Print
Changing my Mind
by Patrick Bateson, Edge
Reposted from:
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html
(see more responses to the year-end "WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT?" question at this link as well)
PATRICK BATESON
Professor of Ethology, Cambridge University, author of Design for a Life
Near the end of his life Charles Darwin invited for lunch at Down House Dr Ludwig Büchner, President of the Congress of the International Federation of Freethinkers, and Edward Aveling, a self-proclaimed and active atheist. The invitation was at their request. Emma Darwin, devout as ever, was appalled by the thought of entertaining such guests and at table insulated herself from the atheists with an old family friend, the Rev. Brodie Innes, on her right and with her grandson and his friends on her left. After lunch Darwin and his son Frank smoked cigarettes with the two visitors in Darwin's old study. Darwin asked them with surprising directness: "Why do you call yourselves atheists?" He said that he preferred the word agnostic. While Darwin agreed that Christianity was not supported by evidence, he felt that atheist was too aggressive a term to describe his own position.
For many years what had been good enough for Darwin was good enough for me. I too described myself as an agnostic. I had been brought up in a Christian culture and some of the most rational humanists I knew were believers. I loved the music and art that had been inspired by a belief in God and saw no hypocrisy in participating in the great carol services held in the Chapel of King's College Cambridge. I did not accept the views of some of my scientific colleagues that the march of science has disposed of religion. The wish that I and many biologists had to understand biological evolution was not the same as the wish had by those with deep religious conviction to understand the meaning of life.
I had, however, led a sheltered life and had never met anybody who was aggressively religious. I hated, of course, what I had read about the ugly fanaticism of all forms of religious fundamentalism or what I had seen of it on television. However, such wickedness did not seem to be simply correlated with religious belief since many non-believers were just as totalitarian in their behaviour as the believers. My unwillingness to be involved in religious debates was shaken at a grand dinner party. The woman sitting next to me asked me what I did and I told her that I am a biologist. "Oh well," she said, "then we have plenty to talk about, because I believe that every word of the Bible is literally true." My heart sank.
As things turned out, we didn't have a great deal to talk about because she wasn't going to be persuaded by any argument that I could throw at her. She did not seem to wonder about the inconsistencies between the gospels of the New Testament or those between the first and second chapters of Genesis. Nor was she concerned about where Cain's wife came from? The Victorians were delicate about such matters and were not going to entertain the thought that Cain married an unnamed sister or, horrors, that his own mother bore his children, his grand children and so on down the line of descendants until other women became available. Nevertheless, the devout Victorians were obviously troubled by the question and they speculated on the existence of pre-Adamite people, angels probably, who would have furnished Cain with his wife.
My creationist dinner companion was not worried by such trivialities and dismissed my lack of politesse as the problem of a scientist being too literal. However, being too literal was not my problem, it was hers and those of her fellow creationists. She was hoist on her own petard. In any event, it was quite simply stupid to try to take on science on its own terms by appealing to the intelligence implicit in natural design. Science provides orderly methods for examining the natural world. One of those methods is to develop theories that integrate as much as possible of what we know about the phenomena encompassed by the theory. The theories provide frameworks for testing the characteristics of the world — and though some theorists may not wish to believe it, their theories are eminently disposable. Facts are widely shared opinions and, every so often the consensus breaks — and minds change. Nevertheless it is crying for the moon to hope that the enormous bodies of thought that have been built up about cosmology, geology and biological evolution are all due to fall apart. No serious theologian would rest his or her beliefs on such a hope. If faith rests on the supposed implausibility of a current scientific explanation, it is vulnerable to the appearance of a plausible one. To build on such sand is a crass mistake.
Not long after that dreadful dinner, Richard Dawkins wrote to me to ask whether I would publicly affirm my atheism. I could see no reason why not. One of the clear definitions of an atheist is a lack of a belief in a God. That certainly described my position, even though I am disinclined to attack the beliefs of the sincere and thoughtful people with strong religious beliefs whom I continue to meet. I completed the questionnaire that Richard had sent to me. I had changed my mind. A dear friend, Peter Lipton, who died suddenly in November 2007, had been assiduous in maintaining Jewish customs in his own home and in his public defence of Israel. After he died I was surprised to discover that he described himself as a religious atheist. I should not have been surprised.
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html
(see more responses to the year-end "WHAT HAVE YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND ABOUT?" question at this link as well)
PATRICK BATESON
Professor of Ethology, Cambridge University, author of Design for a Life
Near the end of his life Charles Darwin invited for lunch at Down House Dr Ludwig Büchner, President of the Congress of the International Federation of Freethinkers, and Edward Aveling, a self-proclaimed and active atheist. The invitation was at their request. Emma Darwin, devout as ever, was appalled by the thought of entertaining such guests and at table insulated herself from the atheists with an old family friend, the Rev. Brodie Innes, on her right and with her grandson and his friends on her left. After lunch Darwin and his son Frank smoked cigarettes with the two visitors in Darwin's old study. Darwin asked them with surprising directness: "Why do you call yourselves atheists?" He said that he preferred the word agnostic. While Darwin agreed that Christianity was not supported by evidence, he felt that atheist was too aggressive a term to describe his own position.For many years what had been good enough for Darwin was good enough for me. I too described myself as an agnostic. I had been brought up in a Christian culture and some of the most rational humanists I knew were believers. I loved the music and art that had been inspired by a belief in God and saw no hypocrisy in participating in the great carol services held in the Chapel of King's College Cambridge. I did not accept the views of some of my scientific colleagues that the march of science has disposed of religion. The wish that I and many biologists had to understand biological evolution was not the same as the wish had by those with deep religious conviction to understand the meaning of life.
I had, however, led a sheltered life and had never met anybody who was aggressively religious. I hated, of course, what I had read about the ugly fanaticism of all forms of religious fundamentalism or what I had seen of it on television. However, such wickedness did not seem to be simply correlated with religious belief since many non-believers were just as totalitarian in their behaviour as the believers. My unwillingness to be involved in religious debates was shaken at a grand dinner party. The woman sitting next to me asked me what I did and I told her that I am a biologist. "Oh well," she said, "then we have plenty to talk about, because I believe that every word of the Bible is literally true." My heart sank.
As things turned out, we didn't have a great deal to talk about because she wasn't going to be persuaded by any argument that I could throw at her. She did not seem to wonder about the inconsistencies between the gospels of the New Testament or those between the first and second chapters of Genesis. Nor was she concerned about where Cain's wife came from? The Victorians were delicate about such matters and were not going to entertain the thought that Cain married an unnamed sister or, horrors, that his own mother bore his children, his grand children and so on down the line of descendants until other women became available. Nevertheless, the devout Victorians were obviously troubled by the question and they speculated on the existence of pre-Adamite people, angels probably, who would have furnished Cain with his wife.
My creationist dinner companion was not worried by such trivialities and dismissed my lack of politesse as the problem of a scientist being too literal. However, being too literal was not my problem, it was hers and those of her fellow creationists. She was hoist on her own petard. In any event, it was quite simply stupid to try to take on science on its own terms by appealing to the intelligence implicit in natural design. Science provides orderly methods for examining the natural world. One of those methods is to develop theories that integrate as much as possible of what we know about the phenomena encompassed by the theory. The theories provide frameworks for testing the characteristics of the world — and though some theorists may not wish to believe it, their theories are eminently disposable. Facts are widely shared opinions and, every so often the consensus breaks — and minds change. Nevertheless it is crying for the moon to hope that the enormous bodies of thought that have been built up about cosmology, geology and biological evolution are all due to fall apart. No serious theologian would rest his or her beliefs on such a hope. If faith rests on the supposed implausibility of a current scientific explanation, it is vulnerable to the appearance of a plausible one. To build on such sand is a crass mistake.
Not long after that dreadful dinner, Richard Dawkins wrote to me to ask whether I would publicly affirm my atheism. I could see no reason why not. One of the clear definitions of an atheist is a lack of a belief in a God. That certainly described my position, even though I am disinclined to attack the beliefs of the sincere and thoughtful people with strong religious beliefs whom I continue to meet. I completed the questionnaire that Richard had sent to me. I had changed my mind. A dear friend, Peter Lipton, who died suddenly in November 2007, had been assiduous in maintaining Jewish customs in his own home and in his public defence of Israel. After he died I was surprised to discover that he described himself as a religious atheist. I should not have been surprised.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 203 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #106107 by BicycleRepairMan on January 2, 2008 at 11:15 am
Interesting.. I think more and more atheists, (certainly those with some authority) recognize the importance of simply standing up to be counted. Its not nearly good enough to say "agnostic" because believers will take that as some "crisis of faith" or some wishy washy 50/50 position. Crystal clear atheism. Here and unafraid. Thats enough for some people out there who feel like they are the only sane person in an insane world. To someone brought up in a strict religious environment that may be all it takes to realize that there are people like them out there, and they live happy, successful, fulfilled lives, with no threat of hellfire to keep them from becoming mass-murderers. Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan
3. Comment #106113 by bentleyd on January 2, 2008 at 11:27 am
It's like arguing with children. Reason and logic don't matter to a fundamentalist. The more illogical or outrageous a biblical claim may be, the greater the miracle. Other Comments by bentleyd
4. Comment #106117 by kevlaw on January 2, 2008 at 11:32 am
After he died I was surprised to discover that he described himself as a religious atheist.
Religious Atheist = Ceremonial Deist?
http://www.ceremonialdeists.com
"The only religion blessed by the Supreme Court"
Other Comments by kevlaw
5. Comment #106131 by lostpoet on January 2, 2008 at 11:56 am
I am somewhat surprised at the number of fanatical Christians who "accuse" me with the comment, "atheism is a religion."Huh?? Say again???
Is this some grand strategy of the zealots? But to what purpose? It makes no sense at all!
Other Comments by lostpoet
6. Comment #106140 by Paula Kirby on January 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm
It's interesting, isn't it, how many people understand atheism vs agnosticism, not as degrees of unbelief, but as degrees of hostility to belief. I know several people who call themselves agnostic who are atheists in all but name - they just don't feel as hostile to religion as they feel the word "atheist" suggests.
And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
7. Comment #106141 by Affront on January 2, 2008 at 12:10 pm
"It's like arguing with children."Most of the children I know are pretty good at arguing and, of course, persistently asking questions. What's so sad about fundamentalism is that it assumes it has all the answers.
Anyway, a nice piece by Prof. Bateson. Christians - even the moderates who I know - find it very difficult to accept the idea that it's possible to call oneself an atheist without excluding completely the idea that gods might exist. When I point out to them - as I did to an Oxford educated lawyer not so long ago - that even Richard D doesn't totally discount the possibility of their being gods, they get very upset.
The idea that atheism could be treated as a religion might hold water if we atheists asserted that gods don't exist. We can't, of course. But we can say that we believe very strongly that there are no gods and that the onus is on those who do believe to provide some falsifiable evidence to support their position.
Other Comments by Affront
8. Comment #106142 by Phaeonix on January 2, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Wow. This whole section in Edge is fascinating... I encourage anyone to read the other testimonials... Absolutely fascinating. Goldstein, Pinker, Hauser, Atran, Randall, Harris, Dennett, Dawkins... the list goes on!
Other Comments by Phaeonix
9. Comment #106144 by Rick Stromoski on January 2, 2008 at 12:17 pm
atheism is a religion as non-belief in the tooth fairy is a science.Other Comments by Rick Stromoski
10. Comment #106157 by BlaiddDrwg on January 2, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It's both amusing and sad, the number of christians who claim that atheists don't exist. I've heard dozens of people claim that atheists really do believe in god in their hearts, but only choose not to worship him so they can live "sinful" lives. In a perfect world, being an atheist should be as much of a non-issue as having brown hair. But, as long as ideas like this persist, then we should proudly identify ourselves as atheists until the christians are forced to admit that you can be a good person and not believe in god. I've been called an example of a good christian man many times because I'm polite and helpful, then the same people instantly look at me like I eat babies after I tell them that I'm an atheist. It's up to us to show the world that god does not have a monopoly on morality, and we can only do that by telling people who we are.
Other Comments by BlaiddDrwg
11. Comment #106169 by Solarium Solaris on January 2, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Instead of telling people that I'm an "atheist" I just say that "I don't believe in god." This way avoids the negative connotations that I wish to avoid and correctly states my opinion.But actually I do say "atheist" often just for fun.
Other Comments by Solarium Solaris
12. Comment #106171 by artemisa on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Someone just knocked on the door ,guess who?. Well the Jehovah team. I told them I believe in science and the natural world and one of them responded there is science in the bible. I just told them to read some science and said good bye. I just wonder if anyone would give me some advice as to how to respond better in a fruitful way.Other Comments by artemisa
13. Comment #106172 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Very Good Patrick. There is nothing left to say, and because that is the case, it reflects your response is well written and thorough. Other Comments by morgantj
14. Comment #106176 by ASonOfLiberty on January 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Funny... I proudly declare that not only am I an atheist, but I also proceed to show people just how stupid, unfounded, and cruel their belief system actually is.I guess I am just an asshole, or as a friend once put it, I am still an evangelical (I was raise by pentecostal ministers), it's just that I am now an evangelical theist.
I do love a fight of wits with retards, what can I say. Use the bible as evidence of literalism to me and I will shed you to bits with your own book! :)
Other Comments by ASonOfLiberty
15. Comment #106178 by Paula Kirby on January 2, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Artemisa: I just wonder if anyone would give me some advice as to how to respond better in a fruitful way.
I'd suggest, "No thank you, I'm not interested. Goodbye."
Seriously - there's no such thing as a "fruitful" discussion with a JW. They have been completely and utterly brainwashed and will be absolutely incapable of entering into anything remotely like a sensible discussion with you.
What's more, the power of their cult is such that, if they were ever to stop being JWs, their JW families and friends would be obliged to disown them altogether. With so much at stake, it's a brave JW indeed who would ever dare to admit to a doubt. (There's a reason they go round in twos, by the way - and it's not just for the pleasure of each other's company.)
I have a friend who's an ex-JW. In the end it was the cult's own lack of humanity and compassion that drove her out - nothing to do with anyone talking her into doubting her beliefs.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
16. Comment #106179 by al-rawandi on January 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm
artemisa,When they show up I just release the dogs. They bring back a show and a bloody bible. They don't come by so often.
ASonofLiberty,
The true value of the bible is the efficacy which it can be used to make christianity look stupid.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
17. Comment #106181 by al-rawandi on January 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm
That is a 'Shoe' and bloody bible. Oh screw it. Other Comments by al-rawandi
18. Comment #106183 by Radesq on January 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm
BlaiddDrwg wrote:I've been called an example of a good christian man many times because I'm polite and helpful, then the same people instantly look at me like I eat babies after I tell them that I'm an atheist.
Did you show them your avatar when you told them this?
I don't know whether it is better to fight to change the perception of the name or simply change the name (e.g. estate taxes become death taxes). Critical thinkers can see through such a ploy, after all what is in a name really? But who is the target audience again?
Other Comments by Radesq
19. Comment #106188 by eno on January 2, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Agnostics ARE atheists! Or rather, atheists are agnostics. To qualify as an atheist you just need to deny the existence of God or gods, come to that.I find that most people I come into contact with (I live in the South of England) don't believe in the Christian God but wouldn't call themselves atheists because they rarely even think about it. They prefer agnostic because it is less aggressive. I do agree with them but its time to make a stand and to be more forthright especially with all this awful Creationist/Intelligent Design arse-gravy that is about at the moment.
I've just joined the British Centre for Science in Education and recommend others to do so. They have an excellent website.
reno
Other Comments by eno
20. Comment #106200 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Unless I am asked, I see no reason to volunteer that I am not a football fan, or that I do not play golf, or that I don't believe in Santa. There are not even labels for these positions like there is for atheism. I think that the fact that the term "atheism" exists shows the dominance of the creationist belief. Not a dominance that the belief is right, just that the creationist view is so widely held as to have a term or label those that do not share their belief. What I don't like is that creationist cry and complain that the modern atheist are voicing their views and opinions to the public. You have to be kidding me. They make great attempts to spread their beliefs as though they were factual, and expect us to keep quiet about it? We must voice our opinions because they are spreading their beliefs as though they are facts. Somebody must respect and defend the pursuit of truth.
Also, they claim that the atheist view is a negative one. That is simply not true. Atheist/Agnostics hold the default value. "0" if you will. Their view is the positive one. +1. The burden of proof lies on them. It's interesting how often they expect us to defend our view. However, there isn't much to defend in our view, the most we can do is show them the small probability rate of their own view and point out the fallacies to their logic.
Other Comments by morgantj
21. Comment #106217 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 1:56 pm
artemisaIt is impossible to have a rational conversation with JW people about their faith. One thing you can do is refuse to divulge any information about your life or your opinions; nothing that they can build on. Use maybe and No a lot in the conversation and do not give precise answers. Usually they will leave. If you ask them to prove what they believe in, they would try to get you hooked and reel you in. Like they tried with your science question.
If however you want to engage in a conversation with them, then you will have to play their game on them. Exploit their weaknesses. Try to find the techniques they use to fish out personal information about you, from you. Use the same techniques on them. Instead of making it about you make it about them. Chances are they will recognize and resent you using their tricks on them, but it will work, after all it is only fair.
Once it becomes about their life rather than yours then you can indicate to them the weaknesses of their belief system and its problems. Try frequenting discussion groups of ex-Jehovah's witnesses to find out more about such issues.
Also, try to frame your conversation along this line – Yes, one has real concerns and real issues, but this is the wrong way of dealing with it. And be honest about why it is wrong. You may be doing them a favor, even if it will pain them at first, so you can try being gentle and effective at the same time.
As you can see confronting them requires much more effort and preparation than shoving them away. You may decide after all that shaking people's faith maybe as mean as telling people they are fat; besides you may have better things to do. So you may want to think about it.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
22. Comment #106220 by Jack Rawlinson on January 2, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Paula Kirby writes: "And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead."
That perfectly sums up in two succinct sentences what it took me about two pages to argue when I criticised Harris's stance on the use of the word "atheist". :-)
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
23. Comment #106224 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 2:05 pm
82abhilash, in regards to using their own techniques on them, this reminds me of something I have been seeing more and more of lately, and that is religious folks trying to make their views, beliefs, and arguments sound scientific. I see this as an act of them trying to use our technique in which we often use science to prove our points or point out alternative scientific explanations. Of course, they are unable to accurately use science in defending their positions, but I see them trying allot more then they used too. They are simply trying to make their views sound more legit by saying they have scientific proof. However, this is usually inaccurate as they often do not use proper methods of coming to the results they are claiming are scientific. Other Comments by morgantj
24. Comment #106226 by morgantj on January 2, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Paula Kirby writes: "And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead."
I agree.
Other Comments by morgantj
25. Comment #106231 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2008 at 2:14 pm
And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead.
I believe Harris saw this danger, and (if I remember right) was suggesting that we need not label ourselves as anything. However, I don't see that as very practical.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
26. Comment #106232 by gregonomic on January 2, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Further to comment #106188 by eno - is it not possible to be both atheist (believe that there are no gods) and agnostic (believe that it is impossible to prove the existence - or lack thereof - of the gods that have been proposed)?Other Comments by gregonomic
27. Comment #106235 by zdravko on January 2, 2008 at 2:20 pm
we have to beat the theist at their own game.We have to show them how patient, placid and
composed we are in disputed with them, because we try to be rational
as much as we can. Let them lose their temper.
It will only show their irrationality and weak
arguments
Other Comments by zdravko
28. Comment #106237 by Steve Zara on January 2, 2008 at 2:24 pm
we have to beat the theist at their own game. We have to show them how patient, placid and
composed we are in disputed with them, because we try to be rational as much as we can. Let them lose their temper. It will only show their irrationality and weak arguments.
I agree completely. Being calm, polite and patient can very effective as a strategy. It works even better if that is your natural approach.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
29. Comment #106238 by sent2null on January 2, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Re: 12. Comment #106171 by artemisa on January 2, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I just wonder if anyone would give me some advice as to how to respond better in a fruitful way.
Simply engage them, if you have the time. I've invited JW's into my home just for the purpose of fleshing out debate over the matter. In all cases I exhaust the witnesses ability to properly respond to the points that I make. I genuinely feel that when they realize they can't counter your logic, rather than ponder if what you are stating is actually correct they first wonder if you are some sort of devil. So deeply ingrained in the world of magic they are, bringing enlightenment to the rapidly increasing population of the religiously indoctrinated is not going to be easy.
Other Comments by sent2null
30. Comment #106240 by al-rawandi on January 2, 2008 at 2:29 pm
sent2null,As I stated earlier, when the JW's show up, I release the dogs. Two Doberman's are excellent 'debaters' when it comes to the JW crowd. Occasionally they return with some bloody tattered rags in their teeth, but in the end, I get 12-14 months of peace before they return with their magic.
You are a better man than I.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
31. Comment #106257 by 82abhilash on January 2, 2008 at 3:09 pm
morgantj you and I know that when the JW or others try to sound scientific, it is just a trick to impress the masses. Their real appeal is emotional. And if we can appeal to their good emotions then we have made significant in roads.Either their faith will corrode or they will take us for the devil. But their world will never be the same again.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
32. Comment #106263 by room101 on January 2, 2008 at 3:19 pm
She was hoist on her own petard
Love that phrase...I resolve to incorporate it somehow into my everyday conversation.
Other Comments by room101
33. Comment #106266 by NormanDoering on January 2, 2008 at 3:29 pm
sent2null wrote:So deeply ingrained in the world of magic they are, bringing enlightenment to the rapidly increasing population of the religiously indoctrinated is not going to be easy.
I wrote about this here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/04/dont-try-this-at-home.html
Don't expect to change someone's mind with one argument. Instead, try to move the "Overton window."
I quote myself:
The Overton window is a concept in political theory that describes a "window" in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on an issue. Moving that window may be all you can accomplish, getting people to include previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas is a partial goal. The degrees of acceptance of ideas can be roughly laid out this way:
0 -- Unthinkable / Terrified
1 -- Radical / Uncomfortable
2 -- Acceptable / Not so bad
3 -- Sensible / Rational
4 -- Popular / Credible
5 -- Policy / Believed
If visualizing which attitudes define the range of acceptance of atheism by where they fall in the above spectrum, then atheism would probably terrorize most fundy Christians. They would thus find it "unthinkable." If you've moved them from being terrified to being merely uncomfortable with atheism you haven't done that bad.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
34. Comment #106273 by eXcommunicate on January 2, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Belief is not a simple atheist-theist axis. There is a second axis that runs perpendicular and that is the agnostic-gnostic axis. Together they are what I call the "Belief Compass." It's very similar to the (internet) famous "Political Compass."A graphic of the "Belief Compass" I whipped up:
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1082/atheisttheistagnosticgnyh5.jpg
The Political Compass:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
Other Comments by eXcommunicate
35. Comment #106278 by Corylus on January 2, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Um, dealing with religious canvassers at your door (I won't use the term Jehovah Witness, because there are other groups that do this).Personally, I just put them on the back foot morally by simply and very gently talking to them about their 'cold-calling' techniques. (I don't mention God at all)
1) I ask them if they have ever considered the possibility that elderly people, those living alone or the otherwise vulnerable, might be very frightened to see two complete strangers on their doorstep.
2) I talk to them about the role of trust and whether it is a good thing to encourage said vulnerable people to invite them into their homes.
3) I ask them whether they are willing to admit the possibility that some people might find strangers telling them how to live, well, just a teeny bit impertinent.
4) I point out that many people will only agree with what they say, and accept their literature, out of misplaced politeness: making a large proportion of their work irrelevant.
5) Finally, I ask them whether, even if they knew for sure that they would convert no-one with their actions would they nevertheless still continue to knock on doors?
This last one is the killer. If you see a slack jaw at this point, then ask them if they are doing this canvassing for the good of others or merely to fulfil some need of their own. This question hurts.
I have seen the glimmerings of pennies dropping with this technique.
They are trained to disregard anti-religious arguments and wave them away, shields firmly in front of them. They are taught to accept and even enjoy abuse as a way to glory.
Approach them calmly via their unprotected flank and watch them crumble.
Other Comments by Corylus
36. Comment #106284 by sent2null on January 2, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Re. Post 30Not so fast al-rawandi I neglected to include the mouth salivating relish with which I invite the JW's into my abode. I fear I am not as much the better man that you might think. ;)
Other Comments by sent2null
37. Comment #106289 by DasSquid on January 2, 2008 at 3:56 pm
And yet I don't agree with Sam Harris's objection to the use of the word "atheist" to describe ourselves. It's the underlying negative association you have to work to change, not the word - otherwise the negative association just attaches itself to whatever new word you find instead.
In a way, I agree with Sam Harris, but in other ways I do not in regards to this sentence.
It is indeed imperative that we do have a banner to fly until the theists quiet down.
I really do wish I could just speak to you all I'm an abhorrent writer. I'll give it a shot though.
Up until the point where it's a moot point to say we're atheists do we need to identify ourselves as such, however in a society like we have today with Religion being, unfortunately, the matter of life and death for so many that we need to take a stand and indeed label ourselves as standing out against this. Just, as Richard Dawkins loves to point out, as the gays flew their banners, the more and more of the gay community that came out it made it just that little bit easier for each successive person to come out until today, it's very much a moot point. This has indeed happened in many people's lifetimes here (unfortunately not me, I'm a young sod.).
The way I see it, again paralleling it to the gay movement, there is a 'critical mass' of atheists who've come out for each successive atheist to come out of the religious closet. Then, as the voice gets stronger, the more and more people are becoming atheists until eventually it becomes a moot point because of a changed mind about so many things. We've seen it for racism, we've seen it for queer-o-sexuality (I'm sorry, I still find that hilarious) but seriously, I believe we truly DO need to label ourselves under the ONE banner as opposed to the many difference banners of atheism that are flying about.
Secular Humanists
Brights
Atheists
blah blah, they're all the same, and if they pooled their numbers together under the one flag then more and more would feel a lot less pressure about coming out, until finally everyone who is truly atheist but is oppressed into being 'theists' is out!
What do you all think? Is my writing legible? haha. Again I'm a speaker, not a writer.
Other Comments by DasSquid
38. Comment #106290 by Paula Kirby on January 2, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Personally, I just put them on the back foot morally by simply and very gently talking to them about their 'cold-calling' techniques.
Corylus, that is pure genius. I am lost in admiration. You're quite right - they've all been trained up to the hilt to cope with theological argument, scientific argument and plain abuse. But most people - even JWs and their ilk! - are basically fairly well-meaning and would feel uneasy with the thought that they may be inflicting distress on the vulnerable.
Brilliant - I shall try it next time ...
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
39. Comment #106297 by Corylus on January 2, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Best of luck Paula :) Other Comments by Corylus
40. Comment #106309 by Tim Friede on January 2, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I agree w/ Paula, and I'm not afraid to be one, nor defend the hell out of it(atheism). I don't like cream-puffin' it!I've learned to beat them on their terms first(hammering the Bible, or whatever), then come in with obvious scientific proof. I sometimes can see it in their eyes, but money is powerful.
They really freak when they find I've read the Bible, that's funny. " Hmmm, why is it that I know more then you, and here you are trying to teach me". Sorry, this sucker ain't buyin'.
Other Comments by Tim Friede
41. Comment #106310 by Radesq on January 2, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Paula: I have asked my wife (who is usually home when the evangelizing types come around) to keep all the literature in a little desk we have by the front door. Next time the JW's come by I'm going to ask them if they have heard about the Book of Mormon and give them the pamphlet the last folks left. Other Comments by Radesq
42. Comment #106312 by qster on January 2, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Hello all, I'm new to the site and read with great interest the vibrant discussion and argument about the existence of God or otherwise. It is interesting that such debate is blooming with the advent of an age of enlightenment away from the clutches or church doctrine and hugely assisted by the Internet. I wonder if contributors have read the "conversations with God Trilogy" by Neale Donald Walsch. I dont believe that anything in the series contracdicts the main thrust of Dawkins except for the primary point and that is that God does not exist as a separate entity - We are God in every infinite facet of our existence, good and bad. The concept of time and the nature of infinity must be considered first and raise our argument to encompass the possibilities that we arent the only beings with consciousness. Our level of understanding is still very limited but by the process going on in such sites as this we can hope to expand our minds. I would love to hear your thoughts.Other Comments by qster
43. Comment #106356 by Roland_F on January 2, 2008 at 5:53 pm
About comment 42 (#106312)God does not exist as a separate entity - We are God in every infinite facet of our existence
remind me about Hindu doctrine : we are all interconnected which every other sentiment beeing on the planet, or Buddist teaching : all power rests and comes only from inside yourself and not from an external God and also here everyone is interconnected.
Other Comments by Roland_F
44. Comment #106357 by qster on January 2, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Yes Roland, the concepts are not new by any stretch and I think the Buddist 'philosophy' (Its not a religion) is about one of the most positive moral codes observed these days. The concepts do not contradict the atheist 'belief'. Do you believe the concepts you outline above to be true?Other Comments by qster
45. Comment #106361 by clunkclickeverytrip on January 2, 2008 at 6:12 pm
God does not exist as a separate entity - We are God in every infinite facet of our existence, good and bad.
This poetic use of the word "God" as a euphamism for "nature" etc. is dealt with by RD in The God Delusion. The majority of monothiests use it as in a very specific monotheistic context and it is monotheism that has one God too many.
Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip
46. Comment #106363 by dragonfirematrix on January 2, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I think a good debate between opposing sides is normally an excellent exercise and good practice for both parties. However, I do not think it is productive to engage fundamentalists (or the like) with the hopes of any kind of peaceful, intelligent exchange.All we can do is watch our backs and work to stop the fundamentalists from overthrowing our freedoms, civil rights, civil liberties, human-rights, on infinitum.
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
47. Comment #106370 by qster on January 2, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I think a good debate between opposing sides is normally an excellent exercise and good practice for both parties. However, I do not think it is productive to engage fundamentalists (or the like) with the hopes of any kind of peaceful, intelligent exchange.The problem with text rather than face to face debate is failure to interpret the tone of comments. Does dragonfirematrix believe I am a fundamentalist? If so, then you have mistaken my tone. Debate is not about sitting in a virtual room with like-minded people. Thats an easy option..
I am an engineer, a scientist. I too would love to see evidence of Gods existence and as a scientist I dont discount any outcomes because of a lack of evidence. To obtaine evidence, one must be able to measure an outcome against a tested theory with tangible results. I just doubt this is possible. FYI, i am anti religion, anti fundamentalist with regard to anything. Fundamentalists do not change their mind and usually agressively push a point of viewwith little regard to open debate.
Other Comments by qster
48. Comment #106372 by dr joneZ on January 2, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I wonder if contributors have read the "conversations with God Trilogy" by Neale Donald Walsch. I dont believe that anything in the series contracdicts the main thrust of Dawkins except for the primary point and that is that God does not exist as a separate entity - We are God in every infinite facet of our existence, good and bad.
I have read the entire series of Conversations with God and found considerable overlap with the thinking of RD et al. He be quite a clever (and by now very wealthy) thinker, our Neale Donald Walsch. One of the best bits is where God announces "God's greatest moment will come when humanity realises that it no longer needs the concept of God". To which - I can hear Christopher Hitchens quickly snap "..and never did".
In my view, the best volume is "Communion with God" - where he spells out in terms even a complete moron can understand why any concept we can ever devise of G is based on human attributes. Therefore - God is human: us. We've merely been talking to ourselves all along. What have we been talking about? ourselves. The whole enormous dialogue of religious faith has been nothing other than a self-referential and circular discussion.
Actually - I strongly suspect that Walsch is a committed atheist who is playing a very intelligent game. He is attacking the edifice of religion from the INSIDE -something your average tweedy atheist finds somewhat difficult (that's OK - I'm one myself!). The Conversations with God series of books is an attempt to do away with religion as we know it. Walsch grabs the bearded sky-god and throws him back down to earth - where he/she/it came from in the first place. This is a very valuable message to get across!
We see ourselves wherever we go and in whatever we look at. Quantum physics confirms this. All observation is self-observation. Our brains are virtual reality helmets that provide us with - and update continually in milliseconds - an interpretation of something "out there". The author richly mines this intellectual terrain in a series of responses by "God" to his (the author's) probing questions about life, the universe and everything. It's a wonderful read and represents a true intellectual stepping-stone for faith-heads on their way out the chapel door into the big wide world.
Now - the 64 million dollar question: what does Neale Donald Walsch think about Richard Dawkins and TGD? So far, he has astutely avoided "noticing" the growing atheist movement and has not joined the hard, pointy end of the debate. He's a fantastic public speaker - it would be good to see him plunge in and do a one-on-one with, say, Dan Dennett.
cheers,
Kim Jones
Other Comments by dr joneZ
49. Comment #106378 by qster on January 2, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Tremendous response Dr JoneZ, thank you. I agree wrt Walsch and his now considerable wealth and status, however, good on him. The series is as you say a stepping stone to a more indepth consideration of the God question and does a pretty good job of helping people out of the religion traps. I have been a 'nothing' for the last 15 or so years after dropping a weak default affiliation with Catholicism.Also glad to see the Quantum physics reference. Perhaps thats where we can find 'evidence' of God. Have you read Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" on that very topic of the parallels between QP and eastern mysticism?
Other Comments by qster
50. Comment #106382 by dr joneZ on January 2, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Have you read Gary Zukav's "Dancing Wu Li Masters" on that very topic of the parallels between QP and eastern mysticism?
Read it in the early eighties, not long after it came out. It gave my brain a good whirl, that's for sure but am afraid I now rank it as one of the more - ahem - hysterical accounts of quantum physics from the late 70s. It was a time of Shirley MacLaine, Dr Who, Timothy Leary and Star Wars, so its fairly understandable that the author would oversubscribe a little to his material. Unfortunately, I was unable to contunue past chapter 2 of Zukav's later work "The Seat of the Soul" which by then sounded to me like the kind of "spiritual" faffing about that Richard Dawkins so superbly debunks in "The Enemies of Reason".
If Zukav could still get orgasmically excited by the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics I very much doubt. I wonder what kind of dance he would go into over the Higgs Boson. I now say that this kind of book - like the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" does a disservice to its subject matter by conflating supernatural wishful-thinking with scientific theorising.
Once again - a good read, but way out of date now
cheers,
dr j
Other Comments by dr joneZ
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The position I have always adopted is that much of animal nature is indeed altruistic, cooperative and even attended by benevolent subjective emotions, but that this follows from, rather than contradicts, selfishness at the genetic level."
Richard Dawkins
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.."
Thomas Jefferson
"The fight both for and against slavery in the United States was waged first along scriptural lines. . . . There was also the theory of the descent from Ham which attained great vogue and still does in certain quarters. . . . With the superseding of religion by science the battle of inequality shifted from a scriptural wording to a scientific one. Now it was no longer what "God had said" but what color, hair, and skull showed. . . . In other words, the pro-slavery faction and the antislavery one had entered the stage in new costumes. Underneath were the same bodies."
Joel Augustus Rogers
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend"
Richard Jeni
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #106105 by notsobad on January 2, 2008 at 11:12 am
I would burst out laughing. There is nothing more you can do about these people.
Other Comments by notsobad