I saw John Shook’s Huffington Post article on “O lord how awful are the ways of thy gnu atheists” a few days ago, and even read a bit of it, but I got bored so I didn’t finish, or comment on it. But Jerry did a post on it today, and the response has been energetic. A good many gnu atheists are irritated at yet another bucketful of crap being thrown at them by another atheist.
In turn, Ron Lindsay is irritated that Jerry criticized the Center for Inquiry (where Shook works) because Shook wrote what he wrote.
Jerry Coyne: I am extremely disappointed that you would make such an unsupported and rash accusation against CFI. If you can point out one instance where either I or someone speaking for CFI in an official capacity has gone out of his/her way to criticize CFI’s “atheist supporters for stridency, hostility, and ignorance,” please do so. If you cannot, please withdraw the statement.
The trouble with that is that an onlooker would have no way of knowing that Shook was not speaking for CFI in an official capacity in the article, given that he was identified as “Director of Education and Senior Research Fellow, Center for Inquiry” at the top of the article. That looks to an impartial observer as if he is speaking in his official capacity.
The same applies to the CFI blog, even though Ron Lindsay and Michael De Dora both like to insist that blog posts must be seen as the author’s independent opinions, not anything to do with CFI.
But I think that’s an absurd expectation. Look at the CFI blog. Would anyone glance at that and think that the post that appeared below the banner at the top was nothing to do with CFI? Look at it! It’s not what you’d call inconspicuous.
It’s odd for CFI officials to try to disavow things that have their name on it in GREAT BIG LETTERS.
Comments
73 responses to “Ignore the logo, no matter how big it is”
“It’s odd for CFI officials to try to disavow things that have their name on it in GREAT BIG LETTERS.”
That’s ’cause it’s hosted on the CFI website.
I’ve said my piece about this 16 ways from Sunday over at Jerry’s place. So, all I have for you, Ophelia is:
OMG, your headlines and short descriptions consistently crack me up. More than once reading them, I’ve actually walked over to my North-facing window and closed it so as not to wake up the neighbors in the next house over from my snorting and cackling.
Just read Jerry’s post a few minutes ago and after seeing yours I went back and checked. I read this article fairly soon after it was posted and my comment is on the last page of comments (posted as Magic Man Done It). I actually mentioned something about Shook trying to sell his book as well as stating that I usually respect CFI. I totally agree that the CFI affiliation was a reasonable conclusion. Not sure why they ousted Paul Kurtz if they are going down this path.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Ignore the logo, no matter how big it is http://dlvr.it/5wpVs […]
Another “ignore the man behind the curtain” moment.
Tez
No, this is more of a “Ignore that emerald green curtain with the golden ‘WIZARD’ emblazoned on it” moment. “And that guy behind the curtain pulling the levers in the wizard costume? He does not represent WIZARD, Inc. at all. He’s merely exercising (literally) his freedom to play with levers. Pay no attention to him”.
Exactly. & Gawd, the spin going on in the comments at WEIT is making my brain hurt. How hard is it for them to understand that the default assumption is that, YES, the person in question indeed IS speaking for CFI? If they don’t want that to be the default assumption, then they need to state very clearly that the person is speaking solely as an individual, not as a representative of the organization. Even then, though, it would be hard to completely separate the person from the organization that employs them, unless they leave out any mention of their affiliation with it.
Let’s even give the CFI the benefit of the doubt and grant them that Shook has gone Rambo. Really, does that make any difference?
The guy is tearing down what the CFI should be dedicated to building up. Even if he’s not doing it on the clock, the CFI has no business keeping him on the payroll — any more than the NRA should retain an executive who campaigns against gun ownership or the NAACP should retain retain an executive who’s a member of the local branch of the KKK.
Cheers,
b&
is cfi payed by templeton ?
Sometimes when we listen to an official representative of God, we wonder whether he is speaking ex cathedra or as a ventriloquist from his belly button.
But I have never heard Gos speak
Let me see then: it looks like the CFI, it smells like the CFI but it it is not the CFI? Oh sure… I am very sorry Shook, Dora, Mooney, Lindsay… but some things are hard to swallow… you can’t have it both ways.
This is the reason they invented disclaimers… a simple “The following does not necessarily represent the views of CFI, etc.” at the top would have been quite sufficient.
The CfI protestations of their innocence are a bit weak, but the fact that some are protesting at all gives me some hope that this is no the organisation that they wanted to be.
However, one then has to ask, what do they think they are going to achieve when they have on their payroll people who seem to be determined to work against some of the CfI’s stated goals.
Quite honestly, articles like Shook’s are so tired and hackneyed, to say nothing of the fact that it is intellectually a non-argument and false to boot, that it is somewhat curious that anyone thought it was a good idea to run with it.
But the bit that does the damage is that the author of such a piece is on the payroll of CfI. If the oraganisation still imagines itself to be pro-atheist then it needs to take a long hard look at its own ranks of atheist-butters.
I don’t think the blog is such a problem. I don’t even think it would have been a, like, terrible problem if the article had appeared with Shook being held out simply as a Fellow of CFI. Fellows of think tanks often take diverse positions that don’t necessarily represent those of the think tank. The problem is that he is held out as “Director of Education” – it looks as if what he has to say is in pursuit of policies that fall within his portfolio, i.e. that the views expressed are coming from a policy manager acting in his official, and are therefore those of the CFI itself.
That’s upsetting, because much of the article is about how ignorant, unsubtle, etc., some of CFI’s natural allies are. There’s a great deal in the article that I’m fine with, and the book sounds interesting. But for whatever reason he’s chosen to wrap it up with some very negative comments bad-mouthing his allies … while writing as CFI’s Director of Education.
I think that the CFI is going to have to sort this out so it doesn’t happen that way again. Meanwhile, I’m actually surprised that Shook felt the need to be so negative. Why not just be positive about what an interesting book he’s written? Once it’s fairly described, the book will either attract people’s interest or it won’t. I’m inclined to buy it or at least get hold of it and read it, and I think it may well add something worthwhile to the current debates (though I can also understand why others might not). But the negativity has not made me more inclined to buy it … if anything, quite the opposite.
* “official capacity”
@Pali: but they have a disclaimer. It’s hidden behind an “about” link on the CFI blog site that people at HuffPo were totally expected to all know about </sarcasm>
I’ve been more or less silent through all of this, although I did write a long post over at Jerry’s place, but I didn’t engage the discussion. I’m not a member of CFI, although I do receive info from CFI Toronto on a regular basis. I was thinking of joining, but I’m not a joiner. The last time I joined something it took almost a lifetime to disentangle myself!
However, despite Lindsey’s admonishing response to Jerry, there does seem to be a bit more to say. As someone (Josh, perhaps) mentioned, Shook’s article was really the last straw, after a week in which the GA (gnu atheism, gnu atheists & cognates) seem to have been attacked relentlessly for one fault or another. It all started with the pope’s visit to Britain, and with what some people saw as the tasteless remarks at the protest the pope march in London. There is almost, now, a schism within the non-believing community — and, as I have remarked elsewhere, this is redolent of religion. It has the feel of religious schism, and it leads one to wonder just what the atheist movement is all about.
Actually, CFI, I should think, if anyone, seems to have benefitted from the GA, and the larger public profile that it has given non-belief. For CFI ‘officials’ to complain about tone, know-nothingness, etc. of the GA is a strange response. They might have built on it instead of panning it. After all, if the GA are as they say, then the remedy is not to criticise the GA. It is to get to work and replace it in the public mind with the kind of GGA that would marginalise the GA with their much more refined method of dealing with unbelief. But that’s not what they’ve done. And whether they were wearing their CFI hats when they mixed it up with the GA or not, it looks a lot like they want to say that their GGA is the only acceptable approach to atheism in the first place, and the GA should have followed their lead as far back as two years ago when Chris Mooney began his opposition to the GA and all its works.
But it really is hard to separate CFI from the anti-GA position, since, no sooner had Mooney set to work trying to deconstruct the GA, CFI took him on. Then Michael De Dora joined in, and now Shook, with what is perhaps the emptiest piece of anti-GA rhetoric ever to have graced the pages of any news outlet so far. Mooney argued about tone. De Dora was caught between two stools, but Shook just accused GA of being know-nothing populism, basically. And he did it under the banner of CFI, whether CFI wants to acknowledge his statement as official or not, that is, whether his logo is big or small.
The truth of the matter — and this has to be faced by someone at CFI — is that CFI seems to be trying its best to marginalise the GA. They think it is somehow counterproductive. So they talk about tone, or the woeful ignorance of the GA, or some combination of those claims. However, as Jerry has pointed out, he has read theology, and has come down on the side of GA on its merits. I think that could be said about the standard bearers of GA, like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, etc. too. A lot of the GA, though it took the form of a critique of Christianity, was realy, in origin, about the newfound militancy of Islam, and it might have been advisable to have emphasised this a bit more. But — what do you know — the GA are as polite as can be, and didn’t want to mix it up with a tradition that they know little about at a cultural level.
However, my main point would simply be this. If it had not been for the GA, CFI would be a fairly marginal organisation, plodding along, as before, in semi-anonymity. It was the GA that reallly put atheism on the map, and made it a power to deal with. Perhaps, at the beginning, the GA had to be rather startlingly blunt. Academic niceties wouldn’t have got atheism into the public discussion, but blunt speaking did, and blunt speaking has kept it there. If it had consisted in a nuanced discussion of theology, for instance, then there wouldn’t be a large public interest in atheism. So, it behoves people like Lindsey and Mooney, De Dora, Shook et co. to be reasonably respectful of that achievement, and, if they thought it lacked something, to add that themselves, not to pillory the GA for their approach. Not sensitive enough to the complexity of theology? Show us! Not respectful enough of our religious friends? Show us! In other words, show us what a new tone or a new approach can do. Show us how this can get unbelief and the concerns of unbelief into the limelight. Don’t criticise what has worked until you have something else that has worked. And when they’ve got a huge following immersing themselves in the nuances of theology, then, perhaps, they can say that their way is better.
But it simply will not do to continue this negative campaign against the GA. And, from where I sit — and I certainly don’t sit at the centres of power where these things are concerned — this campaign has looked pretty relentless. There’s Shook — the latest — and just before that Caspar Melville, Simon Heffer, Mark Vernon (who claims to be an atheist too), Richard Norman, Julian Baggini: all ganging up to say how tasteless, strident, or know-nothing the GA really is. What these people don’t seem to see is how urgent all this is. This is not a matter of putting a little unbelieving leaven into the lump. Religion is trying desperately to make a comeback. The one religion that is poised to do the most harm has got people so frightened that it is scarcely even criticised. And atheists, who usually think that religion is an irrational, and therefore dangerous, force, spend their time attacking other atheists, instead of getting down to the work at hand. Do they want to live under a theocracy? Or do they want to leave that to their kids? Well, unless they’re willing to get out there, take a chance, and really criticise, that’s going to happen. There are signs everywhere that, unless opposed, religion in its usual way will steamroller over all the opposition, and the powers that be will listen to them in respectful silence.
So, I don’t understand what the need is to be so all-fired subservient to religious idiocy. Theology, as I have claimed already, is far more complex than some atheists are prepared to admit, but the main point is clear. Theology is about god. Atheology, which Shook mentions, may be an academic fad, but it won’t touch believers, and it won’t be preached from pulpits. This is about a being, supernatural or transcendent in some sense, that has a right to rule over us, and to whom we must be subservient. That’s the message that is preached from pulpits, and that’s the message that is expressed everytime a religionist complains about laws and government. We are not subservient enough. And that’s what we must oppose. If Shook wants to be nice and nuanced, and study Taylor and the other atheologians, fine, let him do it, and when he’s got a following half as big as Dawkins’, say, then perhaps we have to take note of him. But until he’s got the relilgionists worried enough to write books critiquing what he has to say, he’s a bit player. This is about large scale movements of people, and the kinds of governments and programmes that we want to see. So far, the religionists are winning that particular battle hands down. They’ve got people rethinking secularism, and that’s a bad sign. And if CFI wants to be where the action is, then it had better get on board this particular train, otherwise, I suspect, they’ll be washed away in the flood, not of GA, but of gnu religionists. This is a practical matter, not a matter of subtle thought, though there’s no doubt always a place for subtle thought, but unless we get the Machiavellian part right, the subtle thought may have to be done in secret.
I don’t mind so much someone identifying his position (after all, if it was just “John Shook” with no ID I’d have to look him up, but it should always be stated CLEARLY that any opinions given are those of the individual alone and not necessarily of his/her organization.
Well, yes, Jerry, I agree up to a point, but only up to a point. Sure, it’s wrong when CFI empolyees seem to be coming out on the anti-GA side almost every time, when it is not clear where their CFI persona begins and ends. But my point is not only about CFI. It’s a more general point about non-believers, whether atheist or agnostic, or whatever permutation of unbelief you can think of. Why this concerted campaign to silence — for that is what it is — the GA? Suddenly — and it is suddenly — atheism is in the news, riding on the back of an unexampled publishing phenomenon, and who is doing the work of trying to suppress perhaps the strongest atheist movement in the last fifty years or more: why, atheists, of course!
As I say, if they think that GA is getting it wrong, they should show us how it’s done, and when they have a huge following, and are clearly changing the public mood, then… and only then, will their voices be worth attention. That CFI seems to have jumped on this particular bandwagon, when the GA is what has given them a bandwagon to jump on, is just a bit much. Let them start a big movement in concert with liberal religionists, and then come back and say, “See, you’re doing it all wrong.” But to keep repeating the mantra about liberal religion and the complexity of theology, and whether or not atheists can comprehend god (does anyone?): well, this is just silly meddling, so far. And it’s becoming annoying. It doesn’t do us any good to be carrying out a battle on two fronts, one front being devoted to “friendly” fire. The whole point of the GA was to oppose the increasing danger of religious voices. Those voices are still dangerous, and getting more so. Why the insistence on the part of people like Baggini and Shook, et al., to aim at “soft” targets?
I’m not a fan of the “gnu atheists” – by which I mean Dawk, Hitch n’ Harris’s tomes – but, Chrr-ist, at least they’re not this tedious. No offence to Monsieur Shook but I’m not even sure of what he’s trying to say –
Well, if the arguments are outdated – ie. found to be invalid – there’s no need to waste much paper on it, is there? And what is a “slim” refutation? Does he mean they’re meager or concise?
I like what PZ Meyers does here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQtQE8CsM-E&feature=player_embedded
And this is the kind of ‘respect’ we should show to theology books too. Uber Atheism isn’t pretty to sensitive souls, and that’s the point. All sacred things are to be buried now, or thrown under the glare of reality and exposed as ugly. It is no good to hold things sacred above ordinary humans. No cruelty can be justified for a piece of text or waffle. We’re throwing away religion and God into the bin of history.
Dang, that’s a long thread at Jerry’s! Long and interesting…so there goes an hour.
Much of the length of the thread seems to from the consented effort of multiple CfI officials to deny any flaws in their policies. The continually say that if the public gets the impression that a public editorial by a senior employee of CfI, written under his official CfI title, is representative of CfI’s position, well it’s the public’s fault for getting that wrong. No retraction, no correction, no fix to policies necessary. It doesn’t matter how many people are “fooled”, not even if it is 100%, CfI says it is the public’s fault. If that is what passes for rational thinking at CfI, then CfI is in serious trouble.
If a large portion of the public is getting the “wrong” impression from the way CfI does business, then CfI is doing it wrong. Rational and honest people would admit and seek to fix the problem, not to continuously blame the victim.
Yes, I stayed up and read through it last night. Some excellent posts…well worth the read.
Getting difficult to follow this at WhyEvolutionIsTrue . But some sentiments being expressed there are troublesome. Whether we like it or not there seem to be two *camps* for lack of a better word on how atheists should deal/dialog with the religious. But it seems people are expressing anger that CFI has hired Mooney / Shook etc etc. It seems obvious that CFI will have to hire people who are and aren’t NA’s and that some of these people will publicly express their viewpoints (Its another matter that they should also explicitly state when they are speaking for the organisation and when they aren’t).
It also seems to me that we are willing to forgive a lot in the religious (for e.g. I would expect most NA’s to be quite happy with a religious person who says keep religion out of government/laws and is fairly liberal on the treatment of women/gays etc even if he continues believing in religion and teaching it to his children) – but we have prolonged arguments with other non believers who say we are ignorant in theology! I for one am coming to think it isnt worth it (though I think NA’s are usually provoked into these fights :) ).
Thank you for acknowledging that. I’d be happy to stop having these fights as soon as my “friends” stop crapping all over people like me-while holding their hands out for donations-and contributing to the ever-more screechy marginalization of outspoken atheists. Seriously. We don’t need this; everyone hates us enough already without our “friends” throwing us under the bus in public (for things we’re not even guilty of).
Does it? Given that gnu atheists are simply people who are openly rather than secretly atheist, I’m not sure that does seem obvious. It also doesn’t seem obvious that CFI will have to hire people who are dedicated to telling overt atheists to be quiet, or people who spend a large chunk of their time and energy telling the world how horrible overt atheists are. That doesn’t describe Shook, as far as I know, but it does describe Mooney.
Josh:
My sentiments exactly. I don’t think any of us are against people saying they disagree with this or that argument made by an “outspoken atheist.” Disagreement is good. Debate is good. It’s the out-and-out trashing of a group already roundly despised by most of the population that is just plain unnecessary. I always wonder when I read these hit pieces, “Are they trying to make the public think atheists are assholes? Such a goal would literally require no effort whatsoever. That mission was accomplished long ago…”
Atheists are such a small minority (though growing), yet we don’t enjoy the shelter of political correctness that usually attends minority status. Anytime a marginalized minority is trashed by some half-wit pundit, a slew of liberal-minded folk, who do not themselves belong to that group, will reliably spring to the group’s defense. (E.g., Nick Kristof’s sanctimonious “apology” to Muslims in last week’s NY Times.) One of the only marginalized minorities that doesn’t get that treatment, is the atheist minority. When was the last time you read a non-atheist defend—I mean really defend—outspoken atheism?
Cross-posted from the CFI forums , where the regulars are having oh-so-much difficulty figuring out why so many of us are pissed off:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/8866/P15/#106174
It’s astonishing that so many people (particularly CFI staffers) are having a hard time understanding why outspoken atheists feel insulted and betrayed by Shook’s article (where he is prominently identified as a CFI executive).
From his HuffPo article:
1. “Atheists are getting a reputation for being a bunch of know-nothings. “
Yep, and you’re helping John. Thanks for stoking more inaccurate resentment against us.
2. “The “know-nothing” wing of the so-called New Atheism really lives up to that label. “
Who are you referring to? You won’t say, John. But that’s OK – you know the theist audience is going to lap this up like a cat before a bowl of cream, and assume it refers to all of us who don’t have time for theology and aren’t ashamed to say we won’t engage with the Emperor’s New Clothes. Thanks, John, for helping those who want to silence us.
3. “Nonbelievers reveling in their ignorance are an embarrassing betrayal of the freethought legacy. “
Again, who are these people? What’s that? You don’t think you need to be specific? Again, thank you for strawmanning us. We are, after all, only the most distrusted and despised minority in America right now. Thank you very much indeed for using your status at the Center for Inquiry to libel us.
CFI staffers and supporters (Ronald Lindsay, Melody Hensley, “Simon” and “Sarah H”) are treating us to the unedifying spectacle of spinning and apologizing, and explaining what Shook “really” meant, and disclaiming his CFI affiliation, over at Jerry Coyne’s place:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/25/cfi-declares-war-on-atheists/
When the response is nearly universally anger and a feeling of being betrayed by an organization that claims to defend the legitimacy of atheists against social stigma, it just won’t do to act as if every critic is crazy or irrational.
John Shook gave outspoken atheists a big fat middle finger in public, in front of an American readership that flippin’ hates us already. And he did it while prominently identifying his affiliation with CFI. We’re not unreasonable to be angry about this. Dismissing us and making up pathetic excuses isn’t going to make any of us more inclined to support you financially or philosophically.
If you allow your senior affiliates to tell us to sod off in public, then you can sod off too.
Russell Blackford: “I’m actually surprised that Shook felt the need to be so negative. Why not just be positive about what an interesting book he’s written? Once it’s fairly described, the book will either attract people’s interest or it won’t. I’m inclined to buy it or at least get hold of it and read it, and I think it may well add something worthwhile to the current debates (though I can also understand why others might not). But the negativity has not made me more inclined to buy it … if anything, quite the opposite.”
I’m surprised that you’re surprised. You (and I) are not the target audience for Shook’s book-marketing campaign. You don’t write an article for HuffPo hoping to attract our interest, and you don’t do it with the message “another book about atheism by an atheist you’ve never heard of.” On the other hand, “a book that rips apart those famous atheists you don’t like, and it’s even written by an atheist, so it’s totally unbiased and you can call yourself open-minded and moderate for reading a book that attacks ‘both sides’” is a potentially winning marketing campaign.
I don’t think a disclaimer would have totally made this issue go away. If it turns out that most of CFI’s employees/contractors/directors/whatever are spouting a certain view, “officially” or not, that tells us something about the organization, the same way that we know what the Templeton Foundation is about not by naively relying on its mission statement, but by noticing the clear pattern in who they hire.
It is most amusing to see all those folks associated with CFI posting on Jerry’s website, telling us what John Shook is really saying. Either (1) we are all idiots who can’t read something and understand it (not likely); or (2) Dr. Shook, the CFI Director of Education isn’t particularly skilled at expressing himself and requires reinterpretation. But if (2) is true, then why is he CFI’s Director of Education? Of course, another explanation is that (3) he meant exactly what he said, and given his credentials and apparent high opinion of himeself, I think that (3) is most accurate.
I would just like to note that I think Eric MacDonald (#17 and #19 above) has absolutely hit the nail squarely on its head.
Cliff, I’m also enjoying the irony of Melody and Simon (I haven’t noticed Ronald doing this yet) defending CFI on the grounds of “we’re a big tent, we welcome all viewpoints,” while simultaneously getting exasperated that the rest of us persist in disagreeing with them and musing about how many times they have to tell us that we’re wrong before we’ll agree to shut up.
And to belabor the point, no organization with an actual mission aside from tea and finger sandwiches “welcomes all viewpoints.” The ACLU does not welcome staff opinions that protestors “bring it on themselves” when they get illegally arrested for protesting something the popular majority supports. The NAACP does not welcome staff opinions that support the idea that black people might be an inferior race.
Josh — exactly. And if, say, the campaign manager for a Congressional candidate said something terribly racist or sexist, nobody would buy the excuse that “well, he wasn’t saying that in his official capacity as my campaign manager.”
The worst of the CFI damage control is that they don’t seem to be capable of publicly disagreeing with what Shook wrote. They’ll say things like they “take issue with some of Shook’s comments,” or that they “disagree with portions of what he said or at least the way he phrased some of his comments”, but they never say exactly what comments they don’t agree with. So much for open debate.
Would it really be too much to ask for the CFI people to come in and say which parts they don’t endorse? To agree that certain parts were unfair to atheists? To say which statements in Shook’s article don’t reflect the official CFI opinion?
They don’t understand that we don’t want to hear another excuse for why they are not legally responsible for what Shook wrote. We want to hear in detail what they think about Shook’s article. And whether CFI is going to endorse his statements by silence, or if they are going to speak up about it.
I think there’s an important confusion in Shook’s piece that is worth pointing out – there is a distinction between philosophy of religion and theology.
Philosophy of religion covers a broad range of issues, many of which relate to the reasons for or against the existence of god, or the moral implications of taking a theistic or atheistic stance. For the former, I’d recommend Nicholas Everitt (2004), “The Non-existence of God: An introduction” (Routledge). For the later, I’d recommend Erik Wielenberg (2005), “Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe” (Cambridge University Press).
Obviously atheists are individuals and we can do what we like, but I would see some merit in anyone who wants to publicly profess their atheism having some familiarity with these types of issues and arguments. This familiarity implies some reasoning behind a considered decision to become an atheist, rather than just adopting the position “on faith” as it were. Every so often I visit the religion discussion boards at Amazon, and occasionally you will get a theist who has just discovered the ontological argument (for example) putting it up as a “slam dunk” argument for the existence of god. It’s useful (if you can be bothered, and at the moment I still can) to have some understanding of the issue and the refutations available while crafting your reply. Richard Dawkins gave a simple summary account of these types of arguments in a few chapters of “The God Delusion.”
However, this philosophy of religion needs to be distinguished from theology, particularly modern theology, which tends to adopt more of a “phenomenology of god” approach, where someone gives her or his opinion about the nature of god. They may (or may not) try closely reasoned argument in the manner of a philosopher, but in the end they are forced to assert positions without evidence. I’m wading through one of these now – Mark Johnston (2009), “Saving God: Religion after Idolatry” (Princeton University Press).
I can see no good reason for atheists (“new,” “old,” or just mouldy) to be forced to wade through this stuff just to satisfy the desires of Shook or their ilk.
I would challenge any of the current crop of gnu atheist bashers to turn up at their local place of worship with a copy of “Saving God” and try and engage the inhabitants in a discussion. Yer good ol’ gay-hatin’, evolution-denyin’, gun-totin’ born-again is not going to see anything even remotely resembling his or her god in those pages. And these are the theists my main problem is with, those with beliefs that lead to negative social consequences for the rest of us, ranging from profound such as flying planes into buildings through to trivial such as not being able to buy alcohol on Sundays. How many times does it have to be repeated that these are the theists being addressed in popular works such as “The God Delusion” and “The End of Faith,” etc.?
As for the “sophisticated” and “modern” theologies, most of us can happily remain ignorant of them, and leave any responses to those masochists amongst us who have some interest in this stuff. Regardless of how they are dressed up, in the end these theologies start off with a god concept involving some form of “personality” (no matter how abstract) and then waste several trees trying to justify this position, usually (and unfortunately) in the most obscure way they can manage to avoid the inevitable logical and moral consequences. Ironically, they often end up with a “god” so abstracted out of existence to be virtually indistinguishable from an a-theistic position.
And what’s with the “first people told us we were all militant atheists, and now this” whine? I’ve seen it repeated several times now, both on Coyne’s blog, as well as on CFI’s forum. Just because some people were wrong about the CFI, that must mean everyone is wrong about them?
Wanna know what’s even more interesting? Shook has a more recent blog post at CFI that says this:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/god_fails_a_simple_rationality_test/
So why, then, was he so keen to slander us at HuffPo? Is he even more duplicitous than I suspected?
From the Shook September 14 post that Ophelia links to:
The implication is that we would if only the new atheists would shut up but, the fact is that we never have. Religious moderates™ will speak against fundamentalism among themselves, but never publicly, because they fear being portrayed as insufficiently devout. (There are exceptions.) Only those who don’t have to worry about that perception are free to confront the fundamentalists. That includes new atheists and some credentialed evangelicals. It doesn’t include most mainline church leaders.
Well said, Eric.
Seriously, what kind of atheist has the time to sit and read Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, a truly masochistic kind of atheist, or overpaid academic. It truly is astonishingly pointless, because it has about as much relevance to my life as astrology or alchemy. I can happily dismiss those without reading through an entire corpus on the subjects of astrology or alchemy in order to be an expert to dismiss it. No these irrational arguments by our fellow atheists won’t do, there’s something rotten here.
All views are welcome, say the accomodationists, with the exception of the only view that really matters, which is ours, or the uber atheists. Religion is evil, and too bad if you’re sensitive about that.
@Josh
Oh yes I agree ,I also believe most of the things said about NA are unfair.
However I’m just pointing out for example in America , the Nov elections seem crucial . We should be trying to see that nuts aren’t elected instead of arguing about John Shook and Chris Mooney.
@Ophelia
That isn’t the definition is it? John Shook isn’t a closet atheist , neither is Mooney or Michael Ruse. The debate always seems to be on what to say and how to say it, never about hiding the fact that you are a non believer.
It seems obvious in the sense that if you are hiring Christians , you’ll get some Protesants and some Catholics.
John shook can write as much as he wants that we should learn better theology or how we are ignorant and proud of it , who cares? On the other hand we do have people who will get stuff through legislation that will impact us , come November and I cant see us doing nearly enough to prevent this. If John Shook wants to waste his time on stupidities , its his problem , Im not sure why we should take the bait.
I THINK what Shook and the others are trying to say, is that the GN crowd focuses on a materialistic, anthropomorphic definition/trope of god, while most modern theology has moved “past” that and is talking about something entirely different.
The big problem I have with this, of course, is that if they’re not talking about a materialistic, anthropomorphic deity, they’re really not talking about god. They’re atheists, more or less. Spiritual atheists, to be sure, but still atheist. (Disclosure. I consider myself to be a spiritual atheist, in that I do think there is “something” to religion. It’s catharsis. Now, catharsis is probably just an emotional need in us, but it’s there. I personally get it from other places than religion, but I can see why it works for some people)
Modern religion wants its cake and eat it too. They want to maintain the traditions, but they know that the traditions are at best factually untrue, and at worst morally despicable and unsuitable for a free society.
Deepak
I don’t care that they aren’t NAs. I can deal with honest disagreement.
I care about the fact that they are misrepresenting NAs in order to sell their books.
I’ve listened to the post DJ Grothe ‘Point of Inquiry’ over the past 7 or 8 months, having been an avid listener to the podcast over several years. It has become apparent, unfortunately, that they now have a policy of avoiding gnu atheist personalities and interviewees. Indeed they seem to do their best to avoid even obliquely mentioning the gnu atheists at any time. The only time I’ve heard the GAs mentioned in the past few months was in two podcasts – both involving Chris Mooney, although, to be fair, he was not the instigator on either occasion. One was during his interview with Elaine Howard Ecklund (she of the rather imaginative statistical interpretation of the religiosity of scientists) and the other during a discussion with fellow host, the bible scholar Robert Price, about whether atheism has a left or right wing bias (Price was the one who attacked the GA position in that podcast). I get the feeling that Mooney has either been instructed to keep away from the topic of gnu atheism or he is tactfully avoiding it. Price is only an occasional host and has enough subject matter to cover without venturing into the GA debate (probably just as well considering his antagonism to the GAs). The remaining host, Karen Stolznick, deals with the subject of skepticism and the paranormal and thus isn’t likely to be involved in the GA debate.
What this ultimately means is that one of the flagship public voices of the CFI has, at a time of unprecedented public atheism and criticism of the position of religion in public life, removed the most public expression of atheism from their discussion. If it is simply coincidental or even accidental then it is down to incompetence. If it is purposeful (for instance to placate religiously inclined financial contributors that don’t like so much involvement in the atheism question) then shame on them.
And thus something entirely different than the anthropomorphic god that 99.999% of believers actually believe in. This is nothing more than the standard shell game played by the faithful — if you say the god of Bible, who gets angry and talks to people and performs miracles and cuts deals with humans, doesn’t make rational sense, they say “Oh, you silly atheist — the god we believe in is a sophisticated apophatic metaphoric Ground of Being, not some insulting caricature!” But then if you go to churches, what people are praying to is a sky fairy with a white beard who smites people and grants wishes.
I am content with the arguments that the god of the Bible doesn’t exist. If some sophistimacated theophilosophers want to argue for some vague post-modern metaphor of an entity, that’s fine by me, as long as said entity isn’t demanding to kill gays, subjugate women, and eliminate science.
Deepak
Well there is no official definition, and people who hate gnu atheists define it in whatever way is most useful to them from moment to moment. It’s not true that the debate is never about hiding one’s atheism – sometimes it is indeed explicitly about telling atheists to step aside and let other, more acceptable people do the talking.
Sorry, but I just don’t get the whole “don’t do this, do that instead” line. One, my doing one thing doesn’t exclude my doing another thing too, unless you’re saying that I should spend every waking moment doing something about the November elections (in the US, I suppose you mean – don’t forget that not all readers are in the US). Two, I think people get to decide for themselves what they spend their time on, even with an election in the near future.
Ophelia
Yes but the other acceptable people being suggested are also sometimes atheists so it isnt their atheism in question , right
You cant do everything you want to, so isnt it always based on priorities?.
yes we need to respond to accomodationists , but do we really need to respond to each and every schmuck who repeats the same old nonsense? Also given that when we do respond their response will be along the lines of Casper “I knew this backlash was coming when I criticized the new athesist.
@Bruce
Again I agree that this is unnecessary provocation from the “accomodationists” and yes they do misrepresent. I just feel the amount of time we spend refuting them is getting to be too much and there are more harmful things that could be addressed.
Ophelia @27:
That points up something I’ve long wondered about “accomodationism” as such. I’ve never understood how hostility to more outspoken atheists (Gnu or whatever) seems to follow so predictably from an “accomodation” approach. I can imagine a theoretical atheist–let’s call her Dris Nooney–who, as a matter of personal preference and inclination, (1) is given to approaching religious belief and believers from a sympathetic and conciliatory angle but (2) does not deal with Dawkins, Harris, and company hostilely either. When asked about Gnus, Nooney could very easily answer that atheists are diverse people; we deal with these conflicts differently. She could add that she agrees with most if not all of the Gnus’ ideals–such as the notion that atheists deserve to be treated better in our society–and that she thinks it’s perfectly appropriate that different atheists take different approaches to achieve those goals. She prefers her conciliatory approach, but (perhaps for that very reason–conciliation) she’s not interested in attacking the P.Z. Myerses of the world who deal with religious matters differently.
I imagine that we Gnu Atheists would not necessarily be big fans of a Dris Nooney, but neither would there be any need to get into big battles with her. I’ve never understood why she’s so hard to find–why the set “prominent non-Gnu atheists” and the set “prominent atheist critics of Gnu Atheism” seem to be so close to identical.
I for one would love to find an “accommodationist” atheist I could just agree to disagree with regarding tactics and get on with it. Since when does “accommodation” imply backstabbing?
Deepak,
No, of course we (or “we”) don’t need to respond to each and every schmuck who repeats the same old nonsense. I respond to many of the ones I see because I find the phenomenon itself interesting, for a lot of reasons. But that’s just me. Of course no one else is obliged to follow suit or chime in or pay any attention at all.
Yes, it’s a matter of priorities, but I despise US politicking and it bores me rigid, so there’s just no chance that I’m going to use B&W to campaign for the Democrats. I’m just not interested in the process, because I think it’s thoroughly broken and corrupt and filled with stupidity.
Rieux…probably the reason the Dris Nooneys are so hard to find is because they have no bones to pick, so they don’t turn up on the radar. There must be lots of them, but they probably talk about other things.
@Ophelia
Ha ha , I can understand though it saddens me (Im not American anyway so I cant contribute) – I’d guess a lot of people here would also share your views above but it also means that people we would consider rational have no interest in things that actually do impact us in terms of laws that get passed.
For me, I’m coming to the opposite of love is indifference when it comes to all the various accomodationist views.
It might be worth considering, that accommodating theism is equivalent to actively opposing uber atheists and equivalent to actively supporting theism. Remember the famous Edmund Burke quote “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’.
After trying to read Shook’s piece carefully and dispassionately, I’ve come to the conclusion that people are drawing the wrong conclusions.
I think there are definite reasons for drawing the wrong conclusions — I think Shook’s article was awkwardly written and probably written with an eye for tapping into some of the furor of this particular argument. But ultimately, I don’t think what he wrote there constitutes “slander,” or that it’s even particularly negative in intention.
It seems to me that Shook, who seems more interested in the philosophical aspects of what he calls the God wars, simply wants to elevate not so much the tone as the sophistication of both sides’ arguments regarding the existence of God. From what I can tell, he really is just saying “the God question is more complex than either side is allowing.” And I think we are the “target audience” for his book inasmuch as he does want to expose atheists to the best arguments for God (and, it seems, theists to the best arguments against).
He’s ultimately saying something pretty similar to what Pigliucci has been saying — ignorance about the philosophical arguments that have already been made over a subject is nothing to be proud of. Maybe it’s not something to be ashamed of — maybe you just don’t care — but you shouldn’t be proud of it either.
Honestly, I can’t see what people are getting so upset about unless it’s because they’re already primed to be upset by the recent spate of anti-NA articles and op eds. Let’s be careful we don’t end up like theists — interpreting every criticism regardless of whether or not it has merit as an unfair personal attack, or slander, or the like.
Rieux, I think Dris Nooney’s real name is Dale McGowan. He’s very sympathetic to the Gnu Atheists, and in fact I would classify him as a Gnu Atheist himself. He puts a lot of effort into describing and giving examples of strategies for talking to people about religious issues in a nonthreatening way, so that they will have a reasonable chance of actually hearing and understanding what it is you are saying to them (see especially his series Can You Hear Me Now?). But he never descends to the level of bashing other atheists for doing it wrong.
I would recommend reading the “Can You Hear Me Now?” series in order (the first one starts at the bottom of the page). These articles do a good job of what Phil Plait was trying to do (but failed) in his “Don’t Be A Dick” speech. McGowan endorses Plait’s speech, but don’t be turned off by this; I think he is endorsing what he perceives to be the good intentions behind Plait’s speech, generously overlooking the dickishness of the speech itself.
Actually, I can see why people are getting upset about it. But I also think it wasn’t really Shook’s intention to insult, malign, or otherwise upset NAs.
Fair enough, Hamilton. I’m quite familiar with McGowan. In fact, he and my wife are both former members of the faculty at a particular Catholic women’s college in St. Paul, Minnesota. For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think that too many religious members of that college’s faculty (to say nothing of the nuns who run the place) would have considered him particularly “accommodationist” toward their ideas.
McGowan left the St. Kate’s faculty–voluntarily, AFAIK–not long after the CSCSC incident described above.
The above anecdote doesn’t really refute you, Hamilton, though I think it does indicate that “accommodation” is, to some extent, in the eye of the beholder. Something tells me that Sister Andrea might detect the stench of Gnu all over him.
So, perhaps following through on my prediction: I’m not a big fan of McGowan (I think the decision of the board he heads to award Foundation Beyond Belief funds to a Quaker organization was a serious mistake), but I do think he has done plenty that’s commendable, especially his work regarding secular parenting.
Dale McGowan is cool.
Dan L
actually does anyone have John Shook’s defence in his own words? Some of the CFI people did post that his intent was different (in which case its a really poor article). However the terms he used were “atheists proud of their ignorance is just a *little* unfair?” and since he didn’t name names or provide examples its all conjecture as to what he actually meant.
Thanks Ophelia.
One of the great things about this site is the links you provide to others that are off my own radar and that I would not even have the time to go looking for. Like the debate over at Jerry Coyne’s site linked to above. As is my habit, I copied the whole thing into a Word file via Notepad to get rid of the frills, and have spent some time this morning highlighting the most hilarious comments in yellow on screen. I haven’t laughed so much in years – well days at least. I will probably append this N&C discussion to it eventually, after the engaging crew here have moved on to a different topic. Shook’s puff post at the Huff post is great passing entertainment. But the dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
Which is not to say I don’t take this matter seriously. Eric’s long comment at #17 is particularly provocative of thought. So let me add a few additional points:
As the world is presently shaping up, we are in for further battles over matters material presented as conflicts of ideology or religion, just as they were, say, in the English Civil War. September 11 2001, the wars that followed it, are part of the process of answering a pretty basic question: just what sort of future world is it that we want? Two of the possible alternatives: a bloody world caliphate with routine executions (on whatever scale) of nonconformists, or a series of open and tolerant societies.
A religion is a two-way anchor. On the one hand, it is a mentally stultifying dead weight; on the other it gives the threatened believer something to cling to when that something is not seen anywhere else. Allegiance to a particular religious text or school will usually give one allies, a tribal identity, and a reduced feeling of isolation. For this and other reasons, God is found in the survival kit of many an American, as a hangover understandable in the light of modern America’s particular frontier origins. Which helps explain the survival of religions despite their steadily shrinking powers of explanation.
(BTW I have found the comparison of the Australian and American frontiers and of the different societies that came out of each to be a particularly rewarding study. But regrettably, I have only spent a very short time so far in the US.)
The modern gnaths do not constitute a counterreligion, nor is there any book which could be said to be a counter-text to the Bible, Koran or such. The ‘New Atheism’ arises straight out of the long western tradition of rationalism, science and Enlightenment. Its cohorts are very much like the freelancing knights of Europe’s mediaeval wars, or the Ronin samurai of feudal Japan; except that few of us are prepared to enter the service of whatever warlord, and under whatever banner.
I trust that will not change too much. But having spent much of my youth in Left politics, I know that the fiercest battles over ideology and influence are generally with those closest to one’s own position. I see Shook and the responses to him in this light.
@HJ, contrary to what a lot of people say, tone and rhetoric do matter; the tone of something is part of its meaning. Shook went out of his way to use scathing language. Part of the meaning of his piece was that the current atheist writers (whoever they are) deserve to be described as know-nothings, etc., and that it’s appropriate to regard with them with scorn and hostility. By his choice of language, he set out to inflame things.
(Btw, I don’t understand why so many people on my “side” argue that tone does not matter. Of course it does, and this is about the first thing you learn in any reputable course in, for example, English literature. Perhaps a lot of people are just uncomfortable discussing aspects of something’s meaning that are not explicit but are, instead, conveyed through the choice of language, as with tone. The better argument against tone trolls is that, yes, tone is part of a passage’s meaning … and that people should be entitled to express that meaning. The concomitant, though, is that other people get to criticise that part of their meaning which is expressed through tone.)
Ian, I like your contraction “gnath” for gnu atheist. However, in this case, shorter is even better: gnat.
Ophelia, did you mean to leave my last comment in moderation? I guess it’s a little long, but there’s some (I think) interesting information about McGowan in it.
Presuming you didn’t, you can go ahead and erase this one if you’d like.
Hamilton (#61): gnats are tiny swarming and biting insects, which come out in their millions after rain, and are capable of invading every houshold; especially up here where I live, on the northwest plains of NSW.
Are you sure you want this association?
;-)
It seems to be universally agreed that gnu atheists are infuriatingly annoying, our numbers are growing, and all attempts to make us go away are futile. Therefore, why not embrace the gadfly aspect of our public image?
Funny, Huffpo just posted a piece on the results of a survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life which seems to contradict Shook’s premise:
Rieux, no, I didn’t mean to – hadn’t seen it – it’s not that it’s long, just that there are a couple of links, so it went into the ‘pending’ file, which happens so seldom that I forget to check for it regularly. Sorry!
@Tulse: My experience is that it’s not 99.99999% that believe in an anthropomorphic deity, it’s probably in the 50-60% area. (And yes, it’s my opinion that we’ll eventually see a “critical mass” of atheism once it becomes more socially acceptable because of this.) Maybe more. But it’s not 99%.
There are a lot of social believers who think that their god is a metaphor, or something much more vague and external to our day to day experience.
The theologians and the progressives, they really should stop calling it god however. Because it’s just not. It sends the entirely wrong message, but they assume that everybody is getting the winking and the nodding when that’s not necessarily the case.
[…] that both Jerry Coyne and I were named in a recent talk as bad for the movement. Both Coyne and Benson have already taken John Shook to task for his poor HuffPo article, which […]
Richard Dawkins posted on WEIT today that he bumped into Shook yesterday and asked him about his article. Here’s his post:
I’m not sure if he was lying or just caught off guard by being approached by Richard. Sounds suspicious to me though.
Long time lurker, first time commenter.
Tulse and Karmakin; In my experience, believers tend to have both an “anthromorphic deity” setting and a “complicated ineffable metaphor” setting, especially the educated ones. As a believer myself, I used to display the latter when dealing with other believers and the former when dealing with those outside the faith. It was not a form of conscious deception, and now it seems bizarre and surreal to me, but there it was. When at the masjid I used to say things like “Yeah, brother, inshallah we’ll all see jennah” (god willing, we’ll all see paradise). Then I’d be talking with my friends who were atheists or agnostics and I’d try to go the sophisticated theology route, complete with condescending attitudes that they hadn’t read enough exegesis of the Qu’ran by trained scholars to really get it (as if any more than a tiny fraction of Muslims have). So it’s hard to say a specific percentage; they’re all part of a blurry continuum and, frankly, they sometimes believe in god and sometimes not.
Hi DA; welcome. Thanks for the confirmation – we’ve remarked on the “two settings” (great metaphor) often, and it’s good to know that an ex-believer can confirm that that’s what happens.
A good many gnu atheists are irritated at yet another bucketful of crap being thrown at them by another atheist. Something tells me that the current leadership at CFI are either members of, or take as role models, the current leadership of the Democratic Party.