251. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79383 by Russell Blackford on October 17, 2007 at 6:17 am

I commented at a bit more length over here:

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/10/hitchens-at-his-best.html

But I still can't help adding some more here.

I think there's a lot to learn from this debate. Hitchens handled it very well, and it's worth looking at his technique, for anyone who may be placed in a similar situation in their local scene.

McGrath didn't handle it well, though. I still think that there were better ways he could have at least tried to deal with Hitchens - not just talking about things like fine-tuning, the genuine mystery of consciousness, etc., but also pulling up Hitchens on such things as the claim that female genital mutilation, etc., arise from religion. It's not necessarily as simple as that, though it's true that religion has encouraged and perpetuated an irrational prejudice against, and even disgust with, sex and the body - and particularly, but by no means solely, against female sexuality. On this, religion has the moral low ground.

I think Hitchens did particularly well in hammering the absurdity, and moral horror, of the central Christian doctrine of Christ's blood sacrifice for our sins. This was a key point that had him on the attack and McGrath on the defensive throughout. McGrath tried to get out of it, but his reinterpretation of the gospel message didn't really help - it amounted to much the same thing (otherwise, why is this particular event, Christ's cruel execution, so transforming for us?). The unavoidable fact, which Hitchens rubbed in, is that the most central Christian doctrine is barbaric and should have no modern-day credibility at all. Everyone should flinch from it; it's an embarrassment to any intelligent Christian.

252. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79290 by Russell Blackford on October 16, 2007 at 6:11 pm

BAEOZ, I think that the proper way of answering the fine-tuning argument is to look at how it is parasitic on our cognitive biases such as our comfort with answers that refer to intelligent agency. But it would be quite difficult to do that in a live debate; it requires raising some points that are unfamiliar to most people.

Maybe a reference to Camus would help - at some level, we (or many people) expect the universe to love and suffer like us. We are biased towards this idea, have a tendency not to see the contrivance in particular versions of it, have a tendency to see any answer to ultimate questions as contrived unless it ends up with that kind of answer. It's a great thing for theists and deists to play on and a quite difficult thing to expose and challenge

I wonder how Hitchens would handle it. Perhaps just "God of the gaps." But that's not terribly satisfactory.

253. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79268 by Russell Blackford on October 16, 2007 at 4:06 pm

I look forward to watching this, but it's an obvious mismatch. I don't have the low regard for McGrath that some of you do - he seems like a moderate and intelligent man who may, for all I know, come across well in a lecture theatre or over a cup of tea or if he's writing about theological niceties in an academic journal. However, he is simply not a rough-and-tumble public performer in the way that Hitchens is. He's too gentle and too oddly-mannered (and, strangely, too honest ... in his fashion). Hitchens would dominate against him in a live debate on any topic.

To make it a contest, the theists would need to put up someone meaner, nastier, more aggressive, less introspective, less odd, and ... let's face it ... less scrupulous than McGrath. It could be someone with less actual intellect. To avoid a libel suit, I won't name names, but you can all think of people like that on the theist team.

Edit: I actually think I'd do better for the theist side than some of these people. I'd pound away at the fine-tuning argument - I know enough physics to study up the facts and dazzle an audience with them. I wonder why the godly never try that tactic. "Well, Mr Hitchens, what's your contrived explanation for the fact that Planck's constant is just right? What about the amount of dark matter in the universe? And on and on it goes. Isn't the most obvious explanation that this universe has been fine-tuned by intelligence? It seems a bit desperate postulating an infinite number of universes just to avoid the obvious answer. And don't give me that stuff about ultimate 747s; the intelligence concerned may not be anything like a human brain, which had to evolve over time. In fact, how do you know conscious intelligence isn't the ultimate reality? It sure feels that way, doesn't it? After all, we have no satisfactory explanation for how conscious intelligence could supervene on material events, or how it could come into existence if it wasn't built into the universe from the start. The whole field of philosophy of mind is in disarray trying to deal with this. Blah, blah, blah." Admittedly, I'd end up making an argument more for some kind of idealist deism than for theism, but even that would be worth doing for a bit of fun. Someone should attempt this.

254. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79109 by Russell Blackford on October 16, 2007 at 6:37 am

Well, I rather fancy the Carvaka school of Indian philosophy myself, just as I am most sympathetic to the Epicureans among the ancient Western schools.

255. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79066 by Russell Blackford on October 16, 2007 at 3:13 am

More fuss should have been made in 2000, about the 400th anniversary of Giordano Bruno's cruel death at the hands of religionists back at the dawn of modern science. I guess it was totally overshadowed by all the false-millennium hype, and of course we didn't have the "New Atheism" back then to highlight the subject's importance.

I hope that we'll all be able to make a huge Zeusdamned fuss about the seemingly endless series of 400th anniversaries that are coming up soon, associated mainly with Galileo. I'll certainly do my small bit. Galileo turned his telescope to the heavens in 1609; that gives us one way to mark where science as we now know it really emerges.

Meanwhile, congratulations to Professor Dawkins. There could not possibly be a more worthy recipient of an award associated with Giordano Bruno - or, let's face it, anyone more likely to meet the same fate if the Catholic Church still ran things.

256. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #78988 by Russell Blackford on October 15, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Of course it wasn't built by the god Ram; there is no such being. But why would anyone imagine that that is the important point to focus on? Clearly this landform has cultural and aesthetic significance, and that has to be weighed against the economic benefits. Bear in mind that once the thing is destroyed we are denying it to countless generations to come, so the balance of utilities is not obviously with the current need for a canal.

Personally, I would be loath to destroy a striking landform that is referred to in the Ramayana. The economic benefits, combined with the difficulties of building the canal any other way, would need to be compelling. Perhaps they are, but I'm in no position to know that.

In short, I may be an atheist, but I'm not a philistine. Looking at the comments above, I see that I have some company (hi, jeepyjay!), but not as much as I'd hope.

257. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78859 by Russell Blackford on October 15, 2007 at 5:46 am

Someone should send them a copy of Locke's letters on religious tolerance, and definitely a copy of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.

258. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78850 by Russell Blackford on October 15, 2007 at 4:37 am

Well, I suppose the bish would say (and think) something like this. No big deal. No ghosts come from the grave required to tell us this, milords.

259. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #78763 by Russell Blackford on October 14, 2007 at 7:22 pm

There's nothing wrong with the ordinary English word "belief". We all have beliefs all the time, and we all act on the basis of our beliefs in combination with our desires. If I desire some chocolate and believe that there is chocolate in the cupboard, I am likely to go and open the cupboard door. There's nothing mysterious about that process. Don't let the religious steal perfectly ordinary words from us.

If what we object to are rigid dogmas, or wild speculations, or premature conclusions - or whatever - let's use the precise and accurate words for what we object to. We can't go around objecting to all beliefs.

260. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #77897 by Russell Blackford on October 11, 2007 at 3:37 am

Hey, V.: I'll look forward to your report on Lilla's book - maybe over in the Forum? Wherever you review it, I'm sure lots of people will be interested in what you think.

261. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #77890 by Russell Blackford on October 11, 2007 at 3:05 am

Dayum, this is good stuff! Three cheers for Mitchell Cohen.

I just wish I'd said some of those things, Zeusdammit - it's all impressively calm, measured, and cogently argued. I love the way he explains just why the New Atheism is necessary and healthy, and also the way he points out the multi-dimensionality of the whole situation: the New Atheists aren't even a school with a common manifesto, just people who've been able to speak out successfully against religion in a geopolitical context where a forthright challenge to the reassertion of religion is sorely needed.

The questions were pretty dumb, mind you, but Cohen did well with them. He slapped down the sillier propositions pretty much mercilessly, and elaborated his points with a lot of skill.

262. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77564 by Russell Blackford on October 9, 2007 at 5:17 pm

What BAEOZ said.

Besides, what "nicer" think tank was offering to fund her work?

263. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77559 by Russell Blackford on October 9, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Logicel, Richard Dawkins has worked with at least one Anglican bishop in defending the teaching of sound evolutionary biology. I can easily imagine examples like that. There are lots of liberal Jews and Christians, some of whom are very strong on defending the separation of church and state. The Eastern Orthodox churches seem to have a lot of scope for very liberal attitudes to the bioethical and similar issues that are one of my main sets of interests.

Working with liberal Muslims may be harder - some really do seem quite liberal in many ways, but I'm still trying to come to terms with their mind-set. Islam has such a different cultural and political history, and has developed such a different vocabulary of political concepts, that it's difficult to get mutual understanding when secularists talk to them. For them, the whole idea of a separation of church and state is very foreign and confusing. Developing good working relationships with those refined, educated Muslims we keep hearing about (and who do exist) will probably not be easy, and may not be achieved quickly, but it's probably worth trying.

And I should add in fairness that there do seem to be elements in classical Muslim thought that are not greatly dissimilar to Lockean notions of religious tolerance and separation of church and state; a dialogue with the more moderate or liberal Muslims may not be futile.

I have no trouble at all working with Buddhists.

264. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77246 by Russell Blackford on October 8, 2007 at 8:41 pm

The long post over on my blog was written before this latest from Sam Harris, or at least before I saw it. But it all ties in to these discussions about goals and tactics, and I think that we have to have them.

PZ has made a good comment over there, about how in an ideal world we'd have a freethought coalition that includes agnostics, pantheists, deists, etc., but some of those other factions get upset with uppity atheists. I'd go even wider than PZ and have an anti-theocratic coalition that includes some genuinely moderate religionists. But what I'm not prepared to do is frame my views in a way that hides them. I have no belief in any deity, which makes me an atheist by the most popular definition around here. Indeed, I give a probability approaching zero to the existence of any deity proposed so far, ot that I can imagine, including the anodyne deist deity. I'm not going to hide that, and acceptance of this is important if anyone wants to join a coalition with me.

However, it's true that I have more in common with some nice, reasonable theists than with some kinds of atheists.

265. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77210 by Russell Blackford on October 8, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Philos, I don't think it helps to attribute venal motives.

266. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77207 by Russell Blackford on October 8, 2007 at 7:17 pm

PZ quite correctly makes the point that these words - "painfully obvious that it was the product of religious metaphysics and superstition" - are still going to offend people. There's no non-offensive way to ask the question. But a better way to ask it would be to say:

Mr. President, I'm Sam Schmarris from Snarky Rationalist Magazine. Sir, what rational basis is there to worry about the fate of three-day-old human embryos? These embryos do not have nerve cells, much less the nervous systems they would need to suffer their destruction on any level. Your veto, frankly, seems insane to any educated person, and it is painfully obvious that it was the product of religious teaching - not science or anything that is acceptable as a public morality within a modern, pluralist society. Do you ever worry that you may be dangerously misled by your religious beliefs? What can you say to the tens of millions of Americans whose suffering will be needlessly prolonged by your faith-based thinking?

267. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77178 by Russell Blackford on October 8, 2007 at 4:55 pm

Sam Harris is obviously correct with the example he gives. Where he's wrong is thinking that we should do away with all labels - "atheist", "humanist", "rationalist", whatever. That's unrealistic: movements and ideas do need labels.

But he'd be right if he just said that some people make a fetish out of the word "atheist".

I'll give a clear and specific example. Udo Schuklenk is an eminent academic, editor (or maybe co-editor) of the important journal Bioethics (disclosure: I sometimes act as a referee for that journal ... but its importance is not in doubt). He is pretty much as hardline a secularist and critic of religion as Richard Dawkins. However, he prefers to call himself an agnostic.

The other day, he turned up to make some comments at Pharyngula (on the thread about the original Harris talk), and explained his position in a courteous manner as if talking to his intellectual peers. He was attacked quite nastily for it by at least one pseudonymous person. I mean "attacked"; I don't mean "disagreed with" or "argued against".

It's getting to the stage where some fans of the so-called New Atheists are insisting on a position far more narrow and dogmatic than the positions of the New Atheists themselves, which are actually subtle, diverse, and developing. Next thing, even Richard is going to be attacked by some for being insufficiently atheistic. This is not healthy.

By all means call yourselves "atheists" - I think Harris is wrong about that - but don't become so narrow in your thinking that you shut off all hope of forming useful alliances and coalitions with other reasonable people who may be just as opposed to theocracy as you are.

More here:

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/10/fundamentalism.html

268. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76764 by Russell Blackford on October 7, 2007 at 6:50 am

"Think where man's glory most begins and ends,
And say my glory was I had such friends."

-- William Butler Yeats, "The Municipal Gallery Re-Visited"

(I think Daniel Dennett could say the same as Yeats, after a speech like that.)

269. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76747 by Russell Blackford on October 7, 2007 at 2:00 am

^True, true, and even the French can be a bit prudish. I do recall an occasion when my beautiful companion was chastised by an official for sunbathing in a string bikini - not even topless - in a Parisian park.

Now, the Germans would take a more enlightened attitude to that.

270. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76737 by Russell Blackford on October 7, 2007 at 12:38 am

I don't think it was offensive, exactly - that would be buying into the whole morality of misery that we are here to oppose - but it may have been unwise given that some people are looking at the site at work in puritanical countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Vive la France!

271. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #76735 by Russell Blackford on October 7, 2007 at 12:33 am

Bonzai and others, I don't at all mind universities giving the rich experience we are talking about to older students as well as to school-leavers. I am merely trying to explicate what Richard D may have in mind by saying that the theological halls are not fit for school-leavers and may therefore have to tout for mature age students. This seems to have caused a lot of confusion.

As it happens, I did my law degree part-time commencing at the age of ... hmm what was I? *scratch*. I dunno, 33? I was quite happy to get the "University of Melbourne experience" as far as possible, but it's unrealistic to expect that a part-time mature age student with work and family responsibilities - such as I was - can get this in quite the same way as a full-time school-leaver.

272. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76693 by Russell Blackford on October 6, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Dawkins admits the "rise" of atheism is probably a reaction to the Bush administration, radical Islam, and so on.

273. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards

Comment #76543 by Russell Blackford on October 6, 2007 at 6:31 am

The trouble with unsubstantiated character assassination is that some people who are reading the site will believe it just because they want to believe it.

274. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76245 by Russell Blackford on October 5, 2007 at 7:55 am

It doubtless existed in some circles, Steve, and I take your point about Mary Whitehouse, but I was referring to educated circles. Maybe I'm wrong - I often am - but I felt that there was a distinct tightening up in the 1980s in terms of what was acceptable among secular academics and the like. There was a time, however brief, when I can't imagine that secular academics would have given Dawkins the grief that he has received from them.

It's just a peripheral thought. I may be looking back with rose-coloured glasses to an extent, but I do remember the experience in the 1980s of a lot of things changing about what could be said. Some of it may even have been a good thing, e.g. with the tightening up on sexist and racist speech (though some of what came out of the most extreme 1980s feminists like Andrea Dworkin was barking mad); howver, there was also a sense ... or at least I had it ... of the walls closing in on the acceptability of criticising religion in public, even in an academic sort of public, and that seemed like an unhealthy direction.

Be all that as it may, and regardless of the history of the taboo, I walk that much lighter of late knowing that people with the popularity and profile of Dawkins are challenging it. As he said somewhere, we now have more spring in our step.

275. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards

Comment #76241 by Russell Blackford on October 5, 2007 at 7:33 am

She is entitled to make her statements without being threatened with death. I can't believe that anyone is arguing along the lines that she brought it on herself or that there was something wrong with her using naked bodies to express her point (yes, I have seen Submission). She had every right to make her statement powerfully and artistically, and the blame for violence lies squarely with those who would resort to violence.

276. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #76159 by Russell Blackford on October 4, 2007 at 11:54 pm

I don't think I could stand the winter, but it's a beautiful country in summer. I'd live there for a few months of the year like a shot if I could finance it somehow.

277. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76139 by Russell Blackford on October 4, 2007 at 8:20 pm

Some good points there Bonzai. I've never noticed Richard using the term "fundamentalist" in the way you describe, but if he ever does I wish he wouldn't. It causes confusion.

I'll take it, then, that your point was not so much to say that those of us who talk of "battles" or a "war" are impervious to reason like our opponents but that simply that we sound a bit fanatical in our rhetoric. That, of course, is a danger.

Nonetheless, I do think we are in a (cough) social and political struggle, and it often is the same enemy that we keep having to fight against, i.e. organised Christian conservatives. However, I did say when I first mentioned a "war" that the two sides don't divide neatly along theist/atheist lines. Again, some atheists may as well be Christian conservatives, while many genuinely moderate Christians are progressive, at least about most issues, and have no tendency to introduce theocratic laws.

I do think that critiques of theism in general are of value - I stand my positive judgment of The God Delusion and other books - but I don't think we have to side only with other atheists in our scepticism about religion (deists, etc., are welcome), and I'm happy to be allied with moderate Christians in the debates over specific issues such as gay marriage, stem cell research, AIDS, etc. I agree with much that you say, but I did bristle at the idea that there is some resemblance between an atheist who is committed to social and political struggle and a fundamentalist.

278. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76131 by Russell Blackford on October 4, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Steve, I was pretty young back in the 1970s, and it's a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure that the taboo against criticising religion did not exist then, at least within educated circles. As I remember it, this taboo came in ... or back in ... during the 1980s as part of the political correctness movement.

What I think might be true is that the 1970s - in the wake of the social revolutions of the 1960s - was an unusual time in many ways. Because it's the decade in which I grew to adulthood, it seems normal to me, but it really was rather the opposite.

279. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards

Comment #75887 by Russell Blackford on October 4, 2007 at 12:47 am

I'd like to know how that figure was calculated. Six million dollars to cover six bodyguards? Those are awfully expensive bodyguards.

280. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75861 by Russell Blackford on October 3, 2007 at 10:55 pm

Bonzai, it doesn't help comparing other commenters to fundamentalists.

Fundamentalism is literalism in the interpretation of a holy text. Fundamentalists may happen to have other faults, but what is actually wrong with fundamentalism, as fundamentalism, is that it holds onto literal-minded interpretations of texts even when these conflict with the clear historical or scientific evidence. It's beside the point that the fundamentalists organise and campaign well, or that they see themselves as in a social and political struggle to get their ideas accepted. There's nothing wrong with organising; there's nothing wrong with campaigning; there's nothing wrong with realising that you are in a struggle against people who oppose your aims. There's nothing wrong with using the metaphor of "war", as I did, as long as you realise it is a war of ideas - i.e. a hard social and political struggle to get one set of ideas or the other accepted by the public and reflected in public policy.

In short, to say that something is wrong "because fundamentalists do it" is to commit a logical fallacy, and can lead to condemning things just because they have some association with the "enemy".

FWIW, we are engaged in a constant political struggle, here in Australia, against efforts to have the agenda controlled by religionists. We had one small victory recently in getting some reforms to the ridiculous law prohibiting therapeutic cloning, but the statute concerned is still full of draconian provisions, some of which were actually made worse as part of the deal to get the reforms through. Even here in Australia, there is still a long, long way to go before we have a truly secular society, and there are new issues all the time.

281. A Face-Off Over Faith

Comment #75849 by Russell Blackford on October 3, 2007 at 9:23 pm

I think it's time to start another round of "Let's get Richard Dawkins to come to Australia."

282. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75787 by Russell Blackford on October 3, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Um, guys ... the idea that I am referring to is that univeristies are not there just to give you a degree. It's not especially ageist to think that one thing a university should do in addition to providing formal training is provide one kind of passage into adulthood for people who start in their late teens. There should be dances, guest speakers with all kinds of views laid on, clubs and societies, all sorts of stuff ... and the coursework itself should contain material that presents diverse ideas about the world and society. It should all add up to a varied and challenging experience that will test their ideas and maybe shake them up. It's the opposite of what we might expect from a seminary.

This is certainly the way people involved in education policy talk here in Australia, so I assumed it was what was at stake in the UK discussion. Is it really true that no one in America has heard of the concept that I'm trying to describe? From a quick glance, it looks like it's the American commenters who are most confused by the idea.

(Again, I may be misinterpreting what is going on in the debate at Oxford, but I'm still puzzled that what I am talking about seems so obscure and difficult for some of you. People where I live talk in this way about the university experience for school-leavers all the time. I'm feeling a bit of culture shock.)

283. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75618 by Russell Blackford on October 3, 2007 at 6:31 am

Actually, I think we are in a goddamn war, but I'm not convinced it's fundamentally a war between people who happen to be atheists and people who happen to believe in some kind of deity.

There may be some people around who believe in some deity, or who feel neutral about it, who are on (what I regard as) our side in the political struggle.

There are definitely people around who deny any belief in the existence of a deity, but who are essentially not on our side: because they nonetheless cherish religious belief (even though they don't have it themselves), whether out of nostalgia or on some sort of "communitarian" ground; or because they are radical "antifoundationalists" about liberal values and deny the rationale for separating church and state (and don't seem to mind if religion prevails); or simply because they have absorbed so much religious morality that they might as well be religionists and be done with it.

Dawkins and Harris and others are giving leadership in the struggle for the values that most of here are committed to; if a lot of the struggle goes forward under the banner of the New Atheism, that's all good. I certainly don't want to ditch the word "atheism", as I said, but we'd be wrong to scorn allies who want to fight for the same values under other banners (scepticism, or agnosticism, or whatever). Furthermore, we know that the world is full of "I'm an atheist but..." types who are solicitous towards religion. "Atheist" does not equal "on our side".

284. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75578 by Russell Blackford on October 3, 2007 at 3:44 am

Steven Mading, see post 86.

Maybe I'm wrong, since there are so many other interpretations flying around, but it seemed quite simple to me when I read it. People leave school to go to university at the end of their matriculation year at high school (whatever that is called; here in Australia it would be called "Year 12"). Thus, they are, quite literally, "school-leavers". We expect universities to provide a certain kind of rich experience to school-leavers that goes beyond mere vocational training.

Other people who enter university - often older students who are studying part-time for more narrowly vocational reasons - have different expectations. But we want universities to give a rich educational experience to young students straight out of high school. There is doubt about the ability of the theological halls to do so.

I keep wondering why these ideas are so hard and what I may be misunderstanding, since it all seems so clear and simple when I read it. *scratch head*

285. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75555 by Russell Blackford on October 3, 2007 at 1:56 am

First up, having thought a bit more, I'm unconvinced by Sam, even leaving out the distracting stuff about meditation and so on. Admittedly, I'm not that happy with the word "atheist", but I'll apply it to myself when appropriate because it's true that I have no belief in any deity or deities. And I have no problem at all with some of the other words he dislikes, such as "sceptic" and "naturalist". As a matter of practicality, social movements and philosophical positions do need labels.

However, I have a related point to Sam's, and I'd appreciate responses. I feel that I belong to a cause - broadly, the cause of freedom, reason, and science - that is larger than atheism. If it suddenly struck me tomorrow that the argument for the existence of a deist god is more compelling than appears to be the case right now ... nothing much would change. I'd still want to keep religion out of our bedrooms, science labs, parliaments, etc. I'd still be supporting science and reason, and our freedom from the tired old religious interference with our lives. I'd still see religion as frequently miserable and cruel.

I suggest that those of us who are (1) atheists and (2) politically opposed to the prestige and influence of religion should be making common cause with all people who might be allies. Or at least with all those people who might be allies because of a rationally-based scepticism about religious dogma and the authority of religious organisations and leaders. Accordingly, if it were up to me, I'd bring a lot of agnostics, deists, pantheists, and so on, into the tent - even some nice process theologians if they wanted to come in and help out.

In other words, I'm happy to wear my stylish capital-A T-shirt, but that doesn't mean the "movement", if there is one, has to be a narrowly-based "atheist movement".

So, I don't agree with Sam that we should all abandon the word "atheist", but I do propose that we find ways of naming conferences, choosing speakers, forming alliances, etc., so as to create a bigger tent. That may entail that there'll be more debate within the tent, but I think we're increasingly seeing that already, and up to a point it's healthy to have debate within a social movement.

I'd think of it as a rational sceptics movement, I suppose, or something like that (the precise name doesn't matter that much), and it would include atheists, sceptics, deists ... and anyone else who would stand up for the general values of freedom (e.g. purely secular morality, separation of church and state, and so on), reason, and science.

There's always "rationalism" as a label, of course. But that word also has baggage: it just as commonly has another meaning in which it contrasts with "empiricism", and I definitely take the side of empiricism in that debate. Most other atheists also seem to be empiricists rather than rationalists when epistemological push comes to shove.

286. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75518 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 10:55 pm

I just can't see the relevance of Harris' comments about meditation etcetera. The article would be better if it focused on the tactical points, and I think it's really stretching things to believe that this point has much tactical relevance. Few people will reject atheism primarily because of concerns that it cuts across their meditative practices or whatever.

Maybe someone else can explain what Harris has in mind here, but I think it just muddies the waters.

With the rest, maybe he has a point about tactics and perceptions.

287. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75512 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 10:21 pm

I also don't agree with Dawkins' point that moderates enable the fundamentalists because of their insistence that faith must be respected at all cost. I think that is a gross generalization. Very often the insistence of blind respect for religion comes not from the moderate religionists but from some misguided secularists.

288. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75476 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 6:51 pm

Actually, JJ that's totally the wrong way of looking at it. The right way to make intellectual progress is to find the strength in positions that you don't really agree with, and then work out how to incorporate it in your own presumably larger view of things. If you want to pick nits with people you basically agree with, that might have some value, I suppose, if you're genuinely trying to help them or to produce a better version, but in those circumstances it's best to identify the core that you agree with.

Besides, the nits in this case are largely imaginary IMNSHO. What Dawkins actually said this time is pretty much correct. I was pleased to see someone formulate it so clearly.

289. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75463 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 5:56 pm

J I reserve the word "fundamentalism" for something very specific: literalism in interpretation of a holy book such as the Bible. That was at the heart of the original fundamentalist movement. Such literalism will, indeed, lead people to hold beliefs that are irrational in the face of what has been discovered by science over the past 400 years.

However, I don't think fundamentalists are necessarily our biggest problem. It's possible to be a fundamentalist while also believing that there's a difference between God and Caesar and not attempting to impose your religious morality via the state. Conversely, there are folks who are not fundamentalist but who have a nasty morality that they are all-too-prepared to impose. Except when we're talking about the battle over young earth creationism, fundamentalism is not usually that important an issue. The bigger issue is how much various religionists are prepared to use force to get their way. The non-fundamentalist Roman Catholic Church is one of the worst offenders in that respect.

290. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75460 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Please avoid feeding the troll.

291. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75455 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Poseidon almighty, some of you are picky. I think this little article does a great job of highlighting how specifically religious morality is often miserable and cruel. I wish I'd written the thing, and I take off my hat to Richard.

292. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75253 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 6:38 am

pewkatchoo, I thought they'd been passed some time ago. Is this a set of amendments, or has it taken this long to get whatever was agreed through parliament? I have an interest in religious vilification law, so I wouldn't mind a bit more of an update on the UK situation.

293. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75217 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 4:12 am

Oh, come off it. There's nothing anti-semitic in that link. It's in no way a relevant reply to BT's point. Dawkins was simply saying that it is possible for a relatively small group to be influential if it is conscious of itself as having a common interest and is well-organised.

294. Genes Tied to Bad Reactions to Antidepressant Drug

Comment #75206 by Russell Blackford on October 2, 2007 at 3:49 am

^Yes, but if it's a matter of self-determination surely we want anyone making such a decision to do so in a frame of mind where they're thinking clearly and rationally about the alternatives. To believe that is not to believe that someone who makes an open-eyed, clear-headed decision to commit suicide is thereby "sinning".

295. Dawkins - what can't he be blamed for?

Comment #75146 by Russell Blackford on October 1, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I'm trying to remember which of the Byzantine emperors it was who secured his position against popular unrest by sending his troops to massacre 30,000 citizens in one day ... in the hippodrome in Constantinople. It doesn't really matter. Whoever it was, damn that Dawkins for provoking it. Any other good examples of his perfidy?

Edit: Ah, yes, Justinian of course:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

A fascinating period. Those were the days when the Christian church really ran things ... and of course Dawkins was responsible for the persecutions, massacres, etc.

296. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75141 by Russell Blackford on October 1, 2007 at 11:10 pm

CAPAC is just a few unherdable cat-people (so far it's me, V, and Corylus) who are prepared to have a drink together and philosophise about the absence of deities. Anyone else is welcome to sign up. But don't forget that someone else did create this from the energies of a group of the more philosophically-inclined regular commenters at RichardDawkins.net:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/

297. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75132 by Russell Blackford on October 1, 2007 at 10:13 pm

Bertrand Russell's great genius, in retrospect, was not so much in his contributions to mathematical logic or his more popular material - though all that is of value. More important than any of that was his key role in shaping the modern academic discipline of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. Stray ideas that he spun off, like Russell's teapot, are nice, but not his seminal contribution to modern thought. Still, I think his total contribution tends to be underrated if anything.

BAEOZ, if I were younger I'd be looking at a mainstream academic career in philosophy, rather than hanging around on the periphery while also doing other things, and I'd be putting a lot of eggs into the philosophy of religion basket. I'm still prepared to "do" philosophy of religion but I'm too marginal, and let's face it getting too old, to make much contribution there.

I think it's important that secular academic philosophers do work in philosophy of religion, but it's especially important that up-and-coming Gen Xers and Gen Ys do it. Baby boomers like me are not infinitely adaptable and we'll run out of puff sooner or later.

298. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75098 by Russell Blackford on October 1, 2007 at 7:36 pm

The school-leaver thing was clear to me, but not one person seems to have expressed my understanding of it, so maybe I'm wrong.

Here's how I understood it. For a school-leaver - i.e. a student who has gone to university directly from high school and is aged about 17 or 18 - university is not just about providing a meal ticket. It is supposed to expose the person to a wide range of social and intellectual experiences, including varied viewpoints on important questions about the truth of traditional ideas, etc. I took the criticism as being that the theological halls were not providing this but giving a narrow experience, possibly including indoctrination into one viewpoint.

For mature age students, university can have a narrower, more vocational function. The criticism was (at least as I interpreted it) that the theological organisations at Oxford are not giving the sort of varied, intellectually diverse, challenging experience that universities are expected to provide to young people pretty much fresh out of school. Rather, they are more like seminaries.

299. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75097 by Russell Blackford on October 1, 2007 at 7:30 pm

I think that one important thing is to make sure that philosophicsl issues about the existence of God are given more attention by secular philosophers - not just those folks over in the theology schools. There's been a bit of a tendency in the last 30-odd years for philosophers to desert that field as a dead area, leaving religionists to fill the gap. That's very dangerous. It could get to the point where it's widely thought that there's an academic consensus in favour of theism, though such a consensus would have nothing to do with the strength of the arguments. (In fact, the consensus among philosophers in general is more that the questions in philosophy of religion are settled, so it's better to examine questions in other areas of philosophy; that's an attitude that could come back to bite us.)

I'm glad to see Dennett rolling up his sleeves to do some work in philosophy of religion.

300. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75090 by Russell Blackford on October 1, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Sometimes I despair. Bonzai is making a point that I totally understand and largely sympathise with. For many of us, the term "theology" now means something rather different in exactly the way that Bonzai describes.

Now, Richard may still be correct that theology by his definition, which is doubtless the traditional one, should not be taught at university, since it is teaching something highly controversial (to say the least) as fact. He may also be right if he's implying that the particular institutions under discussion should be closed and their reputable scholars distributed among other academic organisational units at Oxford - this would be if the existing institutions are too thoroughly Christianised to be salvagable. Richard has given some evidence that that may be the case I don't see that Bonzai should be committed to opposing these points, though perhaps I've missed something.

However, Bonzai does make a good point that schools of theology in the modern sense that he and I are both familiar with can have a place in universities. I don't even see anything in the Dawkins letter that rules it out (ignore the heading, which was probably written by a sub-editor). It looks to me as if Richard is open to debate about what should happen. It's possible that, despite what Bonzai and I have said, the word "theology" should be replaced by something else, but it's also possible that the more modern understanding will catch on more widely.

What makes me despair is when I see threads at this site - supposedly an oasis of rationality - so often turning into flame wars. Why can't there be rational disagreement and discussion without insults and expressions of anger? This thread is far from the worst, but it's the one I'm reading, and it's a phenomenon that's been bugging me lately.

Bonzai has a legitimate point of view that contains at least an element of merit, IMHO. More broadly, there's an important question that Dawkins has raised about how scholarship associated with religion is best organised. It merits a careful discussion of the options, and I'm pleased to see Bonzai's input. He's one of the most thoughtful people here; I, at least, value his input - and am glad that some others seem to see the point.

By the way, universities are not organised into exhaustive, non-overlapping, taxonomically rational disciplinary areas. E.g. a department of political science may well have philosophers, sociologists, historians, etc., etc., all with an interest in the phenomena of political organisation and politics. The same applies in many other cases, e.g. a traditional Classics department.