None, far as I can tell. But I'll keep you posted.
I've been engaging in fun Internet "debate" of a "religious" nature. Here's how it works: Followers of Richard Dawkins and Imagine play skeptic to various "claims" of theism, treating all such "claims" as assertions about the physical world and the workings thereof. In doing so, they're stepping outside of the lines of conventional debate by 1) allowing themselves to state their opponents' positions--and in advance, no less, and 2) confusing faith statements with scientific claims. Writing the other guy's lines and mischaracterizing his positions are, the last time I checked, debate no-no's. I mean, really big ones.
Otherwise, the people in question are masterful arguers.
Actually, there's a third thing they do. Namely, if I take issue with any of the words they've penned for me--for instance, if I protest, "Um, that's not my position"--they get annoyed and cite poll results that apparently prove that such and such a position is, in fact, mine. In other words, they're sorry, but that's what I think. They probably think I'm crazy for not even knowing my own positions. Meanwhile, I'm not allowed to script their lines for them. (How fair is that??)
So, anyway, I've spent the last couple of years being told what I believe and how irrational I am for believing it (whether I believe it or not), and I've almost forgotten what I do believe. Maybe that's the plan. Clever rascals, those one-sided debaters.
Anyway, I asked Bev why I keep on "debating" these people, and she responded, "Because you have fun doing it." As usual, she's right.
Things got a little hairy tonight, with an especially aggressive opponent insisting that I'm against gays and in favor of stoning and enslaving people. I responded that I think nothing of the kind, and that I'm a liberal Democrat--something he obviously isn't, given his habit of demonizing me for not sharing his views. I'm sure he'll appreciate that observation. (So far, he hasn't signed on to thank me.)
I've determined that the whole faith-bashing trend began in the mass entertainment sphere--rock bands, comedians, filmmakers, etc. Now, of course, we all know that nobody gets his or her values from the entertainment blasted into our ears 24/7, but you can't deny the influence of same. (Actually, people can, and do. Still, they shouldn't.) Anyway, what's cool for rock and movies and stand-up routines is cool for intellectuals. How that works, I have no idea, but it does.
As faith-bashing became the new thing to do on the media-hip left, folks like James Randi and Sam Harris took note of this trend and decided to turn up the volume on scapegoating religion for our culture's lack of scientific literacy. They joined the ritual, and best-selling volumes ensued, and suddenly modern comics were given an instant-laugh alternative to swearing profusely--mocking faith. And all they had to do was recycle George Carlin recycling Lenny Bruce. Work, like originality, being for losers.
My favorite characteristics of the bashing-for-cred crowd? The way they insist they're not characterizing all people of faith as fundies while characterizing all people of faith as fundies. How they insist that they're not claiming we all think alike while claiming that we all think alike. How they denounce the Christian Bible as an insane, totally irrational document while citing it as an authority (something they have to do, for reasons that have never been clear to me). How they ridicule the idea of God as a super being suitable for photographing and framing while restricting themselves to that very comic-book concept of God, thus making fun of their own view of God (while refusing to deal with more advanced claims for the Big Guy).
Ah, to be a best-selling skeptic of theism. I'd get to script my opponents' "claims" and, simultaneously, shoot them down in whatever form I choose to present them, making sure to insult my opponents every other sentence for the benefit of all the intellectually insecure readers who wish they were me. Then I'd refuse to debate my critics, insisting that I've heard it all and that there's no requirement to deal with nonsense, anyway, beyond labeling it as such.
The perfect scam. Disgusting isn't the word. However, the fallout is fun! But I'm not sure if it's helping the economy or not. Probably isn't.
4 comments:
It's certainly ironic to see the allegedly rational, mostly lefties making perverse leaps of (il)logic that would make neocon arguments seem like hard science by comparison.
If someone wants to be an atheist, then good luck to them. But if they attempt to force their belief onto others and belittle those who don't share them, then they're behaving in exactly the same way as all those other fundamentalists they claim to decry. What they fail to understand is that atheism is just another belief - it's just that their belief is in the negative. Whether you believe in God or believe there isn't a God, it's still an article of faith. When one side starts calling its belief a fact and all other beliefs a lie, then we have trouble.
I find evangelical atheists just as dangerous and tiresome as evangelical Christians. Thank you for taking a stand for the rational, progressive believers.
M'yep... Someone could (should and probably has) make a book that simply charts the logical fallacies made by professional atheists.
My first favorite one is the one that doesn't even understand what "logic" is... When it's treated like a datum that proves there is no God rather than a methodology of argumentation independent of the initial propositions. And, of course, they're automatically "logical" because they're not theists. That is, apparently, the only necessary and sufficient criteria.
The next is the one that you're talking about: straw man arguments. Their whole argument is clearly based on gross generalizations and a refusal to engage the full range of theology (did you ever see my responses to that P.Z. Meyers post you posted a while back?). Even when they admit that you yourself might not fit in their generalizations and ignorant definitions, you are reduced to a marginal exception who is probably worse because "you don't even believe your own religion". We might as well throw the whole gamut of faulty generalization fallacies in here.
Don't forget the ad hominems, and the false dilemmas (Dawkins opens his whole series Enemies of Reason with one!), the occasional negative-proof fallacy and nirvana fallacy, rampant package-deal fallacies, red herrings, appeal to ridicule, loaded question, false attribution, and the psychologist's fallacy.
Thank you for your post. I consider to the left of many self-described "liberals" and "progressives". I also believe there is a God. And I have a healthy appreciation for religion as an historical and cultural reality, for good and for ill.
As you can imagine, I get awfully tired following a lot of blogs and sites on-line. I would like to support "my side"... and then "my side" goes and indulges the most adolescent views on religion.
Never mind that the people I've known who've ACTUALLY DONE THINGS in REAL LIFE for the poor and oppressed -- rather than just being cleverly snarky on-line -- of this world have been leftist Christians.
My favorite claim: All religion is stupid and evil.
Best part: They always mean Christianity.
Never ever do I see the claim applied to rhetorical assaults on Judaism, Islam, or any other major tradition.
These are people who will swiftly eviscerate almost any other sort of reductionist claim or sweeping generalization about culture.
Anyhow, you've made a nice, cogent statement here. I've always been too bothered and busy to manage one.
Yes, they love to play the "present company excepted" trick while never totally meaning it.
It was once put to me that I have very open and progressive views for a Catholic. (and for the record, the person who said so is a dear friend)
I put it to him that is the only Christians he hears from are the likes of Pat Robertson, then I'm sure it must seem that way, but he probably hasn't spoken to many others and gotten to know what they believe.
And don't get me wrong, I've gotten into some pretty hot debates with fundamentalists too, and they're mostly nice people who mean well. (and I don't mean that to sound condescending)
When casual agnostics (who are usually atheists in denial) can't figure out why I take issue with both atheists and mad fundamentalists, I simply explain that I'm a Christian, not an idiot. Most of the values expressed by Jesus are the ones that get called "communism" and "socialism" by a lot of so-called Christians, mostly in America.
If someone wants to list the evils committed in the name of religion, then they'll get no argument from me, but this cherry-picking of history and the wilful ignoring of the good done by grass-roots religious communities is just the kind of intellectual dishonesty that they can pick in a second when the topic is anything other than religion.
As is so often the case, it's the behaviour of certain religious groups turning people away from God. Because the American right-wing claims a monopoly on Christianity, many of those who oppose them will stupidly oppose everything the right-wing, including the belief in God. And yes, Wapsie, it's embarrassing when we see people who we think have it pretty right politically, go and cheapen their points so badly with a juvenile view of faith which is based on stereotypes because they foolishly accepted the premise of the right-wing and stupidly tried to behave in an equal and opposite manner.
Post a Comment