Throw physic to the dogs
There’s a funny little sub-group of gnu atheist-hating atheists, who claim to find gnu atheists stupid and worthless and contemptible beyond belief, yet can’t stop talking about them. I’ve started making bets with myself. “She says this is enough about the gnu atheists for now…but I bet she won’t be able to ignore that post by Jason Rosenhouse.” I’ve been winning all my bets. The sub-group is very predictable. They’re like “You’re Not Helping” that way – after awhile I knew what YNH was going to be talking about next, and YNH always obliged.
They hate hate hate certain gnu atheists – and oh man do they hate the “gnu atheists” joke – yet those very gnu atheists set their agenda. Day in and day out – Jerry Coyne this, PZ Myers that, Ophelia Benson the other – except for the ones who have made a solemn vow Never to Mention My Name, in which case it’s Jerry Coyne this, PZ Myers that, and a blog I will not name the other.
It’s as if there are no other gnu atheists – yet there are lots. But somehow the Myers-Coyne (and sometimes Benson) axis has become the throbbing heart of noo atheist horribleness, which has to be monitored and anathematized hour by hour.
It becomes especially funny when it consists of tutting about bitterness and hatred. Yes really – obsessively bitter haters fretting about the bitterness and hatred of The Enemy.
It’s very unkind of me to say this, of course, because since I know that they obsessively monitor the Evil Cabal, I know they will see this little taunt, and their bitterness and hatred will only deepen. But then I’ve never claimed to be a Nice Person.
In fairness, our “side” has a bunch of “usual targets” too. As many times as Jerry vows to never talk about Karl Giberson again, for example, there’s still like two Karl-related posts per week :D
Well, James, let’s be fair. Giberson is specifically targeting Coyne with his inanity series. Giberson is creating whole straw communities — it’s hard not to be flattered by that kind of attention.
I know Coyne said he wouldn’t allow himself to be sucked into the black hole that is Giberson’s lack of intellect. But frankly, Giberson’s arguments are such a mess of unthought-out drivel, it’s hard not just to do a weasel slap and walk away.
Frankly, I thought Giberson would have presented at least something at this stage other than a 4rd grade level of ineffectual rage at not getting what the adults are talking about. But I guess that’s all he has.
Two kinds of people in this world: weasels and weasel-slappers.
Oh — hey! — the AXIS OF EVIL! Gosh, you know, I’ve always wanted to belong to one of those! Can I get in on it too?! (I’ve never claimed to be a nice person either — hint, hint).
Don’t forget the AXIS!
Supposedly, it was Robert Benchley who said “There are two kinds of people in this world: those who divide people into two kinds, and those who don’t.” Perhaps he was channeling B. Russell and A. N. Whitehead, or Korzybski.
Does membership include a secret decoder ring and regular secret messages accessible only to the Illuminati ?
Notice that the accommodationists are accommodating only in one direction, to religion. They’re not accommodating to anything but religion. Their status of ‘accommodating’ is itself suspect. It is contrariness for the say of contrariness. Is there a definable position that these atheists actually hold? I don’t think so, I think they define themselves purely by the uber atheists. I’m not one of those, I don’t like them! Therefore I am with the other guys but wait…I am not the other guys either…
Accommodationism is in trouble, it’s agnuatheism! I am not one of those!
Ophelia, of course you are a Nice Person. Only one of many (for we are Legion). The Gnu-Nice! So nice in fact, that all we wish is to be able to help people. Particularly those people who suffer from ‘Religion’, a widespread mental illness for which, one day I am sure, a cure will be found. Tough Love is always better than Not Helping.
You mean, a “gnice” person?
And as a geologist, I myself am of course a gneiss person.
Gnu-nice = Gnice. Like it. As for a “gneiss person”, perhaps also called Lewis, then according to some (the Gnotgnice), you are far too old and cannot exist…
Ophelia, have you read what Brandon from Siris, John Pieret, and others have said about Jerry’s recent article?
http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2010/10/walls-of-mush.html
http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2010/10/incompatible-philosophy.html
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Throw physic to the dogs http://dlvr.it/72GKg […]
I hadn’t returned to her blog since the dustup over Tom Johnson, so it was interesting to see how things have changed (and not changed) since then.
I guess that was just hyperbole, but if she honestly thinks such a silly joke is frightening, that is a little disturbing in itself. It suggests a breakdown of rationality, at least in this little area of obsession.
And now Chris Schoen weighs in:
http://underverse.blogspot.com/2010/10/you-cant-spell-incompatible-without.html
He is a cheerleader the other two bloggers which is sweet. Apparently adultery is compatible with marriage! I don’t think he really thought it through, simply agreed that it was compatible! And it was only an analogy in which they pull apart rather than the actual argument.
It is all personal attacks, no rational refutations going on.
You can’t have adultery without marriage!
Oh sure – but we cast a wider net than the same three people over and over and over again. Plus there’s the part about how I don’t claim to be Nice. That makes it less risible when I make a display of how not nice I am.
Thanks Brian, I’d seen the Pieret but not the Brandon.
Schoen and Pieret aren’t really part of this particular sub-group (though they are part of the slightly larger sub-group that includes this one) because I’m not part of their obsession (though I do turn up on their radar occasionally). I don’t think of Brandon as part of any of it, but I don’t follow him, so I dunno, maybe he is.
I don’t think Brandon is part of any group either. But he was included for intellectual backup by the others I think. I think Pieret regularly posts on Jerry. I get the impression Pieret doesn’t think Jerry is intellectually any better than a creationist. Not sure about Schoen.
I don’t follow Pieret or Schoen or Lynch. They follow each other closely, so I don’t have to!
Eric, I’ll include you in my personal axis of evil if no one else will oblige. :- )
I don’t want to be opposed to any axis of evil that counts Ophelia and Eric amongst their number. How do I sign a treaty?
I notice that witchhunters often think themselves the good people rooting out evil. No matter how cruel their torture devices, they believe they’re good people doing good work.
Thanks, all, for the weblog links. They’re classic illustrations of a frustrating theme: No one ever attempts to answer the questions that new atheists are offering. Richard Dawkins asks, Is there any rational basis for belief in supernatural agency? Terry Eagleton answers, You’re theologically illiterate and, anyway, that’s not the right question. Jerry Coyne asks, Are science and religion compatible? Brandon answers, Well, actually, monogamy and adultery can be compatible. In all, it comes down to Your argument is unassailable, but I don’t want it to be.
Whaddya mean, can you get in on it? As an admirer of the axis, I include Eric MacDonald in my daily read.
In Brandon’s defense, his actual beef with the article seems to be that it’s too vague, particularly because it doesn’t define religion or science. If you believe in a Deist god, that’s clearly not a falsifiable god. Of course, to believe in such a god based on faith or personal experience still conflicts with the epistemic approach of science, but there are some subtleties there (Can truths be known except through science?).
But I feel like Brandon is expecting way too much from a USAToday article. The usual level of discourse in the papers generally involves some vague platitudes about how we’re all not that different after all. Coyne’s column is by no means a particularly bad contribution.
Yes, James, I know I’ve done some backsliding re Uncle Karl. But to be fair, I haven’t engaged him: I’ve just pointed out each time he publishes an installment of the “Coyne’s Strawmen” series. Surely it’s worth reading them for the humor. But I’m taking a Giberson sabbatical for a while–I promise. :-)
I guess if PZ. OB and JC all shut up their critics’ lives would be emptier: would this be a case for them of no gnus is good gnus or not?
@24
He’s obviously obsessed with you, probably has a Jerry Coyne desktop wallpaper. You should engage him. Give him a thrill.
Dawkins, Dennett, Harris & Hitchens comprise the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism. They’re a complete set. If Myers, Coyne & Benson are the Axis of Gnu Atheism, they’re also a complete set (the trinity of an evil axis is a historical given, however counter-intuitive it may be in astronomical terms). The number of participants in a cabal is looser in usage and so more appropriate here, given the extent of MacDonald’s contributions here and elsewhere.
Gnu and reproved, the atheist cabal. Outstanding — and they are mild!
Oh, they found Jason’s piece and are claiming Jason claims Dawkins is MLK reincarnated. “I knew MLK and Dawkins is no MLK” is the new mantra. Given that Jason was talking about strategy not that any prominent GA is equivalent to MLK, this still went way over their heads. What is it about GA writing that causes those opposed to completely fail at reading comprehension? Why to they keep complaining about Coyne and Dawkins being bad at philosophy and theology, but not Rosenau?
Why to they keep complaining about Coyne and Dawkins being bad at philosophy and theology, but not Rosenau?
The nail that sticks out gets hammered.
I want to be a part of the gnu atheist cabal!
I don’t want to be a part of any group that’d have me as a member! Oh wait, I do. Then again……I just don’t trust groups. They’re full of, you know, people!
Hi Ophelia,
I have seen a number of professed atheists disagree with the thesis that religion and science are incompatible and/or advocate a milder “tone” when dealing with religious opponents, but I have never seen the targets of these suggestions described by non-anonymous purportedly atheist individuals as “stupid and worthless and contemptible beyond belief”. Could you please point me to an example?
Thanks.
Alan Cooper
Alan Cooper, I notice you haven’t been reading your Andrew Brown particularly thoroughly.
Brown has one of the biggest megaphones of any religion blogger and does not hesitate to dismiss new atheists in that manner – albeit in perhaps not those exact words. Remember his recent accusation that Dawkins “delivered a speech comparing every Catholic in Britain to Adolf Hitler” –, grossly misrepresenting a clever point of Dawkins regarding how the Vatican counts the numbers of Catholics based on baptismal records rather than the current beliefs of adults. His misrepresentation was so libellous it sent the Guardian libel department into such a tizzy that Brown was forced to correct it.
John Pieret argues that ‘Shakespeare is the greatest living author’ is comparable to evolutionary theory. Apparently both are true. I would argue that one is opinion and one is a fact. He then calls me a troglodyte. Which is fortunately an opinion.
He then calls me a troglodyte. Which is fortunately an opinion.
Why? Don’t you dwell in a cave like all the cool kids? Or are you one of those non-cave types?
Troglodytus nonaccommodatus is perhaps the scientific term. I don’t know, since I am a troglodyte I lack the salient features for deep thoughts, and only chew gum and play tiddlywinks.
But is this perhaps part of the problem with accommodationists, that they confuse opinion with fact? That opinion gives them greater control and possession whereas facts impose and restrict leading to nausae? This is very much religious thinking. If I resort to reason and empiricism, well then my opinions just might be wrong and how shameful that would be!
I think I’ve done my dash with Brandon. Nice chap. But I get the feeling that he holds the mind to be something that exists without the brain. Nothing I can say about brain damage or change of function carries much weight with him because he’s already concluded that mind isn’t the functioning of the brain. He’s a science denier………….
I’m beginning to get it. The author’s opinions are more important than reality. Reality is this really inconvenient obstacle, you have to deny it a bit and then, well, then your opinions are more important! And since you get rid of reality, well then, one person’s opinions are as equally valid as another’s. There is no incompatibility between science and religion, because reality is not important. At least until a anvil falls on your head, anyway.
“oh man do they hate the “gnu atheists” joke ”
Would it help, d’you think, if we called ourselves wildebeest atheists instead?
On a related note Josh at Thoughts From Kansas has continued his assault on New Atheism with a new line of attack – apparently we are like racists opposed to MLK – who, apparently, was the very model of accomodationism!
Shame on us!
Re: ‘I myself am of course a gneiss person.’
Somewhat difficult to work with, but wonderfully durable?
Hey! That’s me, too!
Oh, also: gorgeous. Of course.
(… oh right. And also kinda ancient.)
More seriously: I’ve always figured you can tell a lot about someone from who their enemies are. By this measure, the gnu atheists continue to earn my respect.
This is true. And I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the WEIT Giberson posts to be highly entertaining… but I guess the fact that I do find it highly entertaining — assuming my experience is not atypical — some of the confession. It’s not really fair to act like it’s all those guys cranking up the conflict with us just parrying. Clearly, our guys revel in the conflict a fair bit too.. and probably have even “fired the first shot” a few times, not that that’s important.
However, Ophelia rightly points out:
Yup. Relishing conflict in and of itself is not disingenuous; but claiming that what differentiates your position is that you want to reduce conflict, and then relishing conflict anyways…. that’s pretty disingenuous.
I just want to keep our “side” honest. The agitating is not purely one-sided, and I think it’s a little unproductive to harp to much on “who started it”. That said, be assured: I am not concern trolling or doing that old “I’m on your side (even though I’m not)” trick. I think the non-compatibilist position is philosophically sound and honest; and while I don’t fault the Bruce Hood-style of accomodationists, who simply say “I choose not to make a big deal about the problems of religious belief, and try to avoid saying things that will put off believers”, I have a big problem with Mooney’s and Rosenau’s “You’re Not Helping!” style of accomodationism. I strongly believe our “side” has the moral and intellectual high ground. So don’t take my comments as, erm, accommodating accomodationism…
Who’s said that? i.e. that they hate that joke. It doesn’t surprise me; I just haven’t heard it said and would be interested in reading their (alleged) reasoning.
My personal opinion on the Gnu Atheist thing is that it’s a bit silly, and as such I was reluctant to use it at first… but I think it ends up being a good compromise, because while everyone on pretty much all sides of this issue agrees that “New” is an inaccurate and misleading label, it’s the only consistent label we’ve got. “Gnu” makes it very clear who and what you are talking about, without the unfortunate “New” appellation. So even though it’s a bit silly, I’ve accepted it and use it consistently.
I volunteer to wear a fez. No evil cabal is complete without someone in a fez!
Alan Cooper, sure, I could provide you with numerous examples, but it would take up my time. I tell you what: try going back through a few posts and check the quoted passages. Posts here are packed with examples.
Boy, Josh is really on a crusade over at Thoughts from Kansas!
The first few paragraphs of that are pretty funny. He acknowledges that new atheists explicitly point out that there are huge differences between the civil rights movement and the “atheist rights movement” (to coin an awkward term). He nevertheless criticizes NA’s for making any comparisons between the two “movements;” I guess the caveats aren’t strong enough for him? He then writes a huge article “framing” MLK Jr as an accommodationist. Huh? Are the comparisons nonsense, or not? It’s ridiculous for NA’s to cautiously cite an analogy to the civil rights movement, but it’s okay for him to explain how he and his buddies are just like MLK Jr?
Full disclosure: didn’t read the whole thing, and don’t really plan to. I’ve got a pretty low tolerance for the accommodationist/non-accommodatonist “debate” at this point. Allow me to accept the critique that “maybe [I] shouldn’t be commenting on it, then” ahead of time.
Alan Cooper – if you want examples of the specific sub-group I’m talking about in this post, I’m not going to provide them because I don’t want to link to the people in question. That’s because they do various dishonorable things like misrepresent people they dislike and block comments by people they dislike. One of them even blocks me from seeing his blog, and also sabotages Butterflies and Wheels. So, sorry; this particular post generalizes. It’s an outlier that way.
I didn’t read all of Josh’s post either, because like so many of Josh’s posts, it’s way too long for what it says (Jason’s post was also long, but not too long for what it said). That didn’t prevent me from commenting though!
I’m confused. I thought we were the not nice ones. But these accommodationists, who are supposedly the nice ones, are displaying larger levels of horribleness. If their levels of horribleness begin to exceed ours, well then we’ll start looking nice in comparison. Perhaps they deserve a new label, because labels are helpful: how about not-nice accommodationists? Isn’t that a slap.
@ cheglabratjoe
Let’s not forget that MLK jr was a Baptist preacher! If the not-nice accommodationists want him, they can have him.
Egbert, I think the niceness of the accommodationists is a pharisaical kind of niceness – useful mostly for conveying one’s own moral superiority rather than for actually fostering more kindness in the world.
It is good to know that MLK achieved complete success – no more inequality – blacks have equal income, home ownership, education, incarceration rates, etc. I expect Josh to have everyone accepting evolution within a decade – oh wait the NCSE was founded in 1981 – still no closer to the mountaintop?
…let alone the promised land.
I volunteer to be the Cabal’s moustache-twirler, but I’ll have to grow one first. It won’t be popular at home though.
Alan Cooper: OB didn’t claim that “stupid … belief” was a direct quote, nor that it was all said by one person.
Tsk, cabals don’t twirl moustaches, it’s villains who do that.
I’m giving Alan Cooper the benefit of the doubt and reading him as understanding that I was paraphrasing, and asking for an example to justify the paraphrase. That’s fair. I’m often irritated by the wild paraphrases of the very sub-group under discussion (as well as by the larger gnu-hating community), so I think it’s fair to ask for examples of the paraphrased rhetoric.
Ophelia,
I would like to see that we’re making progress, perhaps the rational accommodationists (the nice ones) will finally understand what we’re doing and join us. But at some point, we’re going to have to say, enough is enough, you’re not helping you’re hindering and add them to the list of ‘hostiles’.
I also agree about the niceness, they’re confused about what our position is, we have to spell it out more C.L.E.A.R.L.Y. to them, because they’re even more confused about their own position.
I doubt I could manage cabal, but cabals need henchmen, right?
I’m usually quite nice, but I can put that aside if required.
Egbert,
Oh, don’t worry, they’re already on my list of hostiles! :- ) They have been for a long time. I think they are thoroughly hostile. (The subgroup is rabidly so.)
Good comment on Rosenau’s post.
Which is why we love you.
Are you at TAM London? (Not that I am.)
@Sigmund (re#33) Thank you for that reference. Brown clearly cannot parse an English sentence but his misinterpretation of Dawkins, while a disturbing and possibly even willful misrepresentation, does not actually amount to calling Richard “stupid and worthless and contemptible beyond belief”. Neither, in fact, does Brown’s egregious echo of Ratzinger’s reference to the Nazis as examples of “atheist extremism” (and my own description of that reference as “stupid and worthless and contemptible beyond belief” does not amount to passing the same judgement on Ratzinger and Brown themselves as people).
@Ophelia, (re#44) I’m sorry if it seems presumptuous but I see my own time as valuable as yours (and presumably at least you have some advance idea of where to look).
But (re#46), I do understand your frustration at being banned from comment. I find Jerry Coyne a bit quick off the mark that way too – no, wait, that’s probably not who you were referring to…
@Ophelia,
Thanks! Let’s hope some of it sinks in.
All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle.
–George S. Patton
http://pattonhq.com/speech.html
@cheglabratjoe(re#45)
Oh come on! If you claim, as JR1 did, to be channelling MLK then you can’t complain if JR2 says “no it’s me that’s MLK and you’re MalcolmX”. With silly references, surely the blame falls on the first user, so just as in the debate about whether Nazism was a case of “atheist extremism” or “catholic extremism” it must be Ratzinger who takes the blame, so in this case it must be Jason.
@Alan Cooper (@62)
Pretty sure you’re being sarcastic, but, in case you’re not, I’ll point out that you missed a step. JR1 claimed to be channeling MLK (not really, of course, but let’s say so for the sake of argument). JR2 pointed out that it’s ridiculous to claim to be MLK … and then claimed that it’s his side that’s just like MLK.
Alan – search here for Andrew Brown, Madeleine Bunting, Michael Ruse, Chris Mooney, to name a few – you’ll find links that will take you to primary sources or posts with quoted passages. Or you could search here or elsewhere for You’re Not Helping if you want a real torrent.
But as I said, the subgroup is different, and I’m not going to link to them or name them here. You can email me if you really care.
Ophelia re#64 (6)
I’ve just sent an email asking for instances of “stupid and worthless” (or equivalent words) – applied to *people* please, not just to comments and arguments.Re comments and arguments I think it’s often fair – even applied to some of my own – so I won’t be impressed by that.To be frank I’ve seen devaluation of persons more often on this side of the schism than the other so I would welcome some evidence that it goes both ways.Not helping? Sometimes I’m not and it’s worth telling me about it because I did have a goal in mind (or at least did not want to throw a spanner in the works of someone else’s delicate negoriations) – and other times I may not agree or just don’t give a shit. But I don’t whine (too much) if someone (other than JC perhaps) disagrees with my approach.
Sili, I’m not at TAM London; am 6000 miles west of there.