Intelligence Squared - Atheism is the new fundamentalism

[Ryokan]

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/atheism-is-the-new-fundamentalism

Video is being uploaded as of this post, so should be there very soon.

I've been looking forward to this debate for some time now.

[HansMustermann]

Oh yes, we'll call all those who don't follow Athe to St Paul cathedral and do unto them like Jehu did to the followers of Ba'al. And we'll call their priests on a mountain like Elijah did and if they fail to produce a miracle, they shall surely be put to death, by order of Athe. And only those who sacrifice a black chicken to Athe and renounce Jesus will be spared. And then we'll get some eunuchs to throw Kathy out of the window like in 2 Kings. (Mind you, ground floor, wouldn't want to be cruel about it;))

More seriously, the video is still being uploaded, but the very premise seems to me entirely too much hyperbole. Fundamentalism all over the world still gets people killed or jailed or mutilated, fundamentalist Taliban throw acid in women's eyes, fundies in africa torture and kill children they believe to be witches... and anyone thinks that an atheist poking a little fun of their religion is even remotely in the same league? WTH?

[Ryokan]

It is indeed hyperbole, which is why I'm looking forward to see how they will justify it.

[Dancing David]

Thats a debate club isn't it?

[Ryokan]

I wouldn't call it a debate club. It's a forum for discussion.

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/about

[ParrotPirate]

Off topic,but what exactly is that you're holding,Ryokan?

[kuroyume0161]

I'm with Hans here. It is unlikely that you'll have a mob of atheists strapping people to poles and torching them for being heretics, believers, or whatnot. Not that it isn't possible in some future twist just unlikely.

[Fnord]

I wouldn't call it a debate club. It's a forum for discussion.

Heh!

Let's not call the practice "Abortion" either. Let's call it "Exercising reproductive freedom" instead.

Getting a little PC around here...

;)

[Beerina]

I'm with Hans here. It is unlikely that you'll have a mob of atheists strapping people to poles and torching them for being heretics, believers, or whatnot. Not that it isn't possible in some future twist just unlikely.

The closest I've seen was that one GW nutjob who wanted to make "denying global warming" a crime. And I have no idea if he's technically an atheist.

[Meadmaker]

I'm with Hans here. It is unlikely that you'll have a mob of atheists strapping people to poles and torching them for being heretics, believers, or whatnot. Not that it isn't possible in some future twist just unlikely.

Ever heard of the cultural revolution?

[HansMustermann]

Somehow, I doubt that Mao was primarily motivated by atheism there.

[The Drain]

I'm with Hans here. It is unlikely that you'll have a mob of atheists strapping people to poles and torching them for being heretics, believers, or whatnot. Not that it isn't possible in some future twist just unlikely.

Hmmm, well I have heard it argued that Stalin was a fundamentalist atheist - and pretty murderous with it too. Being religous meant you were mentally ill, and therefore required re-education in a gulag.

Same could probably be said about the communist Chinese of the very recent past.

I'm no apologist for the god botherers; just flagging up some arguments you may well hear on this thread to come.

[Gawdzilla]

Hmmm, well I have heard it argued that Stalin was a fundamentalist atheist - and pretty murderous with it too. Being religous meant you were mentally ill, and therefore required re-education in a gulag.

Same could probably be said about the communist Chinese of the very recent past.

I'm no apologist for the god botherers; just flagging up some arguments you may well hear on this thread to come.

Stalin was trained in a seminary, so he had a good early indoctrination in evil things you can do to people. I wonder if Giordano Bruno came up?

Anyway, if you search through Stalin's writings you won't find "We shall do this in the name of atheism." (No kidding, check "The Internet Archive".) This is just an ad hom the holey people like to throw out when we get rude by pointing out that most of the wars in the world were started by believers of one stripe or another, as far back as the Hittites, at least.

[Ryokan]

Video not released yet, it still says "VIDEO COMING LATER TODAY." I've been waiting all day for this.. :(

Heh!

Let's not call the practice "Abortion" either. Let's call it "Exercising reproductive freedom" instead.

Getting a little PC around here...

;)

I understand from your wink that you're not serious, but I still didn't really get the joke...

Off topic,but what exactly is that you're holding,Ryokan?

It's an AG-3, the Norwegian version of the H&K G3, until recently the standard rifle of the Norwegian military, now only used by the Home Guard - which I'm in.

[Rrose Selavy]

Funny that Stalin has come up here tonight - I just this evening found him listed in Wiki as an "Atheist activist":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheism_activists

[Dancing David]

I wouldn't call it a debate club. It's a forum for discussion.

http://www.intelligencesquared.com/about

Fair enough, I have heard it a couple of times.

[The Drain]

Funny that Stalin has come up here tonight - I just this evening found him listed in Wiki as an "Atheist activist":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheism_activists



I followed your link Rrose (thanks) and here's the relevant quote:


Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church) is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938.[68 (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-67)


I would argue that - contrary to the thread title - atheism is not a new fundamentalism; it's been here in that form for quite a while.

The important point, I think, is that fundamentalism of any flavour is wrong.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Somehow, I doubt that Mao was primarily motivated by atheism there.Not to mention, even if he was, the repression was still politically motivated rather than religious doctrine motivated.

Which can also be said when politically motivated people use religious manipulation as a tool of repression.

But there is a separate religiously motivated repression aside from the politics it is often intertwined with. There is no historical equivalent atheist motivated repression to speak of.

[kuroyume0161]

Funny that Stalin has come up here tonight - I just this evening found him listed in Wiki as an "Atheist activist":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheism_activists

Funny that. If you click the link to Joseph Stalin and search for 'atheis...' you get nothing except a single link in the Notes. Not very compelling.

Why is it that whenever 'crimes of religions' is to be countered with 'crimes of atheism' always the communists jump out of the closet like dirty ole' skeletons? - And I realize the points are being raised for presterity (?). Even if the leader in question (with pretty much dictorial powers) were atheist that isn't the same as an organized group of atheists. It is more related to political reasons than zealous, fundamentalist, or religious reasons.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Funny that Stalin has come up here tonight - I just this evening found him listed in Wiki as an "Atheist activist":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Atheism_activistsTalk about revisionist history. Sounds like the usual suspects are out trying to make the world fit their beliefs.

[HansMustermann]

Hmmm, well I have heard it argued that Stalin was a fundamentalist atheist - and pretty murderous with it too. Being religous meant you were mentally ill, and therefore required re-education in a gulag.

Same could probably be said about the communist Chinese of the very recent past.

I'm no apologist for the god botherers; just flagging up some arguments you may well hear on this thread to come.

Stalin's actions past a relatively early point were motivated more by keeping his "throne" safe than by all factors combined. And as he started to descend into paranoia and see plots against him everywhere, pretty much any group that could be defined by a name was a potential threat. Officers and doctors for example saw some brutal purges, which can't be said about the church. The intellectual elite also was decimated, this time via visits at night by the infamous black cars. Even genetics and evolution were seen as some dangerous burgeois imperialist influence, and he tried to replace it with a homegrown idiocy: Lysenkoism.

Even being one of his inner circle didn't make you safe. The doctors' plot show-trials started over paranoid suspicions that his personal doctor might be in a conspiracy to kill him. Yezhov, his personal sycophant and the one who did the officers' great purge for him, was himself arrested and executed at the end of it, and even removed from official photos. Yagoda, Yezhov's predecessor as head of the NKVD and who (as per his own plea for mercy) had built two canals with Gulag slave labour for Stalin, in addition to the whole brutal repression he did for Stalin, and in addition to extracting confessions under torture for the first Moskow show trial, was executed himself too in 1938. Zinoviev, once one of the most popular and powerful leaders in the party, was among the first purged. Tukachevsky, one of the foremost and most trusted leaders of the Red Army during the revolution and afterwards, and the guy whose military theory they would use in WW2 as the official doctrine, was purged too. (His signed confession was stained with blood, btw.) Etc, etc, etc.

Trying to see that all as fundamental atheism is just silly and revisionist.

The church is actually one of the few groups which didn't have such purges, for a start.

But he _did_ reinstate the orthodox church when he thought it's more to his benefit.

[The Drain]

Stalin's actions past a relatively early point were motivated more by keeping his "throne" safe than by all factors combined. And as he started to descend into paranoia and see plots against him everywhere, pretty much any group that could be defined by a name was a potential threat.




Fair enough, good point.

[Ryokan]

The debate is finally uploaded.. :)

[Ryokan]

What a weird debate, two very liberal Christians who were very hostile to atheism.

[Limbo]

What a weird debate, two very liberal Christians who were very hostile to atheism.


Didn't one express respect? "There are many forms of atheism I deeply respect."

[Ryokan]

Didn't one express respect?

To certain forms of atheism, like the one Jesus had when he cried 'why have you forsaken me?' on the cross, and other people who had momentary doubt in god. Not really atheism, in other words.

They did of course respect Dawkins, but in no way his form of atheism, which they branded fundamentalism. It was all quite weird, since they seemed very liberal, and had a belief in god that was almost Einsteinian.

One of them, Richard Harries, did say that the 'new atheism' hasn't harmed society, and has been good in some ways since it has made some people think (in the form that I first mentioned, a momentary doubt) about their faith.

[Limbo]

At one point, Dr Dawkins suggested that the vast majority of religious people are not the sort we should want, or something to that effect. He pointed to his debate opponents as examples of the sort we should want. 'The huge majority of religious people are the sort you don't want and that's why I wrote the God Delusion.' At about 1:03.

But then later, at about 1:10, the point came up that the vast majority of people who believe in religion believe the essence of religion is love and non-violence. Dr Dawkins responds, "The great majority of religious people are delightful people who would never hurt a fly." So I would ask Dr Dawkins, which is it? Are these 'majority' delightful people? Or are they the sort of religious people we should not want? Don't we want the religious to be delightful non-violent people? I mean, if the majority wouldn't hurt a fly, then that's the sort of religious people we should want, isn't it? See what I mean?

[Limbo]

One of them, Richard Harries, did say that the 'new atheism' hasn't harmed society, and has been good in some ways since it has made some people think (in the form that I first mentioned, a momentary doubt) about their faith.


I agree with that, I myself owe a debt of gratitude to atheism. Atheism was to my old way of looking at religion as a whetstone is to a sword. It sharpened it, so it served its purpose.

Trouble is, sometimes the whetstone seems to want to keep sharpening until there's nothing left, going beyond its purpose. That's fundamentalism, the going beyond.

[Ryokan]

But then later, at about 1:10, the point came up that the vast majority of people who believe in religion believe the essence of religion is love and non-violence. Dr Dawkins responds, "The great majority of religious people are delightful people who would never hurt a fly." So I would ask Dr Dawkins, which is it? Are these 'majority' delightful people? Or are they the sort of religious people we should not want? Don't we want the religious to be delightful non-violent people? I mean, if the majority wouldn't hurt a fly, then that's the sort of religious people we should want, isn't it? See what I mean?

The Christian fundamentalists in the USA are non-violent (for the most part), and I'm sure the vast majority of them are delightful people, yet they do bring harm to society in promoting laws that will oppress people and suppress science.

The Muslims in Saudi Arabia are non-violent (for the most part), and I'm sure the vast majority of them are delightful people, yet they continue to support a system where gays, women, apostates, etc, are strongly oppressed.

They do this because of what they've been brought up to believe. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.

[Limbo]

The Christian fundamentalists in the USA are non-violent (for the most part), and I'm sure the vast majority of them are delightful people, yet they do bring harm to society in promoting laws that will oppress people and suppress science.

The Muslims in Saudi Arabia are non-violent (for the most part), and I'm sure the vast majority of them are delightful people, yet they continue to support a system where gays, women, apostates, etc, are strongly oppressed.

They do this because of what they've been brought up to believe. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.


Do you feel that attacking any and all forms of religion, "fundamentalist" or not, Christian or not, any form of spirituality, is the solution? In other words, do you feel the whetstone should sharpen the sword until there is nothing left?

[Meadmaker]

Somehow, I doubt that Mao was primarily motivated by atheism there.

When you and your family are being killed, the motivation is a secondary concern. The point is that during the cultural revolution, if you were religious, you might end up dead, and you could easily end up imprisoned or otherwise persecuted.

The original quote, to which I was responding was

It is unlikely that you'll have a mob of atheists strapping people to poles and torching them for being heretics, believers, or whatnot

The Red Guards were in fact a mob of atheists, and they were persecuting those other people for being believers.

[Ryokan]

Do you feel that attacking any and all forms of religion, "fundamentalist" or not, Christian or not, any form of spirituality, is the solution? In other words, do you feel the whetstone should sharpen the sword until there is nothing left?

Who has done that?

[Ryokan]

When you and your family are being killed, the motivation is a secondary concern.

It's not a concern for them, of course. But I believe the truth matters, and if you try to paint all atheists with a Maoist-brush, it becomes a concern for those that are atheists.

[Limbo]

Who has done that?


I'll take that as a no. So how do you determine which to attack and which not to?

By the laws they want to pass and how they treat minorities?

Or by whether any of their beliefs conflict with science, or are unsupported by science?

[Ryokan]

I'll take that as a no. So how do you determine which to attack and which not to?

By the laws they want to pass and how they treat minorities?

Or by whether any of their beliefs conflict with science?

Your first point, yes. Your second point, not necessarily. People should be free to believe exactly what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people. And that doesn't just go for religious beliefs, but any other belief, philosophy or ideology.

Of course, it all comes down to what you mean by 'attack'.

[Limbo]

Your first point, yes. Your second point, not necessarily. People should be free to believe exactly what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people. And that doesn't just go for religious beliefs, but any other belief, philosophy or ideology.


Well that's great, we agree.

What would you say about an atheist who wants to 'destroy religion once and for all' (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160413)? Is such an atheist a "fundamentalist"? If not what would you call such an atheist?

Does Dr Dawkins want to destroy religion?


Of course, it all comes down to what you mean by 'attack'.


Anything short of violence.

[Ryokan]

What would you say about an atheist who wants to 'destroy religion once and for all' (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=160413)? Is such an atheist a "fundamentalist"? If not what would you call such an atheist?

Depends how he would go about 'destroying' religion. If it's done through reasoned debate and education, I'm all for it.

If it's done through killing and genocide, or even outlawing it, I would be on the other side and call them madmen.

Does Dr Dawkins want to destroy religion?

You'll have to ask him.

Mind you, these 'attacks on religion' are in the form of books, debates and talk - if that's attacking, then every time a religious person talks about his faith to me, every time a Mormon or JW knocks on my door, it's an attack. I feel that such language used is hyperbole.

[linusrichard]

The more you learn about Communism as it was practiced in the Soviet Union and its sphere, the more Communism looks like a religion. Atheism is a plank in it, of course, but it's a gross exaggeration (at best) to say that Stalin killed people because of atheism. It would be like saying that the crusades were waged because of transubstantiation. Sure, that was a part of Catholic belief, and one not shared with the Muslims, but the statement is nonsense. Atheism and hostility to religion are not the same, and neither strictly requires the other.

I'm not educated about Maoism, but given what I know about European Communism, and about atheism, it strikes me as nearly impossible that Mao's enormities against believers were anything as simple a matter as he was an atheist and they weren't.

[ThatSoundAgain]

I agree with that, I myself owe a debt of gratitude to atheism. Atheism was to my old way of looking at religion as a whetstone is to a sword. It sharpened it, so it served its purpose.

Trouble is, sometimes the whetstone seems to want to keep sharpening until there's nothing left, going beyond its purpose. That's fundamentalism, the going beyond.

This of course assumes that atheism has the implicit purpose of being a whetstone. And, extending the metaphor, that this particular religion is a valuable and just sword in the first place.

From my side of the fence, it doesn't look that way. I'm not here to preserve or prop up the core of anyone else's religion, and I couldn't care less how much or how little is left of that religion as a result of me criticising it. Which I will do, honestly and vigorously, in the appropriate setting.

On another note, on the "week in woo" radio show (as I've named it to myself) on the talk radio channel here in Denmark, one of the local liberal lutheran priest/pundit personalities today explained the increase of atheism among young people with "the fact that they're not yet mature enough to believe the rather silly sounding doctrines of religion."

Yes, that was her choice of words as best I can translate it.

I thought to myself "So close and yet so far", but wrote it off to the fact that her very profession and the training that that requires in this country makes her an inherently self-contradictory person. Take equal parts dead languages, history, dogma, and practical matters (rites, legal issues, accountancy), and extend those ingredients into a full fledged five year university degree. That sounds like the recipe for a borderline split-personality to me, or at least a half-decade-long excercise in cognitive dissonance.

ETA: Went off on a tangent there, but I just had to share.

[six7s]

The motion proposes that "atheism is the new fundamentalism", i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community.My initial reaction: bollocks!

Atheism isn't new... it's older than all the woos added together!

And atheism doet NOT involve "dogma", nor does it entail a "belief in its own infallibility"... its simply a world-view that is consistent with what we actually know and shedloads of what we think about teh Universe


Speaking for the motion are Richard Harries and Charles Moore.

Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today's atheists. Well... at least Harries is consistent - feverishly cherry-picking and clutching at straws in an inane and ultimately futile attempt to prop up his delusions


[Harries] portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity – the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for ‘the grand perhaps’ (Browning).Art - however great - does NOT validate woo.

Full stop.

End of non-sensical 'argument'.


Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding.Wow!

The 'cost of any spiritual understanding'? What the hell has that got to do with the price of fish, Charles?

Seriously, if anyone can quantify the value of 'spiritual understanding' please, do let me know... I don't want to be 'guilty of the very dogma and belief in atheism's infallibility which which I scorn in the religious community'

[HansMustermann]

Limbo, again, that's not what fundamentalism means. I know, I know, it's a popular kindergarten debating technique to go "yeah, well, you are too" when you can't address the actual issue. I get it, you're like the Bellman from the Hunting Of The Snark, and think that repeating some BS three times makes it true. Or a dozen times, if needed. No, it doesn't work that way.

Kindly use the words as what they mean, not as what you'd need for a "tu quoque" knee-jerk. I already gave you a link to dictionary.com in another thread, read it.

Fundamentalism refers to taking a holy text as literal, inerrant and law. There simply is no such text for atheism. There is no atheist bible to thump.

It has nothing to do with wanting to destroy anything. That's just not part of what it means. And just repeating your own BS redefinition some more doesn't make it true.

[~enigma~]

Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.

Better yet...

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

[~enigma~]

The christiots (christian idiots) that are calling atheism the new fundamentalism apparently miss the irony in their telling atheists..."See, you are just as irrational as we are."

[HansMustermann]

Well, everyone who does the knee-jerk "yes, well, you are X too" or even "no, _you_ are X" misses the irony, or they wouldn't do it. And believe me, I've seen it with all sorts of X.

E.g., when I point on another board that someone's long rant is a string of textbook fallacies, one of the local prom queens jumps in with basically, "that's ironic, 'cause it's not nearly as many fallacies as _you_ use." I ask her to kindly point out which, so I may avoid them in the future, and even give her a link to a list of fallacies to help... turns out she can't name any. And I don't even take that as meaning I must have been _flawless_, but more as a "she didn't even know what the word means."

ETA: or another favourite variation of that, and very dear to fundies from what I can tell, is "no, _you_ can't do logic right"... because apparently if you too don't follow implications in the wrong direction and other such tricks, it must be their logic that's good and yours which is broken. But really it's just the same way of thinking that just postulating "no, _you_ are an X" or "you too are an X", kindergarten style, is T3H L33T DEBATING SKILLZ.

[Limbo]

Depends how he would go about 'destroying' religion. If it's done through reasoned debate and education, I'm all for it.


Me too!


If it's done through killing and genocide, or even outlawing it, I would be on the other side and call them madmen.


Me too!



You'll have to ask him.

Mind you, these 'attacks on religion' are in the form of books, debates and talk - if that's attacking, then every time a religious person talks about his faith to me, every time a Mormon or JW knocks on my door, it's an attack. I feel that such language used is hyperbole.


What about efforts like this (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/freethinking/), or efforts to classify religion as a mental illness (http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2003/04/religion-is-mental-illness.php)? Successful or not, are such efforts 'reasoned debate', or something else?

[Limbo]

This of course assumes that atheism has the implicit purpose of being a whetstone.


For me, it was. One of the religious debaters said something about how valuable some forms of atheism are against 'bad religion' like YEC. Such 'bad religion' is like the dullness of the sword, that's where the whetstone that is atheism comes in. A dull sword is more dangerous than a sharp sword.

Maybe in turn some forms of religion can be valuable against 'bad atheism'...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The major problem that the Oxford dons and the Anglican bishops have in speaking in opposition to Dawkins and the other New Atheists is that they do not understand the hold that Christian fundamentalism has in the USA. ISTR that Dawkins does make this point in this debate. I have no great problem with the fuzzy believers. They are "Mostly harmless". But Christian Fundamentalism is just about as dangerous as the Muslim kind.

Lucretius knew this 2000 years ago.
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
So potent was religion in persuading to evil deeds.
Lucretius Carus, (ca. 99 BC- ca. 55 BC) De Rerum Natura,

And Voltaire:
"Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities." -Voltaire (1694-1778)

[Rrose Selavy]

The videostream is a slow and stuttering for me but I am watching - Had to take a screen shot here - Richard Harries looks like he is about to topple over


http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/4861/mwsnap20820091202004132.th.jpg (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/mwsnap20820091202004132.jpg/)

and on another trivial point. is anyone else mesmerised by AC Grayling's impressive head of hair.....

-

[qayak]

Maybe in turn some forms of religion can be valuable against 'bad atheism'...

Can you define "bad atheism" so we can discuss this?

[ThatSoundAgain]

For me, it was. One of the religious debaters said something about how valuable some forms of atheism are against 'bad religion' like YEC. Such 'bad religion' is like the dullness of the sword, that's where the whetstone that is atheism comes in. A dull sword is more dangerous than a sharp sword.

Maybe in turn some forms of religion can be valuable against 'bad atheism'...

Fair enough.

Sounds like you're talking about constructive dabate and learning from other world views, which is all fine and good. It's your wording about the purpose of atheism that initially made me react.

Atheism - as viewed from over here - doesn't have any other purpose than serving as a way to view the world. Certainly not to strengthen or prop up the opposite world view. So, the concept cannot be held responsible for the ramifications its mere existence has to other schools of thought.

Galileo's model isn't "to blame" for the fact that there are so few flat-earthers today, and hasn't "gone beyond its purpose" because it ground away the blade of the Ptolemaic sword completely.