Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

Good show. I’m already familiar with Nisbet’s advocated approach and he came across extremely well.

What I have seen lately and something I would warn Nisbet about concerning his advocacy is that he will be labeled an apologist. I have seen Michael Shermer, David Sloan Wilson, E. O. Wilson and many others given lip service in recognition for their advocacy for science and reason, but once they speak up with opinions about what they consider rational approaches, and/or criticism’s, they are simply labeled or worse. Discourse regarding science education, secularism, and morality have simply given way (in large measure) to a “war between supernaturalism and naturalism” (or science v. religion which is more to the point,  atheism v. religion). I think the focus will stay this way for the majority of the more vocal (the ones being heard) for the foreseeable future, even though those such as Michael Shermer fights broadly and very publicly. At the same time, I think those such as Nisbet will continue to be seen as “not getting it” (or being apologetic, or engaging in “political correctness”) with regards to religion and are becoming “part of the problem”. Those that I mentioned, and others, will continue to be pushed to the fringes as long as the perception is that their opinions about approach are seen as telling others to “shut up”. I think the idea of a “many approaches are needed” which comes and goes makes sense up to a point, some ideas will work, some won’t and that’s why these debates are helpful. Somehow some believe that labeling advocates for science and reason apologist and worse is the same as saying someone is being “hostile” or irrational. Victimization, such as I’ve pointed out will only take one, and the movement, so far.

I understand that D.J. plays the devil’s advocate, but it sounded even beyond the devil’s domain to ask; “so basically Matt, you’re saying, we need to solve all the world’s problems before we advance atheism, secular humanism etc.”. Perhaps that question comes out of the recognition that many who hear Nisbet will actually believe this and will in fact argue that idea.

Yes, Nisbet’s approach is familiar to me as well, and has a lot of validity. He is certainly right that we will need to make common cause with scientifically literate liberal religious people in order to protect the teaching of science in school.

One thing I think he should consider, though: he sees part of the draw of religion in its communitarian aspect. Religions provide a social atmosphere that helps to reduce certain sorts of social insecurities that americans face. One way that “new atheism” and other more overtly secular movements can work constructively is to provide an overtly nonreligious community that is a replacement for traditional religion. In doing so, such new communities will of necessity be replacing religious discussions, arguments and rhetoric with secular and other sorts of overtly nontheistic discussions and arguments. Indeed, I see one point of this forum as filling just such a role; and in creating new CFI centers around the world, CFI is also aiming to fill this role as well with real estate on the ground.

Nisbet is also asking those involved in the “new atheist” movement to go beyond simple atheism and on to making common cause with religious people on more immediately pressing needs, as EO Wilson is doing with his recent book on the environment. This is well and good, however we must also be aware that the “new atheist” movement is, in fact, new. That is, I don’t believe that it has been fully digested either by those involved in it or by the public at large. One goal of this movement must be to raise political awareness of government to the existence of an overtly nonreligious portion of the american public. We have Supreme Court justices who appear to believe that atheism is not constitutionally protected in the same way that diverse religious beliefs are. We certainly have politicians who assert similar claims, including the father of our current president. Arguing for freedom (and, indeed, political acceptance) of non-religion in public life must be a further goal of this movement, and this is a goal which will not be achieved by fudging over what it means to be non-religious. That is not to say that we shouldn’t aim to make common cause with minority and liberal religious folks in arguing for the freedom of nonbelief, of course. But to achieve these ends there must be a role to play in overt public displays of nonbelief, just as overt displays of homosexuality worked to make the public aware of the numbers involved as well as the deep feelings that gays and lesbians had about their own sexuality. To pretend that nonbelief doesn’t exist, or that it is simply another form of liberal religious practice, is not to make the proper claim here.

One thing I think he should consider, though: he sees part of the draw of religion in its communitarian aspect. Religions provide a social atmosphere that helps to reduce certain sorts of social insecurities that americans face. One way that “new atheism” and other more overtly secular movements can work constructively is to provide an overtly nonreligious community that is a replacement for traditional religion. In doing so, such new communities will of necessity be replacing religious discussions, arguments and rhetoric with secular and other sorts of overtly nontheistic discussions and arguments. Indeed, I see one point of this forum as filling just such a role; and in creating new CFI centers around the world, CFI is also aiming to fill this role as well with real estate on the ground.

I think you are quite right here. I have been involved with a local humanist group for many years and often recommend that people get involved in a community sense, even check out the meetup’s in your area. If these are not possible, then forum’s such as this are invaluable I believe. I think it is human nature to form community, it’s good for people for many reasons.

Nisbet is also asking those involved in the “new atheist” movement to go beyond simple atheism and on to making common cause with religious people on more immediately pressing needs, as EO Wilson is doing with his recent book on the environment. This is well and good, however we must also be aware that the “new atheist” movement is, in fact, new. That is, I don’t believe that it has been fully digested either by those involved in it or by the public at large.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. What is it about the “new atheist” that has not been fully digested? What does it mean to give the label “new” onto this atheism? If it is about an approach, then what exactly are you pointing out?

One goal of this movement must be to raise political awareness of government to the existence of an overtly nonreligious portion of the american public. We have Supreme Court justices who appear to believe that atheism is not constitutionally protected in the same way that diverse religious beliefs are. We certainly have politicians who assert similar claims, including the father of our current president.

I agree with your first sentiment here as far as I understand what is said. What “movement” are you referring, because there are many working on this front and a wider focus by those considering themselves as “new atheist” would do well in joining the debates. As an example of a great organization working toward awareness and advocacy is Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who has as their president an ordained minister. It is here that Nisbet and PZ Myers do well mentioning working with those of differing beliefs. I am familiar with the proclamation the former President Bush, which he has corrected. Perhaps you could point out examples of those Supreme Court justices who hold atheism is not constitutionally protected? I am familiar with the debates over the hanging of the Ten Commandments in court houses, but I also remember Thomas’ ideas in the losing minority opinion was vastly misunderstood when he mentioned “atheist”. What I worry about asking this question is that it becomes a topic in and of itself with the bringing in of torrent of religions encroachment into society and politics, which is recognized and I don’t think Nisbet is missing this fact.

Besides that, I think Nisbet was focused mainly on science education and communication.

Arguing for freedom (and, indeed, political acceptance) of non-religion in public life must be a further goal of this movement, and this is a goal which will not be achieved by fudging over what it means to be non-religious.

I agree that finding ways that work best to achieve this goal is a worthy debate. This is a good long term goal.

That is not to say that we shouldn’t aim to make common cause with minority and liberal religious folks in arguing for the freedom of nonbelief, of course. But to achieve these ends there must be a role to play in overt public displays of nonbelief, just as overt displays of homosexuality worked to make the public aware of the numbers involved as well as the deep feelings that gays and lesbians had about their own sexuality.

I agree, it can only help for people to come out as non-religious (though, to say non-religious does not assume one is atheist, humanist etc.) and atheistic. I’ve been doing that by simply being part of a community, including in chat and forum.

I think the connection to homosexual’s is ok, up to a point. It is/was and will continue to be advocacy for equality and acceptance. It has been a long road, even rationalist/humanist such as the well respected and influential psychologist, Albert Ellis , held that homosexuality was a pathology (a popular ideal and held by the APA) right up until his revision in the early 70’s. This was done without evidence. The movement for equality for homosexuality hasn’t seen it’s gains from isolating heterosexual’s or holding that they are “wasting their lives” as heterosexual’s. So, I think this comparison can be strained and that in fact no laws are keeping one from publicly proclaiming one as atheist. This is not to see there is no problems and indeed there is work to be done, I don’t want this to seem this is not recognized.

To pretend that nonbelief doesn’t exist, or that it is simply another form of liberal religious practice, is not to make the proper claim here.

I don’t know what you mean here, are you saying this is what Nisbet is doing?

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. What is it about the “new atheist” that has not been fully digested? What does it mean to give the label “new” onto this atheism? If it is about an approach, then what exactly are you pointing out?

Public discussion of atheism was virtually nonexistent in the US up until the publication of Sam Harris’s first book. Historically, that and the subsequent books by Dawkins, et al., were delayed reactions to the religious zealotry that was responsible for September 11, as well as the religious nature of the Bush presidency.  These constitute a difference in kind from the sort of public discourse of atheism and religion that went before. I do not believe that the existence of a strong atheist community has been confronted, however, at any but the most intellectual levels of society. True, I am speaking of a simple historical intuition that I have. At any rate, I do think it’s quite too early to say that this new form of self-aware and public atheism has run its course.

What “movement” are you referring, because there are many working on this front and a wider focus by those considering themselves as “new atheist” would do well in joining the debates. As an example of a great organization working toward awareness and advocacy is Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who has as their president an ordained minister. It is here that Nisbet and PZ Myers do well mentioning working with those of differing beliefs. I am familiar with the proclamation the former President Bush, which he has corrected. Perhaps you could point out examples of those Supreme Court justices who hold atheism is not constitutionally protected? I am familiar with the debates over the hanging of the Ten Commandments in court houses, but I also remember Thomas’ ideas in the losing minority opinion was vastly misunderstood when he mentioned “atheist”. What I worry about asking this question is that it becomes a topic in and of itself with the bringing in of torrent of religions encroachment into society and politics, which is recognized and I don’t think Nisbet is missing this fact.

I’m not so much claiming that Nisbet is missing this fact as that he’s not discussing it. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that Americans United isn’t doing a great job. They are. A large part of the job they’re doing is bringing together liberal religious denominations to fight for certain sorts of secular rights. But one can say this and still say that atheism and nonbelief has yet to make a real political impact on the US, and that it has a chance to do so now in a way that it has not in the past.

Where has the elder Bush corrected his former statement?

As for the Supreme Court, the justice I was alluding to before was Scalia in his dissent in McCreary County vs. ACLU, where he said, “... it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” That is, Scalia apparently believes that the establishment clause permits the state to establish “monotheism” as the state religion. Clearly, this is the kind of tendentious misinterpretation of the Constitution that has to be fought against. Fortunately his opinion is not yet law, however it is not at all clear that it wouldn’t be if the republicans could appoint one or two more theocratic justices to the bench.

Besides that, I think Nisbet was focused mainly on science education and communication.

Right. What I was pointing out is that there’s more to the debate here than just science education and communication, and that limiting the discussion of “new atheism”, etc., simply to science education is to miss a good portion of what’s going on.

I’m not necessarily claiming that Nisbet is opposed to all this. I don’t think he is. I just believe that the discussion can be broadened a bit, and that some of the miscommunication between Nisbet and his new-atheist detractors come about because of these different aims. I also want to reiterate that I do agree with a good deal of what Nisbet says. He’s got some great ideas, and his approach in general is right on.

Public discussion of atheism was virtually nonexistent in the US up until the publication of Sam Harris’s first book. Historically, that and the subsequent books by Dawkins, et al., were delayed reactions to the religious zealotry that was responsible for September 11, as well as the religious nature of the Bush presidency.  These constitute a difference in kind from the sort of public discourse of atheism and religion that went before. I do not believe that the existence of a strong atheist community has been confronted, however, at any but the most intellectual levels of society. True, I am speaking of a simple historical intuition that I have. At any rate, I do think it’s quite too early to say that this new form of self-aware and public atheism has run its course.

This is interesting on many levels I think. First off would be Sam Harris stating he purposefully left out referring to himself as an atheist and using the term atheism in The End of Faith. He has defended his position on atheism which is relatively negative in the sense he thinks it is a philosophically indefensible position. Also, Harris’ first book was published in mid 2004 and from what I noticed any serious attention given to atheist to the levels we see today was not until much later, perhaps as far ahead as late 2006. There were many reasons for this, one being the publication of The God Delusion and the broad appeal of organized conferences such as those by The Science Network and the Atheist Alliance. During this period many atheistic books came to market, many selling very well. PZ Myers has argued that the recognized rise in non-theist speaking out was not fostered by September 11, 2001 as many have claimed inside and outside the atheist movements. This is not taken very seriously by many, including myself, and we had seen an overall rise in focusing on religion from many quarters throughout society.

Again, I’m not sure what you mean by a “new form”, only that it is alluding to approach.

I’m not so much claiming that Nisbet is missing this fact as that he’s not discussing it. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that Americans United isn’t doing a great job. They are. A large part of the job they’re doing is bringing together liberal religious denominations to fight for certain sorts of secular rights. But one can say this and still say that atheism and nonbelief has yet to make a real political impact on the US, and that it has a chance to do so now in a way that it has not in the past.

It’s possible that atheism and nonbelief can make an impact in politics, but I would see that mainly coming from an openness for a larger acceptance of people willing to vote for an open atheist/nonbeliever. The last statistics I’ve seen on this are showing very low numbers for people willing to vote for an atheist, this will definitely change. It wasn’t that long ago that even larger numbers of the populace stated they would not vote for a black candidate.

Where has the elder Bush corrected his former statement?

The former statement of course comes from the now famous interview between Sherman and Bush that was later published in free inquiry. I am referring to Bush’s later acceptance that atheist can be acknowledged as citizens and patriots.

As for the Supreme Court, the justice I was alluding to before was Scalia in his dissent in McCreary County vs. ACLU, where he said, “... it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” That is, Scalia apparently believes that the establishment clause permits the state to establish “monotheism” as the state religion. Clearly, this is the kind of tendentious misinterpretation of the Constitution that has to be fought against. Fortunately his opinion is not yet law, however it is not at all clear that it wouldn’t be if the republicans could appoint one or two more theocratic justices to the bench.

Yes, this was the Ten Commandments case I had referred. I had mistaken Scalia for Thomas for the dissenting opinion. This is the quote that is often either misquoted or ill understood. He is not saying as you interpreted this as; “atheism is not constitutionally protected in the same way that diverse religious beliefs are.” He is arguing historical presidents for allowing the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. These include, in his opinion, the swearing in of a president on the bible etc.

Here is the fuller quote from his dissent:

Scalia -
If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. The Thanksgiving Proclamation issued by George Washington at the instance of the First Congress was scrupulously nondenominational–but it was monotheistic. 3 In Marsh v. Chambers, supra, we said that the fact the particular prayers offered in the Nebraska Legislature were “in the Judeo-Christian tradition,” id., at 793, posed no additional problem, because “there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief,” id., at 794—795.

I had run out of allowable space to continue writing. I just wanted to add that I do not agree with Scalia’s opinion in the case and it was most definitely a establishment issue. His is the “monotheist” argument and that other forms of public religious acknowledgment are of this type. I do not think this case was nondenominational or that even matter most, it looks clearly Christian to hang the Ten Commandments in a county court house and it appears to me Scalia tried to back door it’s acceptance.

One more note. I’m glad to see a wider acceptance of criticizing religious claims. I think this can only go so far as a motivating factor though and can include those of differing beliefs. Also, regarding the “rise” mentioned in the first paragraph above I would add the incredible influence the internet has had. I can only imagine with such a vast collection of opinion now focused on atheism and religion on the internet by so many diverse voices that a leveling out will eventually take place if for no other reason then we can only give so much of our individual resources (time, money etc.) to these enterprises.

This is interesting on many levels I think. First off would be Sam Harris stating he purposefully left out referring to himself as an atheist and using the term atheism in The End of Faith. He has defended his position on atheism which is relatively negative in the sense he thinks it is a philosophically indefensible position. Also, Harris’ first book was published in mid 2004 and from what I noticed any serious attention given to atheist to the levels we see today was not until much later, perhaps as far ahead as late 2006. There were many reasons for this, one being the publication of The God Delusion and the broad appeal of organized conferences such as those by The Science Network and the Atheist Alliance. During this period many atheistic books came to market, many selling very well. PZ Myers has argued that the recognized rise in non-theist speaking out was not fostered by September 11, 2001 as many have claimed inside and outside the atheist movements. This is not taken very seriously by many, including myself, and we had seen an overall rise in focusing on religion from many quarters throughout society.

His position in End of Faith was explicitly antireligious, in the western, God-centered sense. (He was more accepting of Buddhism and other eastern religions). Whether or not he used the term “atheist” in specific is, I think, irrelevant. I know that recently Harris has come out against the term “atheist” as unhelpful or negative. But that strikes me as a separate issue having to do with political rhetoric. Yes, as I noted, publication of Dawkins’s book, as well as other similar books and indeed conferences as you note, did add on to the general discussion of atheism. However the start was at least arguably with Harris’s book. (Really, had he not published that book I don’t see how he would even have been on the radar screen for the Beyond Belief conference).

Where did PZ Myers say this about 9/11? At any rate, I respectfully disagree with him if he made such a claim.

Where has the elder Bush corrected his former statement?

The former statement of course comes from the now famous interview between Sherman and Bush that was later published in free inquiry. I am referring to Bush’s later acceptance that atheist can be acknowledged as citizens and patriots.

OK, but what I was asking before is where Bush, Sr. accepted atheists as citizens and patriots. It’s not that I don’t believe you but I’d like to see precisely what he said.

Yes, this was the Ten Commandments case I had referred. I had mistaken Scalia for Thomas for the dissenting opinion. This is the quote that is often either misquoted or ill understood. He is not saying as you interpreted this as; “atheism is not constitutionally protected in the same way that diverse religious beliefs are.” He is arguing historical presidents for allowing the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. These include, in his opinion, the swearing in of a president on the bible etc.

That interpretation doesn’t clearly follow from the words Scalia used. What he said, again, is that “the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” Now, it may be that he is only talking about “public acknowledgment of religious belief”; let’s hope so.  But even so, Scalia is explicitly setting up a privileged position for theists as versus other sorts of religious believers. Had he not wished to do so, it would have been possible for him to have written that the Establishment Clause permits disregard of any contrary religious or nonreligious opinion.

His position in End of Faith was explicitly antireligious, in the western, God-centered sense. (He was more accepting of Buddhism and other eastern religions). Whether or not he used the term “atheist” in specific is, I think, irrelevant. I know that recently Harris has come out against the term “atheist” as unhelpful or negative. But that strikes me as a separate issue having to do with political rhetoric. Yes, as I noted, publication of Dawkins’s book, as well as other similar books and indeed conferences as you note, did add on to the general discussion of atheism. However the start was at least arguably with Harris’s book. (Really, had he not published that book I don’t see how he would even have been on the radar screen for the Beyond Belief conference).

I only pointed out his views of atheism and his deliberate exclusion of either referring to himself as an atheist or using the term atheism in The End of Faith. I did this because if we are talking about the rise of atheism and credit is given to Sam, then his views on atheism should be an important feature. Sam’s position on atheism as a political maneuver is evident by his proclamations which he also included humanist, skeptic. But, he clearly sees atheism as a philosophical indefensible position. This looks to me like a two pronged attack that is relevant to a discussion of atheism when Sam Harris is mentioned I believe. As an anti-theist, as is Christopher Hitchen’s, there is no doubt his voice is a leading clarion call.

Where did PZ Myers say this about 9/11? At any rate, I respectfully disagree with him if he made such a claim.

HERE

PZ Myers -
Further evidence of a skewed perspective comes in the next paragraph: “What kick-started the New Atheism was, of course, the attack on the Twin Towers.” Complete nonsense, especially after we’ve just been told that the New Atheism traces its heritage back to the 18th century. We proponents of atheism have our roots in ideas established well before 9/11; I don’t know anyone who was confronted by a terrorist attack and decided now was the time to make an intellectual break from prior religious traditions. And the only “of course” is the events that happened afterwards: an electorate that consoled itself with religious platitudes and rushed to favor any pious politician willing to wallop a bible. The “New Atheism” did not arise out of revulsion to Islamic extremism, but as a counter to growing public irrationality. The reason it has taken off to such a degree in America is because this is where that irrationality has been most firmly rooted and so prominently displayed. Remember, this is the country where Pat Robertson was considered a viable presidential candidate…in 1988. If you want to find the source that kick-started the New Atheism, you’re going to have to look well before 2001.

This is the same piece that PZ Myers states upfront; “First, I have to confess: I’m not a humanist.”

That interpretation doesn’t clearly follow from the words Scalia used. What he said, again, is that “the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” Now, it may be that he is only talking about “public acknowledgment of religious belief”; let’s hope so.  But even so, Scalia is explicitly setting up a privileged position for theists as versus other sorts of religious believers. Had he not wished to do so, it would have been possible for him to have written that the Establishment Clause permits disregard of any contrary religious or nonreligious opinion.

I think your mistake in interpreting what is said in Scalia’s dissent stems from the word , disregard. I believe you think he is saying that you can disregard atheist in the sense that their speech is not protected the same way as the monotheitic religionist. This is not the case, only that the opinion that a show of a monotheist proclamation, such as his example of Washington (and others throughout his opinion) would offend many and this should not be the basis to rule against hanging the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. This is then an establishment case, not a case of an infringement on atheist constitutional protections. It ends up to be an infringement on the separation of church and state because this is clearly a Christian document and so is favoring said religion.

Re. PZ Myers, again, I disagree. Harris’s End of Faith was explicitly an attack on radical Islam and the faith that led to 9/11. I doubt it would have gotten written or published without that event, and if it had, it certainly would never have gotten Norton Press as a publisher, nor the coverage it did. Certainly it would never have been a best seller. The same can be said of Dawkins’s book. Indeed, in an interview on 10/11/2001 Dawkins had this to say:

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let’s now stop being so damned respectful!

This encapsulates the relevance of 9/11 for the new atheist movement. Before that event, many saw religion as harmless. Afterwards, they were willing to criticize it publicly. This led Dawkins to his Root of All Evil? BBC series, once again explicitly about 9/11, and then his book. None of this would have happened but for 9/11. The books wouldn’t have been written, they wouldn’t have gotten first-rank publishers, they wouldn’t have been so widely reviewed and they wouldn’t have become best-sellers.

Of course, PZ Myers is absolutely right that there was an active atheist contingent before 9/11. The roots of atheism go back to ancient Greece, after all. But the “new atheist” movement per se is a product of 9/11.

Not sure about the claim re. Scalia. Not exactly following your argument.

I’d still be interested to get that GHW Bush citation if you can find it. ...

Not sure about the claim re. Scalia. Not exactly following your argument.

 

Scalia is arguing that the fact this may be a denominational document, The Ten Commandments as displayed in the county court house, is not relevant because there is already an acceptance of other forms of public displays of religion that are monotheistic on and in public arenas, which he is identifying the Ten Commandments document as. He is trying to put aside the fact this favors a specific religion, in this case, Christianity, and instead can be viewed as just another public display of a view from a monotheistic belief. We can disregard the concerns of those other belief systems and is thus not an establishment case because there are other public displays of a monotheistic kind, this of course can’t happen… “without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs.” He offers the idea of “devout atheist” to point out this also includes those of no belief in God’s. In short, we are not offending anyone in a special way because the president is set that monotheistic displays are already accepted. This is only an argument to attempt to set aside the display of the Ten Commandments in this case as an establishment case.

Right, Mano, I do see that, but the implication of Scalia’s argument is as I’d claimed before. That is, it seems Scalia is arguing that since there are already public displays of a monotheistic kind, the country is already a de facto monotheistic theocracy. Monotheists’ religious beliefs are apparently more protected than the beliefs of polytheists or atheists. This is an intolerable claim, of course.

Thanks for the conversation today, Doug. Something came to mind when seeing that Richard Dawkins quote and our discussion over the impact of 9/11. It’s the opinion that has been forwarded, most notably by Zbigniew Brzezinski, HERE.

He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin had started before the 1979 Soviet invasion and was indeed designed to prompt a Soviet invasion, leading them into a bloody conflict comparable to America’s experience in Vietnam. This was referred to as the “Afghan Trap”. Brzezinski viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups.

Seems strange to think that support was given that lead to the rise of strengthened militant Islamic groups that would lead to 9/11 that in turn inspired that Richard Dawkins quote. Seems we sure weren’t given them much “respect”.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. What is it about the “new atheist” that has not been fully digested? What does it mean to give the label “new” onto this atheism? If it is about an approach, then what exactly are you pointing out?

Public discussion of atheism was virtually nonexistent in the US up until the publication of Sam Harris’s first book. Historically, that and the subsequent books by Dawkins, et al., were delayed reactions to the religious zealotry that was responsible for September 11, as well as the religious nature of the Bush presidency.  These constitute a difference in kind from the sort of public discourse of atheism and religion that went before. I do not believe that the existence of a strong atheist community has been confronted, however, at any but the most intellectual levels of society. True, I am speaking of a simple historical intuition that I have. At any rate, I do think it’s quite too early to say that this new form of self-aware and public atheism has run its course.

Doug, I agree that Sam Harris’ book had enormous impact on public discussion.

From my perspective, the books by John Shelby Spong provided some opportunity for discussing that the Bible was not literally true, and as a recognized member of the church hiearchy he brought some inherent credibility. However, he doesn’t consider himself an atheist .

There have been years of growing stress: evolution vs. creationism;  I think during the hey-day of the Soviet Union atheism was discredited as un-American (hence putting “under God” into pledge of allegience, etc.) and maybe this postponed rational discussion.

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. What is it about the “new atheist” that has not been fully digested? What does it mean to give the label “new” onto this atheism? If it is about an approach, then what exactly are you pointing out?

Public discussion of atheism was virtually nonexistent in the US up until the publication of Sam Harris’s first book.

[Jan 2001: Natalie Angier’s essay Confessions of a Lonely Atheist in New York Times Magazine]

Doug probably read it at the time…

So who in her right mind would want to be an atheist in America today

woops, posted on the wrong thread….

There have been years of growing stress: evolution vs. creationism; I think during the hey-day of the Soviet Union atheism was discredited as un-American (hence putting “under God” into pledge of allegience, etc.) and maybe this postponed rational discussion.

Competition with the Soviet Union had various effects. The teaching of evolution, I believe, only became integrated in the U.S. public education system after the USSR launched ‘sputnik’ in 1959 and a panic developed among the U.S. ruling class over the quality of science education. More broadly speaking, the New Deal itself was implemented consciously as an antidote to the spread of pro-communist attitudes among U.S. workers, and expressed in growing labor militancy and communist-led unions during the Great Depression.

In my view the all out-attacks on the legacy of the New Deal we’ve seen under both Clinton and Bush, the renewed attacks on teaching evolution and the general encouragement of religious credulity among the population can certainly be seen as byproducts of the destruction of the USSR.

That said, the ‘new atheism’ appears to be 1. a widely-felt response, to 8 years of creeping religiosity in all areas of public life, and 2. an opportunity (under cover of general anti-religious sentiments) for certain elements of the liberal intelligentsia (Harris, Hitchens et al.) to rally ‘progressive’ support to the occupation of Iraq, Gitmo, torture, rendition and all other aspects of the racist ‘War on Terror’.

Balak

There have been years of growing stress: evolution vs. creationism; I think during the hey-day of the Soviet Union atheism was discredited as un-American (hence putting “under God” into pledge of allegience, etc.) and maybe this postponed rational discussion.

Competition with the Soviet Union had various effects. The teaching of evolution, I believe, only became integrated in the U.S. public education system after the USSR launched ‘sputnik’ in 1959 and a panic developed among the U.S. ruling class over the quality of science education. More broadly speaking, the New Deal itself was implemented consciously as an antidote to the spread of pro-communist attitudes among U.S. workers, and expressed in growing labor militancy and communist-led unions during the Great Depression.

In my view the all out-attacks on the legacy of the New Deal we’ve seen under both Clinton and Bush, the renewed attacks on teaching evolution and the general encouragement of religious credulity among the population can certainly be seen as byproducts of the destruction of the USSR.

That said, the ‘new atheism’ appears to be 1. a widely-felt response, to 8 years of creeping religiosity in all areas of public life, and 2. an opportunity (under cover of general anti-religious sentiments) for certain elements of the liberal intelligentsia (Harris, Hitchens et al.) to rally ‘progressive’ support to the occupation of Iraq, Gitmo, torture, rendition and all other aspects of the racist ‘War on Terror’.

Balak

I disagree -that’s not how I see it—-  as I mentioned, I think there was a tendency to emphasize religion in response to the Soviet Union’s atheism, and this is reflected in the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge of allegience.  I don’t think anyone could have successfully promoted atheism during the time of the Soviet Union because they would have been seen as unpatriotic.  Science education in general was encouraged, however, especially aftet Sputnik and in the moon race.  I disagree with attaching some sort of religious or anti-religous spin to the promotion of science at that time (certainly not as part of the Apollo program).

I also think Balak goes overboard with comments about a “ruling class"or “racist ‘War on Terror’ “. 

Apparently the “new atheism” is different things to different people.
To me the ‘new atheism’ is an honest and unapologetic statement about reality and truth—God doesn’t exist. Even if there are some worthwhile features of religion which are important to society, God doesn’t exist.      You can be a Republican; you can support democracy in Iraq;  God still doesn’t exist.

Perhaps you two are having a conversation that touches on these topics in another thread? I only ask because the disagreement is not evident to me.

Well, Balak is sort of suggesting that the rise in ‘religiosity’ is a by-product of the passing of the Soviet Union, while I’m suggesting that the passing of the Soviet Union actually made it possible to bring up atheism in the US without being considered unpatriotic.  Of course after 9/11 things changed further.

I’m not sure what you mean by that, Jackson. It does not appear at first blush that he would disagree with some of your statements, your opinion below could be seen as added to his views.

Apparently the “new atheism” is different things to different people.
To me the ‘new atheism’ is an honest and unapologetic statement about reality and truth—God doesn’t exist.

But, this statement to me looks false (as a statement about the “new atheist”), IMHO. I say this first because as Dawkins and Stenger have proposed, the God question is a scientific question. As a scientific question I think it could be safely said it is highly unlikely that God exist (as Dawkins argues at length), but not the statement “God doesn’t exist” (though my opinion on this may be different). I point this out partly to reflect on the idea that I’ve not heard any of the “new atheist” say “God doesn’t exist”. I don’t think any of them think a God exist, but great effort has been made by Dawkins and Harris to keep this and other religious claims in the scientific realm.  Also, it would appear to me that your statement misses a host of opinions that have been offered by Dennett, Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens about religion in general, politics and the undo respect given to beliefs (even the broadsides Harris proposes about liberal and moderate religionist, which mirrors et. al opinions of Wilson, Atran, Haidt, etc.). It is a widely held opinion that if we stopped being so respectful towards religious beliefs they might just wither and die off. I think there is important differences and critiques of the “new atheist” opinions on these issues. But, even here we find a strained disagreement about at what level do we place the goal.

But, this statement to me looks false (as a statement about the “new atheist”), IMHO. I say this first because as Dawkins and Stenger have proposed, the God question is a scientific question. As a scientific question I think it could be safely said it is highly unlikely that God exist (as Dawkins argues at length), but not the statement “God doesn’t exist”

I agree, the qualification makes the conclusion stronger, not weaker in respect to believers, simply because it leaves them in the position of having to supply even a mustard seed worth of evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

Another strong point of Nisbett’s argument (though insufficiently developed in the interview) is to point out the social/structural basis for growth of religiosity in U.S. society, the lack of economic security among broad layers of people that push them toward the false hope and comfort offered by belief in a ‘personal savior’ who can step in where there’s no socialized medicine, and the real - though limited - support provided by a ready-made social network in an atomized society. These points are rarely, if ever, touched by the ‘new atheism’ - underlining, in my opinion, its lack of a genuinely scientific approach to the question of religion (as opposed to gods).

I understand that D.J. plays the devil’s advocate, but it sounded even beyond the devil’s domain to ask; “so basically Matt, you’re saying, we need to solve all the world’s problems before we advance atheism, secular humanism etc.”. Perhaps that question comes out of the recognition that many who hear Nisbet will actually believe this and will in fact argue that idea.

Reductio ad absurdum- I cringed at that too.

Great guest, great topic. 

Speaking of spurious arguments, what about the special pleading Dawkins and his like minded fellows employ presuming science somehow supports atheism?  Duh, it’s about as scientific as intelligent design theory, meaning it takes philosophical liberties with science, but isn’t science.  Philosophically, such arguments for atheism have more in common with traditional natural theology than modern science.

It’s important that science defenders like Nisbet step in to remind folks of this.  At least I think it’s time for a reminder - I’m getting sick of trying to defend science against creationist encroachers while watching science’s defenders increasingly using the same gimmicks creationists use in order to pretend science proves there is a god, only using them instead to say science can prove atheism.

I have no problem with atheism.  I’m an atheist, and maybe just one of only a rare few atheists out there that have never felt pressured to keep it in the closet, nor to make excuses for it.  But those who pretend that arguments for God violate the Popperian creed while arguments against God do not are playing by their own weird set of rules, not science’s.

I’m not sure what you mean by that, Jackson. It does not appear at first blush that he would disagree with some of your statements, your opinion below could be seen as added to his views.

Apparently the “new atheism” is different things to different people.
To me the ‘new atheism’ is an honest and unapologetic statement about reality and truth—God doesn’t exist.

Perhaps it would be better to say that in my opinion, the ‘new atheism’ is an honest and apologetic statement about reality and truth—and the lack of evidence for God’s existence.

But I also noted it is different things for different people.

Well, Balak is sort of suggesting that the rise in ‘religiosity’ is a by-product of the passing of the Soviet Union, while I’m suggesting that the passing of the Soviet Union actually made it possible to bring up atheism in the US without being considered unpatriotic.  Of course after 9/11 things changed further.

I’ll have to back track a bit here. I would have responded to what you’re saying here, Jackson, as it pertained to my confusion over disagreement, but this was not possible do to the fact you have added this insight post my response. I must admit I still do not see a “disagreement”, but this is neither here nor there and could be just my over look. The rise in religiosity by Balak’s thesis does not seem to counter your proposal that the rise in atheism (or sense of freedom to express) in that they may share the same causal occurrence (all things being equal). It’s an interesting phenomenon and I share your view that atheism (secular humanism) was able to gain more ground after the cold war for the reasons you state. Here I would point to my old friends work, Austin Cline, who has been doing fantastic work over at about.com for many years now. HERE

I tend to agree with what he says here:

Austin -
Transforming anti-communism into anti-godlessness, though, required turning America even more against atheists, agnostics, liberal religious believers, and skeptics of various sorts. Religious doubters and skeptics were transformed into not just an enemy of religious institutions, but of political institutions as well — a Cold War legacy which continues to affect American politics today.

I have seen posters from this time that I would consider fairly grotesque that depicted god-less atheist as giant devils destroying towns and eating people.

The rise in religiosity in this country is also an interesting area to look at, as Balak does. I do not see the two theories as mutual exclusive. The ending of the cold war left a strange void (for a lack of better term at the moment) in identifying who our enemy was. With a certain level of relief suddenly came an increase in anxiety over what was to become of the dissolving Soviet empire. A great deal of the credit for the downfall of the Soviet Union and what was being witnessed at the end of the cold war was credited to Ronald Reagan’s administration which had a powerful ally in the religious right. At this time the religious right and the “moral majority” (and later with groups such as the Christian Coalition) were stroking politics as virtually never seen. As a cultural phenomenon I think I’m fairly safe to say that with these events, and of course others, we witnessed a renewed religiosity that, IMHO, was all to willing to capitalize on pubic fears.

I suppose I should emphasize that what I am referring to with religiosity is mainly a more vocal, political and influential organizing. I should also add that my opinion on atheist gaining ground is more to the point where breathing room developed in that the connection of the god-less feared Soviet communist and atheism was/is becoming meaningless. Of course this I think is a slow process given the propaganda used in these efforts and the age of the population through the process. Also, the rise of the religious right had been building before the collapse of the Soviet Union and there were direct reactions to what was happening by such people as Paul Kurtz. It is my understanding that the Council for Secular Humanism mainly found it’s impetus for organizing to confront the “moral majority”. We are of course still faced with notions such as the U.S. is (should be) a religious country at it’s core and that atheist (secular humanist etc.) lack morals (or to become “atheist” is to hold no moral foundation).

On the other side of the equation as outlined by M above, it is useful to recall that the racist “War on Terror” itself had its roots in the Cold War against the former USSR.

Though it moves a bit away from the initial topic, I found this quotation in a fascinating online .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) following the history of an Afghan-American family:

[B]efore 9/11 all American administrations–Republican and Democratic alike–had encouraged Muslim reaction as a weapon against “godless Communism.” John Foster Dulles’ Cold War manual War or Peace (1950) articulated that policy: “The religions of the East are deeply rooted and have many precious values. Their spiritual beliefs cannot be reconciled with Communist atheism and materialism. That creates a common bond between us, and our task is to find it and develop it.”

Worth framing.

If there was no conflict between science and religion we would not be having a debate about how science must be “framed” especially for religious believers in order to allow them to accept it. If religious believers are only going to accept the findings of science on the condition that they can be “framed” (forged in my opinion) to not contradict irrational beliefs for bad reasons, then whatever else we can get them to accept hardly has any value anyway. As I see it there really is a zero-sum conflict between religion and science, and it is not simply just about evolution vs. creationism or even naturalism vs. supernaturalism. The deeper conflict as i see it is not between different conclusions at all, but different ways of reaching conclusions - in short: right vs. wrong reasons to believe. Wrong reasons are reasons that don’t discriminate between true and false propositions, such as authority, tradition, revelation, old habit, wishful thinking, a “gutfeeling” etc. Those who believe in God have no choice but to rely on wrong reasons (that’s what “faith” means) because no other reasons are available. Never mind arguments such as these. Excuses to believe are not the same as reasons to believe and rationalization is not the same as rationality.

I often hear the argument that we should refrain from being too openly critical of religious faith to avoid alienating the believers and get a chance to “promote scientific literacy” and “teach critical thinking”, but real scientific literacy and real critical thinking must necessarliy also include a realization that this kind of reasons are invalid. And if that message don’t get accross, then whatever else you might be able to concey, is not scientific literacy or critical thinking. If someone denies this, then we mean different things by “scientific literacy” and “critical thinking”. And whatever they mean by these terms, i am not sure i think it is worth teaching at all. I see the harmful and antiscientific effects of religion as mere accidental side-effects of belief for the wrong reasons. What the likes of Nisbet are in effect saying is “Just keep all the wrong reasons as long as it doesn’t happen to lead to any conclusions that contradict specific scientific truths”. What annoys me the most about their approach is the way they implicitly admit that real scientific truth, critical thinking, rationality and intellectual honesty has to come second to stategy and politics. Furthermore we already know that the strategy they are advocating doesn’t work for the simple reason that it is basically what we have been doing all along and it has been the mother of all failiures. As Dawkins put it at AAI 2007:

We seem to be having an impact that decades of niceness has not.

The message i get from the likes of Nisbet is “Get back in the closet and return to the approach that has already failed in the past.”

...And i used to be such a nice person :(

Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Communication at American University.
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Nisbet highlights the recent AAAS panel he organized titled “Communicating Science in a Religious America.”

I went back and listened through the whole podcast twice. There are a few points where I disagree with Nisbet and because they are unrelated, I’ll put them in separate posts.

The first one, probably the least important, is I found Nisbet’s advocating Barack Obama to be inappropriate.  I thought D.J. did a good job responding to those comments. 

Since CFI found it appropriate to include Nisbet’s remarks, it probably is appropriate to respond to them. First,  Obama does not actually have a significant record of working cooperatively and compromising with those who don’t hold liberal views.  He is not looking to find a compromise resolution to the Iraq issue or any other issue which is important and divisive. His record is one of the most liberal voting records in Congress.  I think folks are projecting some sort of wish fulfullment onto Obama which he will have great difficulty living up to.  I think wish fulfillment shows up as one reason people are religious (i.e. they wish that their loved ones and themselves persisted after death) and for this reason it’s ironic to see nontheists supporting Obama.  I am reminded of the McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis campaigns with very good and experienced men who had no chance of winning.

OK this was a small part of the podcast and I’ll separate this vent from other comments.

Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Communication at American University.
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Nisbet highlights the recent AAAS panel he organized titled “Communicating Science in a Religious America.”

The podcast only presented Nisbet’s side, and D.J. did not get him to comment on whether there might be some points of his critics which had some validity.

If you Google “Nisbet” “AAAS” you will find other commentary on this panel discussion.
[ Larry Moran of Dept Biochemistry Univ Toronto in sandwalk blog]  back in Sept 2007 voiced concerns about how this panel discussion was being organized—who was ‘invited’, how it was being ‘framed’, etc.

Here is part of Nisbet’s note to the moderator:

Professor Goldston,

I have just read Matt Nisbet’s blog article on the upcoming AAAS meeting in Boston.

As I’m sure you know, Nisbet has some very strong views on this issue and he is known to be a vocal opponent of athiests like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. He has attacked the positions of many atheist scientist bloggers such as PZ Myers, Jason Rosenhouse, and me. He refers to this group as the “New Atheists,” a term that is widely perceived as misleading at best, and offensive at worst.

Nisbet believes that scientists should spin their scientific messages in a way that avoids upsetting religious people and religious groups. That point of view has been hotly contested in the blogosphere. Many of us believe that this is a fundamentally dishonest way for scientists to behave. We believe that science should not be deliberately “framed” by the personal beliefs of scientists whether they are atheists - as are the majority of scientists - or Christians, or whatever.

We believe that science should be presented as uncompromised pure science and that it is wrong for scientists to consciously alter their message in order to appease religious citizens who might be offended by hearing the scientific truth.

Nisbet seemed to try to invoke Carl Sagan and Stephen J. Gould as examples of scientists willing to build bridges and work collaboratively with religionists toward common goals. However—I never thought of Gould has someone who modified his opinions to make them more palatable to religious beliefs.

Here is a blog by Nisbet with responses by PZ Myers, Jason Rosenhouse, and others:
[“Framing Science” by Matthew Nisbet]

Here are the comments by PZ Myers:

And as I replied on my blog,

1. Science is a method and atheism is a conclusion. That makes it very hard for me to equate the two. Are you going to accuse everyone of thinking science and atheism are the same now?

2. The panel is about “Communicating Science in a Religious America”, you’ve stacked it with religion-friendly panelists, you’re going to be presenting a paper on the “New Atheism”, and the first paragraph of the panel description talks about religion in every sentence. But yeah, it’s only about science communication, and the “New Atheist Noise Machine” wasn’t even on your mind when you thought about putting it together. How disingenuous can you get, Matt?

And I know it’s not about promoting atheism, nor would I expect it to be. It’s clearly about promoting religion, though.

Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Communication at American University.
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Nisbet highlights the recent AAAS panel he organized titled “Communicating Science in a Religious America.”

Part of what Nisbet brings up reminds me of a classic Scientific American article by Cialdini on the “Science of Persuasion”.
[Cialdini identified 6 ‘tools of persuasion” which are commonly used to convince others]:
1. Reciprocation—if they are slightly in your debt (even if you just included stickers in your fund-raising letter) it helps.
2. Commitment and Consistency—they want to be reassured that what they are doing is consistent with their values
3. “Social Proof”—do others agree.
4. Liking—familiarity, similarity,and physical attractiveness count.
5. Authority—Strong pressure to comply with authority, including titles like M.D.or Ph.D., but also an article in Science or New York Times
6. Scarcity - Also linked to worries about the negative aspects of not being persuaded (“call in the next 15 minutes to receive an extra gift…”)

To the extent that scientists are trying to persuade non-scientists of SOMETHING,  the communication needs to make use of rules like these.  If the challenge is to persuasively communicate science to individuals wearing the blinders of religion,  each of these points can and should be tailored to the audience. Nisbet gets a lot of grief from scientists on “framing” science but what he is describing is as “reality-based” as the science itself.  What he is NOT good at is “framing” his point in a way that scientists find it appealing.

When Dawkins suggests the “OUT” campaign—he is using these factors:
(3) social proof—many people question Biblical literacy or whether there is evidence of God’s existence.
(4) liking—someone like Douglas Adams or Julia Sweeney is immensely likeable and adds to the credibility. 
(5) authority—looking to increase the number of respected people; 

An example of where Nisbet uses these factors is to assert “many religions” don’t have a problem with evolution.  This uses points (3) and (5)—the argument isn’t really persuasive to a non religionist but this could be helpful to a religionist.

Cialdini is a great example here, Jackson. Very highly regarded writing on this sort of rhetoric or marketing—his book Influence makes very interesting reading.

I’d like to add a couple of thoughts, though I’m too cross-eyed from work/lack of sleep to study all of the above thoroughly.

1) I think Hume’s Razor makes an important point that is almost always lost in the science vs. religion debates.  Specifically, the real, bottom line conflict is not between religion and science.  The true conflict is between faith and reason.  In that regard, the Dawkins quote provided above is apt.
As science is, taken as a whole, a reason-based activity it necessarily comes into conflict with the tenets of faith - “scriptures” - because those are by definition not reason-based.

2) I don’t think Nisbet and others who make similar arguments should be scorned. That is, to continue the conflict metaphor, let us not form our firing squad in circle facing inward.  At minimum, Mr. Nisbet and those who argue similar ideas have a point that big-picture strategy and long-term thinking will serve us all better than mere reaction.  However, in listening to the Nisbet POI interview, I was struck by how much Nisbet seems to think that the advance of reason must be an either/or approach - diplomacy or attack.
I think our cause will succeed, like many others, by use of both carrots and sticks - diplomats and generals - and to the degree that we can muster both.
It doesn’t have to be E.O. Wilson or Sam Harris, and of course such will never be anyway.

For a variety of reasons, not least the sensationalist dispositions of mass media, our “generals” (e.g., Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens) get more public attention than our diplomats (e.g., Wilson, Julia Sweeney).  But that’s insufficient cause to suggest that these powerful public advocates for reason should pipe down, isn’t it?

On a more prosaic level, our understandable anger over the daily religious atrocities and insanities around the world dispose most of us rank-and-file types to behave more like infantrymen or reason-police than like teachers or therapists.  Maybe we should work more on improving the effectiveness of our individual approaches.  I know I should do that, anyway…

I once got some advice on marriage from an old fellow who had been married for 50 years. He said, that when having an argument with your spouse, if you’re hitting a wall and feelings are running high, ask yourself, “Do you want to be happy, or do you want to be right?” I think this is a cute little parable that is applicable to the New Atheist question.

Raising awarness is not a bad thing, though how one raises it and how skillfully one plays the media influences what the larger public actually becomes aware of, which may not be what you think you’re promoting. But just being right and speaking truth loudly no matter the consequences, is a bit of naive idealism or excessive zealotry, and I think Nibet is right to ask fundamentally what are we trying to accomplish and what’s the most effective method to get there. Now I think we probably do want to accomplish the diminishing of the role and power of religion in public life, not just the practical things he discusses, so some degree of conflict is probably justified. But on the whole, I agree with Nisbet that much more good will get done if we agree and work to gether where we can and present differences in a respectful and dispassionate way when possible. Deliberate antagonism is a spice that should be used very sparingly for fear of spoiling the dish.

I absolutely agree that your long married friend made an excellent point both for marriage and for more public settings of communication/persuasion!  And I agree also that deliberate antagonism is dangerous, indeed.  I’d even say it might always spoil the dish!

Today I watched the speech Barack Obama made today primarily about another hot-button topic, race.
He was able to speak a great deal of truth about race relations and history while recognizing the valid concerns and circumstances of the various “sides.”  It was an absolutely masterful and effective speech (although admittedly I’m biased in his favor).

In contrast were the extremely unhelpful and inflammatory statements made by Obama’s old pastor, the not-too-right Reverend Wright, who produced results that were, to put it mildly, wrong.

Pardon the cheap ironic pun, but some of us, myself included, are occasionally guilty of inadvertently becoming the “Reverend Wrights” of secularism!

As for our currently best known public advocates, it seems to me like maybe Christopher Hitchens gets carried away sometimes with combativeness, but I’ve never seen or heard Dawkins, Harris, and certainly not Dennett, being really any more than simply blunt, although Dawkins’ remarks in particular can too easily be spun out of context.

So though tact and diplomacy are vital, as per Mr. Nisbet’s emphasis, isn’t it also true that we’re often dealing with child-like persons having both paper thin skins and cast-iron thick skulls?  Perhaps some alternation of approaches will be most effective in the long term?

And along similar lines, I really enjoyed the Lynne Kelly interview on POI, not least because she makes a point of emphasizing the positive and fun aspects of science and critical thinking and the natural world in her teaching and other persuasion efforts.

May there be more and more tactful and effective advocates for sanity and reason!

Much I agree with in recent posts on this hread.
Like most “Movements”, we seem to have split into two camps.  In the Purist camp are the “Truth-tellers”, the macho chest thumping in-your-face “fed-up with your nonsense” rationalists who have traded the sardonic smile of Voltaire for the annoyed and self-righteous lecturing of Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris.  Every word these men speak is the truth of course.  This is the feel-good camp.  D.J. clearly admires this group.  When I’m fed-up too, this is this is the one I go to.
The other camp, call it “Apologist” or “Realist” tries to make a different point.  The planet is facing grave dangers which, if not dealt with, could make all this “hot air” very academic indeed.  Unless you believe that religiosity and the need for magical thinking, after a hold of many millenia on human culture,  is going to become a minority view point in the next 50 years, it’s time to make common cause with some the non-rationalists in order to save the planet.  They need us and we need them.
The arguments of the second camp-Nisbet’s camp- lack the purity, simplicity, and ecstatic “rightness” of the first. But at the end of the day, what camp leads us where we need to go?

mclark,
I thought of your post and the discussion above it upon reading Sam H’s missive about Obama’s race speech.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/what-barack-obama-could-n_b_92771.html

I’m generally a big fan of Sam - he’s done as much or more for our cause as anyone.

But impatient we are!  And patience is surely a virtue when it comes to social progress.

mclark,
I thought of your post and the discussion above it upon reading Sam H’s missive about Obama’s race speech.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/what-barack-obama-could-n_b_92771.html

I’m generally a big fan of Sam - he’s done as much or more for our cause as anyone.

But impatient we are!  And patience is surely a virtue when it comes to social progress.

I like the catchy phrase “the audacity of reason”  in Sam Harris’ post above.

Obama is the son of a white anthropologist and an absentee Kenyan father and his step father was from Indonesia, where Barack lived as a child.  I can think of few candidates in US history whose backround and formative experiences would have better prepared them to rise above the parochial and ethnocentric demands of identity politics.  Yet Barack decided he needed to be from a “community”  and in Chicago all communities are ethnically defined.  He became an African American (with capital A’s) maybe not with the purpose of succeeding in politics, but it was likely a necessary condition.  And to be publicly African American in Mittel-America entails embracing everything that Allen describes in the most recent POI interview.
I agree with Sam Harris and the rest that this is very sad.  If B.O. is a hypocrite and this was protective coloration for entering the American forest of identity politics then in a way he deserves what he gets (and FWIW he’s been my candidate all along).  More likely he stupidly thought that his association with Wright would be seen as no more than that- an association.
Barack is highly intelligent, no racist, and too sophisticated to believe even for one second Wrights many idiocies.  He has shown poor judjement in some of his associations though, but, in a sense, his (adopted) culture made him do it.

...too sophisticated to believe even for one second Wrights many idiocies.

People (including Obama) never seem to identify exactly which statements by Rev. Wright they find so ‘idiotic’... Most of his sermon seemed to consist of simple statements of fact.

Wright has preached that the US Government “lied about inventing HIV as chemical warfare against people of color”.  An old conspiracy theory that’s made the rounds and I think rises (or falls ) to the level of an “idiocy.”  Do we as proponents of science in public policy want a president who has anything less than complete disdain for ideas like this?

…  Yet Barack decided he needed to be from a “community”  and in Chicago all communities are ethnically defined.  He became an African American (with capital A’s) maybe not with the purpose of succeeding in politics, but it was likely a necessary condition.  …
Barack is highly intelligent, no racist, and too sophisticated to believe even for one second Wrights many idiocies.  He has shown poor judjement in some of his associations though, but, in a sense, his (adopted) culture made him do it.

Those are excellent observations! 

There are probably a few places in the U.S., like maybe New York, California, and Portland or Seattle, where a mixed-race person could rise politically solely on intellectual and pragmatic strengths.  Illinois is probably not one of those locations.  This is ironic, historically, because that state was the home of that other tall, skinny, eloquent, racial justice-seeking leader from the nineteenth century, Mr. Lincoln.

I’d guess that political aspirations weren’t the primary motivation for Obama to mold himself into a “capital A” African-American.
Instead, I’d “vote” for a couple of other factors.
1) He fell in love with and married a very bright, strong, and socially motivated black woman from the very African-American south side of Chicago.  Her family and their friends became Obama’s day-to-day family and friends.  Consequently, his identity ran in that direction.
2) Perhaps even more important was his early life experience and the fact that he is very much his mother’s son. 
(See this to see what I’m getting at here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14obama.html?scp=2&sq=obama's+mother&st=nyt)  Owing to that, he’s surely predisposed to empathize with those whom we might call “the salt of the earth.”  Of course, in Chicago, very often the “salt” tends toward the color of pepper.

I’d like to throw in a personal anecdote:
I lived in Chicago, on the Gold Coast and in Wrigleyville, from 1987 to 1995.
On one occasion, I volunteered to speak at a “career day” at a south-side public middle school.  Arriving at the school, I was shocked to discover that it was nothing more than the second floor of an old Catholic Church.  As I recall, there wasn’t even a sign identifying it as a school (I was late because I drove past it a few times).  The entrance to the school was a side entrance to the building.  The school HAD NO LIBRARY, nor gym, nor workshops.  There was one bathroom for each gender – in the basement.  The school was surrounded by long-shackled, rusting factories with all their windows broken.
To make a long story short, it wasn’t too surprising to find that few of the twelve and thirteen year-old, mostly black, students were excited about their “career” prospects, or even about their life prospects.

In his speech, Obama said, “At this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’ This time, we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native-American children. ...”
I’d imagine that lots of white people like, say, those from the Chicago suburbs where many public schools have not just libraries but librarians, Olympic size pools, and football fields, wondered what the hell Obama was talking about.  Not me.

Regarding the wrongness of “Reverend” Wright, these statements, among others, were in Obama’s speech:

“On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.
…But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America;…”

Given the entire context of Obama’s life, the facts of American history, and political realities, those statements are enough for me, especially given that the Republican candidate in November will be at least equally beholden to white right-wing religious elements who are at least as insane, and far more powerful, than the wrong-headed gasbag Wright.

By the way, maybe this conversation would be better placed over on the Norm Allen thread!

Wonderful reply- I agree completely with both your assessment of Obama’s likely motivation and your admiration of his recent speech.  He’s still my candidate.  I just think this aspect of his history is terribly interesting (and “ironic”), given that, with his childhood backround, one might have predicted he’d be posting here with us on CFI rather than listening to Wright spin biblical prophecy each Sunday!
I also agree- this would be good on the Norm Allen Thread- I just posted there.

Good show. I’m already familiar with Nisbet’s advocated approach and he came across extremely well.
At the same time, I think those such as Nisbet will continue to be seen as “not getting it” (or being apologetic, or engaging in “political correctness”) with regards to religion and are becoming “part of the problem”. Those that I mentioned, and others, will continue to be pushed to the fringes as long as the perception is that their opinions about approach are seen as telling others to “shut up”.

Further Discussion of Nisbet’s approach and “framing” in various blogs. See for example this discussion of telling people to “shut up”

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2008/04/science-religion-and-framing.html

Another example with more links
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/03/a_dialogue_on_framing_the_fwor.php