Summations Only

Forget Evolution versus Creationism. The current hot war is between evolutionists who argue vociferously exactly how to beat the growing sentiments of anti-science and the threat to the enlightenment that is fundamentalism (as one participant commented: 'Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?'¹). To be fair, the theistic evolutionists are involved - but they are essentially what/who the war is over, not the participants.So, what is the war about? As I said-theistic evolutionists. Consider the recent debate between and Dawkins and Collins. In general there are three positions on the debate, hopefully they will help elucidate what is going on here. The debate, incidentally, is multi layered.

1. Dogma is irrational belief in the way the world works. Relgious dogma is somehow free from criticism but we can criticize Marxist dogma, or Fascist dogma. When dogma leads to policy decisions we tend to get problems. Example: Stem cell research should not be hampered by the evidence free dogmatic belief that human zygotes of 100 cells have a soul that makes them 'sacred'. They believe that appeasement in the debate is dangerous. We should not be siding with one group of deluded individuals simply because we have a common enemy (fundamentalism). They refer to appeasers as 'Neville Chamberlain evolutionists'
   Proponents: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Larry Moran²
   ​
2. Theistic Evolutionists don't let their religion get in the way of their science and so should be tolerated. They think that alienating the religious from science is only going to fuel fundamentalism. Some have ironically embraced the idea of Neville Chamberlains. They believe that (1)s are 'atheistic evangelicals' and are as fundamentally dangerous as the dangerous fundamentalists.
   Proponents: Ed Brayton, John Lynch, and Pay Hayes
   ​
3. Whilst the (1)s have a good point - they are making tactical errors. The (2)s also have a good point, but they are being too passive. We should try putting science to religious people in terms of their culture and beliefs. We can't rid the world of religion in one fell swoop, but we might be able to replace the awe and wonder of religion with that of the universe.
   Proponents³: Neil deGrasse Tyson, Joan Roughgarden
   

So. They are the basics of the positions. Here follows the most prudent quotes I could find, one from each position, with links. You can see more Here, also PZ Myers writes similarly here Here, also see here. hereSo there you go. How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way? Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs? Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared?Or...is everybody actually agreeing with each other but failing to understand the other person's position?This might be the first time I have made a thread that I recommended go in Social Issues and Creation/Evolution, but another 'social...issues' forum might be appropriate too.

---

¹ Melvin J. Konner, Ph.D. - Konner was very much against this attitude and was deriding the attitude of many of the scientists in the debate.² Regulars at this forum will know Moran for his articles on Talk Origins. Notably: Evolution is a fact and a theory.³ These are gray area people, so they might sometimes be(1)s and sometimes (2)s, so it isn't really a concrete position.

I don't think there are two battles being fought per se. I think there are two (and a bit) battles, there is significant gray area, and they are part of the same war.The two sides have different objectives. One side thinks the other are being short sighted in choosing their objectives. The quote was in response to Roughgarden's ideas (amongst others) on discussing biology using metaphors adapted from religious iconography. He sees himself engaged in a larger battle than evo vs creo. That the evo/creo debate is a symptom of a much larger problem: dogma.I agree with Tyson's point about trying to help people learn, not just tell them what is true and leave it at that. Though the argument remains that we are being inconsistent as it is convenient. Agreed. I don't know if it is going to 100% successful - but I think it has the best chances of catapulting us froward this century.Tyson has inspired me to try and change the way I handle things here, and some feedback from creationists here has confirmed it. It'll be difficult to do it right, but the rewards shall be wonderful!

Indeed - I grouped them together not because they necessarily agree with one another but because they agree that the other two groups are not looking at the issue right. Their position is basically, 'If we want to increase scientific understanding we can't just sit passively back, we can't aggresively point out the problems with religion...we have to take science to the people and present it in a way that they will be receptive to'. It is - if the political stance you are trying to take is rationalism. The other side can simply dismiss you as being irrational because you are saying/doing inconsistent things. The point is to not necessarily respond to a religious claim at all. It is to try and get science doing the same things that religion does now. Not only providing a sense of awe and wonder but also a social structure, sense of community etc etc.You saw Tyson, I assume? His passion for the universe is infective. We can't drone on about expanding spacetime. We need to preach it, we need to show people how wonderful the scientific conclusions really are. Sounds like indoctrination, I suppose, but all education is -- in a way.Another talker, I think it was Ann Druyan mentioned that we have all this wonderful CGI stuff, but we use it to blow up buildings, planes and alien space ships. Wouldn't a cosmological full CGI experience be wonderful?It's a lot of work, it might not be possible - but it's a wonderful dream.

I understand your position on theistic evolutionists being a cop-out philosophy. However, I'm not sure how (other than through the usage of metaphor) you manage to make the leap:Theistic evolutionists -> Atheists/occultistsDo you have any actual reasoning or evidence with regard to how many theistic evolutionists become occultists or atheists? You also say: Which seems to equivocating the terms 'literal' with 'Holy'. I'm not entirely sure there are any grounds for this. I do not see where the law of identity comes into this. The Bible ≠ God. Therefore the law of identity is irrelevant. As always we have to be careful with teleological language. The term accidental can sometimes bring to mind that there was an intentional outcome, which was not fully realized. Also, evolution does not teach natural selection by means of chance. It teaches that chance variations are acted upon by natural selection - a significant difference. So...other than a criticism of one of the three groups in the OP - do you have any comment on the topic at hand:

quote:

---

So there you go. How do we deal with the situation? What is the best way? Do we attack dogmatic religious beliefs as strongly as we attack other dogmatic beliefs? Do we attack only fundamentalist religious beliefs, and give a break to people like theistic evolutionists? Do we try and convince the religious public that science can be wonderful and is not to be feared?

​

Or...is everybody actually agreeing with each other but failing to understand the other person's position?

---

In the context of atheism?

Your anecdotal evidence sounds like an exception rather than a rule. Most of my social circle are either atheistic or somewhat pagan and dogma is anathaema to all of them...so evil akin to the dogmatic Nazism is shunned absolutely. Also fascism, communism and Marxism. I have met a couple of modern satanists and followers of set, but my own social network takes the micky out of most of them anyway.So unfortunately I think that your testimony is either exaggerated or exceptional. Certainly not a general tendency. My entire family are theistic evolutionists and they are all of CofE and have remained so for all of their lives. As have their friends. Indeed there are many many theistic evolutionists in the world, and proportionally few evil nazi-kin occultists.That aside, what about the OP?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

from Message 302I don't think it makes sense to give a criticial review of 'atheism' since atheism isn't a thing. However, I think this thread should serve as evidence of disagreement within the 'atheist camp' of the actions of each other. What is the appropriate response? Anti-theism, pure atheism, pragmatic theistic alliances? etc. Some atheists are concerned with the taboo surrounding criticising religion and work to alleviate that taboo, with mixed successes. Some atheists don't care about what other people think about God. Some atheists think that we should be forging alliances with certain believers to fight the common enemy of fanatics, fundamentalists, and enemies of science. Maybe some of the arguments, in the words of some of the more famous proponents of some of the more easily defined groupings of thought within the 'atheist community' will help you re-evaluate your understanding of atheism. Unless, of course, you are simply 'highly prejudiced'.

I guess I'm a cross between the Dawkinsian and Tysonian, as I've simplified it in the OP. That is to say, we should criticize religious ideas with as much fervour as any other influential and unfounded social idea. However, we should also be conscious that if we want people to move from 'there' to 'here' in their beliefs - it might be wise to understand where 'there' is, and what 'here' looks like from 'there'...and use that knowledge with kindness to educate people about what 'here' is really like and why it shouldn't be as frightening as they might think.

I apply the Dawkins test in these cases. Any definition of atheism that means that Richard Dawkins is not an atheist, is probably worth throwing out since most people would consider Richard Dawkins an atheist.Your definition seems to discount Dawkins as an atheist.I don't believe in fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Leszi, Domovoi, Djinn, Archangel Gabriel, Ghosts, aliens flying around on earth visiting spaceships. That doesn't mean that I claim knowledge about their nonexistence, that I positively deny them. Nor am I simply agnostic about them. I am both agnostic about them (I claim no knowled either way), and I don't believe they exist (why should I believe them?)There are arguments that suggest that these don't exist, but nothing definitive, since they are often contructed in such a way as to be unfalsifiable.

Do you know enough about reading to...read what I wrote? I explained the test to you: But this is not a thread about the definition of atheism. Why don't you try arguing your case on topic somewhere like The definition of atheism or What does the word Atheist mean? Is an Agnostic Atheist? or Atheist vs AgnosticEdited by Modulous, : No reason given.

If you don't know who Richard Dawkins is or what his position is, why are you posting in a thread about him and his position, as well as other 'celebrity' atheists?You know the first post in this thread? Try reading it before posting in this thread again. It gives you brief information on the position of Richard Dawkins as well as some others - including links to their web pages should you want more information, and it lays out the topic of this debate.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

A proposal has been made for a new wave of atheism. A movement that is not centred around the simple lack of belief in god, but one which cares about social issues and is openly atheistic. This is the main difference, as far as I can see, between Humanism and Atheism+ - it has atheism in the title, attempting to appeal to those that have identity with the atheism term already. Atheist plus what?

quote:

---

Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

---

The history has been, in short, the claim that sexism (and other isms) was a problem in the atheist movement (citing evidence such as disproportionate number of white male speakers at 'atheist events' and lower numbers of female attendees at conferences). Out of this, feminist issues have been discussed a lot in atheist circles, dividing the atheist community quite sharply. The comments sections on blogs on this issue are often hostile and rude in tone.Out of this, Jen McCreight proposed this 'new wave', which has been drawn to the name Atheism+, though there were quite a few alternative names suggested. This was meant to be atheism, but which is inclusive, concerned about equality etc.Unfortunately, as it came out of the sexism/feminism internal 'war', each utterance or action from one side simply made the divide widen. And now that one 'side' (which has mostly centred around some blogs over at freethoughtblogs.com) has proposed this idea - it has been met with a variety of criticisms.Here is a professional writer giving a fair account of things for more detail.hooah presents his own objections, which I think gives evidence to the existence of a 'deep rift': This is hyperbolic, I think. The commenters at places like Pharyngula are notoriously unpleasant to anyone that doesn't agree with certain dogmatic principles, but I don't see the behaviour as necessarily being indicative of Atheism+The only way to ensure this isn't what Atheism+ becomes is to join the conversation, I suppose, and see if it can be directed. What did they do to him? Invite him to join their network? Kick him off their blog network? What else did they do?What did thunderf00t do to them? Ridiculed one of their chief concerns. Wrote really badly, and exclusively about one issue - his beef with other bloggers on the same network. Then he used a security exploit to receive the emails they were sending to one another after he had been kicked off. Then he forwarded the contents of some of those mails to third parties (1 I think confirmed, it is unknown if there were more). And then posted parts of those confidential mails onto his new blog. Why would I have to name one? I don't know of any, and even if they don't exist, that just means that nobody is being ostracized. Yes there is. The assholes aren't the ones who don't have feminism as their primary focus - its the people that criticize those for whom it is. As thunderf00t said:

quote:

---

I’ve been around on the internets a LONNNG time, and its been my experience that the more people use terms like MISOGYNIST, RACIST, BIGOT and FEMINAZI, the less valid their arguments are likely to be.

---

Of course Feminazi appears to have been coined by a friend of Rush Limbaugh and popularised by him too. It makes you look really dumb for typing it out, so I politely suggest you refrain in the future. I can think of numerous examples of people that those people have criticized without calling them misogynist, so again this must be hyperbolic. Do you have any examples in mind of this happening?

---

If it is not hyperbolic do you have evidence of someone being labelled a misogynist for merely not having feminism as their number one goal? Really? I hadn't noticed. I've read his posts at FtB, his wordpress blog and his vlogs on the issue. Yes, I think I alluded to that. I think it is perfectly acceptable to call for social consequences for someone who invades your privacy and disseminates confidential information to third parties - don't you? And I said, I didn't know any specific names, but if there were none, it would not harm my point. You did, but I see no reason to believe you just because you claimed it. I can only assume you are referring to his comments in this blog post. He did post a limited apology for some of the names he was calling people. I'm pretty sure you're aware that some people have been criticising atheists who want to focus on feminism, deriding them with names like feminazis or skepticunts and stuff. Freethought is about freeing our thoughts from controlling influences, be it religion or political dogma or even the feminist's 'Patriarchy', which they view as a cultural hangover that harms men and women. It seems perfectly in line with freethought philosophy to try and free us from the 'conventional wisdom' regarding gender roles.But freethought isnt't becoming a feminist movement. It's just one of the focuses of some of the members of the freethought community. I've not seen 'man hating feminist shit' anywhere. I've seen feminism, sometimes confrontational feminism put forward, sometimes the person putting it forward is a bit lame or a bit of a dick. But I've not actually seen any particular misandry going on. Are you sure it was because of a T-Shirt or just listen to the 'FTBullies are feminazis!' version of the story? Here's the other side to the storyWhat is it that is said, that gives you this impression? Where? It was in the skepchick post you linked to:

quote:

---

Last year we had 40% women attendees, something I’m really happy about. But this year only about 18% of TAM registrants so far are women, a significant and alarming decrease, and judging from dozens of emails we have received from women on our lists, this may be due to the messaging that some women receive from various quarters that going to TAM or other similar conferences means they will be accosted or harassed.

---

A rational analysis with some indisputable insight.

You didn't need to teach them this - it's written in what is as close to the 'New Atheist' manifesto as one can propose, The God Delusion, 2006 (from the preface):

quote:

---

Indeed, organizing atheists has been compared to herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority. But a good first step would be to build up a critical mass of those willing to 'come out,' thereby encouraging others to do so. Even if they can't be herded, cats in sufficient numbers can make a lot of noise and they cannot be ignored.

---

I think that critical mass is still building, but now that the atheist movement is large, it also has acquired a certain level of diversity of opinion. If it keeps growing, it will become almost entirely without direction. I was thinking the end game was to merge with Humanism, and maybe Atheism+ is an intermediary stepping stone in that direction. I'm pretty sure the humanists and secularists have that particular niche more or less covered. Atheism+ is a label chosen to retain the atheistic element of the movement in the identifying label. To continue the movement to de-stigmatize the position while also identifying some positive beliefs.It probably won't catch on everywhere. It's main purpose seems to be about retaining the 'confrontation' of calling oneself an atheist, but carrying an additional identifier as to the kind of atheist one is...this tactic is best in environments where there are quite a lot of atheists, but there is still stigma surrounding calling oneself an atheist. Such as America.

It is related to this topic and all, but there is a thread especially for it, so you might be interested: Anyone ever heard of Rebecca Watson?

I think that's rather the point. Atheism doesn't have anything to do with those things, but there are some atheists who, in addition to being atheists, are interested in social justice issues too. People who identify strongly with the atheism label, because they are interested in issues of religion/politics/society and the place that nonbelievers have in those things, but also have an interest in all those 'liberal' social goals. Quite right - but if you were those things, maybe that group would be of interest. They aren't saying that if you don't agree with these things you aren't an atheist. They are saying that you aren't an Atheist+.