demanding explanations in terms of the real world, with a documentary chain of evidence, that anyone can examine. The virtues are critical thinking, flexibility, openness, verification, and evidence. The sins are dogma, faith, tradition, revelation, superstition, and the supernatural. There is no holy writ, and a central idea is that everything must be open to rational, evidence-based criticism — it's the opposite of fundamentalism.
Here's another oxymoron: Epstein claims his role is to "build something." What has he built lately? The only way he gets any press is by his efforts to tear down the atheists who are trying to build and inspire a coherent community! I think that's really the point here: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al. aren't being destructive of anything of value — their goal is to clear away the useless detritus of the supernatural and see human society redirect its efforts productively, towards some genuine progress. The people who fling around terms like "fundamentalist atheists" are defenders of kipple and trash, who uncritically demand protection for the unlovely excrescences of religion because they're still hobbled by the fear that the priests have inculcated in us — that they are the guardians of morality and goodness, and exposing transubstantiation (or any of their other hallowed myths) as nonsense means we'll all be turned into murderers and rapists.
Don't be fooled. Epstein and his ilk are just frightened little fellows trying to find a calm dark safe spot in the shadow of religion. Of course they are worried about anyone who wants to reignite the enlightenment.
- Log in to post comments
Bonus points for using a word from PKD.
PZ, you quote Newsweek "only 30 percent said they'd ever vote for an atheist."
That would mean that 70% are intolerant wouldn't it?
"oh, by the way, 30% (70%) of this religious community is so intolerant that they wouldn't vote for an atheist, or a gay man, or any other minority."
In the photo he looks like one of those door-to-door religious missionaries.
I think this kind of "attention" from the MSM, Fairy Believers & pseudo-atheists like Epstein reflect a real fear of the depth of the threat provided by both science and atheism.
That threat is truth.
And the truth is not particularly flattering to them.
It doesn't make them "feel good".
What's wrong with "humanist chaplain"?
I think it takes all types for secularism to be successful. We need certainly need vocal critics presenting withering attacks on religion, but at the same time I think more moderate--non-radical, "appeaser" atheists--can be helpful. As long as they don't hide the fact that they're atheists, these atheists who aren't outwardly hostile to all religion might help the "image" of atheists as regular people.
I'm not criticizing Dawkins, etc... for blasting god-belief. We need them, and people like them. But moderates--again, as long as they're not afraid to call themselves atheists openly--aren't too bad.
Bonus points for using a word from PKD
Love it.
"No one can win against kipple, except temporarily and maybe in one spot"
"The New Atheism" was coined by Gary Wolf in Wired Magazine, wasn't it? November 2006, if I and Google are not mistaken. (All right, some god-botherer named Robert Morey wrote a book called The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom back in 1994, but I don't think anybody read it.)
A while back, I suggested that the term "fundamentalist atheist" (and trivial grammatical variations thereupon) be made the target of a new Godwin-esque Law. I guess nobody listened. :-(
Oops, here's a description of my proposal.
You know, I keep making that mistake: I read the numbers, and I just can't believe that 70% could possibly be that bigoted. I have to learn to be more cynical.
Not only did I notice the trend, I got some on my shoe.
What's wrong with "humanist chaplain"?
The same thing that is wrong with "jumbo shrimp" and "military intelligence" -- it's an oxymoron.
More seriously, why isn't he a "humanist councillor", or "humanist advisor", or "humanist comforter"? Under any at all reasonable definition the term "chaplain" denotes someone with a religious affiliation. By using the term, but claiming to be "secular" and "humanist", Epstein is courting a contradiction. I think PZ is exactly right -- it is a way to cling to the comforts of religion and not actually confront religion. It is profoundly dishonest.
(To be fair, however, he did not choose the term, as it is the official position name at Harvard:
http://chaplains.harvard.edu/chaplains/profile.php?id=45 )
@Scholar: I think you missed the change from just atheists to atheists, homosexuals, and minorities.
"I guess nobody listened. :-( "
We heard you, but we thought you were just crying snark (wolf) again. You tread daintily all over the fine line between snarkiness and sarcasm and expect us to pick up the pieces.
Ifriit: See PZ's comment to ME. (aha, I am now a fully legitimate tooth-fairy agnostic!)
I appreciate that no opponents were accused of masturbation in this post. We can heal together, PZ.
You fundie atheist do need to sit down and shut up. Let beacons of light and reason(like Ed) shine through. If you do that, maybe you'll be as good looking and talented as Ed. Listening to James Taylor helps.
My mirror of some of PZ's statements:
Doggerel #71 and "Why You Woos Got to be Such a Downer, Maaaaan.
We've got a lot of scientologists down here in Florida. I've met people who went to the same schools as John Travolta's kids (what joy! ;), and there are numerous scientology facilities here. They are in the process of buying up all the available real estate in downtown Clearwater (including as many of the count goverment building as they can get) to turn into a solid Mecca of Scientology. It's very weird to visit the area and see all the cultists walking the streets. Ironically, I am reminded of being in a science-fiction movie.
"He accused the best-selling authors--he now includes Christopher Hitchens among them--of being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive..."
I think tearing down and waging war on religion is VERY positive.
Yeah, Gary Wolf might be the original source. I panned his article, myself. Gary Wolf showed up on that thread, by the way.
Thank the Lords of Kobol for the militant fundamentalist atheists. I'd suggest the most important contribution Dawkins, Dennet, Harris and Hitchens are making with their outspokenness is that they provide an example to all the closet atheists and agnostics who go to church and mouth along to the hymns because they think they're the only ones for whom religion makes no sense. In effect, they say 'Come on out of the darkness. It'll be OK. Trust us."
How is that not a positive contribution?
Try rereading the following with my edits:
Or this:
Y'see, once them Negras and womenfolk get all uppity, there ain't no way of keepin' 'em down nohow. Jes' best to keep quiet, an' don' go stirrin' up no trouble. It'll all work out on its own, God willing. (With my apologies to the Onion for the paraphrase.)
Huh! "...tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive".
What could be more positive than 'tearing down and waging war on religion'?
I find it fascinating that in the US, a country that is officially disestablished, it would be highly difficult for someone who doesn't believe in God to be elected, and as a minimum, that atheism would be held against him.
But in Canada, a country whose head is, technically, head of the Church of England, and whose laws do not recognize disestablishment, candidates for government office who are highly religious have that fact held against them and by their beliefs injure their chances at public office.
Tell you what, Rabbi Epstein. You've invented your own little term to describe us in terms which you find are useful for your purposes.
Seems what's good for the goose is good for the gander. How about if I invent one for you? I like "christian fundamentalist collaborator".
Raging Braytard:
Aha, the cat is out of the bag. I thought RB was just a silly troll, but now he standsdangles revealed as a sock puppet. Hi Ed!
Just kidding. Ed writes well, RB does not.
I think he should shorten his title to: humanist chap.
Greg Epstein, Humanist Chap.
From article: ...being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and waging war on religion than in doing anything positive;
Tearing down religion is one of the most positive things I can think of!
What the heck do you guys want, anyway? If you (a) tar all religion with a broad brush, treat it all as not just something you disagree with but as actually evil, and lump reasonable moderates in with the wackos, and call anyone even sympathetic with the moderates as "appeasers", then (b) unavoidably you will be portrayed -- accurately -- as harsh, dogmatic, intolerant, and, well, fundamentalist.
But when (b) happens, you get all annoyed and bent out of shape about the culture's stereotype about atheists, and to express your displeasure you go back to (a), thus perpetuating the cycle. If you enjoy this merry-go-round, then great, but don't blame other people for your image problems.
Cheers, Nick
Well, as I've said, "new" atheism, isn't.
It's funny reading atheists whinning (Where is LGF's crying baby picture?) at the "intolerance" of non-atheists, AS IF atheists were known to be tolerant of contrary views.
Need I remind the crying baby atheists the ways your blog master sugests in dealing with those who disagree with his religious worldview?
Yep, he sounds tolerant of contrary views alright.
I mean, in the days were living the last person you'd turn to in search for "tolerance" is an atheist.
Typically, what is presented is stripped of all context. The full quote can be found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/john_g_west_is_just_so_conce…
appropriately with Pz's complaint about quote-mining.
Funny how atheists are the targets of the same kind of persecution that religious fundamentalists like to imagine they suffer. If a poll suggested that 70% of the country's populace would never vote for a Christian, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, and their like would scream themselves into cardiac arrest.
What if a president had declared that Jews shouldn't be considered citizens? The shock and outrage in the media would still echo today. But it sure didn't ruffle many feathers when George H. W. Bush said the same thing about atheists.
reignite the enlightenment
There's us all a new bumper sticker. I'd buy one.
Tulse's right: "Chaplain" is his official title. And even stanger, he is also entitled to the name "Humanist rabbi". To quote his webpage;
"In 2005 he received ordination as a Humanist Rabbi from the International Institute for Secular and Humanistic Judaism, where he studied in Jerusalem and Michigan for five years."
Oh and, Blake Stacey or JRQ, could you please explain the PKD reference? I'm not American, and English is not my first language...
Nick. Let us rephrase your little "argument".
If you a) wear a tank top and shorts and walk down the street, then b) some ass dressed in men's clothing will harrass and degrade you.
Then when b) happens you get all annoyed and bent out of shape about the culture's stereotype about women, and to express your displeasure you go back to (a), thus perpetuating the cycle.
Sigh. Really. Think about it. Should we all dress the same, think the same, stay quiet and be "peaceful" all the time watching as our beloved country spirals down into a theocracy?
And really. I can't take any blame for someone else's intolerance. That is THIER problem and I have no control over thier psychological shortcomings. Do not blame the victim for the bully's behaviour.
How are blamign someone else for our image problems? Has an atheist EVER flown a plane into a building based soley on his or her beliefs in the supernatural? Ever? Has a atheist EVER done a wretched thing in the name of Atheism? No, the worst we do is write books and TALK. And really that seems to be enough to disturb people. So does the fault lie with the writer or speaker or does it lie with the intolerance, ignorance and general close-mindedness of others?
We are trying desperately to open minds only to have the vast majority tell us to be quiet and "good".
It took me 33-freaking-years to publicly admit I held no religious beliefs. now you want me to be quiet? I dont think so.
When I see the term "humanist chaplain" I imagine a kindly scholar who counsels the anxious unbeliever when the unbeliever is tempted to merge into the teeming masses of the god-ridden. It's the person who answers the call "Help thou mine unbelief!" and reassures you about the honor in living a rational and self-respecting life.
(Yeah, yeah. I'm quoting Mark's gospel out of context. They quote-mine. I can, too.)
I always thought Raging Braytard was a satire troll. Mind you, I have seen glimpses of such bemocked toadying over there, but only mere glimpses, and only when they're ganging up on people who deign to think Ed's full of it on a particular topic.
Nick (Matzke):
(a) I, for one, don't want to "tar all religion with a broad brush." Speaking on scientific grounds, I think that religion is a complicated enough phenomenon that multiple natural causes are almost certainly responsible for its development (spandrels, selfish memes, etc.). I try to appreciate the full diversity of human mental processes which go under the label "religion," but elementary ethics and an appraisal of the evidence force me to conclude that the strongest elements of Western religion, by both numbers and political influence, deserve some heavy helpings of tar indeed. And while individuals who take on the "appeaser" mantle can and have done good work for critical thought — bully for them! — the emergent properties of "moderate" religious organizations do not exactly fill me with confidence.
(b) How does harshness segue automatically into fundamentalism? If I am intolerant of dishes building up in the kitchen sink, does that make me a fundamentalist dish-washer? The Book of the Universe is my only holy writ, and I know I'm fallible enough in reading it that I won't insist on a word-for-word interpretation.
How many times have you been on cable news to discuss why religion is 'not so bad, for the masses anyways', Nick?
Abie:
Sorry! "PKD" is a reference to Philip K. Dick, a science-fiction author who is often known by his initials. He coined the word kipple in his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (which was later made into the movie Blade Runner). He defines kipple in the following way:
Cheers.
I could never write as well as Ed. He is the greatest writer ever to grace scienceblogs. He makes great, original jokes as well.
Down with Dawkins, etc.
PZ (#21):
Thanks for linking back to that thread. I find it fascinating that by the end, it had turned into a conversation about Bayesian probability.
The only moderately serious topic broached in that discussion was the possibility that the division between the "New Atheists" and the "New Humanists" (and the Humanist Popular People's Front, etc.) is analogous to a schism between religious factions. I've already explained why I don't think that's the case, so that's that.
So, Nick, try this: replace the word "religion" in your tirade with "creationism", and apply it to yourself.
Do you consider yourself a "harsh, dogmatic, intolerant, and, well, fundamentalist" evolutionist?
"No, what's happening in the "atheist, humanist, freethinkers" community is more like what happens to any ideological or political group as it matures: the hard-liners knock heads with the folks who want to just get along, and the cracks are beginning to show."
Way off - I don't even really consider myself an atheist - more of an agnostic who really likes science and doesn't care if there is some sort of higher power or not. I spend more of my energy on other issues and leave it up to the "hard-liners" to wage the culture wars on this one. But when the "hard-liners" start making waves, especially on national t.v., all I can think is "Thank god; it's about time."
One thing:
"oh, by the way, 30% (70%) of this religious community is so intolerant that they wouldn't vote for an atheist, or a gay man, or any other minority"
Meaning they wouldn't vote for a MAN?
Since women are more than 50% of the population, men are, by definition a minority.
Somehopw, I don't think that's what they meant, but .....
Over 1 in 5 adults in the US has no religion. I would say the media voice of this group is smaller per capita than any other, so we have some ground to catch up. And the delusional fan club can keep wailing in childlike fury.
Almost 1 in 5...I do math good.
Nick Matzke,
What the heck do you guys want, anyway?
Among other things, we want people like you to stop calling us names when we express--and present arguments for--our view that religion in general is harmful and false, not just the conservative or "fundamentalist" varieties. And we want you to stop misrepresenting what we say.
3 common arguments that the "New Atheists" wish to label as myths:
1.) "True religion is good."
People who do things religious moderates and atheists don't like are "distorting" the real meaning of the religion. They just don't understand their faith the way liberals and atheists do. The 'best' scholarship goes against them.
And even if this is not strictly true, atheists ought to pretend it is, because it will encourage extremists to become moderate.
2.) "Truth? They can't handle the truth!"
Unlike atheists, most people need supernatural beliefs to cling to in times of trouble. It inspires and brings people together. If atheists try to take away faith by publically explaining why there's no God, they're being cruel to sensitive people. And it's pointless, because religious people don't care about reason anyway.
And even if this is not strictly true, atheists will gain respect if they show respect.
3.) "Science has nothing to say about the existence of God, one way or the other."
Science examines how the world works, religion is morals and meaning. Claims about the supernatural are only testable if they're 'paranormal.' There's a huge, huge difference between the paranormal and the supernatural. Huge.
And even if this isn't strictly true, atheists should say it is or else the Creationists will use it to win rhetorical advantage.
I think those are 3 common bromides that a lot of atheists -- including secular humanists -- do not think work. Not on the truth level, and maybe not on the pragmatic one either.
Let me be blunt: I don't think it's a coincidence that Epstein is Jewish.
There's a long-standing tradition of Jewish people to abandon belief in the religion associated with their ethnicity, but to continue to practice the rituals and to make that ethnicity the primary focus of their personal identify. It's like the Jesuits, only with Judaism instead of Catholicism.
Epstein thinks we need to produce a new mind-virus to compete with the religions in the same way that Jewish atheists have reinvented or co-opted the practices of Judaism without the belief.
I think Epstein needs to take a long walk. Off a short plank.
"It's very weird to visit the area and see all the cultists walking the streets."
Whats more weird is if you cut through their parking lot, and stop and look around, while holding a camera.
You get spotted and approached immediately. It's kind of fun.
I view all polls on belief or lack thereof as suspect. Given the hate directed at most any public atheist, I suspect most atheist hide their belief (lack thereof really), or at least don't wear it on their sleeve like so many Christians. I suspect that for decades many blacks in this country would have given anything to hide their "blackness" but couldn't for obvious reasons. Atheist can hide their beliefs. In fact, I would probably never spent most of my professional career as a text book editor had my religious views been known, even if they never appeared in the science texts I edited and published.
Blake Stacey, #40:
I'd read the book about ten years ago, so I guess that explains why, until I read your quote, I hadn't made the connection between kipple and the web!
Two analogies have been raised to counter my point: (1) women dressing provacatively (analogy to atheists) and (2) creationists (analogy that bashing religion is no different than bashing creationism). Neither really helps your argument.
(1) How a woman dresses is her own business. But if a woman went around and dogmatically, preachily told everyone else how to dress, then she would rightly get labeled harsh, intolerant, etc. She has a *right* to say whatever the heck she wants, that's free speech and no one disputes that, but she shouldn't *expect* to get ultra-nice commentary from the free speech of others if she is going around militantly castigating those who disagree with her personal tastes. Ditto for you guys.
(2) Creationism pretends to be science and it is on that basis that creationism deserves whatever criticism people are interested in giving it, and furthermore the creationists have an agenda to ram their stuff into the public schools which makes it important to vocally fight creationism (rather than just ignore it) as a matter of public policy, the integrity of science, and the constitution.
However, religion in general (except for fundamentalists) does not pretend to be science, and it's not after the public schools, and in particular religious moderates hold these positions. And plus, according to a great many people -- not just me but the courts, the NAS, the AAAS, a grand tradition in the history of science, etc. -- science is neutral on metaphysical questions like the existence of God, because such things are beyond the natural world and beyond the limits of science to confirm or disconfirm. So religion primarily a matter of private conscience and it's everyone's own business what they think. Everyone of course has a right to say whatever they want, and you can even go around preaching in the streets if you want, but don't complain if others view it as annoying.
But if you want a model for "gettin' atheism some respect" in the U.S., again, I ask you, WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT? You have several options:
Goal #1. You want to proselytize and convert millions to the metaphysical worldview of atheism.
Goal #2. You think you are experiencing infringements on your constitutionally-guaranteed civil rights and want redress and remedy through governmental/legal reform.
Goal #3. You want atheists to be viewed positively in the media and politically.
What I am trying to tell you guys is that you *can't* easily have all of these goals at once, and that pursuing some of them is precisely what produces problems for the other goals.
E.g., the New Atheists often compare themselves, for example in this thread, to various minorities-rights groups. This would imply the goal is #2. But I have not seen much actual complaining from New Atheists about governmental or other legally-actionable discrimination. And acting as if you have Goal #2, without actually having any concrete legal problems, makes it seem like you are confused and/or oversensitive.
It's pretty clear a lot of New Atheists have Goal #1. If so, that's great, you've got every constitutional right to it, but then don't expect any progress on Goal #3. Many people don't like being preached to, many people don't like having science dragged into a metaphysical apologetics dispute, and politicians and government actors aren't going to want to touch you with a 10-foot pole.
If what you really want is Goal #3, hey great, but you will have a lot better luck if you drop the act about Goal #1 and Goal #2. If you really want Goal #3 then your model is not gay rights or whatever but e.g. American jews or other religious minorities. In this situation the American instinct towards tolerance works for you instead of against you, and you can focus on communicating the positive messages, like: "atheists are upstanding members of a modern democratic society, we're happy to tell you about our views on religion but we don't bash you over the head about it. If you want to agree to disagree, that's fine, we can still collaborate on common political and social goals." I think religious jews in America are instructive -- despite the fact that they are a small minority religious view that denies key beliefs of the dominant religious tradition in the country, and have historically experienced discrimination, in modern society they are widely respected, politicians are not at all embarrassed to associate with them even though they are a small group, and most people would think it shockingly rude to insult them as a group. But then, religious jews in the U.S. are not known for proselytizing or writing books equivalent to The God Delusion.
Since I have not seen much evidence of any careful or systematic thinking about what the New Atheists actually want and why, I suspect none of the above goals will happen, instead there will be the usual mishmash of self-contradictory working at cross-purposes, and the result will be basically more complaining without realizing how much of the problem is due to foot-shooting. In other words, the forecast remains as PZ described the history of atheists: "a splintered mess, mostly ineffective."
Wrong on all 3 counts, Nick.
1. We want millions of people to abandon the nonsensical worldview of theism. Everyone is already an atheist right now -- they don't think prayer is a substitute for an oven when they want to fry an egg -- but they've piled up this ridiculous religion stuff on top of common sense. Let's throw out the trash.
2. We are experience infringements on rational thought by the inane ideas of the religious. This is not a subject that can be managed by the courts -- I swear, though, some of you guys get into this mindset where you think legal redress is the only way to go -- but by starting up a social movement that changes people's views of religion.
3. We do not expect atheists to be viewed positively until there are more of us and people are more aware of us. There will always be religious nutcases who hate us.
Face it, Nick. Our goals aren't your goals. You do not understand our goals or even sympathize with our ideals. So what do you want here? Are you trying to make productive suggestions about how we atheists can better eliminate the foolishness of religion, or are you, as I suspect, simply concern trolling because your desire is for all those vocal atheists to shut up and go away?
And the analogy with your fight against creationism still stands. It is almost exactly the same thing. You want to stop the intrusion of creationist idiocy into the classroom, you'd like to see people stop respecting the opinions of creationists on science matters as if they were valid, and you know that creationism is just plain wrong, contradicting the evidence of science. The major difference is that religion is bigger, tougher, and more pervasive, and has already made deeper inroads into public institutions. We want religion out of the classroom, we want religious affiliation to stop being a media shortcut to virtue (you could learn something there, too), and we see superstition and mythology as contradicting science -- again, something you seem blind to.
The real substantial difference in our goals, though, is that our eyes are open while yours are shut. What's driving creationism, the root of your problems, is the credulity and ignorance bred by religion...and that source is something you won't touch, preferring to wrestle with each little minion that emerges rather than even trying to address the cause. You're doomed to failure. Unless, that is, some of us succeed in making this a more secular nation.
We won't count on your help.
"If I am intolerant of dishes building up in the kitchen sink, does that make me a fundamentalist dish-washer?"
It means you a not a wishy-washy dishwasher!
More of a washbuckler?
PZ, it seems to this observer that both you and Nick have valid points.
For example, I agree that you and Nick don't share the same goals. Well said! Nick seems more concerned with muzzling unpopular expressions of atheism which complicate the mission of evolution education than with advancing atheism, and it does seem a bit much that he would offer advice as to how atheism might prosper.
And, with other others, I acknowledge that Dawkins, Harris, etc. are not fundamentalists in the sense that a Jerry Falwell or an Ayatollah Khomeini are fundamentalists. It's rhetorical overkill, and it's appropriate to complain when others misrepresent your views as not only radical, but extremist. So I don't share Nick's sense of frustration with the atheist community which dares to publicly complain when it is so smeared.
OTOH, there really is some merit to Nick's observation: there really are different goals being pursued by different folk within the 'atheist community', and that contributes to that community's lack of cohesion and historical ineffectiveness.
In that respect, atheists are no different from other groups which have multiple agendas relating to both short and long-term goals, with some being easy sells in the political arena and others being hard sells. If we substitute the word 'scientific' for the word 'atheist' in the previous paragraph, I suspect we could all of us, Nick included, nod ruefully as we consider how relatively ineffective at times the scientific community has been at promoting significant change in the political arena.
Political effectiveness, for example, involves building a broad coalition of interests. Atheism does not, as yet, have a broad base of support. It therefore follows that Nick's Goal #1 is a long-term, future goal which is unlikely to be achieved through a direct frontal assault on the existing power structure.
His Goals #2 and #3, however, could plausibly be addressed by making common cause with non-atheists on things like religious liberty, academic freedom and the persecution of minority groups.
Speaking purely for myself, I am sure that many folk here are aware that I make common cause with atheists with respect to something like Goals #2 and #3 already, and I think this is suggestive. It is not so much a case of muzzling dissent, which I would oppose, but of being effective. As your namesake once remarked, PZ, 'all things are lawful but not all things are profitable'.
Anyway, that's my two cents, nothing more or less. I don't presume to speak for non-believers like yourself. I'm thankful for the opportunity to 'hear' you and Nick debate the merits of this or that strategy that impinges upon the promotion of science education, and I hope that both of you will receive this comment in a gentle and receptive spirit.
Peace....SH
It seems to me that Epstein is picking the fight in order to make a public name and a livelihood from a kind of career that is generally more likely to involve a vow of poverty. And there's nothing unusual about Newsweek publishing garbage. The interesting question is why Newsweek chose to feature him rather than somebody else on the anti-Dawkins bandwagon, but I suppose that the Harvard name and Epstein's self-promotion (marketing) skills can explain that enough.
Nick Matzke,
And plus, according to a great many people -- not just me but the courts, the NAS, the AAAS, a grand tradition in the history of science, etc. -- science is neutral on metaphysical questions like the existence of God, because such things are beyond the natural world and beyond the limits of science to confirm or disconfirm.
Er, Witham and Larson's study of religious belief among scientists found that NAS members are even less likely to believe in God than ordinary scientists. And the Cornell Evolution Project found very high levels of atheism among evolutionary biologists. These findings strongly contradict the view that science, and evolutionary biology in particular, has nothing to say about the plausibility of theism.
With respect to Jason's quibble, I would say that the *philosophy of science* holds that 'science is neutral on metaphysical questions'.
Science as practiced is an atheistic enterprise by definition, of course---as is plumbing, lest we take on too many airs.
To further muddy the waters, many scientists make no distinction between atheism/naturalism as method and as a personal conviction. This makes sense in a way, since it is a simplifying move on a number of levels, including ethically.
Still, whatever scientists believe or don't believe, and however philosophers contort themselves in pursuit of a comprehensive definition of science, on an everyday basis science is not about metaphysical questions, it is about evidence and models/arguments based upon evidence.
BTW, Jason, at the request of some friends I respect I have finally got around to starting my blog and I intend to create a few articles regarding my privately-held beliefs to satisfy the occassional request that I provide a stationary target to shoot at. Cheers....SH
I have to chime in on that comment by Nick, too:
I will arrogantly state that the courts, the NAS, the AAAS, the grand tradition in the history of science, and Nick too, are all wrong. There is a superstitious and fallacious tradition of deferring far too much to religion that taints that argument from authority and from popularity. Keep it simple: science is not neutral on effects in the natural world, and is therefore not neutral on metaphysical intrusion into reality. We can't say a thing about some other unnatural dimension or plane or reality or universe, but so what? Every religion insists that the separation between our reality and that one is in some way porous.We can rightly insist that this metaphysical god has no manifestation in our world and is therefore impotent and irrelevant. And if anyone wants to counter that by claiming gods and spirits do act in our world, we can demand the evidence.Which will not be forthcoming, of course.
Scott Hatfield,
With respect to Jason's quibble,...
I hardly think the question of whether science has anything to say about the existence of God is a "quibble." It seems to be a central point of dispute.
I would say that the *philosophy of science* holds that 'science is neutral on metaphysical questions'.
Well, I would say you're wrong. At the heart of the "philosophy of science" is reason. And I think belief in the omnipotent and benevolent creator God of Christianity clearly defies reason in light of the evidence we have from science about the nature of the world. Even Christianity itself sometimes recognizes the unreasonableness of its metaphysical claims, as when it describes the Problem of Evil, and when Christians appeal to God's "mysterious ways" or to the need for faith when they are confronted with rational critiques of their beliefs.
As Dawkins says, science doesn't absolutely, categorically rule out the kind of God postulated by Christianity and other traditional religions. But it does make him look highly implausible.
PZ, I'm glad and grateful that I have you for support whenever I get swarmed by the "science and faith are 100% compatible" crowd.
It just kills me to hear people spouting "religion is compatible with science" like it is well, gospel.
If religion and science are compatible, then why did I become an atheist ONLY AFTER studying science? There has gotta be something conflicting, or there would not be so much of an argument.
Thanks for your reply PZ. It looks to me like pretty much your goal is #1. That's great, more power to you. All I'm saying is that if that's the case, then you shouldn't be complaining about #3, any more than Jews for Jesus or other groups that make it their business to annoy people.
As for the NAS etc -- there are a lot of nonreligious folk, that's great -- but even so, those institutions have taken my more moderate position. And what's the alternative to the moderate position, anyway? Do you want the NAS, AAAS etc. to issue statements saying that science and evolution disprove God? That you can't be religious and be a real scientist? This would make Will Provine and the creationists extremely happy, but it's totally delusional for everyone else.
Regarding surveys: IIRC the typical result is that biologists tend to be heavier on agnostics than other groups, and that psychologists are the real hard core atheists.
I'm curious as to what position Nick thought the AAAS was explicitly taking when they unanimously approved boycotting the Kansas Kangaroo Kourt.
what message exactly, did that send in Nick's opinion?
oh, and since Nick appears to be paying more attention to this thread than his own on PT regarding creationists currently, I would ask him also to clarify why he thinks that people like those he created a special thread for on PT, are mere "months" away from "deconverting".
still awaiting the evidence to support that contention.
if Nick could provide that, there might be some evidential support for his where he places himself on this issue.
Is it all anecdotal, or did he actually read a published article suggesting that creating threads for creationists to expound their mental deficiencies somehow contributes to their "deconversion"?
I don't mean (necessarily) to pick specifically on Nick here, but I've seen this argument several times now, and have yet to see any supporting evidence for it.
Tearing down false beliefs is a fine thing, but a serious vision of the future does have a positive component.
Clearly, individual atheists can be moral and successful, but can an atheist society be moral and successful?
The subset of atheists who were Marxist-Leninists managed to create societies which where neither moral nor successful.
Western European social democrats (many influenced by Marx but rejecting Leninism) have created a promising society. The main concern in Western Europe is if secularism is sustainable in view of low reproduction rates and immigration pressure.
If America were to become more secular, it probably would become more like Western Europe. But this is reason to be scared that it turn out more like an Any Randist utopia, which would be dystopia to many.
No, we should be complaining about #3. We aren't looking for accommodation in society because we're nice delicate people who deserve a cookie and a pat on the head -- we're ferocious militant atheists, remember? We're driving for a position of strength. We want respect because we don't bend over and take it from confused fence-sitters like Epstein.
We're a minority. I don't expect those organizations to just meekly turn over their policy statements to us. The ideal is that some years from now (10? 20? a century?) people will look over the old documents from those groups and giggle at how quaint they are. I'll be happy when there's recognition that there is a vocal atheist wing that doesn't put up with that crap.
And how silly. You can't disprove gods -- theists will just back their definitions further and further into the vapor. And of course you can be religious and a scientist, just as you can be a stamp collector and a scientist. You just can't be religious and a scientist at the same time.
Clearly, individual atheists can be moral and successful, but can an atheist society be moral and successful?
spoken like a true Leo Strauss fanboy.
The subset of atheists who were Marxist-Leninists managed to create societies which where neither moral nor successful.
one, that had nothing to do with atheism, but instead had far more to do with group control.
two, the resulting "societies" had very little to do with actual communist philosophy and doctrine.
Next, you'll be telling us that Stallin was a marxist, instead of just a totalitarian dictator.
*sigh*
Nick Matzke,
Do you want the NAS, AAAS etc. to issue statements saying that science and evolution disprove God?
No, I don't think they should say anything as an organization. Any such public statements at the institutional level are likely to be compromised by political calculations involving fears of funding cuts or damage to the public standing of science. I'd like to see the NAS publish an independent poll of its members' beliefs on religious questions like the existence of God, but I don't expect that to happen any time soon. Larson and Witham found that a mere 7% of NAS members expressed belief in a personal God. 72% expressed "disbelief" and 20% "doubt or agnosticism."
Regarding surveys: IIRC the typical result is that biologists tend to be heavier on agnostics than other groups, and that psychologists are the real hard core atheists.
The Cornell Evolution Project is, as far as I'm aware, the largest and most comprehensive survey of the religious beliefs of professional evolutionary biologists ever conducted. 80% reported that they "don't believe in God in any traditional sense of the word." 70% reported "I believe that there is not enough evidence to justify a belief in God." A mere 8% agreed with the statement that evolution and religion "are non-overlapping magisteria whose tenets are not in conflict." So much for the claim that science has nothing to say about the existence of God.
Gee, I wonder when the NCSE is going to draw attention to these findings.
"But if you want a model for "gettin' atheism some respect" in the U.S., again, I ask you, WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT? You have several options:"
Funnily, I thought we were going for option #4: convince a large segment of the population, through various means, that one's privately-held religious beliefs are not an acceptable foundation for public decision-making in order to protect our society from the palpable and increasing harm done to it when religious dogma (like abstinence-only sex education, or creationism in schools, or opposition to stem-cell research, or...the list goes on and on) is given a free pass and our social norms are bent in such a way that religious pronouncements become immune to criticism and come to dominate our politics.
This is what I, at least, want. I think this is what most atheists want. Sure, it'd be nice to see religion wither away and die out, but I'm hardly holding my breath. This one goal is enough to ensure we'll preserve a civilisation worth living in for all of us. Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens all have contributions to make towards this goal. So do you. Everything else--particularly harping on so-called "atheist fundamentalists" because their tactics are different from yours--is irrelevant noise.
Ichthyic,
First, you start with an Ad Hominem attack on me as a Straussian, which is not true. I do think an atheist society can be moral and successful, but it is not automatic. One has to think about it carefully, rather than intimidate critics of your viewpoint.
Second, I've read Stalin, and he certainly thought of himself as a Marxist. The Soviet Union treated Marx's writing as Holy Scripture (reflecting a theological attitude that can hang on even after people have given up on the idea of God.)
But Marx was not a Stalinist. I believe the circle around Marx and Engels were really closer to the democratic socialism of the German Social Democratic Party.
Nevertheless, trying to claim that the Soviet Union was not an atheist state is Orwellian. The Soviet Union is not the only model for an atheist state, however. Sweden is another.
Jason, by the word 'quibble' in post #60 I didn't mean to suggest that your objection was unimportant, merely that it was secondary to the original question under discussion (which was Nick Matzke's critique of the sort of inconveniently assertive atheism of which PZ and other Pharynguloids tend to embrace).
When you write "at the heart of the "philosophy of science" is reason" I don't think you're saying much that's meaningful, and I think you're misunderstanding my post.
For one thing, reason is employed in other branches of philosophy as well (ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, etc.) but the fact that reason is employed doesn't necessarily lead to any unanimous outcome in those branches, so it's not a foregone conclusion that philosophers of science are going to agree with either one of us, I think!
Secondly, I wasn't trying to argue that the absence of evidence supporting supernatural claims is irrelevant to accepting or rejecting the claim. Clearly, it is. I'm just pointing out that, as a formal matter, since philosophers of science typically define science by restricting its domain to natural phenomena, then by *definition* science is neutral. This is most assuredly NOT a talking point for theism!
(As a sidebar, I suspect that if a certain old Scot were to read this post, he would tend to upbraid one or both of us for arguing about the scientific status of claims about things which--he would say---couldn't exist, by definition. He would remind us that you don't need to invoke the philosophy of science, or the definition of science etc. to reject theism, but can simply exclude it by simple logic. He's nothing if not consistent!)
Finally, there's the little matter of that eight percent of evolutionary biologists who embrace something like Gould's NOMA position. Well, I disagree with NOMA myself, but I have to ask why you would think that this fraction can be ignored. I mean, these are evolutionary biologists, not engineers or medical people out of their depth, much less theologians....
At any rate, you're just playing a game when you write "...so much for the claim that science has nothing to say about the existence of God." Really, Jason. You're quoting an opinion poll regarding the religious beliefs of scientists. That's data about belief, not about God's existence, and it certainly doesn't constitute a scientific endorsement of God's non-existence. It merely confirms that science as practiced is consonant with skepticism about all manner of things, among them supernatural claims.
Or, as in this case, skepticism with the implied claim that the magisterium of science can be conflated with an opinion poll.
Peace...SH
I heartily agree with post #70, since one comment I wished I had made earlier but didn't was that the discussion presumed that Mr. Matzke's three goals were the only options, which of course they aren't. Well said!
I do think an atheist society can be moral and successful,
funny, that's not what you said. and it wasn't an ad hominem attack if you think that society won't work without a religious framework involved.
Second, I've read Stalin, and he certainly thought of himself as a Marxist.
and uncle Adolf though he was a christian, and wrote about that, too.
if you think Stalinism is what Marx had in mind, you are one nutty buddy. I rather think whatever you have been reading should be dumped in favor of some actual history lessons, before you dig yourself in much deeper.
The Soviet Union treated Marx's writing as Holy Scripture
like the xians have treated the bible and used it similarly for power grabs historically?
or did you mean something different?
you have a seriously delusional view of history. My guess is you might actually have a russian background.
do you?
Nevertheless, trying to claim that the Soviet Union was not an atheist state is Orwellian.
you need to define the function of the state.
was the function of stalinism to promote atheism for the purpose of promoting atheism?
not hardly.
so thus, it never was an "atheist" state, any more than the UK is a "christian" state.
methinks you have bought into too much 1950's historical revisionism.
...I'll tell you what though,
if you have a place where you can create a thread, I'd be happy to walk through the history of the soviet union vs. the philosophy of Karl Marx with you, so you can see the vast gulf between them.
then we can look at why Stalin failed in his attempt to control religion in Russia, why he tried to do it to begin with, and why Leo Strauss wrote what he wrote.
I used to do this on opendemocracy.org every once in a while.
fun for me.
you?
Scott Hatfield,
You claim that, according to the "philosophy of science," science is neutral on "metaphysical questions" because by definition the domain of science is restricted to natural phenomena. This claim ignores the fact that, as PZ and I both pointed out, the metaphysical claim in question here involves an interaction or intrusion by a postulated supernatural agent into the natural world. The claim is therefore most definitely within the domain of science. If you think there is scientific evidence of this supernatural intrusion into the natural world, produce it. If there is no such evidence, it is irrational to believe that the intrusion has occurred. And that is a scientific conclusion.
And to repeat my earlier argument, the presence of evil and other apparent defects in the world (the natural world, that we know through science) is inconsistent with the belief that it was created by an omnipotent, benevolent God, as postulated by, for instance, Christianity. That implies Christianity is false. Again, this is a scientific conclusion, based on observation and reason. Christians sometimes even admit that this is a problem for their beliefs. That's why they call it the problem of evil. Their "solution" to this problem is throw up their hands and declare it to be a mystery. Which of course is no solution. If you think you have a solution, I would be most interested to see it.
I have no idea why you think I am "ignoring" the 8% of NAS biologists who agree with NOMA. The point is that the survey found that an overwhelming majority of the most eminent professional biologists agree with me that science and religion are in conflict (and probably for the same basic reasons that I described in the two paragraphs above). And more specifically, they believe that science and belief in God "in any traditional sense of the word" are in conflict. Presumably, eminent professional scientists are in a better position to understand what science and does not conflict with than people generally. The fact that scientific opinion seems so overwhelmingly to reject the view that science and religion are compatible is yet more evidence that you are wrong to believe otherwise.
Dylan Stafne: The "chaplain" is the problem, since chaplains are clergy ...
Diego: And not a very good one, I guess. (re: movie)
Evolving Squid: I've been trying to understand that for a long time. Let me know if you figure it out.
Scott Hatfield, OM: The idea that philosophy of science is metaphysically neutral is contentious - you may recall I've pointed out the opposite from time to time. (References on request.)
Ichthyic,
I've created such a thread here:
http://transparenteye.net/?p=72
The religious mode of thinking is pretty ingrained in humans, and it can persist after one has given up formal belief in God. Besides Marx, Freud and Ayn Rand are two more examples of atheists who have attracted a cultlike following
Any point can be contentious if some fool chooses to argue it. But scientific inquiry and rational thinking isn't biased towards or against any particular ideology, merely sloppy thinking - which renders it hostile to most forms of "philosophy".
Jason: Perhaps we should let *your* bandwagon argument ("70 percent of evolutionary biologists see no evidence for Big Sky Daddy, or sump'n like that") tangle with Nick Matzke's bandwagon argument ("the courts, the NAS, the AAAS, a grand tradition in the philosophy of science all endorse the neutrality of science with respect to metaphysical claims").
As I pointed out in post #72, I don't agree with NOMA. I've said that before in these forums. I agree with you, that metaphysical claims tend to lead to testable consequences in the natural world. In this sense Gould's magisteria manifestly overlap, no argument there. On the other hand, claims which don't tend to lead to testable consequences don't seem to fall under the purview of science. In any case, while the testable consequence of any claim can be falsified, that doesn't rule *directly* on the metaphysical claim. I'm sure you know, Jason, that believers are very good at producing little codicils that serve as 'logical outs' to explain why the predicted consequence of their claims aren't manifested.
For example, psychics who fail to bend spoons or stop watches under controlled conditions designed to eliminate chicanery often claim that the presence of skeptics generates 'negative energy' that interferes with the exercise of their gifts.
Thinking people are free to discount these attempts to patch up the hole in the believer's belief system on the grounds that they are non-parsimonious, but we can not then say that science has demonstrated/proved their claims are false. That doesn't mean we can't have a high degree of confidence that psychic powers or the Big Sky Daddy aren't involved. We can. We simply can't make those claims with the level of confidence that a casual reading of your rhetoric might suggest.
Keith Douglas: As my above remarks suggest, I share a bit of caution as to the neutrality of science in this regard. This sounds like this might be a good topic for my new blog. Can you send me a quick list of references at:
epigene13@hotmail.com
I'll read them, and then post my thoughts about them there!
Scott, your typical special pleading about how science must maintain a stance of neutrality, unable as it is to disprove the existence of Russell's Celestial Teapot, is noted for the umpteenth time. Just how much neutrality is anybody expected to exhibit with all due respect to the nine billion fracking names of gods? It is not science's job to prove or disprove anything, as you well know. Science needn't remain neutral about anything in the absence of positive evidence. The lack of science's resounding disconfirmation of the objects of religious beliefs is not neutrality. The burden of proof is on the believer, every bit as much as the burden of disproof is not on science, a decidedly non-neutral situation.
Unfalsifiable claims don't merit neutrality. They'd merit nothing more than scorn, derision, mockery, and the occasional belly laugh, were it not for how often belief makes believers such a danger to themselves and others.
Unfalsifiable claims are equivalent to the null statement. They quite literally say nothing at all.
To say that science must be "neutral" towards empty statements treated as though they possessed content is inane.
If your deity is unfalsifiable, it doesn't exist, and science will be hostile towards your pretending that it does - as it well should.
Scott,
I agree with you, that metaphysical claims tend to lead to testable consequences in the natural world.
Well then. And that includes the metaphysical claim "The world was created by an omnipotent, benevolent God." The evidence we have--from science and reason--about the nature of the world strongly suggests that this claim is false. The world we observe around us does not look like the kind of world we would rationally expect to see if it were the work of an omnipotent, benevolent creator. And that is probably one reason why our top scientists seem to overwhelmingly reject that metaphysical claim.
I still don't understand why you don't join them, and me, and PZ, and the many others here who also reject that claim.
But please don't take that as an invitation for yet another long, rambling, digressive post that purports to be defense of your religious beliefs but never actually gets there.
TE:
I'm there.
"Scott, your typical special pleading about how science must maintain a stance of neutrality, unable as it is to disprove the existence of Russell's Celestial Teapot, is noted for the umpteenth time."
Ken, in all honesty, I don't see this as special pleading on behalf of any particular cause. It's a formal convention in the philosophy of science, widely accepted, that it is neutral with respect to non-falsifiable claims. That claim, as Keith Douglas notes above, is *not* universally accepted, however. I intend to discuss the merits of that claim on my blog and I hope you would consider chiming in with your views, because I am very open to the possibility that science might not be as neutral as everyone says it is and I am hoping to learn more about that. As I mentioned above, I'm not too chary about NOMA myself....SH
"Unfalsifiable claims are equivalent to the null statement. They quite literally say nothing at all."
Let the record show, Jason, that I predicted some such response from the old Scot back in post #72.
I would ask Caledonian, however, if he feels that the above claim is falsifiable, and if so, how would he go about falsifying it? If not, then in what sense could it be said to be meaningful?
(sigh) It would be nice, old Scot, if you would take this as a serious question and an opportunity to explain your views more fully. I'm not baiting you or laying any sort of rhetorical trap. I'm truly interested, and (as mentioned) I'm going to continue the consideration of this question on my blog.
"...that includes the metaphysical claim "The world was created by an omnipotent, benevolent God." The evidence we have--from science and reason--about the nature of the world strongly suggests that this claim is false."
I agree. I am not satisfied with the conventional view of an all-loving, all-powerful God. I harbor significant personal doubts, and it is a challenge on a number of levels for me to interact with forceful, articulate non-believers.
"...I still don't understand why you don't join them, and me, and PZ, and the many others here who also reject that claim."
I *think* I have considered that claim, and for the most part rejected it. I would not be considered a 'true Christian' by many believers, that's for sure. At present, I'm trying to work out other aspects of belief, to reexamine the question 'What does it mean to be a Christian?' My views are not, as you might think, set in stone: I think it is possible that I might, in fact, reject other aspects of conventional belief, or faith itself. That possibility has to be on the table, I think, in order for this to be something more than intellectual fencing.
In fact, I think I will post this on my blog. You can engage me there on that topic if you wish. I won't risk any "digressions" here, on-topic or otherwise, for a lot of reasons, but mostly because I feel it isn't appropriate in this forum.
Sincerely...SH
Caledonian: Since I wasn't talking about any ideologies, I don't understand your remark.
Scott Hatfield:: Okay, I'll do that. I've sent you a good "reading list", I think. I should warn you that some of it is very technical. In particular, Bunge's metaphysics should be read twice, at least.