Hmmyes. I listened to some of the interview again. As Tyro pointed out, there’s one place where Mooney very sharply contradicts himself – admits he has no evidence then almost instantly says he has a lot of evidence and a lot of knowledge. It’s quite remarkable.
This is in the part where they’re talking about the controversy over Mooney’s dogma that frank atheism is “counter-productive” (to what, is not spelled out). Lindsay says what’s the evidence, isn’t it a hunch.
Mooney says no, we know this: religion is a deeply held belief, it’s part of people’s identity, challenges to it trigger a defensive response. Lindsay says yes but that’s a general theory of the psychology of belief; do you have any actual evidence that the books and so on of the new atheists have actually been counter-productive.
No, not as such, Mooney says, but you say it like I should have, it would be expensive, complicated, difficult, blah blah – someone should do a study, and if someone did and the results were – I don’t know what they would be, I have a suspicion, but I don’t know, but if they were different from what I’m saying, I’d be happy to acknowledge that.
Big of him, isn’t it.
Lindsay says right, so it’s a hunch, so do you have any evidence that –
And Mooney interrupts and says quite sharply:
It’s more than a suspicion, it’s an inference from a lot of evidence and a lot of knowledge.
This must be about ten seconds after admitting that he did not have evidence.
He’s apparently too glib and too pleased with himself and too self-righteous even to hang on to an awareness that he in fact does not have any evidence for the claims he’s actually making (as opposed to a much wider looser more obvious and common sense claim that some people don’t change their beliefs just because an atheist challenges them) for more than a few seconds.
It’s not about that claim. Duh. We know that some people cling to their beliefs no matter what. We don’t need Chris Mooney to tell us that. That’s not the claim that’s disputed. The claim that’s disputed is that frank atheism is counter-productive. That is a different claim. Chris Mooney doesn’t have a shred of evidence for it – and in fact he’s never even defined it.
Science communication indeed.
Comments
86 responses to “Switching claims in midstream”
Without having listened to the video (cannot at current location), it looks like Mooney is flip-flopping madly between different types of evidence, but using the same for each. He will admit there is no peer-reviewed science demonstrating his hypothesis and the “general theory” mentioned. But then he’s claiming to have evidence; this is a different sort of evidence, purely anecdotal. Recall that Wally Smith was referred to as “evidence” in the same vein as this latter evidence.
While it’s sloppy as hell and he’s contradicting himself, the simplest explanation is it’s just poor communication (go figure). He should of course clarify and actually present a coherent argument, but it’s not going to happen.
Not sure I interpreted him in quite the same way. I understood Mooney as saying that, while he has no direct experimental evidence that the the new atheists have actually counter-productive, there is a lot of evidence to support the general psychological theory on which he bases his judgment that they probably are, and therefore it is more than a mere “hunch”.
I thought he came off pretty well in the interview, although I felt his response to the Templeton questions was weak and his position on the compatibility of Science and Religion was extremely odd. Of course, this may just be that I tend to be more sympathetic to his position beforehand, so I’m parsing the interview through that lens (hah).
I do think he’s right that the psychological evidence tends to show that people retrench instead of shift their ideas when concepts relating to their identity are attacked head-on – PZ accepts as much in his response to the interview. The question that remains for me is whether this means the New Atheists are counter-productive because of that fact. I think they have a huge amount of value in areas that have nothing to do with convincing nonbelievers. Also, it is clearly the case that they sometimes do convince people. So I do think Mooney indulges in a non-sequitur in moving from his (quite well-supported_ psychological model into the claim that they are necessarily counter-productive. But I don’t think he contradicts himself in quite the way you are suggesting here.
He didn’t admit that he doesn’t have evidence for his hypothesis and the “general theory” though – he admitted only that he doesn’t have evidence for his specific claim, when Lindsay pressed him on that. Lindsay basically said yes never mind about the big woolly general claim, what about the specific claim – that the books etc of new atheists have been counter-productive. Mooney sort of had to admit he had no evidence for that, because if he hadn’t, he would have had to cite some. But then he lost his grip and insisted that he did anyway.
This is the key, of course. Lindsay pressed him on whether he has any evidence to back up the demonizing and othering of new atheists he’s been doing for the past two years, and he was briefly forced to admit that he doesn’t. For a few seconds it was out there that he’s been spitefully sliming people on the basis of his hunch and suspicion.
James – yes but in the bit I’m talking about, it was the other claim that Ron was specifically asking him about. That was the whole point – Ron told him sure, I get that, but I’m asking about the specific claim that new atheist books are counter-productive. Mooney doesn’t get to cite evidence he has for the more obvious claim to answer that question.
I of course agree that the larger claim is more than a hunch. Of course not everyone is going to hear an atheist say “there’s no reason to believe that” and instantly say “oh gosh you’re right”! But if that’s all Mooney’s got……..he’s got nuthin.
I’m not sure if we disagree now!
I see it like this: he admitted he doesn’t have direct experimental evidence for the specific claim (nor, as far as I can tell, is there direct experimental evidence for the obverse of that claim), but he was asserting that even in the absence of that evidence his judgment that the New Atheists were probably counterproductive was more than a mere “hunch”, because it is based in a psychological theory which is itself well-supported and therefore reasonably generalizable to a broad population.
This is the sort of reasoning we do all the time in the social sciences – we usually simply cannot survey huge numbers of people to see if social event X caused social change Y, so we build psychological models based on studies of a few people and then we make what we hope is a plausible inference from there. I think that’s different from an unfounded hunch – it’s an extrapolation from good data. We can argue if the extrapolation is valid, but I don’t think we should damn the whole enterprise “hunch and suspicion”.
I didn’t see your second response. Now I’m even more confused! Perhaps we don’t disagree at all…
And of course, it is only a stereotype of new atheism that Mooney is suggesting. People perceptions can be distorted, seeing insults and offensiveness even though non are intended. Look at the vandalism and theft of the recent atheist billboards, which are not insulting at all. The problem of offensiveness does not lie with the atheists.
Hence how ridiculously subjective and untenable such claims are.
This is a great point. I am still astonished that the materials of the Humanist Chaplaincy were vandalized after the American Humanist Association’s annual conference last year – people felt just the existence of Humanists was offensive to them – and we’re one of the most cuddly Humanist organizations out there!
Important to remember though that this can happen both ways – I’m sure occasionally atheists see offence where none is intended, perhaps even from people like Chris Mooney…
Heh. I don’t think we do disagree much, James.
I don’t think he can extrapolate to the claims he’s been making though, because that would require assuming that all or nearly all people fit his description of people who won’t change their beliefs. He’s never that I know of said anything to demonstrate that all people do fit that description, or to indicate that he has any reason to think so. His whole case depends on this very crude, simplified claim which he treats as if it were universally applicable. Maybe there’s a case he could make, but he hasn’t made it. He sure didn’t make it in this interview.
The last bit…I don’t actually know if he intends offense or not. That isn’t really where I differ with him. It’s not about offense, it’s about damage. It’s about smearing people he disagrees with, and working up anger against them. He uses language about them – about Dawkins for instance, and PZ Myers – that as an expert in communications he must know is very loaded. He’s never admitted that or taken responsibility for it. I disapprove of that.
I disapprove of that too, although I haven’t followed him closely enough to know precisely what you’re referring to. People shouldn’t smear and attack those with whom they disagree.
Whether his extrapolation is valid or not is an interesting question, and I agree that he doesn’t do enough to solidly establish the legitimacy of his extrapolation in the interview. But I don’t think the argument is implausible or ridiculous on the face of it. Nor do I think I’ve heard a well-established argument which convincingly defeats it. So for a sketch of an argument in response to a single question out of many in a radio show, I thought it was a reasonable answer.
But as you point out in your other post on the interview, there’s a lot that was lacking there nonetheless.
Ah well you haven’t read enough threads here if you haven’t heard/seen a convincing argument against it. :- )
I used to be a theist. Someone was kind enough to offend me.
Not really related, but… does anyone else feel accomodationism doesn’t take people seriously? You can’t be frank with them, you have to please their little, fragile personalities in order to get a chance to educate them… isn’t that condescending? I feel I deserve to be told what’s what and what you’re about if you want to speak to me about something. I would feel offended if people thought I need an external layer of bull because I can’t possibly handle the point my interlocutor wants to deliver.
Now, this doesn’t mean science teachers should say “these are the facts, take them or you’re an idiot”. It simply means it might be good to communicate what science actually says. For instance, that natural selection is unguided. Sorry, it really is. There’s no way around it. We have mathematical equations that measure the effects of selection and everything, we know how it works. Does this conflict with people who believe God directed evolution? Yes, definitely. These are two things that can’t be reconciled. One says guided, the other says unguided. If it offends you, well, what can I say? One thing about nature, it doesn’t cater to our personal hopes and wishes, and thank God it doesn’t, because that’s what makes the process of figuring it out so fascinating.
On topic now, it’s worrying that an expert in science communication seems to think anecdotes are a valid source of evidence which enables you to make broad statements on complicated topics. Collecting data is an essential part of science, but his attitude is delivering the message that if you’re expert enough, you don’t need actual data.
Mooney seems to see the issue as one of how to persuade the deeply religious to accept science, including evolution. And his accomodationism is oriented to that goal.
Others see the issue as one of persuading those who are not deeply religious, that atheists are perfectly decent and ordinary people and are not the frightening monsters that theists often claim them to be.
Personally, I think the second of those is the main issue. But if Mooney wants to go with his view of the issue, and act accordingly – well, that’s fine with me. But he shouldn’t be attacking those who disagree with him on what the issue is, particularly in a nation that supposedly values free speech.
Mooney reminds us that humans are emotional; they are biased; they are defensive; they distort what they see and hear to be more favorable to themselves. How about that. Turns out, humanity has developed one and only one workable solution to these difficulties: an honest interest in finding out when we are wrong. We overcome our biases by committing ourselves to a community that makes merciless demands for evidence. We overcome our biases by being as specific as possible about what the universe would look like if our ideas were completely wrong, and by inviting others (and ideally ourselves) to search for those hypothesis-crushing observations. In my view, the accommodation/confrontation debate is really about whether anyone claiming to have knowledge should have to submit their ideas to a critical community. The accommodationists think folks should get some free passes in certain areas. “God is love” is just one of those things you can just say, and nobody gets to tell you any different. If the concern is human biases, why should we purposefully limit the application of the only system capable of overcoming those biases?
Speaking of offence taken by believers, I remember seeing the video of Ricky Gervais being interviewed about his religious beliefs by Piers Morgan. (link here)
Gervais: When someone thanks god, I don’t get offended. [Morgan laughs in disbelief] Gervais: But loads of…how many people thank god? Every time, they say “thank god.” I don’t…I don’t…I don’t get offended. Do I? Morgan: But you must be aware that a lot of people in America would, potentially, find that offensive. Gervais: What, because I’m saying I don’t believe in god? Morgan. Yeah, ‘cos you’re kind of mocking them. Gervais: No I’m not. I’m not mocking them. People’s beliefs aren’t my concern at all.
To be fair to Morgan, he’s not being confrontational, just trying to draw Gervais out for TV, and I also suspect he lost the thread of the conversation and thought Gervais was talking about making religious jokes as opposed to being non-religious. But even with that generous interpretation, what Morgan said is that a lot of Americans are “potentially” offended by Gervais not because of any specific joke or comment but because he is an atheist.
^blast! apologies for the lack of formatting in the pot above.
^ blast again! pot = post
Thanks to the Gnu Atheists I was offended into not being religious anymore as well…”The God Delusion” to be precise.
I got offended out of belief by that old curmudgeon James Randi, so that I was ready when the new atheists appeared. Most of the ‘evidence’ for belief amounts to different forms of the ad populum fallacy (a lot of people believe this), including ad authoritatum (a lot of smart people believe this) and argument from tradition (a lot of people have always believed this.) The simple existence of atheists causes a lot of cognitive dissonance if your foundation rests on conformity. Once you say “I am an atheist”, everything becomes offensive, particularly if you give the reasons for disbelief. This is why evangelism and avoidance is so important; it quells the doubt and the dissonance if you can convert, ignore, or silence dissent.
When Mooney talked about how bad gnu atheism is for promoting science, I thought Lindsay was sharp in immediately asking for evidence. But I wanted a follow-up question: What would be a good strategy if you wanted to promote atheism? That might lead to a discussion of what has worked recently. After all, something has! Either Dawkins, Dennett and the gang have made atheism popular or something else has and these authors are benefiting. Perhaps a virtuous circle of mutual reinforcement?
But whatever the answer Mooney ought to be asked to explain what is happening. I think his position won’t allow him to respond unless he’s questioned fairly closely, because he’s trying to portray the problem as one of uniting on one goal and one strategy. Admitting the legitimacy not only of another strategy but other goals is not something Mooney will want to do, though I think he will. The thing about a PR strategy is you don’t lie, you omit, and what Mooney is omitting is that accommodation is dedicated to protecting religion, and science is being protected like a kidnapper protects a hostage.
Anybody who doesn’t recognize that mere atheism is seen to be offensive quite frankly isn’t paying attention. There’s enough cases of it every month that it should be slapping you in the face.
But to take it a step further, the big problem with Mooney in particular is that he should recognize that it’s all offensive..opposing YEC’s, supporting the reality of evolution, and so on. We’re really all in the same boat. The privilege he wants to extend to the basic question of theistic existence, they also want to extend to things such as creationism, or to be honest social issues such as gay bashing.
Which is why it needs to be opposed root and branch. Once you give them that privilege, the game is over. And it’s not a game. I’m very worried/concerned about the effects that interventionist theism has on people’s views of those around them, that it’s desensitizing. And the only way to stop it, is to convince the silent middle not necessarily that our side is right, but that the other side is dangerous.
For what it’s worth, the reason I think that the middle is so scared of atheism is because they know that on the raw question of theistic existence, they know possibly not that we’re right, but that they’re wrong. So we keep on educating and making it more culturally acceptable. And that’s the big thing. Cultural acceptance. That’s what we’re fighting for. And it’s not going to come without a fight.
Mr. Mooney seems to forget that for many years, Christianity was such a sacred cow that it was treated with an irrational amount of respect. I must have been in my mid-30s before I ever heard a radio program say in so many words that there was no solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. That had never occurred to me before; everyone just assumed that there was evidence or we would know. Knowledge–objective knowledge–is the beginning of objective thought. Swaddling people in cotton wool lest their feelings be hurt is a false kindness.
Mooney, to his credit, has admitted that there is evidence that people may become more tolerant of atheists when they learn how common they are. He’s not an advocate for atheism, though; his main concern is quelling the fears of those who think that accepting evolution entails rejecting God.
He and Josh Rosenau resolutely avoid contending with the problem that most Christian denominations insist that God created the universe with humans in mind, that humans are God’s special creation, and that God has a plan for each of us, none of which is consistent with what we know of astronomy and biology, earth sciences and what have you.
They think it’s important to point out that some sort of concept of God is compatible with all we’ve learned, but it’s a God that doesn’t actively do anything and leaves us responsible for our own conduct. As a product it’s not nearly as appealing as the model it’s meant to replace.
Well, here’s a challenge to Mooney (if there’s anyone here who hasn’t been banned from the Looneysection and who has the temperament to visit that awful site, perhaps they would be kind enough to post – then again, the post would probably not pass the MooneyBaum censorship). Folks like R. Dawkins, PZ, J. Coyne receive many letters from people thanking them for helping them to see the absurdity of religion and to ultimately abandon religion. Where are the Mooney converts from religion? Does Mooney have no one but ‘Tom Johnson’? (Excuse me while I fall over laughing about Tom Johnson for the next hour or so.)
oops … I didn’t mean to imply that Tom Johnson was a convert – I meant to say has Mooney got no one to prop up his claims aside from TJ.
I’m curious if Mooney, or anyone, has considered that New Atheist writing such as The God Delusion can have an effect on currently silent atheists? Prior to reading The God Delusion I was an atheist who just went about living his life, not really worrying too much about the religious if they didn’t worry about me. That book got me thinking, and looking at the world, and paying attention to what was being said by people, until finally I decided it was time to start adding my voice (however small).
So while in this instance new atheism didn’t convert anyone or make a religious person more comfortable with atheism, it still had an effect that I consider positive. I have no idea if I’m the only one to be affected in such a fashion by atheist writings, but now I’m curious. Is it prevalent enough to be worth considering as a factor in these debates?
“… as an expert in communications…”
I would vehemently disagree that Mooney is any expert on communication. No, Mooney is the Ministry of Propaganda. He does not employ honest discourse – he employs censorship and other dirty tricks. He could be a very successful political campaign manager, but not a communicator. His intention is not to convey ideas but to obfuscate and confuse – that is being a professional con artist, not a communicator. Let us draw a lone between communication and deceit; don’t tar honest people by lumping them in with the liars who must necessarily, in the most superficial sense, communicate.
@27: Of course Mooney can’t show any converts to atheism, because his accomodationist strategy is explicitly about trying to convert people to believing evolution and global warming happen, without challenging their religion at all! Hilarity ensues.
Why does Mooney not discuss his PoI-interview at Intersection? Normally, on his blog he brags even about the most insignificant appearences in the public. Did Lindsay leave a sour taste in his mouth?
BTW, it seems that the Intersection is disintegrating:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/28/parting-ways-at-the-intersection/
At best, the present Mr. Mooney appears boring and self-centered. After Kirshenbaum gone, I don’t think he will be able to keep enough interest for his blog. No hits, no bucks. My forecast: there will be no Intersection in 2012.
As noted above, Accommodationism just seems patronising. Its yet another example of “the soft bigotry of low expectations”.
As you say Ophelia, “to What”? If someone is going to make a statement like this, can they at least specify exactly what they mean.
Josh has two new posts up at TFK – one each for PZ and Ophelia. The best part of it, though, is that in his anti-PZ screed, he admits to not having listened to the podcast – and goes to some length to criticise PZ for not recognising the evidence Mooney presented to show the ineffectiveness of gnu atheism…
Well, at least we’ve established why Mooney and his ilk are so sympathetic to People of Faith. They, too, believe things very deeply in their hearts (rather than considering evidence using their minds).
So Mooney contradicts himself about evidence against new atheism, why is that?
Does anyone remember the article he wrote supporting New Atheism only last month?
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/21/psych-evidence-that-supports-new-atheism/
I just had this thought, and it seems so obvious to me now that someone must have had it already, but I haven’t heard anyone say it, at least that I recall…
If Mooney is so good at winning people over to his way of thinking, if he’s such an expert on framing, why do so many people disagree with him? Why isn’t he using his skills to silence his critics?
Has he himself addressed this, and I missed it?
@36: you haven’t missed anything from Mooney.
It is weird that the typical conversation does seem to go like this:
Gnu: I find these religious claims implausible on these grounds.
Mooney: No, don’t say that, you’ll scare off the religious people by telling them they’re wrong, you must NEVER tell people that their ideas are wrong.
Gnu:What about my ideas?
Mooney: Your ideas are wrong.
What on earth is “frank atheism” supposed to mean ? Is that different from george atheism or jane atheism ?
SAWells describes the usual Mooney encounter very well.
The key to this style of debate is that Mooney is not making a scientific, philosophical or neurological point. He is making a political point. It is much more akin to a Republican giving reasons why it is better to vote for McCain rather than Obama. Even if you counter those points it won’t change the Republicans mind – for reason that the underlying point being argued is not to do with the originally stated claims. What is HAS to do with is that one side is preferred to the other, mainly for overall political viewpoint rather than any specific point.
What Mooney is really pushing is not the stated psychological hypothesis that confrontation makes people more resistant to change their mind. He may say that is his reasoning but that belies the facts that he only jumped on that hypothesis relatively recently – in the past year and a half or so, while he has been opposing religious confrontation for the past four or five years.
Besides, the rather ironic part of the study he cites is that it has nothing to do with religion, but a lot to do with political views and climate change – both subjects that Mooney himself has addressed by writing confrontation books about those topics! (‘The Republican War on Science’ and ‘Stormwatch’)
Clearly he has no problem taking an approach in those topics that should – according to the cited study – lead to problem individuals (namely anti-science Republicans and climate change deniers) rejecting his points!
Which leads me to the conclusion that what he is doing is not taking an approach consistent with his stated aims – increasing the acceptance of evolution and consensus climate science. Rather it is an approach consistent with someone who is pushing a party political agenda – namely a moderate Democratic party agenda. In other words he is pushing a ‘middle of the road moderate’ agenda and in so doing he uses political rhetorical techniques rather than sticking to academic standards. For instance, in political debate it seems quite normal to accuse your opponent of doing something that you do yourself (like not carrying out election promises after being elected). Mooney is constantly doing this (you are wrong for telling people they are wrong, by the way, climate change deniers are wrong!). Practically every one of his arguments can equally be applied to his own approach yet he never admits this.
@Paul
I hear that CFI is offering a summer course where you learn how to:
Perhaps Mr. Mooney could enrol …
Mad Scientist @ # 28
Well it was ironic. But he calls himself that, and others take him at his word. He teaches it sometimes – he taught some group of scientists a few months ago. (I forget the details, but he mentioned it at the Intersec.)
Spot on, Sigmund.
In other words he is pushing a ‘middle of the road moderate’ agenda and in so doing he uses political rhetorical techniques rather than sticking to academic standards.
I think that’s exactly right. He always reminds me of those boringly cynical party operatives who train everyone how to talk to the dead middle.
Mooney used the word “mainstream” a lot in the interview. That word always pushes my hyper-alertness button – because I despise it. It’s a conformity-enforcer. I think that’s what I hated most about Unscientific America, the way it reeked of mainstreamism and conformity-enforcement and fanatical moderation. It’s so philistine, that kind of thing…
I think I’ve said before that Mooney seems to have missed his calling. I think what he really wants is to be the new George Stephanopoulos. I don’t know why he doesn’t just go do it.
The thing that Mooney doesn’t want to acknowledge is that the situation is much more nuanced than one adult stranger approaching another and saying “Your beliefs are silly and illogical”. The dynamics change if one person is considered a leader by the other or if they are family or friends that have social in-group influence over each other. Not to mention maybe the most important aspect where you are creating an environment where a group like atheists are not silently suffering and dissenting views are out there in the public consciousness in media like tv and radio. This is important for influencing the next generation that will make up the next majority.
Both the civil rights movement and gay rights are living examples of this. They don’t succeed by changing the minds of all the existing bigots and racists but by creating an environment that doesn’t tolerate those prejudices so that the next generation can come along hopefully without the same baggage and cultural indoctrination and can view the issues in a less biased light.
Ugh – that Rosenau post. There’s one flaming lie in a comment already – saying I “organize opposition” to Charles Taylor on tenure committees. Wtf?
What do you expect? Jon is the same pedigree as many of tfk’s current commenters. While not unhinged like Kwok or McCarthy, he was part of all the UA arguments on The Intersection as well. I specifically remember him dismissing new atheists because they read “Dawkins and Dennett” instead of Camus. He was much like the other commenters there, accusing NA’s of being poorly read and just not understanding history and philosophy (I don’t think he phrased it like that, but that was what his arguments boiled down to).
Exactly.
Also, over the long haul (and not all that long, since it’s happening now) we’re whittling away at the standing that religious claims have. They used to go unanswered, but now that the internet makes it possible to answer just about anything published, they don’t any more, so it’s becoming more and more obvious how feeble they are.
Paul…I know…but that’s such a flaming, specific, personal lie.
Eccch. Rosenau. Lie down with
fleasdogs…Isn’t the essence of evangelism and other religious missionary efforts the confrontation of “dearly held beliefs”? Does this mean that, according to the abovementioned general social science theory, these approaches to religious propagation are counterproductive?
Just asking…
OB:
?
Isn’t it `if you like down with dogs, you get up with fleas’…??? Or did you mean something else?
Sory…
I mean `lie’, not `like.
babe – oh yes, so it is. I transposed.
Mike Walton:
For me, that’s the 64,000-dollar question. According to Mooney’s half though-out theory of What Convinces People, someone like Jerry Falwell should never get any traction. These ministers who use the Bible “convert” gays who “think” they’re homosexual, they’d never have any success. Falwell would walk into a room of “troubled youths” and tell them—in no uncertain terms—that the way they were living their lives was dead wrong, and if they did not accept Jesus their souls would perish in hellfire. The gay converters tell gay people that everything they think about their existence is dead wrong and that they must repent of their sins. These people have flourishing ministries. Falwell, who was mentioned in the Mooney/Lindsay interview (Mooney momentarily couldn’t recall that Falwell created Liberty University) was one of the most successful preachers of all time. Mooney needs to answer this directly. How does he account for the success of religious conversion that takes a, shall we say, non-accommodationist approach? If anything is self-evident here, it’s that the hard-line preachers convert a lot more people than the namby-pamby, soft-sell types. But if we applied Mooney’s theory, the opposite would be true.
This point about the effectiveness of fire and brimstone preachers is very interesting. It seems to me there are some very important differences to keep in mind when thinking about the conversion strategies and effectiveness of people like Falwell and people like Hitchens. For a start, Falwell and other preachers generally focus on giving a moral message: a compelling narrative which says why believing X and acting in Y way is wrong, and how you can live in a better way, morally speaking. They tackle the most profound moral questions out there – the nature of the family, sexual relationships, personal character – and they make frequent appeal to the emotions, the use of narrative and parables, and with an extremely rich cultural and symbolic resource to draw on (their religious tradition).
Atheist firebrands have been less effective at harnessing the moral voice, in my view, and tend to limit themselves to using a restricted palette of symbolic resources when trying to persuade. The End of Faith, Breaking the Spell, and The God Delusion are very thin on moral messaging, especially when it comes to saying how else to live. The God Delusion and God is Not Great do have great sections on the immorality of certain concepts of God and some powerful broadsides against religious thinking in general, but neither put forward a positive moral alternative in as powerful a voice as they might. The Moral Landscape is intriguing for the way in which it seems to drain all the vitality out of moral questions, although I laud the attempt to introduce a more focused moral discourse into modern atheism. There’s also no real focus on social action and getting involved in politics etc. in many new atheist talks, debates and books. So there’s a sort of moral limpness which I feel is unfortunate, which I think might make a difference.
Also, we skeptics tend to be a bit wary of appealing to the emotions – some prominent new atheists like Matt Dillahunty (he counts as “new”, right?) actually seem to disavow appeals to the emotions altogether, categorizing them as manipulative and similar to a form of deception (if you listen to the podcast there are many times when this sort of equation is made). This significantly debilitating, in my view, because it makes atheism and Humanism seem like a purely intellectual movement, somewhat uninspiring and morally grey. While this certainly reaches some (even many) people, I think there are large numbers who are simply left cold by the way that atheism is currently portrayed and argued for.
I’ve wanted to try to add something a bit more compelling for a while now, which is why I started my website with the aim of infusing the Humanist movement (which is where I most closely identify – I personally take my atheism somewhat for granted, if that makes sense) with narrative, symbols, emotion, and passion. The funny thing is this sometimes makes me sound more like a mirror-image of people like Falwell than I’m comfortable with. But that’s the way I feel called to go!
Ah but who do you feel is calling you, James?
Hahahahahahaha
No but seriously. I know what you mean.
I wonder (this just occurred to me) if gnu blogs (not mine) do something to make up for that – Jerry’s and PZ’s in particular. Plenty of energy, enthusiasm, enthusiasms plural.
I think morality isn’t the only thing that can be the positive to go with the negative of Ungod. I think engaging with the world can also be that kind of positive. That’s supposed to be an elite thing, but I’m not so sure – you don’t have to be a genius to be fascinated by animals, or machines, or food – by lots of things.
The plight of my fellow human beings of course!
And the ghost of Robert Ingersoll =D
Andy Dufresne,
It’s actually debatable whether people like Falwell ever convert anyone at all, meaning that they change the minds of people who didn’t already share — at least to some level — his Christian beliefs. Most of his flock are probably of that sort, and I think most people have no idea what brand of Christian he actually is, so I suspect he gets some cross-religion converts, as he might be seen to be speaking for Christianity in general (he doesn’t and the idea is absurd, of course).
As for troubled teens and troubled gays, it’s a lot easier to convert people who are in emotional turmoil, and people like Falwell are very good at giving troubled people an end goal, a focus, a sense of community and a worldview where everything is going to be all right and makes sense. This is not the audience of Gnu atheists, one imagines.
If we wanted to look for evidence, we could look at the history of missionary work to see the rates of success of firebrand missionaries versus those who become more involved in the community. I haven’t done the research myself, and so can’t say.
How could something like Christianity ever succeed anyhow?
When Christianity took off, it did so largely by converting pagans, who already had established religions and moral beliefs, and it did so while telling those pagans that they were very very wrong, both factually and morally, and would in fact be righteously burnt in hell forever if they didn’t convert.
It doesn’t get much more negative or confrontational or judgmental and in-your-face than that.
If Mooney were right about such basic disagreement and identity-challenging negativity doing nothing but alienating people and making them believe what they already believe even more, how the fuck did Christianity ever get any traction with anybody, much less grow like topsy and take over the biggest, best-established, and arguably most rightly impressed-with-itself empire ever? It didn’t do it by flattering people’s cherished religious beliefs and their image of themselves as moral people.
Clearly, in some cases, not being an accommodationist works shockingly well.
Does not being an accommodationist only work for a Big Lie? Or can it work for a Big Truth?
Well, if Mooney ever teased out the particulars the way James just did, it might be interesting. But all I’ve ever heard him articulate is the generalized sense he has—based on a lot of evidence and knowledge!—that aggressively going after people’s deeply held beliefs is bound to be counter-productive and ineffective. I think it’s a not-insignificant point for our side of the argument to notice that there’s plenty reason to question that—particularly the tactics of some of the world’s most successful proselytizers for religion. That’s it. That’s my only point.
Mooney seems to ask the question “What tactics and approaches are effective in changing people’s minds?” I’m asking the question “What tactics and approaches have in the past been effective in changing people’s minds?” His answer to the first question is that it needs some study and, well, that would be expensive, but I think I’m right anyway. So I’ll go along with him: All I’m saying, then, is that, pending a definitive answer to the former question, the latter question may be instructive. And it seems to me that the answer to the latter question is: All kinds of approaches have been effective at changing minds. Some people are convinced by fire-and-brimstone aggressiveness, while others are convinced by Mr. Nice Guy tactics. Depends on the person.
Stoic:
Well then how do you account for people switching from one religion to another? Muslims becoming Christians when they heard Billy Graham preach? Or Catholics becoming Buddhists after having tea with the Dalai Lama? Look, there’s loads of people who would say, with total sincerity, that their lives were changed, forever altered, when they came into contact with the ministry of Falwell. Or Billy Graham. Or John Hagee. Or any of the Jesus’-way-or-the-highway preachers. It’s not debatable whether these people were converted. It’s an easy experiment to run: just ask ’em.
Andy Dufresne,
A few cases don’t make any sort of generalization, nor are they the sort Gnus are looking for; surely they want to convert the majority of theists, not a small subset of them. Most Muslims on hearing Graham or Falwell or anyone else are not converted, and the vast majority of Falwell’s or Graham’s flocks were Christians first. I don’t think their conversion rates of people who don’t already share their beliefs are all that impressive, but some numbers might be nice.
As for the Dalai Lama, I think his approach would probably be one that accommodationists would have no issues with, so it doesn’t really count in this context, and thus isn’t really a counter-example to my comment which was in the context of aggressive attempts to convert.
As for those who had their lives changed, it may well be: but that could simply be allowing them to put their existing beliefs into a consistent whole, which is not really an option yet for Gnu atheism. Additionally, the impact of personal charisma cannot be ignored, and attempts to be aggressive without that charisma might not be as successful.
I realize we’re not using the word “conversion” the same way. How would a Falwell convert someone who already shares his beliefs, exactly?
Andy,
It wouldn’t count as a conversion, but the majority of his flock and the people who say that he’s changed their lives are people who were at least nominally on his side in the first place. Thus, the majority of his flock were not, by strict definition, converted … and his rates for actual conversions don’t seem to me to be all that impressive.
Which doesn’t even take into account all the moderate Christians that Falwell right royally ticks off …
Paul:
Not read Camus? Fume fumity fume!
I wish I’d been on that thread. Suck on this, Jon:
What he said. And, by the way, both Camus and his protagonist, Dr. Bernard Rieux, were atheists and made no bones about it.
(For the record, I was using this pseudonym several years before 2007.)
Let’s say conversion means you believed X, but came to believe Y. You’re saying that some of the people that these guys convert already believe some of Y but not all of it, and so if they’re convinced to believe all of it then that’s not a proper conversion according to the “strict” definition. I think there’s a valid observation there, but it seems to me like that’s trying a bit too hard to not give these preachers any credit. I mean, to my mind, if someone shows up to a Billy Graham event not believing in his theology, and leaves believing in his theology, then that person has been converted. If you speak to the person 20 years later, and she says she’s been a practicing Christian all this time and credits Graham for it, then we can go ahead and chalk that one up as a full conversion, no partial credit. So, what, if that person already believed homosexuality was wrong without reference to the Bible, then Graham only gets partial-credit for the “save”? You know what they say—a soul for Christ is a soul for Christ.
That would have been something. I am a fan myself, although that’s not the sort of thing one should generally dignify with a response, given what it says about the person saying it in the first place. It was very common on The Intersection for the commentariat to try and paint themselves as well-read philosophical gents, while the New Atheists were rabble chewing through the restraints and throwing feces having never read a book that wasn’t written by the Four Horsemen (or indeed, read a book — they just post on Pharyngula and threaten people with rusty kitchenware). It was always “Well if the NA’s read *this author*, they’d realize their error”. Mooney would use Sagan, which is hilarious in many ways (he read much like an NA in his writings).
Just for fun, here’s the Camus thing.
VS:
Come on; that’s just silly semantic (and irrelevant) quibbling about what “conversion” means. If a fair number of people who encounter Falwell’s evangelism (or Graham’s or Palau’s or whoever else’s) “already share[d] his Christian beliefs at least to some level,” well then, by the very same token, an impressively large number of people in 2011 America (among many other places) also “already share” secularist and skeptical “beliefs at least to some level” as well. There is thus plenty of reason to believe that outspoken criticism of religious faith/authority/privilege and/or advocacy of atheism will have much the same effect on those basically secular people that Falwell’s evangelism has on those who “at least nominally on his side in the first place.”
So your supposed distinguishing factor isn’t really a distinguishing factor. (Indeed, by your notion of what’s required for real “conversion,” it’s hard to understand how one could possibly show that it has ever happened. How exactly is the ineffable “already share his beliefs at least to some level” objection supposed to be disproven… ever?)
And, as is the case with so much accommodationist rhetoric, there’s a notable disregard in your argument for the social psychology data that Paul W. discussed in his recent post, among several other of his previous works. The “already share his beliefs at least to some level” condition you cite is the product of prior conditions, including the perceived acceptability and reasonability of the positions in question. Back on the other side of the analogy, the efforts of Falwell and other right-wing Christians have had fairly obvious Overton Window consequences, and those obviously aid their conversion efforts.
If a cultural discourse tugged by Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins makes Subject X feel that a generally secular outlook is plausible and reasonable (i.e., she now “share[s Gnus’] beliefs at least to some level”)… and then several weeks of X’s reading Pharyngula, Butterflies and Wheels, and similar advocacy causes X to take a step further and conclude that Gnus’ critique of religion is correct… why should that not constitute “conversion”? Perhaps more to the point, why should we even care whether that word is appropriately applied, when the change in outlook—that is, the effects of Gnu advocacy—is, under such an account, so clearly salutary?
Okay, Paul, it appears that Jon’s claim was a little bit more limited: he claimed that Gnus “aren’t going around quoting Camus” (my emphasis). But it still would have been poetic and apropos to shove Hitchens (and, er, me) down his throat—because some of us very much do quote Camus.
The Plague is really harshly critical of religion, BTW—it attacks conservative flavors of religion early on, and then wishy-washier liberal varieties near the end. The personified target in both parts is Father Paneloux, the local Catholic priest, who starts out as a fire-and-brimstone zealot but who has a change of heart during the plague year; eventually, he becomes Camus’s stand-in for (liberal) Christian existentialist Søren Kierkegaard. Near the end of the story, after being thumped by Dr. Rieux in an argument over the Problem of Evil, Paneloux dies, more or less from his own contradictions.
Yeah, sorry for misleading you. I spent a good bit of time on the Intersection, and proclamations of what NA’s hadn’t read read was made in several places. I mixed them up.
Verbose
No; not I anyway. I mean, I wouldn’t mind, but I certainly don’t think it’s at all likely. I want
That’ll do me. I don’t need to convert the heathen.
Well, Paul, you did cite it. That’s, like, honest ‘n stuff.
Andy,
“Let’s say conversion means you believed X, but came to believe Y.”
Let’s not. Let’s keep it in the context that we’re in and keep it in the context that the Gnu atheists need, and say that conversion means that you believed religion X, and at the end of it you no longer accept religion X, either because you now accept religion Y or because you now accept no religion at all (which is the end goal, it seems to me, of the Gnu atheist “conversion” attempts). And if this is the case, we can ask if Falwell’s conversion rates are all that impressive. And they probably aren’t. I doubt that many of the followers of his ministry ever change even Christian denominations, and I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that he has a very high level of converting non-Christians to Christianity, and his in particular. Again, I doubt that most of his followers even know what denomination he follows, and probably don’t even after they become one of his followers.
Your definition, basically, refers to changing beliefs. But changing individual beliefs is not all that impressive; we all do this quite frequently. If Falwell or Graham stands up, speaks in the name of generic Christianity and, in taking sources that every Christian already accepts, convinces them that the beliefs they already have mandate them accepting a belief that they hadn’t before, that’s simply changing beliefs. The Gnu atheists want to change worldviews, and there’s little evidence that Falwell and Graham are at all good at changing worldviews, as opposed to recasting existing worldviews into accepting specific stances that they want them to have.
Let me use this example: I’m a Stoic who’s heavily influenced by the Roman Stoics, and not the Greek ones. If someone shows me writings from the Greeks that seem to me to be a more palatable Stoic view, and I shift my attention to the Greek Stoics, that’s probably not a conversion and isn’t all that impressive. But if someone gets me to drop the Stoics entirely and, say, turn Utilitarian, that would be impressive and would clearly be a conversion. At their BEST, Falwell and Graham generally get the shift from the Roman to the Greek Stoic (ie from one denomination of Christianity to another) with some outlying conversions between religions; most of the time, they only get changes in beliefs (whether homosexuality is acceptable or not).
So if Falwell converts an atheist to Christianity, that’s clearly a conversion. How often do things like that occur?
Verbose, let’s not you say what let’s say. And let’s not you repeat an attribution to the gnus that I just got through disavowing.
Oh noes, VS is now pushing Creationist Claim CB901:
Shockingly enough, as the Index entry points out, it’s fallacious:
In addition to concocting an intention (“The Gnu atheists want to change worldviews”) that is disputed and as yet unsubstantiated, VS has also ignored the relevance, importance, and worthiness of “microevolution”: the conversion of quiet atheists to loud atheists, fence-sitting agnostics to quiet atheists, weak religious believers to fence-sitting agnostics, and so on. The whole fixation on supposed Gnu attempts at macroevolutionary “conversion” is serving merely to obstruct attention to the actual intentions and relevant effects of Gnu advocacy.
Which, interestingly enough, is the same function that Creationist Claim CB901 performs on an accurate understanding of evolution.
Ophelia,
First, I hadn’t read your comment yet when I made mine; I was writing my comment when yours went up.
Second, Richard Dawkins explicitly states in the introduction to the paperback edition of “The God Delusion” that his intention is in fact conversion: “If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down” [Dawkins, The God Delusion, pg 28]. Add this to the number of Gnu atheists who profess a fairly fervent desire for a world where there’s no religion at all, and it does not seem all that odd to claim that that’s a major component of Gnu atheism, even if it isn’t a goal for you.
Third, if Andy is replying to one of my comments and wants to shift the topic away from what I think is at issue, it is certainly reasonable for me to refuse to accept his definition, which is all I did there.
Rieux,
Spending the bulk of your comment attacking a position that I didn’t claim in an attempt to make an analogy is quite weak. Also, I didn’t say that there were no instances. I asked how many. Just as in your previous comment, you miss entirely the fact that Jerry Falwell was cited by Andy as an example of someone who was EFFECTIVE at converting people and who did so in an aggressive way, and I was challenging that claim of effectiveness. I never denied that it happened, just pointed out that the numbers are not exactly impressive.
As for your last paragraph, you’d also have to look to see how many weak theists you converted to strong theists, and fence-sitters got pushed to theistic sides. And for that, we do have evidence from the accommodationists: themselves, who don’t want to be associated with loud atheists and — if non-accommodationists are to be believed — associate themselves more with the religious than the non-religious.
And Falwell clearly provides that sort of “success”; he’s gotten people accepting more extreme views, true, but he’s also ticked off a lot of less extreme religious people and pushed them even further away from his position, as they dismiss him as an idiot and refuse to associate with him. Falwell POLARIZES religious people; can you say that the Gnu atheists won’t be polarizing as well if Andy is right and Falwell’s an example of a successful use of the an approach that’s similar to the one the Gnus are using?
I get where you’re coming from, Verbose. I guess I just wouldn’t agree that, utilizing the above example, getting someone to shift from Roman to Greek Stoicism “isn’t all that impressive.” Sure it is! I mean, converting one’s interest from Roman to Greek Stoicism is a conversion. Is it as dramatic a conversion as Stoicism to Utilitarianism? No, point taken. But I just don’t see the point of preserving the word “conversion” for only The Most Dramatic instances of conversion. If a reform Jew converts to Hasidic Judaism, that person is considered to have converted. Under Verbose’s definition, no they haven’t, and their change would presumably not be all that “impressive.”
Mooney likes to say accommos and gnus share 99% intellectual DNA. Let’s say that’s true. So if Ophelia Benson sees a Mooney PowerPoint presentation on accommodationism and has an epiphany, deciding on the spot to become a whole-hog accommodationist, are you telling me that would not count as a conversion?
I mean this idea that the notion of conversion can only apply to a total alteration of worldview just seems odd, and it clashes with common usage of the word. When I “converted” from PCs to Macs, that was a major, well, conversion. Am I only justified in using that word if I’d have switched from personal computers to the abacus? Come on.
Andy,
I think here we can clarify what I mean here. Let’s take the PC vs Mac example. I’ve never owned a Mac in my life, or even an Apple computer. If when buying my next computer or laptop I decide that at that point in time a Mac is the better deal, that couldn’t be said to be a conversion, as I wasn’t actually in any way attached to PCs over Macs at all. However, if I was an avowed PC user and switched over to Macs and Macs only, that would count as a conversion. Another example would be with cars. There’s a difference between someone who just happens to buy Fords all of the time buying a Honda and someone who insisted on buying Fords all the time buying a Honda. The latter is a conversion, and the former isn’t.
So Ophelia becoming an accommodationist after making it clear that at least currently she has at least a strong inclination against accommodationism would count as a conversion. But my moving towards a Greek Stoic view from a Roman Stoic view wouldn’t count because I see them as both Stoic views with minor differences.
For Falwell, it seems to me that most of his flock are people who are just tweaking their existing worldviews, not changing radically from their existing positions. Changing from theism to atheism — even weak theism to weak atheism — seems to be a radical change.
Ophelia,
I did like your list of goals, and want to ask one question about the first one:
Which of those sorts of theists do you consider me, and how — and by what approach — would you determine what sort of theist someone is?
VS:
Stuff and nonsense. That you don’t like your position when its flaws are exposed doesn’t change your position.
…As a rhetorical question with the brutally obvious import that the number is negligible. Your disingenuousness is amusing.
Bull. I “missed” no such thing; Andy is correct, and your “only Muslim-to-Christian (or equivalent) conversion is real conversion” attempt to rebut him is precisely analogous to the Creationist “only macroevolution is real evolution” nonsense.
In point of fact, the change in Christian attitudes that the Religious Right has brought about in the past handful of decades is profound and enormously consequential, and your attempt to minimize it by playing semantic games with the word “conversion” is just an irrelevant joke. Who cares what you personally think “conversion” does and does not include? Falwell and company have had an effect on the world (as have Gnu Atheists), and that matters slightly more than your semantic caviling.
Yeah, that’s what “No case of macroevolution has ever been documented” is intended to convey, too.
Then bring it on. Let’s see these believers who would be nons if it hadn’t been for the Gnus.
…And who therefore are no longer atheists? Citation needed.
Accommodationists whining about Gnus isn’t proof of anything other than the former’s whininess. The burgeoning levels of religious doubt and overt atheism in the American public, however (not to mention the enormous growth in membership in atheist organizations nationwide), cuts in exactly the wrong direction for your airy argument.
“Clearly”? Pull the other one—that’s evidence of nothing. Religious believers bitching about Falwell does not demonstrate that his advocacy has led to anyone believing less in gods.
And once again, the demographic picture is precisely the opposite of what you pretend: conservative strains of Christianity are quickly consolidating the Christian population of the United States. Right-wing Christianity now makes up an overwhelmingly larger proportion of American Christianity than it did a few decades ago—a period that coincides neatly with the rise of the Religious Right.
Certainly; and the evidence in social psychology is overwhelming that polarizing messages are invariably extremely successful at pulling societal discourse in the direction favored by the polarizer.
It’s kind of stunning sometimes how much accommodationists and moderate-to-liberal believers prioritize their own touchy sensitivities over absolutely anything else in the world. (It’s also a very common symptom of privilege of every kind—white, straight, male, you name it.) Oh, woe is us: Dawkins is polarizing, and thus surely the sky is falling. Never mind all of the overwhelming good that has come from his advocacy—he has hurt the feelings of people who are far more valuable than Gnus are, and thus his approach must be woefully wrong.
Jerry Falwell was successful, extremely so, at changing societal discourse in his preferred direction. Gnus are doing rather well in that respect (considering the general powerlessness of our minority) too. That all of that, in your estimation, pales in comparison to the unconscionable damage that has been done to certain superior beings’ precious feelings simply says something about the ludicrous weight you place on said beings’ sensitivities.
@76 — Yes, I get it. I mean, I get what you mean now. We can table the PC/Mac debate—I won’t try to convert anyone here…
And yet, I think many of these people would not see it that way. Take Billy Graham, who converted football stadiums-full of people throughout his life. To this day an unsmall number of these people would say “Yes, he converted me.” I don’t think they would think they were merely tweaking their existing worldview. They would say that Graham drastically changed their life.
I read and admire the work of Dawkins, Dennett, and Camus, without necessarily agreeing with everything they say. Earlier this year, a short story of mine (“Canterbury Hollow”, Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, Jan/Feb 2011) draws heavily on Camus’s THE STRANGER (including coded references, a dedication to Albert C, and a working title of “Benign Indifference”).
I also have read and admired (again without 100% consensus) the works of many other atheists/religious skeptics like Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Voltaire, Sean Williams, Russell Blackford, Douglas Adams, Ambrose Bierce (the Devil’s Dictionary is one of my favourite books), George Carlin, Arthur C. Clarke, H.L. Mencken, Darwin, Diderot, Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Richard Feynman…and I’ll stop there or I;ll go on all day.
I’ve also enjoyed and admired work by very outspoken or well-known believers like Graham Greene, Tolkien, Dante (although the sequels to Inferno show diminishing returns :-), Dickens, Shakespeare, Donne, and again many more. In fact, the only highly regarded Christian writers I find intolerable are writers like C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, and that’s because they are shameless apologists who use cheap, often deceptive, literary devices to hide the moral flaws in the religious beliefs they are eulogising.
I’m quite sure that most anybody who posts here regularly will be able to list a similar range of writers they admire. The point is not to show off but to show how pathetic it is to be considered uncultured just because we disagree with certain points of view on religious belief.
Andy,
I’ll answer your comment with another example. I was always dualist leaning, but didn’t have a clear way to articulate my position and concerns. Then I read Chalmers’ work on the subject, and pointed out to the professor at the time that I had discovered that his concerns were, in fact, pretty much the ones I was wondering about. While whether that could be said to change my life or not, it certainly seemed revelatory, in the same sort of way as many of those people would claim Graham’s words did them. And yet my views didn’t actually change much, if at all.
It’s hard to make real empirical or conceptual arguments based just on the reports of people of what they emotionally felt; a small shift in worldview may indeed seem like changing their lives if that change is over beliefs that are particularly important to them.
Then you read Dan Denette and threw away your Chalmers’ books, right?
Rieux,
I’m going to ignore the two times you cut my statements off and then proceeded to argue as if you hadn’t read them, getting them wrong, and also your “micro/macro evolution” analogy, since I don’t think it works, and I’ll focus only on your content.
“In point of fact, the change in Christian attitudes that the Religious Right has brought about in the past handful of decades is profound and enormously consequential, and your attempt to minimize it by playing semantic games with the word “conversion” is just an irrelevant joke. Who cares what you personally think “conversion” does and does not include? Falwell and company have had an effect on the world (as have Gnu Atheists), and that matters slightly more than your semantic caviling.”
What change in attitudes? The Catholic Church — one of the largest organizations — has acknowledged at least a form of evolution and apologized for persecuting Gallileo. The Anglican Church — another large and prominent Christian organized religion — has mulled ordaining women priests and (I think) allowing same sex marriage. There has been a lot of liberalization of some of the churches that were considered the most conservative. This is hardly the sort of thing that Falwell and the Religious Right are promoting. So it doesn’t look like it’s been all that effective even by those standards.
“Then bring it on. Let’s see these believers who would be nons if it hadn’t been for the Gnus.”
Ah, and here you retreat to MY definition when I accepted yours and argued even on its basis. The fact is, a fair number of those who should be weak theists — or at least weaker — have had their beliefs solidified by confrontational irrationality in some atheist arguments, and I, personally, am one of them (in spending time arguing about theism with atheists, I was able to see that some of my doubts weren’t actually problems). I’m sure that if we trolled Christian boards and groups we’d see some similar stories, and of people who, for example, refuse to call themselves atheists and now, at least, insist on calling themselves agnostics because they want to be associated with aggressive atheists. And, even though all of this is all anecdotal and not proof … isn’t this something that you’d want to look up before insisting that the method works in that gradual path you’re insisting you want?
“Accommodationists whining about Gnus isn’t proof of anything other than the former’s whininess. The burgeoning levels of religious doubt and overt atheism in the American public, however (not to mention the enormous growth in membership in atheist organizations nationwide), cuts in exactly the wrong direction for your airy argument.”
Accommodationists, being atheists, share a common belief — or lack of it — that should make them more naturally the allies of Gnu atheists than of anyone who is religious, moderate or no. But by the comments of the Gnu atheists themselves and accommodationists themselves, they see themselves as actually closer allies to religious moderates than aggressive athiests, which would show that that backwards progression that I’m saying you have to count is indeed occurring. Note that since some of these people are, in fact, also joining those organizations and expressing overt atheism, it doesn’t actually seem all that reasonable of you to claim them as the product of the Gnu atheist methodology since that methodology does seem to be driving them away.
Which is similar to what Falwell does to religious people. Many moderate religious people are more willing to align themselves with atheists than they are with Falwell, suggesting that if that progression you are referencing was occurring due to his methods, there’s also an inverse progression — call it, say, a backlash — AGAINST him and his methods and views.
“Right-wing Christianity now makes up an overwhelmingly larger proportion of American Christianity than it did a few decades ago—a period that coincides neatly with the rise of the Religious Right.”
Correlation is not causation. Is right-wing Christianity becoming popular because of him, or is his popularity a reflection of the growth of right-wing Christianity? Or are both the result of something else, say an increase in the popularity of conserviation — ie right-wing — politics in general? You don’t know, do you?
“Certainly; and the evidence in social psychology is overwhelming that polarizing messages are invariably extremely successful at pulling societal discourse in the direction favored by the polarizer.”
Well, the only “evidence” that I’ve seen for this is the talk about the Overton Window, and from looking it up on wikipedia:
1) It’s not social psychology, but political science.
2) It’s hopelessly naive in that it seems to assume that there’s only position that can be in an “extreme” slot, and so a new one will displace it down the list, when in practice there can be more than one extreme view for any position.
3) There were no examples given where it actually works or was proven to work.
4) It doesn’t address the case where you have two opposing viewpoints that are dictating extremes, which is always the case for actually polarizing views.
5) There’s no reason to think that it would work better for its political purpose than implementing one of the acceptable policies and then appealing to it to reduce the gap, which is the exact opposite way around from what the Overton Window implies.
6) There’s no reason to think that the Overton Window can work without any other intervening events to push things along. Gnu atheism, for example, would likely have failed to take off if it couldn’t have tied into 9/11.
“Oh, woe is us: Dawkins is polarizing, and thus surely the sky is falling. Never mind all of the overwhelming good that has come from his advocacy—he has hurt the feelings of people who are far more valuable than Gnus are, and thus his approach must be woefully wrong.”
Wow … this just completely misses the point, so much so that I don’t think you understand what the meaning of the word “polarizing” is. Polarizing is, basically, where you end up with a “either you love him or you hate him” type of thing. If Dawkins is polarizing — and I didn’t say that about him, BTW — it means that he’s forcing a choice of either you are with him the whole way or you are opposed to him. This means that he’d lose a lot of people that he could have gained or at least shifted in that progression that you want if his message wasn’t polarizing. Since I presume these people aren’t LESS valuable than the ones that manage to come over with the polarizing message, and since most of these would come over anyway even if the message wasn’t polarizing — and I’m not sure you’d want them if they wouldn’t, since people who seem the world in terms of us vs them aren’t exactly rational or prone to empathy — it would seem that making the message less polarizing would be a good thing.
As an example, Dennett explicitly tried to avoid phrasing things in his book “Breaking the Spell” so that they’d offend religious people. If more people followed his lead and if Dawkins — whom I don’t find particularly strident, as I have said many times before — was the worst example, do you think that that many less people would put conversion posts up at Dawkins’ site?
john,
I’d read Dennett first, and personally didn’t find him convincing, for the reasons that Chalmers — and Nagel — outlined really well.
I have no idea what line of thought made me write “conserviation”. I meant “conservative”, of course.
Back to #67:
<a href=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/21/eric-berger-on-unscientific-america/#comment-27458″>Here’s a link with Jon saying NAs don’t read Camus</a>. Not to obsess or anything, but I knew it was an assertion I had seen before, and I came across it today while tracking down something else that was said. He said very close to the same thing several times, hence my mis-attribution in that one case…
/ot