I respect the deeper and more profound feelings of others. But most of all I respect reason. However, it is, as you and Shannon demonstrate so nicely, a means; it is not an end.

T, Why would I be worried about a cheat sheet? What makes you think I’m not an atheist or agnostic myself?

I was not impatient with you from the beginning (you overestimate you ability at mind reading). When were you making fun of me? I’m quite relaxed but I do rather resent snide people – there is too much of it around today. You, on the other hand seem worked up, buddy.

In reply to your next stab at rationality, logic, and coherence you tell me what I think (that non-believers, as a group, “don’t practice their lines”). No I don’t think that. Many thoughtful non-believers consider the many possible circumstances that life will throw their way,I’m sure;….many do not.

“How low you think of believers, Tyouth!” No, I don’t think what I believe you’re trying to say. I think believers have a tool that non-believers generally do not have.

Relax, buddy. Nobody takes away your rehearsed cheat-sheet from you. And if you forget a few lines, there is an instructor on every corner!

You are projecting. I said “the mind, when a person acts under stress, misapprehension, or some environmentally-induced handicap of the mind, easily, and without great provocation leaves the intellect behind.” and that it is a “challenge” for the atheist to respond correctly. This is a far cry from what you apparently think I said. (Challenged doesn’t mean “unable”, confused doesn’t mean “lobotomized”, and “depend only upon” (where did you get that? Really, your thinking is so sloppy here that I grow impatient with you as I write this.)

The immediacy of decisions, the heat of the moment, I maintain, will provide an extra challenge for the atheist. I might have more accurately compared an atheist on the stage of life as an actor who has not rehearsed his lines and is “more challenged” (rather than “challenged” as I originally maintained) than a religious “actor” who has rehearsed.

What I said follows from your statement, Tyouth. [I'll fill out the blanks for you.]

You submitted that under life blows (under such terrible tribulations like misapprehension and stress, or even “environment”…did you mean people who live in Tornado Country?) an adult person becomes some kind of lobotomized rabbit: low IQ, mean and evil, unable to think rationally, capable to “behave correctly” only under religious guidance.
This statement is laughable on many levels; most obvious one – it will make a perfect apology for state control, since in your opinion adult sane people are unable to function “in real life” w/o assistance from third party. Another thing: you confuse rationality, or reason (which I talked about) with intellect, which is a whole different topic, not an object of discussion here at all.
But let’s for argument sake leave your statement as is.

It follows, then, that people whose ability to “behave correctly” (what constitutes “correctly”, I wonder? probably whatever the nuns told one), what was I saying – ah: that there are people whose ability to to behave correctly depend only on religious instruction and “attendant codes”. Who are these people? They are believers in god. It follows (and now I’ll repeat), that religious people are irrational, low IQ, low morals people who unable to function in society without instruction from religious source.

I don’t agree – but hey, I respect your right to be mistaken, however self-defeating and badly argued your opinion seems to me. I just noted that it’s not going to be very flattering and therefore well received by believers on this thread. But everyone’s entitled, etc.

T, I never said anything of the sort. I’d suggest that you include the actual pertinent quotation in your comments to help keep your mind clear about what was said. (You haven’t got emotionally involved here and left your intellect behind, have you?)

Re. your aside: I wasn’t addressing you T, only your ideas.

Lest we all start to believe that Texas is the promised land for multiculturalists…

I don’t think anyone argued that. It’s merely were not the kind of people that fevered academics feel we are. Also, as noted above, things are different in small towns. You just can’t ignore people as you do in a large city because you bump into them every day. I’m not sure people in large urban areas are more tolerant or if it is that they just don’t care about the vast majority of people they interact with.

in your world (the one you call real, hilariously) religious people are irrational, low IQ, low morals people who unable to function in society without instruction from religious source. I’m afraid this view is going to be very unpopular in this quarters.

Aside: I’d like to be addressed directly when my opinion is critiqued; matter of personal preference. Thank you.

I’m confident that Tatyana meant that on a purely rational, intellectual level. She may be right if we’re talking in the comfort of our living room, at the local pub, or here at C Boyz.

She’s quite wrong when we’re going about our business in the real world. Real people in real situations become irrational at the drop of a hat. That is, the mind, when a person acts under stress, misapprehension, or some environmentally-induced handicap of the mind, easily, and without great provocation leaves the intellect behind. Now, add in philistinism, low intellect, low intelligence (in all senses of the word), meanness, evil, and the immediacy of which the intellect must sometimes act and the the atheist faces quite a challenge in behaving correctly. Clearly, in the real world that we live in, a religious belief (and it’s attendant codes) by individuals is superior to atheism.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/it_must_be_tough_to_be_an_athe.php

All this patting ourselves on the back on how tolerant we are (except for those godless heathen coastal elites) is risible. We’re no more or less tolerant than we used to be – we just have a different set of prejudices. Human nature is remarkably resistant to change.

Have a look at Part I, Chapters 1-5 (about 100 pages) of Steven Pinker’s, “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature”. In these chapters, Pinker outlines the effect of ideology upon intellectual life through the 20th century; in particular, its effect upon the social sciences and humanities. Lot’s of citations included.

Thank you, I’ll consider that a compliment. Was it intended as such? If not, why not?

I often find myself saying, “I could make a much more convincing argument for atheism than that, and I’m not even an atheist.”

I know what you mean. OTOH, an even more common experience is to be overcome with chagrin as to what someone inside the faith is saying in public…

Screaming Madalyn Murray O’Hair

Ms. O’Hair spoke at my (loosely-church-affiliated) university when I was un undergrad. The school got quite a bit of flack from the more conservative parts of the local Christian community, but I personally know one person who became a Christian as a result of hearing her speak–sort of a reverse-When-Harry-Met-Sally thing, more or less: “I’ll have the opposite of what she’s having”.

I lack this fear because I .. think that religions evolve just like every other facet of culture….

This seems like such a painfully obvious implication of evolutionary theory that I can’t believe Dawkins, of all people, doesn’t seem to get it.

If memory serves, he touches on the idea of religion as evolutionary adaptation, but then proceeds to ignore the natural implication, which is, “What adaptive purpose does religion serve, and how do we emulate that effect after we abandon it?”

As you’ve ably pointed out, the history of the 20th century certainly suggests that perhaps religion isn’t quite so vestigial as some of its detractors would have us believe. I’d think atheists would jump at the chance to acknowledge the benefits that faith — at its best — has brought, and to try and figure out how to bring those benefits to the post-religious world in more rational form.

Marxism seems to me to have been an attempt at this. I’m not sure to what extent Marxists explicitly identified the idea of it being a superior replacement for religion, as opposed to just repudiating it.

However, I think we can now safely conclude that Marxism — having starved and murdered so many of its supposed beneficiaries — has failed the test of reproductive viability. So the scientific thing to do is to reject the falsified hypothesis, and see if there is some other non-religious idea or institution that might fit the bill.

The only current movement even remotely resembling that I’ve seen is the Brights, which — if I may be so bold — is an embarrassment to everyone involved. God deliver us from yet more identity politics.

So, why is it that many people who loudly and proudly identify themselves as scientists can’t or won’t apply the scientific method to their own political and social ideas?

So is part of the problem that pro-atheist commentators are self selecting?

I think so. I think its largely a matter of the kind of polarizing people who make themselves known for having a particular faith. For example, a for a lot secular people today, there only exposure to evangelically christianity is clearly restricted to outrageous characters such as corrupt TV evangelist or wack-jobs like Fred Phelps of the notorious Westboro Baptist church cult. If that’s all you ever saw of Christianity you probably wouldn’t like it either. Likewise, the most visible atheist are also usually the biggest hysterical jerks. Screaming Madalyn Murray O’Hair being the most obvious example.

I think a lot of the nonsense you see coming from atheist springs from an utter terror of admitting that anything of religious origins might have some value. This fear clearly influenced Dawkins’ book to such a degree that it became mean spirited gibberish. The great tragedy in the case of Dawkins and others like him is that they let their fear overwhelm their analytical discipline and they end up being just as irrational as those who consciously make a leap of faith. When you dogmatically insist on everything religious being bad, well, you become trapped by dogma.

I lack this fear because I had think that religions evolve just like every other facet of culture and that just as the trial and error of natural selection creates biological structures of great beauty and utility, cultural evolution can do the same thing. In their parables religions encode sophisticated truths about human nature that mere articulated reason cannot uncover. This realization lets me approach ideas put forth by religious people with more humility and respect.

I mean, that seems to be the general narrative, but two things are very notable in saying it allowed: 1) How did academia decide that redressing perceived social wrongs was its primary task? 2) How did “method” get transformed so completely as to exclude any questioning of governing assumptions?

I think the conclusion has to be that the liberal elitism of those in charge fused with populism. This is sheer demagoguery, where the obvious is neglected in order to create partisans who can only see as far as their sealed bubble lets them. Conservatives who want more accountability for the academy have to think twice about letting the people critique academia’s absurdities. The worldview espoused now is undeniably populist, meant to advance identity politics. One wonders what siren song could be played that would fuse elitism and conservative politics, should we be lucky enough to see the beginnings of academic reform underway.