A schism between the nice people and the demons
Another columnist does a bang-up job of describing explicit atheists in such a way that everyone will take care to hate them.
the split also underscores a serious and widening schism in the broader community of non-believers, between those who want civil engagement with people of faith, and even cooperation where possible, and atheist “fundamentalists” (as Kurtz and the old guard call them) — true believers in godlessness who belittle religion and religious people at every turn, and yet by doing so can wind up sounding like the very enemy they are trying to defeat.
That’s wrong. It’s false. It’s inaccurate. We are not “fundamentalists” in any meaningful sense, we do not belittle religion and religious people at every turn, some of us don’t belittle religious people at all, and we don’t sound at all like “the enemy.” And notice how sweetly reasonable the other side of this “schism” is made to sound – all they want is civil engagement with people of faith, and who could say boo to that?
So, once again, we are given an unsubtle reminder that we are Other and unacceptable and to be maligned.
“Although we” [quoting Paul Kurtz] “are skeptical of religion, we nonetheless have a positive statement to make. We want to work with religious people solving our planetary problems. This represents a basic philosophical difference.”
No it doesn’t. Explicit atheists have sworn no oath of refusal to work with religious people solving our planetary problems. There is no basic philosophical difference about that. We don’t walk around with “Explicit Atheist” labels on our clothes, so there is no barrier to our working with anyone to solve our planetary problems. It’s a non-issue, one that’s been worked up to make explicit atheists look stupid and evil.
The wider debate among secularists over whether to engage religious believers, or whether snark and sneer are the best ways to defeat faith and rally unbelievers to atheism, seems destined to continue.
Same thing. Exaggerated at best. Snark and sneer is not all we do. David Gibson is himself uncivil and inaccurate. Bad journalist. No cookie.
Where did these people acquire their ability to sort the atheist sheep from the goats ? When did they receive their mandate to decide what the big issues of today are and who ‘we’ should be cooperating with in order to deal with them ?
Meanwhile over at the Guardian Mad Bunting is up on another of her great spiritual renewal hobby horses and has a nice cut at the Enlightenment with her trusty sword of faith on the way. Presumably this is the sort of faithiest we need to be making common cause with ? I’ll give that a miss if its alright with the true atheists.
Oh god…not Bunting…
I’ve long suspected that the sin of the new atheists, for which such derision is thought appropriate, is not their refusal to acknowledge the possibility of God’s presence so much as their refusal to acknowledge the validity of theology as an academic discipline, treating it like astrology. (Disclosure: I’m not in the UK, and so I wouldn’t know if perhaps astrology is a valid academic discipline, like homeopathic medicine.)
Hence the charge of fundamentalism. A moderate atheist would never suggest that belief is irrational, because that would mean that theism is not part of rational discourse. But, of course, it is, because… well, it just is.
Mixed feelings about this post. PZ Myers is pretty clearly in the “belittle at every turn” camp. I don’t think that he’s a representative sample of most new atheists, but that really is his M.O.
His approach might even be defensible on its own grounds. Some people both deserve and need to be swatted when they’re being righteous dunderheads. But there’s no denying that he aims to mock.
A hidden assumption in Paul Kurtz’s statement is that, if I were to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone, both of us volunteering to rescue oil-soaked Gulf-coast birds, but I then said “I still don’t accept what you said about the Man in the Sky,” that would not constitute working “with” that person. To work “with” someone, you are not allowed to criticize anything that they say in any way. If you criticize them, that means you are working against them, no matter what other actions you may be performing.
Ben,
Sure, but PZ is just one person. How does the existence of PZ justify pretending that there is a whole big faction of people like that?
Granted, I did think of PZ, and I did think of saying “most of us” instead of “we” in places…but I didn’t…perhaps partly because even PZ doesn’t do that at every turn. Okay that’s hyperbole, but the hyperbole of this particular campaign is quite sinister in some ways.
So PZ mocks? Big deal.
It doesn’t make him a “bully,” it makes him funny. I’m sick of the social conventions demanding deference to the believers in the bizarre. That social deference won’t be eroded by deferring more.
It seems there are those who are really cranking up the anti-new-atheist thing at the moment. I say we don’t need to be apologetic, we just keep at it. I for one will not be laying down my weapons.
Myers has one of the most intelligent and entertaining blogs on the Internet – and yes, he mocks, but nobody is forced to read his site and you won’t get stoned to death if you follow it for a while and then decide to leave.
Also, great pictures of squids.
Despite some of the language that favours Kurtz – the “sneer and snark” bit is especially sneering and snarky – this is a useful article if you just try extracting facts from it. The picture that emerges is of Kurtz (properly) planning his succession, finding a trustworthy and competent Executive Director, then expecting the latter to act like his puppet. The image that emerges of Kurtz’s modus operandi is not very flattering, though I guess you have to be open to the idea that Ron Lindsay (whose life must have been made hell by all this) is not the bad guy. Actually this looks like a classic case of handing somebody responsibility but trying not to give him any authority – instead trying to retain it all for yourself and reserving the right to undermine the poor bastard at every turn if he has an idea of his own.
More importantly, I’m disappointed to read that the appeal had made only $50,000 at the time the article was written. I hope that a lot more has gone in by now.
PZ is a wonderful guy. One of the few US scientists who dare to speak his mind in the public domain, and show his contempt for the irrationality and unreason so commonly expressed in US. Ridicule and mockery are indispensable weapons in the fight to erode the respectability of organized religion in the US.
I’m rather more supportive of Paul Myers than might be expected from my personal disposition. Consider his most infamous “affront”. My first was to cringe, and to be grateful that I wasn’t his dean. Subsequently, I was grateful for the reminder that, historically, charges of host desecration are at the core of Christian anti-Semitism.
Perhaps PZ elicits the reaction so that the rest of us can see how despicable it can be.
Absolutely, about PZ! I wasn’t disavowing him, I was just saying that not all Noisy Atheists, Obstreperous Atheists, Overt Atheists, whatever we are, are identical to him.
What we all are (I would suggest) is uncompromising and unapologetic. But the Anti-atheist Noise Machine wants to make it appear that what we all are is something else – for malicious reasons.
PZ rocks.
Emily where did you get “bully”? Not from this page.
As for cranking up the anti-new-atheist thing – absolutely – and one thing that’s going to cause is what that kind of systematic bullying usually causes: more resistance, more obstinacy, more refusal. It’s very political, this campaign, and it deserves a very political response.
Settle down people. I enjoy his blog as well. Usually. (Though not recently.)
OBBBBB: “How does the existence of PZ justify pretending that there is a whole big faction of people like that?” It doesn’t.
Emily, Casper: “So PZ mocks? Big deal.” Right, so he belittles at almost every opportunity. It’s just a factual claim. You can defend him if you want, saying its effective or justified or blah blah, but it’s what he does. And that lines up (sort of) with what the original article is whining about.
<i>”Perhaps PZ elicits the reaction so that the rest of us can see how despicable it can be.”</i>Ken, I tend to think this is one of the most useful points of the atheists who mock and utilize ridicule. If the language and content about religion is on a “rope” from reverence to respect to deference to disagreement to refusal to mockery, it’s the atheists who use mockery who are dragging the whole tug-of-war in a direction that often makes disagreement possible in the middle.
The wider variety of voices we have now than atheists had in public in the recent past (I’m gonna say pre-<i>The God Delusion</i>) is a good thing.
“Perhaps PZ elicits the reaction so that the rest of us can see how despicable it can be.”Ken, I tend to think this is one of the most useful points of the atheists who mock and utilize ridicule. If the language and content about religion is on a “rope” from reverence to respect to deference to disagreement to refusal to mockery, it’s the atheists who use mockery who are dragging the whole tug-of-war in a direction that often makes disagreement possible in the middle.
The wider variety of voices we have now than atheists had in public in the recent past (I’m gonna say pre-The God Delusion) is a good thing.
Oops! Sorry for the double post. It timed out on me loading the first one. No cookie for me either.
I think it’s worth noting that even PZ mocks and belittles only those who choose to make fools of themselves in public. As far as I have noticed, anyway. He seems to have no problem with ordinary religious folks.
That’s not correct. He recently posted the name and location of a high school graduate who sent him a private email (that was slightly peevish, but not hostile). Various Pharyngulan goons looked the kid up, posted his photo, etc. It’s an anomaly, since he usually goes after people who are private loons or public fools, but this was pretty disgraceful stuff in my view.
Benjamin, at least be a bit more truthful describing this ‘disgraceful stuff’. The letter writer wrote an insincere letter to which PZ took the time to respond politely with real answers to real questions. The the letter writer then wrote back with an arrogant and condescending letter. That’s pretty dumb given the target, so PZ posted the letters with the writer’s name and criticized his obvious duplicity as an example to others who would do the same. But you seem to think it is disgraceful that PZ failed to protect the writer’s anonymity and label it ‘going after’ someone. But isn’t turn-around really fair play? Or do you think atheists ought to be held to a higher standard than those who would so willingly and publicly vilify us for our non belief?
No, I don’t think so. My honest first reaction was that there was no reasonable cause to think the author was insincere. Or, at least, not any more cause than I usually encounter in honest discussion. And this reaction was shared by friends independently of even having discussed the matter.
I don’t especially care to talk about whether or not the letter was dumb, arrogant, etc. It was. The issue I raise is that his reaction was disproportionate. To answer your first question, yes, turn-about is fair play, when proportionate. Posting the name and city of a slightly deluded teenager crosses the line. And to answer your second question, no, I don’t believe in double-standards. In fact, that’s the entire reason why I bother to criticise my allies frankly and without hesitation — because I hold them to the same standards that I hold to the nitwit Republican horde.
In any case, whether you agree with my views on this or not, the point is that it was a private correspondence that was exposed as public. So Harald’s observation is off base in this instance.
Well, some people do. But then people walk around with t-shirts supporting their favorite religions and sports teams. So I suppose the point is moot.
What do you mean by “rational discourse?” I would say a more reasonable secularist would argue that religious belief cannot be kept from rational discourse so long as we keep discourse rather open (as we should). However, that does not mean we should refrain from critiquing theism when it enters the public square. In fact I think all moral beliefs and values, religious or secular, ought to be rigorously discussed.
What tildeb said. PZ gave that little frakker what he deserved. If you send hostile correspondence to a total stranger, just to waste his or her time and be obnoxious, then don’t expect to be treated kindly. If you have the gall to follow up said time-wasting, obnoxious correspondence, you deserve to be exposed for doing it. That’s not to condone anyone stalking this person IRL, but PZ was well within his rights to expose the guy’s idiocy.
Ophelia, I got “bully” from the article in question, specifically: “For decades, and long before the recent arrival of ballyhooed and bully “New Atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens…”
Sorry, should have made that clear.
DeDora (#23) : I would say a more reasonable secularist would argue that religious belief cannot be kept from rational discourse so long as we keep discourse rather open (as we should).
Keep the discourse rather open? You mean like not beeing very picky about its rationality?
I have come to the conclusion that “rational discussion about religion” is an oxymoron.
Criticizing religious teachings by pointing out their ridiculousness is nothing new. St Augustine, the apologists favorite, points out this happening in a rather matter of fact way – ” It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.”
No railing against the nasty bully “New Pagans” from Augustine.
I would suggest that mocking silly teachings has been a constant element of religious discourse throughout history, however the degree to which it was permitted was dependent on the political strength of the religion in question. Look at it this way, how does the average roman catholic treat the teachings of scientology – in particular the bit about Zenu, the Thetans, the DC10 spaceships and the volcano. Is it by accepting that we will never really know the answer to that question and so we must remain agnostic and respect their beliefs? Or is it by laughing at the preposterous idea and pointing out it sounds like a bad science fiction tale? On the other hand, what if scientology was believed by 90% of the population. The criticisms would still be just as valid, just not politically viable.
The shrieks of anguish coming from the religious and their puppets over the new atheists are merely the whimpers of a dying beast. The average complaint of atheist bullying is about as sincere as a Bill Donohue press release and, frankly, is a sign that our tactics are winning.
Re: Michael De Dora “In fact I think all moral beliefs and values, religious or secular, ought to be rigorously discussed.”
When did secularism (i.e. democracy) become identical to atheism? Does this mean that every religious person really wants to live in a theocracy? Don’t they realise that this is only possible if all other religions are forbidden?
Secularism means religious freedom – sorry but that has to include us atheists as well. Meanwhile, many christians (in particular those living in islamic majority countries) are fervent secularists.
Russell Blackford
June 13, 2010 at 5:01 pmI noticed that. The other thing I noticed was that Kurtz ultimately isn’t calling for respect so much as sounding like you respect the religious, a sort of plastic, smarmy surface respect that any religious person with any brains can see through at fifty paces.
Agreed, although I have to say that coming across that description can be a little like coming across a rattlesnake. It is a persistent argument of the American intelligent design movement that our children are not receiving a secular education because our teachers aren’t free to present alternatives to materialism in the science classroom.
Emily – oh right, that “bully” – I left that one alone when quoting from the article because the usage is so odd – it looks more like the old Teddy Rooseveltian way of using it to mean “good in a robust manly way.” :- )
“We are not “fundamentalists” in any meaningful sense.”
In terms of belief, I agree. But in terms of behavior, the similarities are striking.
Signal,
Who are you?
I ask because I have a policy of not promoting (including not linking to) anonymous blogs whose sole purpose is to malign various non-anonymous “enemies.” Your shiny new blog is anonymous.
I followed Signal’s link to find a piece with a nasty quote-mine from Dawkins that makes it seem like Dawkins would reject any evidence for a miracle. When you look at the original quote in context (p373 of The God Delusion) you realise that Dawkins is NOT talking about what would convince him and thus it is a gross misrepresentation of the piece – and the prime evidence provided that atheists are fundamentalists.
Yes, I followed Signal’s link too, which is how I know its shiny new blog is anonymous. It also has the same format as an only slightly less new blog which is also anonymous and which does nothing but malign various named “enemies” in ever-more obscene and libelous terms. It is pretty obviously the same blogger. Why a new blog, one wonders? Perhaps because the first one has tipped its hand too drastically – it started off being somewhat reasonable, then quickly descended into the mire. Perhaps the anonymous blogger hopes to start over. It too will probably descend into obscenity and libel soon. At any rate, it’s not getting any boosts from me as long as it’s anonymous.
DeDora (#23) : I would say a more reasonable secularist would argue that religious belief cannot be kept from rational discourse so long as we keep discourse rather open (as we should).
No. I meant that we cannot prevent people from entering public discourse.
I’m not sure I follow. Surely you do not mean that secularism entails the freedom to protect all one’s beliefs from critique?
Signal?
I think that even the ‘new atheists’ such as PZ, and very much, myself, understand tolerating peoples’ private beliefs. Most of us accept what people choose to do in private, objecting when the believers start pushing their beliefs into the public sphere, or trying to convert us.
Mormons or JWs calling at my door are fair game. People quietly attending the Baptist church across the street from my house are not.
It’s also different when you’re on their turf. In the past few years the only involvement with religious themed events was a Baptist (family) funeral and a Muslim (co-worker) wedding. On their ground, we played (within reason) by their game (for the wedding, despite the hot July weather, my wife covered more skin than usual).
We are not intolerant. We need to be tolerated as well.
I do think that snark and sneer are the best tools at the “evangelical” atheist’s disposal. The mildly-moderately religious, who just consider their faith to be an different-but-equal worldview, have hard time answering direct, uncomfortable, and irreverent questions about their faith. If the atheist leads with polite respect, they have no problem falling back onto this “agree to disagree” mindset in which no real effort is made to defend their position. However, if the atheist is mocking, it forces them to defend those parts of their belief that are most absurd. “The reason you shouldn’t laugh at how absurd the idea of the virgin birth is that…” etc. I’ve met very few Christians who can provide a satisfactory answer to that question. (not satisfactory to me, of course, but to themselves.
The best? The very best? Really? Better than sober argument? I can’t agree with you there! I think there’s a place for derision (obviously, since I resort to it a good deal myself), but I think the derision relies on reasons. I think reasons are the best tools.
Sober argument can be a good method as well, certainly. Satire and mockery just add a certain oomph to one’s argument that I think is useful to break through the dividing line in peoples’ minds between “beliefs requiring justification” and “beliefs not requiring justification”. Once anybody starts to apply the same standards of evidence to their religious beliefs as they do to everything else, not much outside sober argument is needed. I suppose I’d say that the mockery serves to move Overton’s admittedly overused Window, and once that happens, the sober argument can be resolved rather quickly. The derision works against the idea of Christianity as a valid, respectable set of beliefs exempt from sober argument.
Jay, suppose a Jehovah’s Witness came to my door and were just as annoying as usual. I am able to close the door in their face if I like. But instead, I took their photo, name, and address, and then posted it in my community newspaper with the caption, “Arrogant douche”.
Morally speaking, is that more like your Door example, or more like your Wedding example? (Assuming we can make these rough comparisons.)
Russell, your comment is full of vague statements–“expose his idiocy,” “treated kindly”–that whitewash what PZ did. I don’t care how annoying some stupid kid’s letter is. It’s not a justification for publicizing his personal information which he shared in a private exchange. You don’t do that to people without their express permission, and I’m disgusted that anyone would actually defend this.
tildeb, a popular blogger publicizing a kid’s name and location isn’t “turnaround.” It’s bullying.
Jenavir, I go to your door and start ringing the bell. You answer politely and I ask for a glass of water which you politely supply. I then ring the bell again and start calling you names, criticizing the way you brought me the water and make disparaging remarks about your hospitality. You happen to notice a very long line of people behind me ready to come knock on your door also asking for your hospitality and wonder, “How is the best way to separate those waiting in line who wish to abuse my hospitality from those who might actually appreciate it?” You hit upon a plan, and announce to the long line as well as all your friends neighbours, that so-and-so currently at your door is an ungrateful git who wishes nothing more than to abuse one’s hospitality.
Oh my, says I: what disgusting bullying by mean old Jenavir. Jenavir should have asked for the git’s permission to broadcast his duplicity first! Yeah, that’ll work as a warning to others. Not.
What you are overlooking, J, is the intention of the letter writer. That’s the reason why PZ publicized the letters in their entirety – not to show that the writer was an idiot but to show that the writer had a duplicitous intention. Furthermore, he wanted to demonstrate that such duplicity from others might be published, too. In other words, PZ’s intention was not to ‘bully’ a questioning young writer but to warn others with same intent not to bother without risking the same exposure.
If I have way more social capital than you, tildeb–enough to rival the traffic on a popular blog–then hell yes denouncing you to others would be bullying.
“A warning to others”? Really? That’s supposed to justify things? No, sorry, that won’t work. It’s not an excuse for publicizing personal information about someone without consent. If PZ wants to deter people away from this behavior, he can post something on his site to that effect. Or he can just, you know, ignore and delete any e-mail that strikes him as disingenuous. What he can’t do is look into the kid’s head, see that he’s “duplicitous” (as opposed to merely rude) and thus sic his readers on him.
And yes–posting someone’s heretofore private name and info on a popular blog as an example of bad behavior amounts to siccing your readers on them. If PZ didn’t mean for that to happen, he’s a fool.
Oh, and if I not only told the people at my door that you were ungrateful, but also gave them your name and location, then that would certainly be invasive and bullying–and no silly excuse about “warning” others would cover it. If I wanted to warn others, I could simply warn others, without sharing personal information about you without consent.
PZ is funny. But his comments section is an insane bear-pit!
“PZ is funny. But his comments section is an insane bear-pit!”
Indeed. I don’t tend to comment over there any more due to the rather rabid pack mentality of the pharyngula mob. Any disagreement with the party line and you are singled out as a troll and insulted without any attempt to answer your point.
Benjamin, I hadn’t noticed the incident you referred to (and I don’t read _all_ of the pharyngula blog all that carefully). But as you say, it was an anomaly. So saying that my observation was “off base” seems an exaggeration. But I admit it weakens my point a little bit, assuming it was as bad as you say. (I lack the time and inclination to go back and look right now.)
Harald, fair enough.
Yes, the comments there tend to seem like a penalty of success. There are far too many to manage, so…there can be a lot of dross, some bullying, some sexism, etc.
Benjamin
I’m not sure if I am fully following your point.
My position is that if they are trying to convert me, I am also free to cut down their belief structure. Aggressively if they push it.
But when churchgoers walk past my house on Sunday morniing, they are left alone, or greeted as any other person on my street (yes, even strangers acknowledge one another here).
I guess if that’s what you are saying, then we are in agreement
Jay, I think I was trying to apply your cases to my point about Myers’s recent post, with the hope of shedding light on them both.
You talk about three cases: a case where people are living their own group doing their own thing and you’re an outsider (the wedding case), and one where people are in their own spheres without interacting (the sidewalk case you mentioned just now), and one where people intrude into your sphere (the Jehovah’s Witness case).
But what happens if there’s a fourth case — i.e., when Jehovah’s Witnesses intrude on your private sphere and you engage in public retribution? Russell and tildeb seem to think that’s perfectly fine, while Jenavir and I think it isn’t.
Being philosophically uncompromising is not mutually exclusive with being either personally respectful or being politically or culturally cooperative on matters of shared agreement.
Please define both “personally respectful,” and “culturally cooperative.”
There was a thread on Pharyngula recently in which several posters argued that the current US has ‘outdone’ the Nazis in it’s response to 9/11.
It was a ridiculous example of cultural relativism that I raised with Ophelia. There were some posters who rightly responded in revulsion and Myers made no such charge himself but it does show how posters can undermine a blogger’s intentions.
No wonder Dawkins keeps a tighter control these days.
One need not run across the street and into their local church to carry out critique of churchmembers’ beliefs. And to be sure, if beliefs are public, as I think they are, we have every right to critique those beliefs.
I second Josh’s question to ‘Camels’. I’ve been wanting the answer to that one for a long time.
Whenever I try to formulate a fine-grained answer, I can only come up with morally loaded definitions or empty platitudes.
While there is room and a need for both styles of atheistic communication, I think if there is a valid criticism of “the New Atheism” it is that the public perception of it as a mostly negative message highlights a missed opportunity.
And that opportunity missed is that we really could stand to market the positive benefits of atheism to religious believers more effectively, to a greater degree, and in terms that have resonance with them. We read reams of commentary dissecting the mindset of believers, but spend very little effort, or money, to present atheism as a positive opportunity for them.
I don’t recall ever reading an outreach article that offered the believer, say, a life free of fear of going to hell, free of the frustrations of quashed ambitions, or free of the constant stress of avoiding sin as the main marketing message of the piece. Our own mindset, as members of the most reviled group in America, has tended to be somewhat defensive, objectively rational, and rather reactive to events. We could use a better marketing plan which would put an additional emphasis on selling ( yes, selling ) the features and benefits of atheism to believers.
What about the bus banners? They’re totally uplifting.
“Relax. There probably is no God.”
Many people are, of course, massively offended by those. It’s precisely because they are liberating, clear-spoken, and docile that they are offensive to these people.
Benjamin, exactly right. It seems the most positive, uplifting message atheists can make is to either say nothing or express some level of admiration and respect for religious beliefs before enunciating any kind of ‘but’, in which case the following message is militant, strident, and arrogant.
My problem with the snarky attacks on new atheist snark is that it is just the latest version of the old tactic of changing the subject from the best understanding of how science and religion are or aren’t compatible to who is entitled to enter the discussion. Arguments are evaluated on the basis of the niceness imputed to compatibilists versus the beyond-the-pale meanness of all incompatibilists. It’s a nice pre-emptive stroke, but it’s the same old story: You’re wrong because you’re bad, so the argument stops there with no need to consider any features of the argument beyond that.
It ought to be possible for the issue to be discussed regardless of offensive derision, just as such arguments frequently occur in science and philosophy generally. I have a hard time imagining such discussions taking place outside the science/religion context where one side thinks that they need to offer nothing more than observations about the behavior of opponents.
Regarding the bus banners, I just don’t like them. They don’t constitute arguments or even point to arguments worth considering. They are like bumper stickers generally, though I’ve seen a few of those that are clever. My objection is not about how offensive they are. They don’t transgress against any reasonable limit, just as “Rock me Jesus” doesn’t. I don’t like that one either. All these do is advertise an opinion. Perhaps that’s useful to a small degree.
Quite. It’s political. Hence it turns what should be an epistemic issue into a political one.
I don’t much like the bus banners either. I don’t much like conversation-stoppers in general. On the other hand, if there are a lot of theist banners around, it may be sensible to have their opposites too.
I would only object to banners in any way that I object to one-way media, and/or what Marshall McLuhan called “hot media”. The sort of stuff that both asks for very little participation and requires very little attention.
But that’s our whole world. That’s how we do things in post-industrial societies.
What is the crime? Sharing the name, or sharing the correspondence? Or dressing the kid down for being rude and presumptuous?
Ruse shared private correspondence from Dennett with Dembski (if I recall correctly), so if sharing private correspondence makes Myers a bully, it makes Ruse a bully too.
Oh well Ruse absolutely was a bully in that instance – though I wouldn’t use that word, but rather outrageously rude and unprincipled. But Ruse didn’t publish the correspondence – which he initiated, wheareas PZ did not initiate the correspondence with the teenager – himself, he passed it on to Dembski to publish. He told him “Go ahead and publish, I’m in hot water already and besides I don’t care” – or words to that effect. So it would be as if PZ had started the correspondence, and then sent it to, oh, Jerry Coyne, say, telling him to go ahead and publish it.