Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Sept. 1, 2007: Rational Atheism

[highplainsdem]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-atheism/

Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.

Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe

-snip-

2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; ...It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”

3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious­ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart­in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong­ful deeds. ..." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.

-snip-

[Pope George Ringo II]

1. There are some particularly--and intentionally--ill-informed people who won't see the point of #1

They seem to suffer the delusion that atheism not only has to make a positive claim, but does so.

Oh, well. I guess we'll just have to live with never going anywhere until we make a positive claim. Just like the people who don't believe in leprechauns.

[guillaumeb]

23. Perhaps you missed this one?

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious­ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart­in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong­ful deeds. ..." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

[trotsky]

2. Do you think Shermer is an acceptable atheist?

Or is he one of those screaming horrible ones who are no different than religious fundies who bomb abortion clinics?

[highplainsdem]

3. Sigh. I've made it clear I have nothing against atheism and atheists. I thought posting an example

of an atheist who was also pointing out when certain types of arguments by atheists backfire would finally help get this point through to atheists here who are misreading what I posted earlier.

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. No. You've *said* you have nothing against atheism.

Your words suggest otherwise.

In fact I'm just gonna say I don't bellieve you.

[guillaumeb]

22. Confirming a pattern that I noted months ago.

It simply validates my observation about the larger than 10th Commandment, and its requirements.

[Act_of_Reparation]

55. Congratulations.

You must be proud of your accomplishment.

[Pope George Ringo II]

6. Gotta go with the others on this one.

A minority doesn't have to sit there and take whatever the majority decides to dump on it.

If you want a good reason why, consider the group laughingstock's behavior right here. We are not going to roll over and let that dishonest individual get away with all his crap.

[guillaumeb]

24. Ad hominem is one way to demonstrate superiority?

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious­ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart­in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong­ful deeds. ..." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

[trotsky]

7. Oh I understand that.

You just think atheists who speak certain opinions need to shut up because they're no better than the fundies who murder people.

So I am asking, is Shermer an acceptable atheist to you?

[Act_of_Reparation]

4. Just what we need. A good lecturin' from a date rapist.

0 for 2.

[MineralMan]

46. Bingo! Guess nobody noticed that part of his C. V.

That's what happens when you quote from a search, blindly.

[Mariana]

54. It could be much worse.

Remember when we had a genuine Young Earth Creationist participating in this group? He posted and linked to material from a right-wing preacher's site to support his position, and didn't notice (or didn't mind) that the proprietor of that site promotes SPLC-listed Christian hate groups. Oopsie.

[MineralMan]

61. I don't actually remember that person.

I do, however, notice how often religionists try to find some sort of "official spokesperson" for atheism. There are actually none of those. It is religionists who read their books and listen to their speeches. Atheists don't bother will all that nonsense. Atheism is far too simple to need spokespersons.

However, where there is a demand, it will be filled. Shermer is one of those who try to fill it, but steps on his own genitals when he makes statements like his Point 1.

[violetpastille]

8. #5

As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.

This is where we theists/atheists and all in between have common cause.

This is where the fight is.

[Major Nikon]

11. Repeats the strawman that starts with atheists really giving a shit what someone believes

[trotsky]

14. Yes, that's why we're so irrational and totally the same as religious fundies.

It couldn't possibly be because religious dogma still affects our lives, nope. If we care at all about it, then we're way out of line. We should remain silent - or only say positive things about religion.

[violetpastille]

18. Atheists do care, they give it a lot of thought

Richard Dawkins thinks about it professionally. I've read several of his books. He cares.

And I don't think there is something negative about that.

[Major Nikon]

21. I haven't met a single one that does

Dawkins doesn't care either and doesn't even take the approach that god doesn't exist.

[violetpastille]

30. By "care" do we mean "want to change" what someone believes?

I'm in this thread. I'm following up with question. I do care what you think, tbh.

I passed by a bunch of threads and posted here. I care.

But if by "care" we mean "want to change" what someone believes, then I agree, I do not want to change you.

[Major Nikon]

36. By "believes" I mean religious belief

I'm pretty sure that's also what the person you quoted meant.

[violetpastille]

38. I got that

It wasn't the "believes" so much as the "care" I was asking for definition on.

NBD though.

[marylandblue]

31. Dawkins writes books that promote atheism and against religion

He also speaks extensively on the topic in a wide variety of forums. Does he not speak and write on these topics because he would like people to agree with him? What other motivation could he have? Just to sell books?

[Major Nikon]

32. He has been quite clear on his motivation

That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be. He encourages atheists to challenge bullshit. That's not the same as giving a shit what they believe or don't.

[marylandblue]

33. A distinction without a difference.

[Major Nikon]

35. You haven't changed my belief

I don't think you have any more illusions of changing my belief than I do of yours, but we both stated our opinion on the subject.

[marylandblue]

39. It's not about your personal belief on every possible issue.

It's about convincing anyone who might be open to it on at least some issues. And it's not a short term project like a forum thread. It's more of a long term interaction with his audience, some of whom will change their views and some won't. Others may already agree but use his points for talking to their friends, which sometimes is more convincing than anything else.

[Major Nikon]

40. Analogy

You can offer a dissenting opinion without trying to change someone's mind.

The reason religion has as much influence over other people's lives is largely because they remain silent and allow it to happen. Meanwhile the dominant religion enjoys the status of privilege because some have managed to convince others religion should enjoy some kind of venerated status free from criticism. It would be one thing if that privilege had no effect over the lives of those without it, but it always does.

[marylandblue]

41. Dawkins really doesn't seem to be doing that

If all he wanted to do was reduce the influence of religion on people's lives by offering a dissenting opinion, how does he do that without changing someone's mind, at least a little bit?

[Major Nikon]

42. Changing their mind doesn't mean you have to change their belief

A religionist can decide evolution is wholly compatible with their personal belief. A religionist can decide women's and LGBT rights are wholly compatible with their personal belief. Many do exactly that.

What I'm pretty sure he is after is trying to change how people think, not necessarily what they believe.

If you think that's not what Dawkins is doing, then why does he also attack other forms of pseudoscience that have absolutely nothing to do with religion or religious belief?

[marylandblue]

43. I don't think there is difference between changing minds and changing beliefs

Last edited Mon Jan 14, 2019, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)

But if you want to make one, that's fine by me. Why does he attack pseudoscience? Because he isn't only interested in religion.

[Major Nikon]

44. Or maybe the interest is exactly the same

Which explains why the method is exactly the same.

[marylandblue]

48. Sure, but somehow you think a religionist will "decide" that evolution is compatible with religion

Without ever changing any of their beliefs about evolution, religion or science. He wants to make a change in people's thinking. I don't care what you call it or how you describe it. The key word is change.

[Major Nikon]

51. Many do exactly that

Without changing their religion. As long as they aren't trying to force those beliefs on anyone else, who cares? The problem is organized religion inevitably does, and when they do they are most certainly trying to make a change in other people's thinking. Pretty much a bridge to far not to expect a response.

[Act_of_Reparation]

56. But I think we can agree there is a difference between making a persuasive argument...

...and proselytizing.

[marylandblue]

57. Yes.

[Pope George Ringo II]

34. I tend to see it this way, if I'm honest.

Selling books is probably not a drawback, either.

[trotsky]

62. A shit ton of liberals and progressives write books that promote liberalism.

And speak out against conservatism.

Do they not speak and write on these topics because they would like people to agree with them?

Is it ok for them to proselytize?

[marylandblue]

64. Yes that's my point, although some people object to the word "proselytize"

The word doesn't bother me. But to avoid argument over definitions, I'd say they trying to persuade or attract voters.

[trotsky]

66. It frustrates me greatly that somehow voicing negative opinions about religion...

is bashed as "proselytizing" for atheism and so intensely frowned upon. Even when a believer group says people are going to go to hell, and an atheist group responds by saying "naw, probably not, just enjoy your life" and THAT'S held up as an example of this horrible atheist brigade insulting all believers. Seriously? smh

[marylandblue]

70. I hear you, it's a hazard of being in the minority

They get to say worse things about you than you can say about them. It's unfair, but it's a fact of life for every minority

[guillaumeb]

25. From the article:

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious­ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart­in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong­ful deeds. ..." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

[Major Nikon]

27. Thanks for the non-sequitur

[guillaumeb]

28. Thank YOU for illustrating how humans behave as humans.

And this thread certainly illustrates how some few illustrate the same thing.

[Major Nikon]

29. You keep repeating that as if there was the least bit of sense behind it

Maybe if you just repeat it another hundred times it will. Or not. At least nobody can ever call you a quitter.

[trotsky]

12. As long as we agree what "threaten(s) science and freedom."

There has clearly been disagreement on that.

[violetpastille]

16. I agree.

[Pope George Ringo II]

13. "As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom..."

I can truthfully say that atheists, by definition, don't use religion to threaten much of anything. It would be helpful if theists would carry a little more of this load.

[violetpastille]

15. I agree

Fervently.

[Pope George Ringo II]

17. In all candor, this is why some of us don't view religion as harmless.

It's a big part of why I'd be quite content to see it utterly eradicated.

If that vice could be eliminated--and I'm not sure it would still be religion as we know it at that point--I'd view religion significantly more favorably.

[violetpastille]

19. Of course it's not harmless

The teaching that man has dominion over Earth and its creatures is not harmless.

[Pope George Ringo II]

20. There are positives associated with religion. There really are.

But, oh, those negatives are just absolute deal-breakers.

[Major Nikon]

9. "Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe"

[Pope George Ringo II]

10. That one really does give me a fit of the giggles.

I can't help but think of some of the genuine cretins who arrogate to themselves the right to insist that's already part of atheism.

[guillaumeb]

26. Amazing example of becoming what one claims to hate?

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious­ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart­in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong­ful deeds. ..." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

[Major Nikon]

37. Why do you hate atheists?

[guillaumeb]

47. Another poster asked me the same ridiculous question a year or 2 ago.

I do have an extreme dislike for intolerance in all of its forms.

[Major Nikon]

50. I don't believe it

Every now and then you reveal far more about yourself than you'll ever admit.

[guillaumeb]

69. You have "revealed" only your opinion of me.

And another poster has talked about many of the same things that I have been saying about this Group. A non-theist by the way.

[Major Nikon]

71. Actually it's a fact that I don't believe you

And I’m not talking about any other posters, but diversion noted.

[guillaumeb]

72. But you are responding to the other posters in the same exact way.

Consistent at least.

[Major Nikon]

73. I didn't say that about any other poster

Now you are just making shit up again. Kinda sad you’d have to resort to such tactics and just provides more convincing evidence.

[guillaumeb]

74. Yes, the "evidence" claim.

Another familiar meme.

[Major Nikon]

75. It's familiar because that's exactly your game

The difference is you also broad brush other posters with your “choir” garbage alleging it’s some kind of conspiracy against you. Then you’re shocked when multiple people see through all of it for exactly what it is.

I would also use your same meme and say you’ve managed to convince yourself, but if true that would be even more sad.

[guillaumeb]

76. You do sound as if you are convinced.

But you are also exhibiting the same behavior in this post toward the original poster.

So how does anyone interpret that? You know my opinion. What is yours?

[Major Nikon]

77. More evidence of diversion

Just sayin’

[guillaumeb]

78. Do you mean your avoidance of the question?

Agreed.

[Major Nikon]

79. I feel no obligation to answer irrelevant questions

Especially when the intent is diversion.

Another diversion post noted, BTW. Not that I’m keeping count, but you know, evidence.

[guillaumeb]

80. The words "irrelevant" and "uncomfortable" are not synonymous.

The exact same phrases, the exact same accusations, the exact same memes.

Only this time, the poster is not a theist.

[Major Nikon]

82. You seem to be uncomfortable discussing the topic

Why else would you put so much effort in diversion?

[guillaumeb]

83. One of us is.

And I understand why because it is the exact same behavior.

[Major Nikon]

84. More diversion

More evidence

[guillaumeb]

85. Amazingly enough, I waas thinking the same thing. eom

[Major Nikon]

86. Funny you should say that

Because instead of explaining why you hate atheists, you’d rather pretend someone else hates atheists.

Another diversion from that, btw.

[guillaumeb]

87. That type of leading question is on a level with the ever popular..

"have you stopped beating your...." questions.


Your question was a part of your unsupported accusation.

Arguing agaisnt a narrative is not hate. it is pointing out, in many instances, the illogic of the narrative.

[Major Nikon]

88. Since when has that ever mattered to you?

When you go about throwing around accusations against “the choir”, you give up the right to complain when it comes back around. Your obvious problem is you’ve pulled that enough times against the same sort of people that the pattern of behavior just isn’t that hard to figure out.

But hey at least you’ve actually decided to address it rather than divert, albeit hypocritically.

[guillaumeb]

89. The choir is a metaphor,

chosen for its religious overtones.

[Major Nikon]

90. Yeah, the one you use to dehumanize those you assign to it

The fact that it does have religious overtones I’m sure gives you a particular level of glee when you attribute it to those who reject religion.

The part you don’t get is you aren’t the first one to bring in hateful rhetoric to this group. And those with whom you direct it at will simply wear it as a badge of honor. It’s not as if atheists don’t see this kind of shit all the time.

[guillaumeb]

91. Your "explanation" of my goal is noted.

And the tone of this Group toward theists was well established prior to my posting here.

[Major Nikon]

92. As is yours

[guillaumeb]

93. So my behavior preceded my posting here?

Interesting premise.

[Major Nikon]

94. No

[MineralMan]

45. Dude doesn't represent me.

He fails with #1:

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe

That is simply a false statement.

I stopped there.

Then, there's this, as well...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2014/09/the-shermer-affair-erupts/

[Pope George Ringo II]

49. That's a deal-breaker for a guy who didn't need any deal breakers.

It was years ago, so it's not like it should have been a surprise to the OP.

But, yes, right at point #1 he lets loose with one of the clearest announcements that there's no "there" there intellectually.

[MineralMan]

59. There are a few "professional" atheists around.

They make their livings writing books and speaking in public. More power to them, I suppose. However, as an individual atheist, I never read their books or watch their public appearances. I find nothing of value in their expansion of the simple definition of atheism that is the only thing needed. Sometimes, as in point 1 of that statement, they even screw up the basic definition, in their zeal to say a great deal about something so simple.

It's interesting, though, that so much is said about those "professional" atheists. For believers, it is important to try to demonstrate that there is a "movement" to atheism. There is not. Most atheists are simply non-believers who go about their daily affairs without ever thinking about atheism at all.

We have no spokespersons, because there's really nothing complicated to say about non-belief. It is far too simple.

[Major Nikon]

52. Dawkins doesn't speak for me either

Where people fuck up when they allege these false equivalencies is they pretend there's a "belief system" that goes with atheism. There's no such thing as a good or bad atheist. Any characterization of a particular atheist as good or bad has exactly nothing to do with atheism. The only thing you can say about all atheists is they lack belief for all deities. It's nothing at all like religion with tenets, doctrine, dogma, and philosophy.

[MineralMan]

58. Anyone who pretends to be a spokesperson for atheism is a fraud.

There is no uniformity to atheism - except for disbelief in deities. There are a few people who make their livings talking about atheism, but I've never understood what more there is to day about it than "I don't/can't believe that any supernatural entities like deities exist." Once you've said that, you've covered the entire subject.

It's interesting to discuss religion from that point of view in places like this group. And individual atheist's perspective is always useful in such discussions. However, atheists spend a lot of their time in such discussions explaining that atheism isn't a system of thinking. It's just a simple disbelief. We, as individuals, end up doing that mostly, really, in such discussions.

I cannot speak for any other atheist, and no other atheist can speak for me, no matter how prominent such an atheist might be.

[marylandblue]

81. Well, I've heard atheists themselves refer to a movement

They hold conferences and write blogs about it. It might be more accurate to say it's secular humanist movement focused on analyzing religion, separation of church and state, rationalism and related issues. Seems like there is a lot to say about that and we cover many such topics in this group.

[Act_of_Reparation]

60. It's a symptom of religious privilege.

Theists assume because their stance on the existence of gods comes with a moral philosophy (of a sorts) in tandem, so does everyone else's. And so they treat atheism like it's a religion when it clearly is not.

[trixie2]

53. I am so sick and tired of the term "atheist"

I never consider religion. It never crosses my mind. I also don't debate Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Great Pumpkin. Those things are for children who have not reached the age of reason and enjoy a good fairy tale.

I will not be labeled by those who need labels for people.

[MineralMan]

63. In that, you are like most non-believers.

There is, as you say, no need for labels for one's own personal thinking about such things.

[marylandblue]

65. Language is a system for labeling things

So if we are going to talk about these issues, we are going to end up with label whether we like it or not.

[trixie2]

67. I would hope we moved past labels

Especially when people don't agree with YOUR labels.

I don't have black friends or Catholic friends. I have friends.

[Mariana]

68. So don't use the word atheist.

Thomas Jefferson struck out the parts of his Bible he didn't like. You could do the same thing with your dictionary.