Why should the criticism of religion provoke such an outcry?
As we saw, Matthew Nisbet cites Paul Kurtz as someone whose lead he is following when he says things like ‘Messages must be positive and respect diversity…[M]any scientists not only fail to think strategically about how to communicate on evolution, but belittle and insult others’ religious beliefs.’ A helpful commenter on his Kurtz post pointed out a recent editorial by Kurtz in Free Inquiry – from the February/March 2007 issue, it was.
The fact that books by Dawkins and Harris have made it to The New York Times best-seller list has apparently sent chills down the spines of many commentators; not only conservative religionists but also some otherwise liberal secularists are worried about this unexpected development. We note that the people now being attacked are affiliated with FREE INQUIRY and the Center for Inquiry. The editors of FREE INQUIRY, of course, are gratified that the views espoused in these pages have received a wider forum. What disturbs us is the preposterous outcry that atheists are “evangelical” and that they have gone too far in their criticism of religion.
Really? The public has been bombarded by pro-religious propaganda from time immemorial—today it comes from pulpits across the land, TV ministries, political hucksters, and best-selling books…Until now, it has been virtually impossible to get a fair hearing for critical comment upon uncontested religious claims. It was considered impolite, in bad taste, and it threatened to raise doubts about God’s existence or hegemony. I have often said that it is as if an “iron curtain” had descended within America, for skeptics have discovered that the critical examination of religion has been virtually verboten. We have experienced firsthand how journalists and producers have killed stories about secular humanism for fear of offending the little old ladies and gentlemen in the suburbs, conservative advertisers, the Catholic hierarchy, or right-wing fundamentalists.
For skeptics have discovered that the critical examination of religion has been virtually verboten. Exactly. This is what I’m saying.
Science columnist William J. Broad, in a piece published earlier this year in the Times…, criticized both Daniel C. Dennett and Edward O. Wilson (another Center for Inquiry stalwart)…Broad faults E.O. Wilson for writing in an earlier book (Consilience) that “the insights of neuroscience and evolution . . . increasingly can illuminate even morality and ethics, with the scientific findings potentially leading ‘more directly and safely to stable moral codes’ than do the dictates of God’s will or the findings of transcendentalism.” Broad remonstrates against such views, maintaining that they exhibit “a kind of arrogance,” and he likewise recommends that scientists declare a truce in their critiques of religion. To which I reply that it is important that we apply scientific inquiry as best we can to all areas of human behavior, including religion and ethics. I fail to see why it is “arrogant” to attempt to do so.
Because…because…well because it alienates fellow citizens.
We note that the National Review and the Jewish Forward are also worried by “militant secularists” who question established religions—they were objecting to an advertisement the Center for Inquiry/Transnational ran on the op-ed page of The New York Times (November 15, 2006), headlined “In Defense of Science and Secularism.” We think it appropriate to defend the integrity of science and the importance of secularism at a time when both are under heavy attack…But why should the nonreligious, nonaffiliated, secular minority in the country remain silent? We dissenters now comprise some 14 to 16 percent of the population. Why should religion be held immune from criticism, and why should the admission that one is a disbeliever be considered so disturbing?…Given all these facts, why should the criticism of religion provoke such an outcry?
Read the whole thing, as the saying goes. It’s very unNisbetesque.
Well, there you are – that’s the company Nisbet finds himself in.
I can imagine things I might agree with National Review on – but this isn’t one of them.
I suppose it’s not surprising in all the noise, but I wish Nisbte would address the point I made yesterday; that is, leaving aside the rights and wrongs of framing and being outspoken and so on, what supports his claim that a better social outcome would eventuate even if the New Atheists did shut up?
Yeah, I wish he would too, and I’ve asked much the same question too – mostly by plaintively pointing out what a large leap it is. Four people write five ‘New Atheist’ books and as a result moderates spurn various liberal causes? I don’t even see the connection, much less how Nisbet can possibly know that. (Because Pew has done a survey, asking people ‘Did you vote against stem cell research [where? where has stem cell research been on a ballot?] because Dawkins wrote the book he wrote?’ No, I don’t think so.)
Yes, the lack of any evidence or argument in favor of Nisbet’s own positive claims is mighty annoying. But I find it just as annoying that he never ever ever ever ever offers any real objections, counter-examples, refutations or even any fucking HINTS to gainsay the very straightforward arguments in favor of being outspoken.
So, here’s a quick run-down of what being outspoken (in private to your friends and colleagues, in public, in print) accomplishes, just off the top of my head:
(1) Visibility. It’s easy to demonize atheists when most people are convinced they don’t even know any atheists. Lots of research demonstrates that categorizing a group as “other” is the first step to all sorts of bad things. I wrote a whole essay about it a few months back. [Dr. Nisbet, if you’re reading this thread, please feel free to go read the essay and offer any reason whatsoever to think I’m wrong about those benefits, or that the costs you cite (whatever they are – I’m still not very clear on that) outweigh those benefits. You haven’t yet, you know. You may think you have, but you haven’t.]
(2) Cover. Having allies out on the far end of the same basic spectrum saying unpopular things in a straightforward fashion makes it easier for those who wish to say the same sorts of things in a more circumspect manner to be heard. It’s another well-studied effect in politics: Without the radicals, the moderates seem… well, pretty radical. As a VERY rough analogy, consider Christopher Hitchens the Ann Coulter of the Enlightenment – out there spewing out nasty rhetoric so that a more reasonable-sounding person advancing what is in effect the same or a similar agenda seems perfectly acceptable by comparison. (A bad analogy, of course, because Hitchens is actually quite bright, devastatingly eloquent, and is very often right – about religion, if not politics. Whereas Coulter is a loathsome hack who has to my knowledge never been right about anything – except insofar as she clearly knows the right way to generate money and fame without knowing anything about anything as long as one is completely amoral.)
(3) Unity. Even in the God-bothered, faith-benighted, fundamentalist-afflicted United States, the fastest-growing religion is “None.” The number of young people declaring that they are non-religious or saying that religion is “not at all important” in their lives has been skyrocketing for years and doesn’t seem set to end anytime soon. Reaching out to these people and giving them a movement to belong to is IMPORTANT!
(4) I don’t know quite how to phrase this vital but intangible benefit, but I suppose our hosts here at B&W phrased it about as well as it can be phrased: TRUTH MATTERS! As it turns out, despite the mewling idiocy so frequently spouted about them, everyone maligned by Nisbet as being a part of the “New Atheist noise machine” (TM) is an advocate of reasoned, evidence-driven justification for claims about the world. You know, science and stuff. No matter how inconvenient it may be for the purposes of (Nisbet’s perception of) politically strategic communicative effectiveness, the fact that the standards of reason and evidence are in direct conflict with faith as a way of (not) knowing will remain a fact. Acknowledging and dealing with facts as they are – rather than as one would wish them to be or as they are publicly perceived (or ignored) – is something one simply has to do, period. Having people willing to address such unpleasant facts is ESSENTIAL to dealing with them. And it is exceedingly implausible – indeed, difficult to even conceive – exactly how silencing the people who publicly address such unpleasant facts could in any way contribute to dealing with those facts. But somehow, lots of people keep giving that advice. The mind boggles.
Can anyone think of a good 5, 6, 7, … to add?
G, I’m not sure if this counts as a (5) (your survey is, as usual pretty comprehensive so maybe it’s only 5a) but I been thinking that due to the way bigotry has increasingly come to hide behind religion – or “faith” – in it’s purest form, those who feel the need to oppose it are increasing left with no alternative but to oppose religion itself. In the past when bigoty merely used religion as a justification ( eg “homosexuality should be banned because the bible says it’s an abomination”) it was enough to ignore the bogus religious arguments in favour of the real ones. But when bigotry becomes a pure matter of faith (“respect my bigotry because it’s my faith”) the premise itself must be challenged. (Which is of course not the same thing as challenging those believers who aren’t in fact bigots, something which Nisbet just doesn’t seem to get. He seems to have a sneaking suspicion that all (American?) religious people are closet bigots, just waiting to jump into the Falwell/Robertson/whoever camp, given the slightest excuse – something which I find pretty psychologically implausible. Maybe I’m out of touch with the situation in the US, but, just possibly, the moderate religious people Nisbet is so concerned not to alienate are actually moderate people with religious beliefs not simply half-baked religous nutters and hence will do what ‘moderates’ always do – ignore the ‘extremists’ on all sides and huddle in the middle. And since the extremes determine the location of the middle – the Overton window principle – it’s pretty important to have some ‘extremists’ on our side.)
I like it, Francis. I think it’s generalizable beyond just bigotry, though, since there are many pernicious values religion is used to advance or to shield.
5. Faith is a shield for other nastiness. Pick any widely held attitude that clear moral reasoning leads one to conclude is a serious moral failing: sexism and all its consequences (opposition to birth control, abortion, HPV vaccines being prominent), anti-gay bigotry, the self-righteous conviction that your enemy is evil beyond redemption that justifies terrorism and war, etc. Even for those attitudes that don’t spring directly from religious roots, believers (individually and in groups) use religion as justification for such attitudes. Also, they protect those attitudes from criticism behind the shield of religion, exploiting the fact that religion is culturally protected from criticism by powerful taboos even in largely secular cultures. (Anyone remember the fights over those pesky UK blasphemy laws? Has anyone noticed the repeated recent attempts by religious leaders in the UN & the EU to portray criticizing religion as a “hate crime?”) Tearing down the idea that faith is a worthwhile justification for ANY claim about the world – let alone a claim as important as a moral standard one wishes to impose on others using the power of the state – first requires tearing down this taboo against criticizing religion and faith at all. Rigorously and publicly argued atheism fights the taboo by its very nature, and the primary conclusion of all those arguments is the demolition of this insane notion that faith is a way of establishing claims about the world upon which actions are based. If we cannot criticize religion, we cannot criticize all the poisonous nonsense people conceal behind pretty-sounding catchphrases like “people’s deeply held convictions.”
I’ve been following this debate for the last few days, here, on Science blogs and over at PZ’s.
It has had the major benefit of persuading me that I should get hold of a copy of The Transcendental Temptation.
However, it isn’t really clear to me what Nisbet wants. It’s pretty clear that Kurtz believes that while the ‘New Atheists’ are beneficial and overdue it would be better if they spent a little more time on the positive and life-afirming aspects of atheism. Fair enough, personally I think Dawkins does that and one of the reasons Sagan is still so loved is the transparent joy he found in the scientific view of the universe.
So Kurtz seems to me to be saying, ‘Yes, you are right, but there is more you could be saying’, while Nisbet is saying, ‘Yes, you are right, but there is less you should be saying.’
To what end? Who would be persuaded to do what, and how worthwhile would any result be if it were based on equivocating on issues which might disturb existing beliefs? He’s not very specific.
I work fairly closely, in a variety of contexts, with people who have religious beliefs , as I’m sure most of us do. If the question arises a simple,’Actually, I’m an atheist.’ seems to suffice and we get back to the agenda. If the conversation turns that way over lunch or coffee then I am more than happy to be forthright, but I certainly don’t look for a row. Hell, I can work with clergypersons if I need to. If they are too sensitive to deal with another viewpoint then they are probably not useful collaborators anyway. I don’t see it as a problem.
The true moderate believers don’t need kid gloves. They either compartmentalise their religion into the box marked ‘Ceremonial Rites of Passage’ and get on with reality-based action or they get all gloopy and forgiving. Or maybe they grit their teeth and pray for my soul later. Whatever, the work gets done.
For example, I work alongside the Catholic charity Cafod on clean water projects. The people I deal with know I am an atheist, I know they are clergy. No problem, clean water is not a theological issue. But if a church group insisted that, for example, their participation in a breakfast club programme was dependant on there being no openly gay participants, then fuck ’em. Gloves are off.
OK, maybe the American context is different. But when, for another example, I give my views on creationist academies (which is quite often) among friends and colleagues I have always found the moderately religious to be thoroughly on side. So there is no need to placate them by equivocating.
And of course, the other major flaw in Nisbet’s argument is that it isn’t going to stop the ‘New Atheist Noise Machine’. Expecting Hitchens to be less acerbic is like expecting water to be less wet. Asking Dawkins to just overlook the insertion of Yahweh or Allah or (insert meaningless phonemes here)into the evolutionary debate is beyond optimistic.
Many of the arguments for and against “reaching out” to the religiously moderate in order to more effectively fight against religious extremists could be made using the model of pseudoscience. If we could only get together with homeopaths and energy healers and fight those people who cause real harm with pseudoscience — the perpetual motion scammers and folk who try to cure cancer or AIDs with vitamins, then we’d be much more effective. People who are on the fence about investing in the first or forgoing chemo in the second are much more likely to listen to a Naturopath warning than they are to scientists. It would be so much more persuasive if we would agree that pseudoscience itself isn’t the problem — they can have their magnetic amulets and healing crystals’ as long as nobody is harmed, then it’s a beneficial, positive thing and scientists shouldn’t get in the way of that. The real problem is those people who misuse pseudoscience.
“Framed” this way the problems jump out more easily, I think. Used the “right” way, religion is fine.
I accidentally deleted the last paragraph:
So, you can add, if you wish, that framing is bad even for the religious themselves: it would lead them into making choices they would not have made if they knew the truth about others’ opinions. After all, a consideration like this one may be the only factor that actually matters to people like Nisbet.
It’s nice that you agree with me Greg, but Mary Midgley is neither laughable nor despicable. I believe I have explained this to you before.
Notwithstanding the newspaper interview, which I doubt did justice to her view, and notwithstanding her advanced years, and notwithstanding her admitted blind spot when it comes to Dawkins, she is neither laughable nor despicable. Got it?
Right-o, Don! Midgley’s profound misunderstanding of science, and of the connection between science and political ideology, may be ridiculous or even laughable, but that should not make Professor Midgley herself an object of ridicule. She’s simply wrong. Her willful refusal to actually engage anything Dawkins has to say – or even read it, apparently – may be behavior worthy of disdain and stern disapproval, but it doesn’t warrant naming her a despicable person.
You see, genuinely despicable people do despicable things – like sending young people into pointless wars or supporting said pointless wars, or advocating/ordering/performing torture, or… Poorly supported positions advanced in intellectual disagreements ought to be criticized and even ridiculed, but they don’t warrant nasty character judgments. Terrorists are despicable. George W. Bush is despicable. Mary Midgley is simply wrong, and perhaps a bit dotty in her later years.
P.S. Don, the subtitle called it was an interview, but there were no questions and answers. I believe the supposed “interviewer” was simply responsible for exerpting from Midgley’s forthcoming tract. It still may not do her justice, but I believe that all the ridiculous non-argument rhetoric in that article are indeed her own words.
G,
Of course I agree that Mary Midgley is wrong on this matter. She has been, in my view, consistently wrong on it for around thirty years.
And it may well be that even her wrong arguments are less cogent than they were. I think we more or less agree.
But I’ll not have her spoken of as Tingey did.
Sastra, I’m not sure I quite get what’s supposed to be obvious from your analogy. In the actual world, the moderate pseudoscience advocates are NOT the allies of critical thinkers against the real whackos and hucksters, and I don’t think they can be persuaded to be. The magnetic bracelet supporters, buyers and sellers in fact provide both explicit support and tacit approval to the more dangerous quack remedy promoters. The crystal healing and homeopathy enthusiasts always, when you get down to actual cases, prove extremely reluctant to criticize the “carrot enemas cure cancer” nutters, usually on the grounds of wishy-washy “well, what works for different people operating in a different paradigm” and “I can’t really be sure they’re wrong” drivel.
Just as moderate, relatively harmless pseudoscience supporters provide cover for the promoters of dangerous nonsense that genuinely hurts people, so do moderate, relatively harmless religious believers provide cover for fundamentalist extremists. So if I read your last sentences correctly about the conclusion you intend to be advancing, I think your analogy actually supports the opposite conclusion than you think it does.
There is no reason to think that the mild pseudoscience enthusiasts will actually BE our allies against the dangerous nutters. Oh, when asked explicitly they may declare that they don’t approve of people ignoring science-driven medical cures for serious illnesses, but they won’t actually support you in trying to stop the people promoting the dangerous quack remedies – because doing something sensible like passing laws against promoting unproven treatments would also hurt their own favored pseudoscience. Further, although they don’t advertise it, their own woolly uncritical judgments (the basic feature they share with the pseudoscience extremists) often lead them to do dangerous things like not immunizing their children – even though they would never do anything so extreme as to avoid chemo for homeopathy if they were diagnosed with cancer.
Exactly the same sort of thing happens with religious moderates: They decry the extremism of fundamentalists when it comes up in conversation, but they never actually want to take action to oppose religious fundamentalism, not even “action” as mild as speaking out against it loudly and regularly. Why? Because pointing out that the fundamentalists have no good basis for their beliefs would highlight the lack of basis for the moderates’ own beliefs. And the moderates often end up supporting some of the same causes as the extremists, such as promoting anti-gay marriage protection laws and adoption statutes, because of their own woolly faith-based judgments (the basic feature they share with the religious extremists) – although they themselves would never say that gay people should be stoned to death or any such thing.
Or maybe you think exactly the same thing that I do, but you’re just not very good at conveying sarcasm in print. I honestly can’t tell. But I thought it was worthing spelling out the parallels in the two cases in any case. So here’s my take on it, and I suppose I’ll find out later whether you agree or disagree with me. :-)
That’s why I started by saying, “Right-o, Don!” I won’t have it either. I also defended her from these sort of grotesque insults and mischaracterizations (while still criticizing her silly arguments) on Pharyngula when it came up yesterday.
Although when I think about it, I wonder how much my urge do defend her is really about her being an elderly woman. I’d like to think that I’d take exception to anyone being bad-mouthed in such a hostile and juvenile manner over a simple matter of intellectual disagreement, but I don’t think I would be (or have been) as quick to defend others who aren’t little old ladies.
Not that it’s bad to defend little old ladies against verbal assaults, but maybe I should strive to be a little more egalitarian about such defenses. After all, I believe no one deserves to be treated that way.
Mary Midgley in any case doesn’t believe in God, so Tingey’s claim about comfort-blankets is tripe.
Are we sure she’s not a big old lady? You know, like Julia Child perhaps.
I disliked those comments at Pharyngula too (and of course Tingey’s, but that’s just routine) – but I must say, I do think it’s odd that Midgley has simply ignored what she ought to have taken in after the reactions to her ‘Gene-Juggling’ article. She’s just repeating things that she has been told are flat mistakes.
Re: Don’s post.
I agree that individual atheists can easily work alongside religious folks on projects of mutual concern. You don’t need to be a secular humanist or develop any special language. I do such things myself.
But here’s where I think Don is not noticing a problem. Religious leaders are often consulted as experts on the social issues of the day. For example, there’s going to be an interfaith panel on the genocide in Darfur in Dallas soon. There will be a Christian, a Jew, and a Muslim on the panel.
There’s no earthly way a plain Atheist would be invited. Now you might say–it’s an interfaith panel, so why should there be an atheist? Or you might sa–let’s not support the (absurd) idea that genocide isn’t just inherently wrong, but needs to be looked at from a faith perspective.
But the bottom line is that there winds up being less airtime for people who are atheists, and more for people who are religious. To correct this problem, you need to develop the atheist “voices” that are most likely to get a place at the table.
I do think that’s clearly not Dawkins, for all that he’s reasonable and “speaks to me”. The secular humanists have much more potential. That practically sounds like a religion. It overlaps in its message with liberal religions. Pragmatically, it’s a good place to put your money, if you want to increase the role of atheists in the public arena.
G wrote:
Not always. One of the common methods used by people who practice pseudoscience is to distance themselves from the “nuts” and “frauds” and those who are clearly dangerous. It’s the “I’m a skeptic too” gambit. They try to place themselves in the moderate position, between the extremes, in order to establish themselves as reasonable. And yet, as you point out, they also provide cover to more extreme forms of pseudoscience, out of a fear of starting off a critical chain reaction which will eventually come back on them.
Guilty. I was trying to be sarcastic, and obviously failed. My analogy was meant to point out that the support against dangerous extremes which the more “moderate” purveyors of pseudoscience provide is skin-deep, because they share the same basic process of verification the extremists do – and this is similar to looking for support from religious moderates against dangerous religious extremes. When I wrote “The real problem is those people who misuse pseudoscience” my tone was supposed to be very snarky indeed. How the hell do you “misuse” pseudoscience? Take it seriously?
The idea of “teaming up” with homeopaths in order to fight alties giving acid enemas or something is clearly a poor strategy. You fight pseudoscience by telling people it’s mistaken and wrong, not by trying to push forms of it that are seemingly more benign because they do less actual damage on the assumption that well, people are going to do it anyway. And in this instance that seems rather clear. Now apply it to religion and “faith” as a way of knowing.
In one sense you can certainly make a distinction between “good” pseudoscience and “bad” pseudoscience by looking at outcomes. Same with religion. You don’t have to think that all religion (or all pseudoscience) is equally bad, dangerous, stupid, etc. But the real issue is method, not result.
So yes, as far as I can see I agree with you. Sorry I wasn’t clearer.
Hi. All this talk of the evil athiests made me want to step off the sidelines…
I have been uplifted by the latest issue of Free Inquiry. The feature articles are about Death – facing it, getting through it (when others die, not you), and understanding it.
Death is not always fun to think about or confront, but it’s one thing that we all share in equually. The articles are short and are written by a diverse group of individuals.
They are not, however, New Athiest diatribes against God or the Pope. They are well thought-out and moving reflections on Death, funerals and dying. I am working through it slowly because I am re-reading articles.
But as an athiest, I not shocked by the sentiments. The idea of facing death without holding God’s hand is older than Lucretius (sp). I would suspect that the general public image of athiests contemplating death would be of a sweaty person balled up in the corner of a black room chanting “life is meaningless” – or something like that.
But it is not the case. Sure, we must have our moments of dread (“The eternal silence of those infitite spaces frightens me”, too) but death without God is not all gloom and doom.
Ultimately, the lessons learned from facing death are applicable to facing questions about everything in the universe, and vice versa: You don’t need an invisible parent to fill in your infinitely large (or small) spaces. Maybe that is me being an angry New Athiest, but so what. I am becoming more and more comfortable with that.
Ah, I suspected sarcasm, but it’s often tough to detect (or convey) in written prose – whereas it’s very easy with the spoken word. So no apologies necessary.
More importantly, even if you’d intended it to advocate the other side (although I’m glad you didn’t), I really like your analogy and think it’s very useful. Thanks for providing it, Sastra!
:-)
“I do think that’s clearly not Dawkins”
What’s interesting is that it could easily be Hitchens though. Human rights, war crimes, international nightmares are very much his field, he has encyclopaedic knowledge on the subject and plenty of experience.
Panels could also presumably have people who are atheists but not Atheists – people who have relevant secular knowledge and/or experience who are (also) atheists.
‘I think Don is not noticing a problem. Religious leaders are often consulted as experts on the social issues of the day.’
No, really. I had noticed that problem.
Sastra and G — I always appreciate your contributions. Sastra’s first post was entirely apposite, and pretty witty, too. I’m frankly surpised that the usually brilliant G needed it explained to him. (Early start on the weekend?)
As for death, almost all of us experience a little one (not that kind) every night when we fall asleep. What’s to fear? You won’t even be embarrassed when your vast porn or disco LP collection or whatever is unearthed by your survivors.
If you’ve ever lost consciousness while struggling to cling to it, you’ve already experienced it, as far as I’m concerned. Once I suffered a bad gash and started bleeding profusely. Before I could stanch the bleeding, I started to black out. I realized this and tried to prevent it by bending over to get more blood to my brain, but I collapsed into unconsciousness. That’s just like dying. My eyes were open, and I was striving to maintain my mental activity, but my sight ebbed away and I couldn’t think anymore. As it happened, I awoke a few hours later, glued to my tile floor by a pool of my mostly dried blood, alive again. Resurrection. I recommend it to everyone. Provides a new perspective.
As long as I’m recommending, almost everyone here will appreciate this article:
In Europe and U.S., Nonbelievers Are Increasingly Vocal
By Mary Jordan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, September 15, 2007; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402501.html?hpid=topnews
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/36599u
I hope it’s not gross of me to mention one of the articles about death in that issue of FI is mine. I look forward to reading the rest of it.
Ophelia, yeah, Hitchens is good at that. But for an interfaith panel, you’ve got to dress atheism up so it seems like a religion. Otherwise you just don’t get on the panel. Also, you don’t get invited if you’ve been calling religion “poison,” etc. You must be very, very nice if you want to be on such a panel!
It’s true atheists can have a voice as public policy analysts and the like, but if religious leaders are viewed as the experts on moral matters, at least some atheists ought to act like religious leaders. Fortunately, some are comfortable with secular humanism “kinder gentler” talk and it’s not just a masquerade.
No need to be against the more confrontational style of Dawkins, it just does seem to help to have the secular humanist alternative as well.
I think that this is also the reason that so many people, including the laughable/despicable (delete as appropriate) Midgeley are into attacking Dawkins.
They’re SCARED
Scared that we will forcibly take their warm confort-blankets away, ot hat they will have to honestly admit the truth, and throw said blanket away.
| G. Tingey | 2007-09-21 – 21:21:25 |
Cut and pasted from this comment thread. Under what definition of the word “mention” does this count as not mentioning her?
Speaking of criticism of religion, this video by Marcus Brigstocke is excellent:
Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: 7 minutes of Truth
http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2007/09/freethinker_sunday_sermonette_64.php
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/2e4y63