Another penny drops
Wait; what? Michael Ruse in the CHE:
There are days when, I swear to God, I am all set to enroll under the banner of Richard Dawkins and anathematize all religions and those who subscribe to them. I take a lot of criticism from my fellow atheists, including my fellow Brainstormers, for arguing that science and religion are compatible. I still think that, but increasingly I cannot for the life of me see why any decent human being would want to be religious, and increasingly I think one should be ashamed to be religious.
Increasingly? Increasingly?
What on earth took him so long? What’s different now? Why has he been yelling at us all this time just for being aware of what he is only just catching up to?
I asked him that; it will be interesting to see if he replies. I think he did reply to something I said on one of the Berlinerblau threads, but I’m not sure.
It’s really very odd though. What does he talk about as examples of this “increasingly”? The Cloyne report and the Toronto school that lets girls from Muslim backgrounds be shamed for menstruating at “prayers.” Well quite, but we’ve been talking about this kind of thing for years, while Ruse has been shouting at us for years, so what is different now? And, to repeat, what took him so long?
That’s all this piece says to me – wo, Michael Ruse finally notices the obvious. Yes, Professor Ruse; exactly; no kidding.
Is he going to apologize for being such a dick all of these years? And why is he hedging with the whole “compatibility” nonsense?
My guess is that this has nothing to do with anything that people like us say (well, like YOU… nobody cares what I say! :P)… he must be shifting to a new and different set of asses to suck, and he’s modulating he message to please his new masters. I’m not even remotely convinced that he’s suddenly come to any realization about religion, except that maybe he can kiss up to some deists and moderate theists by bashing more extreme religion, the same way he’s been kissing up to theists by bashing Gnu atheists and humanists.
In other words, I’m questioning the sincerity of any ethical stance Ruse might make, since I’m not convinced that he’s capable of making one. Some of you insiders might have a different view, of course.
The CHE piece ends with “But there is such a dark side to religion. Why do people not see this?”
This statement is the kind of generalization that drives me around the bend. Who exactly are “people”? Who exactly has not been seeing this? He does not distinguish himself with this comment. . . accurate and true as it is. Where does he think “people” have been all this time, esp since he is clearly well aware of Gnu Atheists – can’t yell at anyone if you don’t know who they are.
Better he should ask “Why did I not see this sooner?”
Really. That last line is beyond parody.
Joe – I don’t know – if he were that cynical I think he’d be cleverer about it. This stuff is just ludicrously clumsy.
It doesn’t have to be cynicism, of course… there are people who are natural grovelers (Stedman) who can seem clumsy because when they hit their knees and pucker up it is something outside of their conscious control. They just can’t help themselves, and it sometimes seems “clumsy for being so intentional” to us from the outside when in reality it is just an instinctive shift.
I never understood how he could write a book about the philosophical implications of evolution and years later become a leading accomodationist.
I think if he’s moving in the right direction we should extend a hand and invite him over, the water’s lovely.
I have a decent number of friends whose study of Roman law has made them pagans (of the Roman sort). Roman paganism had none of the metaphysical claims that so plague monotheism, and did not seek to make people run a particular religious ‘line’. It also had nicer attitudes to the diversity of human sexuality and the variety of human experience.
It also didn’t think people were equal, either (something of a problem for a lot of moderns).
If Ruse and friends were willing to take paganism seriously, we might have an interesting argument on our hands, but the metaphysical poverty of the monotheistic religions means we can’t have that conversation, simply because they spend so much time arguing about why TEH GAY are TEH EVIL.
I’m confused about this, perhaps because I haven’t been following what Ruse says and writes. Does this mean that he believes that science doesn’t refute all religious beliefs, or does this mean he believes that to argue that science refutes all religious beliefs is politically stupid? Why the mention of good done in the name of religion? What is he arguing for here – that religion is true, or that religion is good, or both?
This is headache-inducing. All I get out of this article is that he feels that separation of menstruating girls is wrong (as it is), but that he seems utterly confused as to how to justify this feeling.
The last two sentences of Ruse’s piece, if one has been following his popular (as opposed to academic) writing lately, are just fall down and howl funny. “Why do people not see this?” Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Well, you see, gnu atheists are just nasty spiteful monsters who hate religious people for irrational reasons, and because they love to hate. Ruse is the first person to see clearly, calmly, and rationally that there might be a dark side to religion.
Mark it down on your calendars: July 15, 2011, 1:01 pm. The beginning of a new era.
LOL
“What on earth took him so long?”
Not to worry. I’m sure he will be back trying to kiss and make up with religion within a day or two.
i.e.
Yeah, er, religious people do, er, bad things, er, because of their, er, beliefs. Who’d a thunk it? Thanks Prof. Ruse, sounds like goose. If only someone like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Chris Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, Ophelia Benson, AC Grayling, PZ Myers, Paula Kirby, the losers who post on Pharyngula, the losers who post on B & W, the losers who post on RD.NET, the losers who post on WEIT had mentioned it. I’ve scoured these so-called atheist websites for a hint of this ‘Bad News’ about religion, but there’s not a hint of these probs. They all think it’s harmless from what I can tell. Damn these complacent appeasers. Wibble.
Uh…I forgot.
Even the
liberalfaitheist Michael Ruse thinks religion is bad!ooh, ooh! do you think the nursery magic Fairy came to visit him?
One thing’s for sure – he won’t get a templeton now!!!
sailor:
Yeah, kinda sad, in a way. He was doing so well! It would take quite a lot of the old Ruse to counterbalance the new Ruse. Not only would he have to immediately begin gnubashing again (and really, what’s gotten in to him? his fellow bashers must be asking themselves—is he drunk?) but he’d also have to in some way revise or retract these latest statements. I share Steve Zara’s (8) puzzlement—this is odd considering most of what he’s written in the past, and I can’t quite track his logic.
Ruse hasn’t answered my question. Ho hum.
Consider my mind blown. Why in God’s name did Ruse think people had been criticising religion so strongly and for so long – the hats? I’m imagining Ruse’s next Great Revelation: Millions of Muslims massacred by crazed Catholics! Write to your local MP! Someone must put a stop to this so-called ‘Crusade’!
I’m beginning to think Ruse is an Accommo-Poe. Noone could possibly be so fucking dense; it seems like something you’d have to practise for years.
I know. It’s like Michele Bachmann suddenly saying “increasingly I cannot for the life of me see why any decent human being would want to be opposed to gay marriage, and increasingly I think one should be ashamed to be opposed to gay marriage.”
Ah come on.
Ruse realizes that what you’ve been saying is correct, and your response is “what took you so long?”. You can send him a complimentary copy of Does God hate women – perhaps you’d get an apology after that :).
Ruse going gnu — just a fad?
Michael Ruse is shocked that gambling is taking place in this casino.
I don’t know, Gordon. I’m generally in favour of extending welcomes, but let’s not forget that Ruse has spent the last few years spreading untruths about a large number of his fellow atheists, and even now that he is coming around to their point of view, he cannot bring himself to admit error or even acknowledge that what he is saying now has been said before, often by the very people he was insulting. (Ruse: “Why do people not see this?”)
While Ruse’s recent commentaries are a massive improvement on what he was writing a few months ago, I would not be inviting him into my own camp. He exhibits an extraordinary capacity for egotism, and when he moves on to the next phase in his campaign of public displays of smug superiority, he’ll kick out the tent pegs, scatter the horses, and piss on the campfire on his way out.