You people are so amusing, and a danger to the wellbeing of America
What, again? Yes, again. Yes, for the 14 thousandth time, Michael Ruse is telling us how angry with him “the new atheists” are, how right he is in spite of their anger, how wrong and bad and dangerous and immoral they are, how brave he is, and how right and brave and amusing and important he Michael Ruse is.
Oh dear, I am in trouble again with the New Atheists… I am being called all sorts of nasty things…Even I sometimes wonder why I am in such bad odor, apart from the fact that whenever I am confronted with people for whom disagreement is considered not just wrong but morally offensive my first tendency is to laugh and tease.
No it isn’t! Your first tendency is to complain and boast. And then what you call “laugh and tease” other people call by harsher names. There was the time you sent a “laugh and tease” to Daniel Dennett and then forwarded the resulting exchange, civil on his part and splenetic on yours, to William Dembski without Dennett’s permission. That kind of thing is why you are in such bad odor: it’s because you give every appearance of being energetically malicious.
I have spent forty years fighting fundamentalism, including so-called Intelligent Design Theory – on the podium, in print, and in the courtroom (as a witness for the ACLU against Scientific Creationism).
He’s important. He wants you to know that. He wants there to be no doubt about that. He mentions it every time he throws another rancid tomato at the gnu atheists, so he must really need everyone to get how important he is. All together now: Michael Ruse is very important. Next.
I am so close in so many respects to the new Atheists that I am hated with the kind of passion that you usually find between Protestant sects differing over the true meaning of the Whore of Babylon. Is she just the Pope or is she the whole of the Catholic Church? Of course I also suffer from what we might call the Laurie Essig syndrome. I do like a bit of a bust up.
Well exactly. (Laurie Essig apart; I have no idea what that is. No, don’t bother telling me.) Of course you like a bit of a bust up. If there isn’t one, you create it – hence emailing Dan Dennett that time, and hence all these rancid tomato articles in the HuffBop and the CHE and CisF. You like a bit of a bust up, so stop pitching fits about why are the new atheists angry at me. You know perfectly well why they are, and it’s what you wanted! So what’s the point of opening by pretending to be puzzled? To be irritating, perhaps, and I have fallen into your trap. Well that’s all right. However much you like a dust up, you are acting like a conspicuous jerk, so it’s worth falling into your trap. I didn’t fall in, I stepped gracefully in.
But then – I’ll revert to talking about him in the 3d person now – he veers into the serious and the McCarthyesque.
I think the New Atheists are a disaster, a danger to the wellbeing of America comparable to the Tea Party.
“The New Atheists are a danger to the wellbeing of America” – and he wonders why he is in bad odor.
Well, to be fair, his last name is “ruse.”
Maybe he’s just trying to live up to his name.
Just as an amusement, I put Michael Ruse into the wordsmith anagram creator, and got:
Cashier Mule
Malice Usher
And a few other amusing but telling phrases.
Regarding the whole True Meaning thing, I think we do often make lasting drama out of tiny content differences, as with the bizarre Ruse/Dennett affair. I guess the question I have is if Ruse realizes that’s what’s happening, why is he exacerbating it, rather than building bridges with his intellectual allies? I don’t know him, maybe it’s true that he’s just a jerk, but I hesitate to make a crude dispositional attribution like that when I know we are so prone to misattribution of traits.
It’s the old ‘pandering to the mainstream’ strategy, that’s what make his behaviour that of a jerk. Anytime soon he will start attacking the Gypsies.
You have, indeed. What the man wants is attention, and you’re obliging him. Michael Ruse is the Fred Phelps of the Atheistosphere.
Astrology can’t be criticized by science? Alchemy can’t be criticized by science? Really?
The fact is that we set aside a place for religion to which we do not allow other unjustified belief systems access. Some day, I’d like to hear a philosopher explain why. (That isn’t an invitation for a lecture on power. I already understand that.)
The good news is that we gnu’s must have really shaken the religious (and their accomodating friends). They are clearly on the defensive, which tells me we are scoring points. They read the same polls we do, and they realize we are stealing market share at an astounding rate, to borrow a media phrase. And every time they launch an attack, regardless of how flawed and malicious, they are raising our profile.
And younger readers may become curious about the sinister Gnu’s, aka The Bad Boys of Rock and Roll. And we all know that bad boys have a certain appeal.
What an egotistic cry-baby.
It’s a tiresome routine – he writes a pile of shite about the compatibility of science and religion, slagging off gnu atheists in the process for ‘just not getting it’ thereby ensuring an outpouring of full-throated criticism.
Then, instead of addressing the criticism he simply writes another piece saying, “Oo look, I riled those nasty atheists again, I must be really getting to them.”
The man is a tit!
Now, now, FresnoBob, speaking badly about tits is uncalled for. They are lovely little birds.
Oh that last bit is precious.
Todd Stark, well I don’t know him either, but I have been observing some of his behavior for several years, and I have corresponded with him about the Dennett-Dembski email matter, and I have read comments on various blogs by people who have encountered him here and there, so I think I know enough about him to say the things I said in this post. He says himself that he loves a good dust-up, and I have seen plenty to confirm that. He no doubt has many sterling qualities, but he also…loves a good dust-up.
At least he’s right that the problem of evil is beyond solution. He also says elsewhere that morality is, in a sense, an illusion – which is a brave thing to say, but, I think, true. It’s not as if the man is a fool. I like some of his books, and used to admire him. That business with releasing the private correspondence with Dennett was beyond pretty bad, though (and don’t tell me the badness is an illusion – I think we can make perfectly rational evaluations of “good” and “bad” conduct as of “good” and “bad” anything else).
More generally, I get the sense that he feels some sort of envy of others who’ve received more public attention than he has. Maybe I’m wrong on this. I don’t know the man, so it’s only an impression. But all this constant clamour to remind us of how important he is makes it appear that way.
Yes, big time envy going on. Most gnubashers are pretty damn obscure compared to the gnus they bash. People know who Dawkins is; people know who Hitchens is. But Ruse? “Who in the world is Michael Ruse?” the average person says. You can tell it irks them, especially when they make reference to book sales and the like.
I called him a clueless gobshite once, in response to his usual tripe about how scientists who reject the absurd claims of religion will give the supreme court cause to judge evolution a religion. He mentions it at every encounter now — I think the remark stung him.
Ha! I know.
In every article he does he 1) complains about what gnu atheists say about him and 2) says he doesn’t mind a bit what gnu atheists say about him. That’s Professional Philosophy.
I think the remark stung him, PZ, but he has decided to wear it as a badge of honor in his twisted little way. I have been starting to see some movement away from accommodationism despite the way that people like Ruse protest against the gnus.
John Loftus and I talked about it on the radio show this morning,
and even though 4 or 5 years ago Loftus was among the critics of the new for “tone,” he is now coming around to realizing that being constantly civil and academic leads to much facepalming and he recognizes even that ridicule has its place.
That Ruse won’t admit to this is, yes, tiring. Where I have a problem with many of the lot that Ruse casts in with, is that they treat the “conversation” as one that belongs in the study over cordials and one in which there is little need for the plebes to partake. He wants to drive and he wants the gnus to sit back and enjoy the scenerly while he handles it his way.
I am all for civility as long as honesty is not confused with “Bad Tone.”
Which it always, always is.
with many of the lot that Ruse casts in with, is that they treat the “conversation” as one that belongs in the study over cordials and one in which there is little need for the plebes to partake. He wants to drive and he wants the gnus to sit back and enjoy the scenerly while he handles it his way.
Is it possible that the metaphor of a “conversation” is a bit stretched when we talk about some of these things?
I mean for example I might have an actual conversation with a Creationist in which I try to be charitable and civil and find common ground, and try to plant seeds of persuasion rather than confront their oddness directly, which I strongly believe is even more likely to be futile. The effort may or may come to anything, but I think there’s good evidence that nudges are usually more effective than confrontation when someone has a very entrenched position and expects to be assaulted on it.
On the other hand that doesn’t mean that I won’t ever use ridicule in public articles to help undermine the foolishness behind it. That’s not a “conversation” in any real sense, it’s a marketing war.
To me it’s entirely reasonable and worthwhile to treat people we disagree with as human beings in true conversation, even while it might be neccessary sometimes to play hardball in a marketing campaign when that matters.
Soft on people, hard on principles. Is that really such an awful approach to take?
No, it is a very reasonable approach to take. One one one. In a conversation with someone, but beware of the fact that people often take even the gentlest whisper in opposition to their ideas as mocking, shouted affronts. What’s so irritating about “don’t be a dick” is that communication is a multi-directional intersection. It is affected by prior perceptions and predispositional assumptions as to what is proper and accepted and what you may mean as a perfectly reasonable objection to an idea may be perceived as objectionable.
It is a tricksy game to play, and it is especially rude to assign mean motives to people who mean well.
“[W]henever I am confronted with people for whom disagreement is considered not just wrong but morally offensive my first tendency is to laugh and tease. I am not much loved by a number of campus feminists.”
What struck me about this last sentence is how he blows by it like an obvious joke, or like a credential. He’s special, you see, because he’s willing to be all contrarian and stuff, especially towards those pesky easily-offended feminists. Never mind that feminists are a diverse group, many of which are perfectly willing to criticize anyone, even each other, and that having angered some unspecified feminists of indeterminate number doesn’t say all that much about you. (Hey, it really is like atheism!)
No, see, when someone criticizes him, it’s because he’s all brave and laughs in the face of outrage, whereas they are all aggressive childish meanie-heads. It can’t possibly be because being aggressively critical is an actual appropriate response to his intentionally provocative annoying self-important arrogance. Therefore, he can say that lots of people don’t like him, and claim that as a good thing that counts in his favor, no matter what the actual disagreement was about. Obviously!
@Mike: it is especially rude to assign mean motives to people who mean well
Very well said, I agree completely. Thanks.
@Ophelia:
Todd Stark, well I don’t know him either, but I have been observing some of his behavior
I trust your judgment and I appreciate that background.
Locutus:
Good point, but hey! Some of us Gnus are girls.
…Though not, uh, me.
Even more off-topic: has anyone here thrown in with “A” Week? I just did, and I very quickly picked up a “like” from a high-school friend I’ve seen all of once in the past 15+ years. Sounds like a Gnu to me. (And a “bad girl,” too.)
Yes, well I think his real problem is, in fact, that when he introduces himself to people, they go “Who?” and don’t make any sound of sudden recognition until he quietly adds “Er… clueless gobshite…” That has to hurt.
The layers of rich, creamy irony here are wonderful. Have you noticed that this line from Ruse: “…whenever I am confronted with people for whom disagreement is considered not just wrong but morally offensive my first tendency is to laugh and tease” is exactly and precisely the “New Atheist” position with regard to religion?
We can file Ruse in that very special category of contrarians whose contrareity consists of affirming mainstream biases. Oh look, I’ve annoyed the feminists, oh look, I’ve annoyed the evolutionary biologists, oh look, I’ve described my hategroup as a threat to my nation… Next thing he’ll be mocking fruitfly research or volcano monitoring.
Michael Ruse is Sarah Palin with a bigger vocabulary.
There is no “problem of evil”. Shit happens especially to those who live in major earthquake zones, floodplains or areas subjected to frequent fire, hurricane, landslide and other natural phenomena of our geologically and climatically very active planet.
I think Michael Ruse is just trying to bring attention to his book. I don’t think he’s an atheist any more.
[…] need any more attention than the attention he has already received from Jerry Coyne and Ophelia Benson (and now David Barash as well). How much mileage can he expect to get out of a slight bit of […]
Got to disagree Russell. The problem of evil has been solved, and it shows that there is no benevolent god. Why is this not a solution? Ruse suggests that there is always room to argue about this, but the evidence is overwhelming. There is no gracious creator who is concerned about human beings.
As to the illusion (in a sense) of morality. I wonder what this would mean, and doesn’t the qualification mean that, in a sense, then, morality is not an illusion? And how can you say that morality is an illusion and then say that Ruse’s shenanigans with Dennett and Dumbski were beyond bad? It doesn’t make sense (to me at least) to say that slavery was morally okay at one time, but is now not okay. If slavery is wrong, it’s wrong, and that doesn’t just depend on the practices of my tribe, though those practices may lead us to think that it’s not. It might be possible to say that, when the practice was to kill every member of a defeated tribe, enslavement was better than killing, but this also refers to values that are independent of the judgement, and that a better solution would be to seek some more just way of settling differences than killing each other. It seems that, if morality just is an illusion, then it would be impossible to say this kind of thing.
It seems to me, by the way, that Ronald Dworkin’s attempt to provide a unified theory of value is a step in the right direction (see Justice for Hedgehogs), and his point that Hume actually made the first move towards such a theory seems compelling to me. After all, when Hume suggested that you can’t go from an is to an ought, he was not suggesting that there is no foundation for ethics — which is what the tradition has taken from his argument, despite the fact that he himself goes on to develop a fairly comprehensive theory of value — but that we must look for it in a different place than our impressions — the evidence of our senses.
As to Ruse himself and his puffery. Well, it’s obviously a lot of empty posturing. Given the quality of thought and writing it seems to me that his book Science and Spirituality cannot be of any great value, especially since he thinks recounting the history of science is the way to show how science and religion are related. So far as I can tell, the new “field” of science and religion has made a lot of incoherent claims about the relationship between science and religion based on the history of the development of science. This is simply a non-starter of an argument. Of course, science had to develop in a culture which was religious. That goes without saying, since there has never been a completely non-religious culture. And there must also have been precursors within the culture, which signalled a change in orientation. But this doesn’t serve to make science somehow dependent upon religion or even sourced in it. This is clear just by considering the religious vs the scientific interests of Newton. The fact that he couldn’t see the difference is a clear indication that neither could most Christians. Science may have developed in the Christian nest, but it was in the nature of a cuckoo’s egg, and the hatchling is now quite busy tossing the other eggs out of the nest and smashing them on the ground. If Ruse cannot see this, then perhaps his philosophical compass has gone a bit haywire.
SA @ #26
Ha! I didn’t actually, because I was too busy noticing that I wanted to take a swipe at it but couldn’t very well because it applied too neatly to me so it would be double standards to take a swipe at it. Thus I totally missed the more general application. Well spotted.
Actually, never heard of him before… and don’t need to now, it seems.
Eric it’s not a solution because it’s not the question. The question is how there can be (1) a benevolent and omnicompetent God and (2) also be evil (in a form such as suffering or cruelty). If the answer is that there can’t be both then that is what is meant by saying it can’t be solved. It’s a problem for the theist. Likewise, when sailor said it’s not a problem, this misses the point. It’s not a problem from a naturalistic perspective: but once again it’s a problem for the theist.
The subsequent post from David Barash (see B&W latest news) is delightful. Be sure to read it.
@32…with respect, I think you’re saying that because it’s theism’s big problem, then we have no standing in pointing out that there is man behind the curtain and he’s a humbug!
They’re all trying be deep thinkers thinking deep thoughts about a “very important problem”. And we’re waving our hands over here saying “no wait, it’s simpler than that. Just tap your heels together! Problem solved! There’s no place like home!”
How is this not our fight as well?
The problem of evil is only a “problem” if there is a god. No god, no problem.
Sometimes, it IS just that simple.
Kevin, Russell is saying there are some systems — e.g., chess, geometry, theology — and inside those systems, there are games or problems — e.g., squaring the circle is a problem inside Euclidean geometry, with some rules to the game (using only a straightedge and compass).
Of course you can step outside a system. You can say chess is dumb, sweep the pieces off the board, and be done with chess. You can say geometry is dumb, and be done with the problem of squaring the circle. You can step outside theology, declare the object of theology to be nonexistent, and be done with the problem of evil.
Russell is only making the distinction that being done with a problem (outside a system) is different that solving a problem (inside a system). He’s not restricting our movement — he’s only reminding us where we are relative to a system.
But, Todd, did you ever notice how they are the ones who must not be assaulted while us Gnu Atheists are never asked if we are happy targets ourselves before being attacked? You can easily see how we are casually assaulted by Ruse in his screed at the Chronicle of Higher Ed (which should not be publishing such junk!). It happens every time, too, that the nice, innocent street preachers tell us to our faces that we will burn in Hell for all eternity while they get to dance around in Heaven joyously for all eternity. I’m not sure there would be a Gnu Atheism at all if it weren’t for all the good religious people and accommodationists outright assaulting us, science, women, gays, etc. (and it does happen every so often that these are real assaults of physical violence perpetrated on minorities by the religious–not any by accommodationists AFAIK, however, but still, see the way Ruse gloats as he thinks of all the feminists he has pissed off).
@Aratina: Ok, I’m persuaded by folks here that Ruse is full of himself and perhaps enjoys being the contrarian as much as or more than being a scholar. Thanks!
Oh no, those hysterical “campus feminist” harpies again! Everyone else has more than adequately critiqued his use of “New Atheist” to evoke stereotypes and smears with providing evidence, so I’ll just point out that “campus feminist” serves the same function. “Feminist,” of course, means strident and shrill, while “campus” means elitist, ivory-tower, out of touch, and frou-frou.
By repeating that catchphrase, Ruse need not specify what exactly he disagrees with campus feminists about, nor why he is in the right and they are in the wrong, nor why their moral offense at him is inappropriate. He just creates the impression, without justifying it, that he is the plainspoken truth-sayer and the feminists are a bunch of princesses who get the vapors when he points out facts they don’t like. I’ve read some things the guy says about rape, namely that if human women went into heat it would be a non-issue (bzzt! false! desire does not equal consent!), and it doesn’t surprise me that feminists wouldn’t like him.
By the way, in my post above to explain the distinction Russell was making, I used a spatial metaphor of being inside versus outside a system. Here I’ll add a note about technique: Michael Ruse and Russell Blackford help maintain that distinction by reserving the words “solution*” and “solved*” (narrowly defined) for the problem originally posed.
For example, ancient geometers posed the problem of squaring the circle (with a finite number of steps), but today we know pi is transcendental, so we know the circle cannot be squared (by the original rules). So a mathematician today can say, “The problem has no solution*” or, “The problem admits no solution*” to mean that today we are certain: We have decided that the originally stated problem can never be solved*.
However, a non-mathematician might speak more loosely about the problem as a puzzle, and say, “The puzzle has a solution**” or, “The puzzle is solved**” to mean we decided on the problem. And someone might compress these ideas into a single sentence, “The solution** is it has no solution*.” And that sentence could be a neat rhetorical flourish in some context, and we would know what it would mean. But in mathematics, that sentence would be bad, because it uses “solution” with two meanings (a geometric construction vs. a decision) applied to two things (the problem originally posed vs. the puzzle of deciding on the problem).
I mention all this because I believe Russell’s spirit above was to help people make their case more clearly (not to contradict anybody as a game in itself).
* narrowly defined
** loosely speaking
Okay, but what about us Canadian gnus? Are we similarly disastrous to Canada?
C’mon, Mike. Aim those philosophical guns north of the border. We need Big Answers™ too.