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.
Wait a minute, atheism is a religion. So how can he say such a stupid, self-contradicting bit of tripe while still considering himself an honest intellectual?
So. The real question is what the hell is wrong with Ruse’s thinking these days?Among the extremely few and extremely far between half intelligent atheists in the world, he’s now about to enroll in the Dawkins Religion?!
He himself wrote,
So he’s a self-confessed religious person already, and in a religion already. Talk about blind self-contradiction! Mike, you are getting senile!How such a smart guy fails to see this is typical of the blindness all new atheist shills have subjected themselves to.
Darwinian evolution is the secular humanist’s – atheists – origins myth, even though it is now falling apart and sinking like the Titanic. As clearly stated by Eugene Koonin, William Provine and a host of other more honest ex-neo Darwinists.
Paul Kurtz often called “the father of secular humanism”, founded of the “Council for Secular Humanism” and of the “International Academy of Humanism, USA”, wrote in the preface to the Humanist Manifesto 2000: “Humanism is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”
The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religionHumanism, as Julian Huxley has said, is a religion without revelationJulian Huxley’s “The Coming New Religion of Humanism,” – what does that title tell you? Duh! You atheists are so utterly blind and irrational and completely ignorant of your own position’s inescapable logical implications its amazing you all perpetually congratulate yourselves as being free thinkers and rational people. You aren’t. Not at all. Everyone knows atheism is just either repressed religion or fanatical religion. Over 6 billion people disagree with your empty vain inane world view.
Kurtz’ books call for the establishment of humanist churches. Not a religion? Are you still so sure? Michael, you are already deeply religious and getting truly fanatical! So shame on you! lolSecular Humanism is nothing but organized atheism.Atheists now have their own churches, with “ordained” ministers, and all sprouting up around the States.No? Well then what is “The First Church of Atheism” doing huh?Time to wake up and smell the con game you’ve allowed yourselves to be gullible dupes of.
You are ALL in a fanatical religion! One with NOTHING as the creator and only yourselves as gods.
Wow, so Ruse, have you indeed lost your bloody mind at last? No doubt under the brainwashing techniques of the new atheist TV evangelists and self-proclaimed high priests of materialism.There is no god and Dawkins is his prophet.
New atheists are ALL brainwashing victims, willing ones of course.
Oh my! Such honesty from an atheist! How’d thought huh? Not me. Atheists have zero reasons for holding to any moral values at all since as Ruse so stupidly stated elsewhere, “Evolution is, indeed, the pseudo-scientific basis of religious atheism. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
Atheism is insanity – seeing it is groundless and logically absurd. It requires great blind faith in the great god, “Nothing”, to be an atheist. And its is impossible to be a fully rational soul as an atheist. “Nothing created everything” huh? LMAO.
Well he got that right at least; all the irrational, unthinking, illogical and incompetent atheist dupes right here have proved it over and over again.
Atheism is a religion.Atheists now have their own churches.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/atheists-churches-nonbelievers-find-a-sunday-morning-connection_n_3096949.htmlOr here – http://youtu.be/egFaJXFTBbwSee also http://firstchurchofatheism.com/They claim to have 1000s of “ordained ministers”.
The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins.”Atheism is [the inmate’s] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,”Dewey described Humanism as our “common faith.” Julian Huxley called it “Religion without Revelation.” The first Humanist Manifesto spokeopenly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. Claiming that Humanism was “the new religion” was popular for at least 100 years! Probably beginning in 1875 with “The Religion of Humanity” by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822- 1895),The Supreme Courts judges Footnote 11 concerning “religions founded on different beliefs” contains the Court’s citation of Secular Humanism as areligion. It states Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.This citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum.The Supreme Court refers to the 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non- theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment.. . .We hold on this record and under the controlling statutory language petitioner qualifies as “a religious corporation or society” . . . .Did I note that you atheists now have your own churches? Hmm? Your own denominations even!Atheism = materialism = secular humanism = metaphysical naturalism : All religious, very religious.
You blind followers of the blind are such ignoble, smug, self-righteous, arrogant suckers and appallingly ignorant irrational souls, its simply amazing you can still count to 100.
All deeply religious and most of you are indeed religious fanatics.
So Mikey, is this really the uncouth, path of fools you are now choosing to walk?
I’d love to hear you in your profound lack of rational deduction tell Dr. Compton to be ashamed of himself.
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Clerk Maxwell, Albert Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Godel, Marconi, von Braun. ALL men of deep religious convictions.
Yes, maybe some of you ignorant dolts have even heard of von Braun, you know? The guy that developed rocketry and put man on the moon? Oops, kinda contradicts Dicky Dawkins inane drone statement that religion flies planes into buildings and science flies a man to the moon! DUH!
You people are sooooo blind. You’re ALL like blind men claiming light doesn’t exist because you FAIL to see it. Only YOU are willfully blind!
So go ahead Mikey, tell us that all these great scientists that made YOUR miserable little empty vain life (according to atheism) better; that they all should be ashamed of themselves. DUH!
You’ve lost it Mike. Big time. Real big time indeed. Get your tin foil anti-rationality cap off your head and start thinking again – for your own sake!
As David Berlinski well noted, there are no first class intellects in the Darwinian camp.Such a perspicacious observation David! So obvious.
Atheism has been destroying modern science for years with its eternal tendency to promote speculation and conjecture as fact, untestable theory as evidence and hypotheses built upon hypotheses … ruining real science.
YOU atheists are the REAL ANTI-SCIENCE people!!
Get your fat heads out of your fat butts, clean the sophistic crap out of your orifices and start thinking for once for yourselves instead of letting blow hard militant evangelists tell you what to think.