Damon Linker doesn't like the New Atheism because it is "illiberal", and so he writes a screed in the New Republic — one that is poorly thought out and guilty of the crimes he accuses atheists of, while exercising his distaste for the godless, and nothing more.
The problems begin with his opening gambit: he's outraged that Richard Dawkins dares to regard religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse. As has been typical for complaints of this sort, Linker doesn't bother to address the substance of the argument, since that is apparently too difficult for him — is, for instance, telling a child that they will go to hell if they get a blood transfusion a damaging psychological act or is it not? — and instead makes the lazy and fallacious leap to the claim that Richard Dawkins wants Christian parents arrested.
Why Dawkins refuses to take this idea to its logical conclusion--to say that raising a child in a religious tradition, like other forms of child abuse, should be considered a crime punishable by the state--is a mystery, for it follows directly from the character of his atheism.
This is the premise upon which Linker builds his argument that the New Atheists are illiberal: because Richard Dawkins has not called for a fatwah against religious parents, but Linker thinks he should, all New Atheists belong to an intolerant tradition of bad atheists. It's a curious situation when someone can refuse to demand the imprisonment of his opponents and therefore be accused of authoritarian intolerance.
Here's a revelation for Mr Linker: perhaps Dr Dawkins, and others of us New Atheists, are refusing to take affairs to that conclusion because they are practicing members of a tradition that values personal liberty and is reluctant to impose personal beliefs on other individuals. That would break his thesis, however; far easier to imply that the New Atheists are illiberal villains whose actual actions are a charade to hide their ultimate aims. Perhaps I should rebut Mr Linker by claiming that the "logical conclusion" to his contempt for the New Atheists is that he must desire the most illiberal goal of silencing them; that's as reasonable as the inference he's making.
The New Atheists have pointed out a problem. We are members of a liberal democracy, a political institution that requires a well-informed and engaged citizenry to function well. Yet at the same time, we have people who propagate ignorance, who drill false ideas into the heads of their children, who do active, intentional harm to the intellectual development of young people. And further, these people are working hard to compromise the quality of education for all Americans, driven by their religious ideologies to make sure that no challenging ideas are ever discussed in the classroom. This is child abuse. That there are competing liberal values of parental autonomy is not something that we have denied or failed to recognize — but apparently, pointing out a real and genuine problem is "illiberal". I had no idea that denial and ignorance were liberal values.
The "logical conclusion" I draw from the continuing practice of child abuse by religious parents is not to make laws that punish those parents — it's to fight for better education, to refuse to allow sectarian nonsense to be promulgated in our public schools, to encourage more critical thinking by citizens of all ages, and to use my public soapbox and my right to free speech to openly berate the credulous morons who frighten their children with hellfire if they open their eyes to the beautiful reality of our world. I'll also use it to chew out narrow-minded apologists for inanity who invent false dichotomies, such as that the only two possibilities in a liberal democracy are to pretend that damaging conflicts don't exist, or to start shipping dissidents off to the gulag.
Speaking of facile dichotomies, Linker continues the practice in the rest of his diatribe. After smugly informing the New Atheists that they aren't "New" (something we have also complained about; this is an inappropriate term invented by the media, not something these atheists have chosen), he traces everything to two, and only two, philosophical traditions. There are the thoughtful atheists, the liberal atheists, who have their roots in pre-Socratic Greece, and are marked by a recognition that no one can absolutely disprove the existence of gods, and by tentativeness. Then there are the radical, political, ideological atheists who came into flower in the violence of the French Revolution, and in philosophers like Marx and Nietzsche — that is, not liberal. And of course, when there are only two choices, and when you've already made a commitment to ignore any intellectual diversity within either strand, and when you've plainly set up one as the good guys and the other as the bad guys, it's no problem to simply shoehorn anyone you don't like into the ranks of the bad guys and tar them with the sins of your favorite evil fanatic.
And most importantly, by turning it all into an argument about which of these two simplistic caricatures your opponent belongs to, you can avoid the actual arguments at the heart of the problem: is there a god? Does he give private instructions to individuals on how to act? Should we justify and promote claims that are so clearly in contradiction to empirical reality? Can we have a civil society that so readily confuses piety with morality? Let's just ignore these and other substantive questions and accuse atheists of wanting to imprison Christians.
Perhaps, instead of demonizing the New Atheists with his simple-minded and inflexible vision of a history infused with unchangeable philosophical traditions, Mr Linker ought to recognize that the New Atheists are obviously politically diverse, that atheism seems to cross political boundaries, and that the proponents have the ability to blend the ideas of our culture into new combinations. From my perspective, what I see is a number of people who have grown up in a Western liberal tradition and have combined that with an increasing recognition that science has made fundamental dogmas of the religious traditions untenable — we aren't members of a lineage that demands violence and bloodshed and enforcement of intellectual ideas at all, but we are members of an increasingly strong rationalist ideal that refuses to blithely accept patent nonsense because a man in antique robes says so.
If you want to define the heart of the New Atheism, it isn't illiberalism. It's simply that willingness to openly and boldly and with some smug confidence state that the old dogmas are bullshit. There is nothing in that that is antithetical to liberalism. If Linker wanted to make a case that it conflicts with conservatism, he'd have a case.
I have to bring up one more blatant example of the incoherence of Linker's essay, a single paragraph that exemplifies the nonsense he's promoting.
In describing their atheism as illiberal, I do not mean to imply that the new atheists are closet totalitarians. On the contrary, all of them understand themselves to be contributing to the defense of freedom against its most potent enemies, at home and abroad. Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions. Consider, for example, the sloppiness displayed by all of the authors in discussing their political aims. Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society--a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one; and it is inexcusable that each book leaves readers guessing which objective its author favors.
That first sentence is painfully disingenuous. His opening was all about implying that the "logical conclusion" of Dawkins' beliefs was criminalization of Christian parents; he describes the New Atheists as "brutally intolerant"; he's going to close his essay by calling the New Atheists a "cause for concern", as if they are a danger to the Republic, and suggests that they promise to be "destructive" in a "war of attrition" between absolutists; his whole frackin' essay is a tirade against those bad atheists following in the tradition of violent revolutionaries like the Hebertists and Marx. Tossing in a tepid disclaimer is not convincing.
Then there's that accusation of sloppiness in discussing politics, followed by the bizarre question about whether Richard Dawkins is going to defend the American Constitution. While I know that Dawkins greatly admires the secular ideals of the Constitution, he does happen to be British, and as far as I know, there are no plans afoot to lobby for major changes in the US Constitution that would allow a foreign national to be appointed Dictator of America. Shouldn't it be obvious that Dawkins cannot and does not have political aims in the US?
And once you've realized that, shouldn't your recognize that just perhaps the others may have goals other than political ones, too? I think the current aims of the New Atheists are social: we need to raise the profile of atheists as legitimate members of our culture, we need to provide rallying points for the many atheists in those liberal Western democracies worldwide, we need to encourage greater skepticism about the bogus claims and invalid pretenses to authority of religious leaders. The New Atheists with science backgrounds are also clearly pushing an agenda of promoting secular education and a deeper pursuit of scientific knowledge. Isn't that enough?
Working towards a secular society that has abandoned religion is most definitely not an illiberal goal if it is to be accomplished by education, persuasion, open discussion, public criticism, and for christ's sake, by publishing books. This is what the New Atheists have done and plan to continue doing, and Linker finds this objectionable. Now that is an illiberal attitude. The actions of the New Atheists have consisted of speaking and writing their minds, and in defense of liberality, Mr Linker is now in the position of condemning the publication of books.
And that is the ultimate irony of his complaint. Not only is he opposing the free dissemination of ideas he dislikes, but it is inexcusable that his essay leaves readers guessing what objective its author favors. I presume that means we're free to emulate him and assign the most reprehensible and illiberal aims to his sloppy arguments.
- Log in to post comments
Damon's a political sycophant and a befuddled pluralist.
Matt Yglesias posted favorably on that stupid article, and a number of commenters on his post thrashed it and him pretty soundly (along with some other idiot commenters who tried to defend it).
But as far as the article itself is concerned, what else would you expect from TNR but this kind of offensive tripe? I wouldn't wipe my ass with that rag until it puts the Marty Peretz era well and truly behind it.
Linker's most glaring problem is that he ignores the long tradition of liberalism criticizing religion, to focus on the "atheists" who he faults for doing the same thing (with his little excuses for why atheists are somehow evil and illiberal).
No, the fact is that liberalism used to believe in critiquing of illiberal institutions, but now that most liberals are chicken and it is primarily the atheists who do it, Linker has to fault Dawkins for, well, being atheist (plus his niggling excuses). Linker dare not say that religion ought not to be criticized, he just means to criticize those liberals who take on the task, the atheists.
There's not much to add, except that it's pretty sad that Linker can't face up to the fact that liberalism has become far too comfortable with the status quo, so he has to demonize those who do fault the present power structure.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
"I presume that means we're free to emulate him and assign the most reprehensible and illiberal aims to his sloppy arguments."
You're right. I presume that he wrote this in support of Huckabee's presidential campaign.
The "logical conclusion" of religion is mass stupidity.
"...visceral contempt for the personal faith of others..."
Count me in, you whiner!
You didn't hear? Just by being liberal, we're default fascists.
http://crookedtimber.org/2007/12/17/fascism-fascism-fascism/
Whew! PZ, seems you are a bit worked up about this. Your penultimate paragraph is the killer one, very well said that illiberal ranter about exercising his free speech rights. ;-)
"Shouldn't it be obvious that Dawkins cannot and does not have political aims in the US?"
Snort. Operation Clark County anyone?
We Yanks can only hope that everyone involved in that debacle learned his/her lesson and no longer has political aims in the USA. But my guess is that they haven't, political lemmings that they are.
Message: the Enlightenment was BAD!
I'm not sure he's entirely out there when it comes to the "arresting child abusers" bit. If you believe that child abuse should be criminal and punishable by law, and that [whatever type of] religious indoctrination is child abuse as much as any other punishable forms, then there really is the conclusion that [whatever type of] religious indoctrination should be criminal and punishable by law. When it comes to, say, assault, you wouldn't be hesitant in arresting them because you're "reluctant to impose personal beliefs on other individuals". No?
Hmmm.. Methinks that the conservative commentators object so much to publication of books they don't like since writing books is the only thing they actually do. And they believe that this is sufficient to hold their esteemed positions. Therefore such books from those who disagree with them are a real and present threat to said positions.
The difference is that society has a strong consensus that physical abuse justifies removing a child from the custody of abusive parents. To put it very mildly indeed, there is no such consensus re religious indoctrination. In addition, there is an unavoidable element of subjectivity in the latter case such that even people willing to countenance the idea would be hard pressed to come to agreement about exactly where to draw the line. Finally, what's to stop a government in the hands of, say, Mike Huckabee from declaring that LACK of religious indoctrination is child abuse? So a liberal should be very, very, very hesitant about advocating government intervention in this case. Which is presumably why Dawkins doesn't.
Dan Dennett weighed in:
| Posted by Daniel C. Dennett
14 of 81 | warn tnr | respond
Damon Linker speaks of my "hatred of " and "hostility to religious education," which is remarkable, considering that in the only place in Breaking the Spell where I discuss the topic I call for a compulsory curriculum in religious education for all children, in public and private schools, and even for home schoolers: "Let's get more education about religion into schools, not less. We should teach our children creeds and customs, prohibitions and rituals, texts and music, and when we cover the history of religion we should include both the positive . . . .and the negative. . . . No religion should be favored, and none ignored." I go on to insist, moreover, that so long as schools and parents teach their children this curriculum on world religions "they may teach their children whatever religious doctrines they like." (pp328-9) I did also predict the "adrenaline rush" that many people would experience when it was suggested that they didn't have the right to keep their children ignorant of basic facts about the world's religions, including their own, and I suspect that it was just such a paroxysm of irrational fear that provoked such a deliberate misrepresentation by Damon Linker. What I, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are opposed to is not religious education, but the sorts of indoctrination that depends on enforced ignorance. Now that really is child abuse-just as surely as it is child abuse to prevent a child from learning to read.
Mental cruelty is, as far as I know, not a criminal offense, but it still can be abusive. Short of actual physical violence or denying the necessities of life, the legal system seems rather reluctant to criminalize behaviour that may seem abusive but non-physical. I would argue that religion falls into this category -- it can be a terrible thing to inflict on a child, and it can do long-term harm, but it should be as illegal as a parent regularly verbally abusing their child.
I find it ironic how they always criticize "New Atheists" for claiming to be "new" when it was in fact the critics who came up with the ridiculous label.
Steve: Fair enough. Though I'd presume that at least in theory such abusive indoctrination would be considered punishable?
Off-topic weirdness: self-inflicted head trauma in the name of college-age chastity.
"the New Atheists are obviously politically diverse".
Is this a polite way of saying "Don't mention the war if Hitchens is within earshot"?
#10: No. Dawkins doesn't say this kind of child abuse is comparable with the (much more damaging) physical, sexual, etc. forms of child abuse that are possible. He's merely making the comparison and pointing out that religious ideas can be damaging too.
What possible purpose would locking up religious parents for indoctrinating their kids serve? Since it's the norm in society, you'd be locking up uncountable millions.
The point Dawkins et al. are making is that society's attitude needs to be changed (consciousness-raising) so that when people indoctrinate their kids with religion, others look on it as strange and unacceptable.
It isn't exactly bizarre that child indoctination has become an accepted practice in our society, but if one thinks about it for more than about 10 seconds, it becomes stranger and stranger...
Thanks for dealing with this article, P-Zed! I was hoping someone would provide a reply and slap this supercillious creep down, and it seems, ah, my prayers were answered...
Pareto: well, is telling your kid over and over that he's a worthless piece of crap who'll never amount to anything punishable? For better or worse, it's not as far as I know. And there's certainly plenty of it going around, and it can scar kids for life.
I'm delighted that Dennett posted that comment. Pwned!
One "advantage" christians have is their ability to lie with impunity.
The 9th commandment (8th if you're Catholic), Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, or in simple terms, Don't tell lies, doesn't apply to them.
Their reasoning is this:
1) Lying Is a sin.
2) All people are sinners.
3) I will be forgiven for my sins because I am a christian.
4) Therefore, I can lie with impunity because I will be forgiven for lying.
.
The idea that "illiberalism" follows from certainty in belief is unfortunately rampant among free thinkers (especially those who identify as skeptics). It's nonsense. Presumably most people are fairly certain where, say, Iran is on a map and, furthermore, would like to see greater geographical literacy. Does it follow from these two things that anyone who can't point to Iran on a map should be shipped off to a geography Gulag? No. Even if I have absolute certainty that God does not exist it doesn't follow that I agree with oppressive anti-religious regimes. I can have a commitment to strong atheism and liberalism; the two things are entirely separate.
I'm with Pareto, the term "abuse", to me, means something that you can legally intervene to stop. Perhaps we should call it "damaging" to a child to indoctrinate them, since we all seem to agree that it isn't something we want to make unlawful.
I don't know about Auguste Comte, but to say (or at least strongly imply) that Ludwig Feurbach, Karl Marx and Freidrich Nietzsche favoured persecution of religion is downright false. But even if it wasn't, it's irrelevant - none of the New Atheists has advocated persecution of religion. The whole article is a spectacular piece of concern trolling, and I'm delighted that PZ has taken it on.
How is that an "illiberal" goal as long as it is pursued through persuasion?
and instead makes the lazy and fallacious leap to the claim that Richard Dawkins wants Christian parents arrested.
NO, this is true. It's in the book right after the part where Dawkins says that the Pope should be crucified with rusty nails and 666 should be the new toll-free phone prefix.
@ all: Makes sense. Then, is there any point at which the psychological harm becomes great enough? Some quantitative point of some type of indoctrination at which it falls under emotional abuse or negligence? Or are these things qualitatively different?
It seems to me that the term "abuse" (particularly "child abuse") has certain denotations, leading me to Pheadrus's conclusion.
That essay was less illuminating than a 40 watt lightbulb.
His next piece should be the print pundit's customary long whine about how those awful bloggers are fact-checking the corpo-media, how terrible it is that some of them actually know the subject they're talking about rather than being journalism graduates who don't and how the rotten bastards are talking directly to the people instead of going through proper, i.e., corporate, channels.
Since he's just provided such a sterling example of just why the traditional print pundit is becoming about as useful as boot-jacks and buggy whips, it would be the perfect sequel.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. . . .
I am looking forward to PZ's reaction to this example of the Courtier's Reply in Salon. Maybe I can haz fireworkz?
#18--
It's also a polite way of saying "Don't say we aren't in a life-and-death struggle with Islam over the continued existence of Western Civilization when Harris is in earshot."
If that pissed you off, read this!
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/index.html
ARGHHH!!!!!!!
Yet another rant about the evil atheists and their supposed aims of scoring converts. Magically, nobody ever elaborates on exactly how, other than participating in debates with religious leaders in public places where folks can come watch and listen, the "New Atheists" are prostelytizing and converting people.
No incense, no animal sacrifices, no chanting in echoing hallways, no black robes with red accents, no blood ceremonies, no stations of torture, no symbols to stick to the backs of cars (that specifically represent atheism anyhow), no corner confessionals in the house, no morbid paintings of unseen foretold events, no messiahs, no human conduits on the earthly plane translating everything from on high, no certified protectorates in European lands, no holy grounds in turbulent nations, no inter-tribal disputes, no wishing death upon believers of other religions or other strains of the religion, no priests, priestesses, clergymen, imams, monks, rabbis, shamans, no glorious buildings (do universitites count?), no stained glass (does the science lab count?), no traditions, no holidays, no required dress code, no special tax status, no top-down social deference model, no life coaches, no post-death stories, no - well, you get the idea.
You may just get your wish - Bob knows how many times the New Republic has played those cards, and now that Time is doing what you've predicted as well, expect to see it all over the place.
Well, I'm an unbeliever. And I'm not a Liberal. Ok, so I'm not a Conservative, either. The COTUS may not be perfect, but it sure beats what we're living under right now, and neither Liberals (capital L) nor Conservatives (capital C) appear to be eager to restore the US to a constitutional republic.
Except for Ron Paul. Who is running as a Republican simply because 3rd parties can't get any traction in the US. He's even a Christian, but I'm going to vote for him anyway.
I think Linker's biggest problem is that he clearly hasn't done more than skim any of the authors in question. Honestly, I doubt he's done more than read reviews of their books. Which brings me to this thought: If you've thoroughly offended an idiot, you've had a good day!
@poke:
Exactly. Just like religious people can support their religions and liberal democracy. Same principle. Why the hell can't people understand that? >_<
Disagreement != Discrimination/Persecution
Aha!
The book flap [of the Theocons] notes that you served as the editor of First Things, the "flagship journal" of the theoconservative movement. I hate to be flip, but how did somebody like you wind up in a place like that? From the book it sounds as if you are uncomfortable with much of the theocon agenda.
I was more conservative when I landed the job at First Things back in 2001. (At the time I was working as a speechwriter for Rudy Giuliani and thought of myself as a Giuliani Republican.) I supported what I thought was the main goal of the magazine: to oppose restrictions on serious believers participating in politics.
http://hnn.us/articles/31660.html
Ewwwwwww and yuckie.
He's secretly one of them!
What's ironic to me is that Linker's whole style of argument, black and white dualism, is illiberal. Tolerance and a liberal worldview require an awareness and acceptance of diversity and shades of gray. Linker's shoehorning everyone he doesn't agree with into a monolithic "them" and insisting that the other side has a unity and historical continuity that fits into an eternal war between the forces of light and darkness, is the classical conservative psychology. It's an immature worldview and identical to the underlying argument of Jonah Goldberg's profoundly silly "Liberal Fascism."
Or to put it in terms Linker and Goldberg might understand, "we're not the illiberal ones; you are. Neener, neener, neener."
So often these "they're intolerant" accusations against us are really mean "they won't tolerate our intolerance".
BlueIndependent,
But atheists do get a toaster for every new convert.
Justawriter: Salon's had a long history of alternating between pro-atheist and pro-religion articles. They always generate a few hundred letters and lots of juicy advertising revenue. (The Guardian does the same.) I stopped caring what Salon writes about religion a long time ago. They're in the business of manufacturing controversy; they're not interested in finding answers.
Child abuse?
A parent could tell his child that there is a monster under his bed, and in his closet. If he makes any noise at night or gets out of bed for any reason, the monster will rip him to bloody shreds. The monsters only go away when the sun comes up. The monsters love children.
I agree with a proposition that this would be child abuse. Don't confuse the term with a legal definition.
The above story is what is at the heart of religion, and I don't want my children taught any such foolish stories.
"TX CHL Instructor", I used to think that I'd vote for Ron Paul over certain less desirable Democrats, but after I heard him call abortion, "murder", I'm certainly less likely to.
Even if he had said, I'm neither in favor or opposed to federal laws on abortion, I just think it's a state issue, I'd be more likely to support him. Likely though I'll never have the opportunity to vote for him (not registered Republican and CA doesn't have an open primary).
It sounds as though Mr Linker took Martin Luther's diatribe about "Reason" being the whore of the devil to heart.
Atheists are often automatically classified by theists as "intolerant" because they don't accept at the outset the idea that religious faith is a form of mental and moral fortitude, to be respected, cherished, and fostered. Furthermore, atheists don't simply criticize the actions of believers (this they can accept and even welcome) -- they actually go into whether or not the beliefs are true. And try to change minds. How rude.
Somehow "valuing diversity" has come to mean refraining from taking issues seriously enough to engage in honest debate. But this would be like arguing that disagreeing with the policies of the President and trying to persuade people to vote against him is an attack on democracy. "You're trying to prevent people from voting according to their conscience!"
Folks who can clearly see the absurd contradiction in the political analogy often have trouble seeing it in the religious situation.
Perhaps they really do think that religion is simply style and taste, with no substance.
"...New Atheists, are refusing to take affairs to that conclusion because they are practicing members of a tradition that values personal liberty and is reluctant to impose personal beliefs on other individuals."
Dr. Myers: This post, particularly the bit I quoted above is the most politically astute thing I've read by you. Thank you.
Is New Republic moron writer a pleonasm?
Just thought I'd point out that what Dawkins called child abuse was not religious indoctrination, but the labelling of children.
Remember?
Even the premise of Linker's bullshit rant was bollocks.
It seems especially humorous that the linked article objects to atheists proselytizing and making converts.
It would be interesting to know if Richard Dawkins has ever gone door-to-door, handing out tracts.
The problem is that we atheists overlook the fact that the need of the religious to vilify us, to create an "us v. them" situation, is simply an adaptative trait of religion as an evolved social structure, and therefore is as hard-wired into the brains of the religious as other evolved behavioral traits. We're not likely to change that by mere intellectual debate, any more than a wife will get a husband to stop looking at other women.
Instead, we should focus our efforts on making sure the religious no longer reproduce and pass on those behaviors! So don't argue with the religious - go forth and woo them ... mate with them ... and raise their young amongst us.
Nic, you said about monsters under the bed,
>The above story is what is at the heart of >religion, and I don't want my children taught >any such foolish stories.
This is what *some* religion is about. My religion isn't about that (though I was raised in a tradition with, umm, tendencies that way).
Marx is not exactly a violent revolutionary...
On top of all this, he doesn't even get his philosophy right.
You atheists all are illiberal
With your nuanced opinions terriberal
Stick your heads in the sand
Maybe you'll understand
(Or jail parents who read the Biberal)
... this really has proved a bit of a loser as a promotion, tho'. There just aren't that many of us with much use for more than one toaster. Sure, it's nice to have one of the cottage (if you've one of those, at least, that is), and maybe a spare toaster kicking around in case the first one breaks. Having two in the kitchen can have some utility if you've a large family and a lot of them are into toast... but really, it gets a bit silly past that for pretty much everyone. So, overall, it just hasn't been that much of an incentive.
This is why I'm gonna have to suggest to the Evil Atheist Conspiracy's promotional activities comittee that we branch out a bit, in the conversion gifts department. Y'know... mebbe we could have a catalogue. Like some of those other conspiracies out there. Or like the frequent flyer plans. Either way. We could have kitchenware in there, other stuff that's useful around the atheist household... You know. Blenders. Kitten grinders. Martini glasses. Useful stuff.
Oh... as to the linked article. Umm... Right...
(Looks for content actually worth commenting on... entirely fails...)
Umm... Wow. Did this styrofoam-fer-brains actually get paid by TNR to write this drivel?
No. Wait. Don't tell me. It'd just piss me off.
AJ,
Do you happen to have a copy of that catalogue? My kitten grinder died last week all of a sudden, and I've need to replace it.
G.:
The current draft catalogue has two models. For one convert, you can get the standard model. Very nice, quite decorative, stainless steel finish, looks quite nice in modern kitchens...
For three converts, there's the deluxe model. With the high-speed belt-driven feeder unit. For high-throughput, multi-kitten processing.
Screw the illiberal social conservatives. As a card carrying neo conservative knuckle dragging islamofascist hating Republican with deep pockets who has spent his last dime on the holy roller republicans, I declare war on the Huckabee supporting social conservative mujahadeen.
Most conservative Christians are not ignorant, intolerant or hostile, but the ones who are always manage to get quoted.
Most atheists are not arrogant, bigoted or pseudo-intellectual, but the ones who are always manage to get quoted.
See a pattern here?
Christians have been painted with a dismissive broad brush for decades and although two wrongs don't make a right, what goes around does indeed come around. Instead of attacking the "other," both sides should work on the awkward players on their own team, to clean up their act and their arguments and maybe some day the reflexive believers and reflexive non-believers can converge on something approximating Truth.
Most christians not ignorant? Not ignorant of what exactly? There are plenty of things to be ignorant over, like the existence of a deity for example. We're all ignorant of something or other, but I don't attempt to make my ignorance a virtue.
Frankly, I'm not going to focus on "my side" when my side isn't attempting to ruin education, health programs, politics, science, etc, even though we regularly rip eachother to shreds here anyway in case you haven't noticed. And do try to remember that those who get quoted, get read. And if they're promulgating ignorant bullshit, then we're certainly going to set it strait. What would you have us do, let it slide and trust that some other christian will set them strait for us? That doesn't seem to have worked all too well in the past.
"Christians have been painted with a dismissive broad brush for decades"
Poor Christians. Have a cookie. There, sit down next to the Pagans, who've been demonized for centuries. I'm sure you have much to talk about.
But I do agree that everybody should keep their own doorsteps clean. I'm eagerly anticipating the joint press conference by the leaders of the biggest Christian denominations denouncing the "God hates fags" Baptists and their ilk as psychotic hate-mongerers and not part of the Christian faith (yay excommunication!).
I'm not holding my breath, though.
I'm not sure he's entirely out there when it comes to the "arresting child abusers" bit. If you believe that child abuse should be criminal and punishable by law, and that [whatever type of] religious indoctrination is child abuse as much as any other punishable forms
Sigh. Why can't people recognize blatant question begging? If Dawkins doesn't believe that parents who indoctrinate their children in religion should be arrested, then he doesn't believe that all child abuse should result in arrest, so your premises assume the very thing you want to show, that Dawkins must believe something he apparently doesn't.
No. Dawkins doesn't say this kind of child abuse is comparable with the (much more damaging) physical, sexual, etc. forms of child abuse that are possible.
More than once someone has made this pathetically ignorant and groundless claim here. It is flat out false ... Dawkins has said that such abuse is potentially more damaging than physical abuse. Leave treating your groundless beliefs as truth to the religious.
I'm with Pareto, the term "abuse", to me, means something that you can legally intervene to stop.
That has nothing to do with what Pareto wrote. His argument was that Linker is right that Dawkins must view religious indoctrination as criminal.
It seems to me that the term "abuse" (particularly "child abuse") has certain denotations, leading me to Pheadrus's conclusion.
You seem to have no idea of what "denotation" means. The denotation of "abuse" refers to what abuse is; it in no way includes how we do or should respond to it.
I used to think that I'd vote for Ron Paul over certain less desirable Democrats, but after I heard him call abortion, "murder", I'm certainly less likely to.
That's not even the most disturbing thing that people (including many of his supporters) don't know about him. e.g., "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution, and I don't accept it as a theory."
People thinking of voting for Ron Paul should carefully consider whether they have considered his views on all issues, or just one or two (like Iraq and Bush corruption).
Sigh. Just because Dawkins said one thing doesn't mean that he didn't say something else, e.g., "Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place."
On top of all this, he doesn't even get his philosophy right.
Note that Linker's moronic claim that argument refutes, that "it's impossible to prove a negative", has repeatedly been made by posters here and is widely believed among supposedly "rational" people despite being so obviously false. While the errors of the religious are so blatant, even the scientific population could benefit immensely from extensive training in rational thought and detection of fallacies.
Note that Linker's moronic claim that argument refutes
I meant "Linker's moronic claim that link refutes".
"and instead makes the lazy and fallacious leap to the claim that Richard Dawkins wants Christian parents arrested."
I think it's perfectly logical to ask about this. Some atheists have pointed out how inconsistent the Christian pro-life position is: they call it murder, yet do not push to make it illegal. Murder is immoral, but shouldn't be punished by the civil authorities? Doesn't make sense. Likewise, child abuse is child abuse. Saying that the government should stay out of it doesn't make sense. The government will rush in at even a hint of physical abuse, even given through an anonymous call; but even with "physical abuse," it's often not the actual physical aspect of it that causes the most harm, but the psychological harm such abuse causes. Psychological abuse is something that can screw a person over for the rest of their lives, and should be stopped if it is going on. If you're gonna be serious about using a term like child abuse, then have the guts to follow through and help the children you think are being harmed. Only a coward would say that millions of children are being harmed (possible some for life), but that the authorities need not bother about getting involved.
I misspoke--obviously pro-lifers push to make abortion illegal, I meant that they do not push to have women who get abortions charged with killing their babies.
Most conservative Christians are not ignorant, intolerant or hostile, but the ones who are always manage to get quoted.
hmm, every one I've ever met fits at least two of those three categories.
usually it's ignorant and intolerant, but not hostile, or it's all three.
that's also been my experience witnessing the hundreds of "conservative christians" that have chosen to post to the various political and scientific fora I have visted over the last 10 years.
the atheists OTOH, that I have experienced (all too few in this neck of the woods) and those I have seen post to the same fora typically are the opposite:
sometimes intolerant and hostile (which is often justified, given that it's typically in reaction to ignorant nonsense), but very rarely ignorant.
somehow, I don't find the groups equatable.
In short, i find your analysis flawed from the get-go.
the media will ALWAYS quote the more "controversial" things ANYBODY says.
that such is so is so trivial an observation as to not be worthy of discussion, let alone utilized as the basis to make generalizations about human social groups.
You didn't hear? Just by being liberal, we're default fascists.
damn, and here I thought we were all communists.
is fascist a bigger dirty word to conservative knuckledraggers than communist these days?
meh, that'll change.
we'll be communists again next year.
Mental cruelty is, as far as I know, not a criminal offense, but it still can be abusive.
It is in fact a criminal offense in California. Emotional abuse is defined as: Penal Code § 11166.05
"Serious emotional damage is evidenced by states of being or behavior including, but not limited to, severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal, or untoward aggressive behavior toward self or others."
I think the question here isn't whether Atheists are illiberal, but to what extent children are allowed rights in a liberal society. If we look at modern liberal political theory, John Rawls specifically*, we can see that children do generally have a claim to liberties and freedom of consciousness should be one of those. The reason this is important is that parents have the ability, in the U.S., to physically punish children and use force against them to instill belief systems, which is inherently illiberal. So, if they use these powers, or the threat thereof, to instill a belief system that mentally or psychologically injures a child, why should they not be prosecuted?
*And the fact that I've been reading him non-stop for about a month has nothing to do with this.
Well, judge for yourself:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8193.html
Sigh. Just because Dawkins said one thing doesn't mean that he didn't say something else, e.g., "Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of having been brought up Catholic in the first place."
He said that in response to a letter from a victim of both kinds of abuse who said that religious abuse was the worse of the two.
What a depressing series of reading (the Linker article, this article, and all the comments of both).
It's just one long petty bitch session about this particular batch of professional grumps who have stumbled upon the eternal truth that throwing rocks at glass houses sells books. Yawn.
Then, predictably, the thin-skinned leap to defend their paper tigers and straw men.
Fundamentalism of any stripe (religious, atheist, etc.) is so dreary.
Yes, it is far nobler to have no opinions, sit on a fence, and throw rocks at everybody.
If it really depresses you so much, you can always just stop reading blogs. But I suspect your self-righteous wouldn't allow that.
"Fundamentalism of any stripe (religious, atheist, etc.)"
I've yet to have a good definition of fundamentalist atheism. How can something that has no doctrines be fundamentalist?
"His next piece should be the print pundit's customary long whine about how those awful bloggers are fact-checking the corpo-media, how terrible it is that some of them actually know the subject they're talking about rather than being journalism graduates who don't and how the rotten bastards are talking directly to the people instead of going through proper, i.e., corporate, channels."
-------
Or the "print pundit" could do a piece about how bloggers don't know the first thing about fact-checking, constantly confuse strong personal opinion with hard data, don't understand that "blogger" and "journalist" are not synonymous job descriptions; are contemptious of those who have actually been trained in reporting and fact-gathering, and believe that since no one edits them, supervises them, or verifies what they write, they must be rootin' tootin' rebels stickin' it to the man.
Newspapers and magazines certainly have their problems these days, but most of them don't read like badly xeroxed underground newspapers from high school.
What an immense disappointment the blogosphere is turning out to be; a land of dreary bloviators entranced by the sound of their own typing. Maybe with time and a little winnowing, it will improve. But for now, I'll continue to get most of my news elsewhere.
The problem is that we atheists overlook the fact that the need of the religious to vilify us, to create an "us v. them" situation, is simply an adaptative trait of religion as an evolved social structure, and therefore is as hard-wired into the brains of the religious as other evolved behavioral traits. We're not likely to change that by mere intellectual debate, any more than a wife will get a husband to stop looking at other women.
Instead, we should focus our efforts on making sure the religious no longer reproduce and pass on those behaviors! So don't argue with the religious - go forth and woo them ... mate with them ... and raise their young amongst us.