When Atheists Attack (Each Other)

The squabble between Darwin lobbyists who openly hate religion and those who only quietly disdain it grows ever more personal, bitter and pathetic. On one side, evangelizing New or "Gnu" (ha ha) Atheists like Jerry Coyne and his acolytes at Why Evolution Is True. Dr. Coyne is a biologist who teaches and ostensibly researches at the University of Chicago but has a heck of a lot of free time on his hands for blogging and posting pictures of cute cats.

On the other side, so-called accommodationists like the crowd at the National Center for Science Education, who attack the New Atheists for the political offense of being rude to religious believers and supposedly messing up the alliance between religious and irreligious Darwinists.

I say "supposedly" because there's no evidence any substantial body of opinion is actually being changed on religion or evolution by anything the open haters or the quiet disdainers say. Everyone seems to seriously think they're either going to defeat religion, or merely "creationism," or both by blogging for an audience of fellow Darwinists.

Want to see what I mean? This is all pretty strictly a battle of stinkbugs in a bottle. Try to follow it without getting a headache.

Coyne recently drew excited applause from fellow biologist-atheist-blogger PZ Myers for Coyne's "open letter" (published on his blog) to the NCSE and its British equivalent, the British Centre for Science Education. In the letter, Coyne took umbrage at criticism of the New Atheists, mostly on blogs, emanating from the two accommodationist organizations. He vowed that,

We will continue to answer the misguided attacks [on the New Atheists] by people like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard, and Nick Matzke so long as they keep mounting those attacks.

Like the NCSE, the BCSE seeks to pump up Darwin in the public mind without scaring religious people. This guy called Stanyard at the BCSE complains of losing a night's sleep over the nastiness of the rhetoric on Coyne's blog. Coyne in turn complained that Stanyard complained that a blog commenter complained that Nick Matzke, formerly of the NCSE, is like "vermin." Coyne also hit out at blogger Jason Rosenhouse for an "epic"-length blog post complaining of New Atheist "incivility." In the blog, Rosenhouse, who teaches math at James Madison University, wrote an update about how he had revised an insulting comment about the NCSE's Josh Rosenau that he, Rosenhouse, made in a previous version of the post.

That last bit briefly confused me. In occasionally skimming the writings of Jason Rosenhouse and Josh Rosenau in the past, I realized now I had been assuming they were the same person. They are not!

It goes on and on. In the course of his own blog post, Professor Coyne disavowed name-calling and berated Stanyard (remember him? The British guy) for "glomming onto" the Matzke-vermin insult like "white on rice, or Kwok on a Leica." What's a Kwok? Not a what but a who -- John Kwok, presumably a pseudonym, one of the most tirelessly obsessive commenters on Darwinist blog sites. Besides lashing at intelligent design, he often writes of his interest in photographic gear such as a camera by Leica. I have the impression that Kwok irritates even fellow Darwinists.

There's no need to keep all the names straight in your head. I certainly can't. I'm only taking your time, recounting just a small part of one confused exchange, to illustrate the culture of these Darwinists who write so impassionedly about religion, whether for abolishing it or befriending it. Writes Coyne in reply to Stanyard,

I'd suggest, then, that you lay off telling us what to do until you've read about our goals. The fact is that we'll always be fighting creationism until religion goes away, and when it does the fight will be over, as it is in Scandinavia.

A skeptic might suggest that turning America into Scandinavia, as far as religion goes, is an outsized goal, more like a delusion, for this group as they sit hunched over their computers shooting intemperate comments back and forth at each other all day. Or in poor Stanyard's case, all night.

There's a feverish, terrarium-like and oxygen-starved quality to this world of online Darwinists and atheists. It could only be sustained by the isolation of the Internet. They don't seem to realize that the public accepts Darwinism to the extent it does -- which is not much -- primarily because of what William James would call the sheer, simple "prestige" that the opinion grants. Arguments and evidence have little to do with it.

The prestige of Darwinism is not going to be affected by how the battle between Jerry Coyne and the NCSE turns out. New Atheist arguments are hobbled by the same isolation from what people think and feel. I have not yet read anything by any of these gentlemen or ladies, whether the open haters or the quiet disdainers, that conveys anything like a real comprehension of religious feeling or thought.

Even as they fight over the most effective way to relate to "religion," the open atheists and the accomodationists speak of an abstraction, a cartoon, that no actual religious person would recognize. No one is going to be persuaded if he doesn't already wish to be persuaded for other personal reasons. No faith is under threat from the likes of Jerry Coyne.

You seem to regard Truth as a fiction

No, it is a a concept, but not not within human reach simply because in order to know the whole Truth one must know everything there is to know, i.e. be aware of all information there is.

Otherwise we can only theorize and hope (believe), fill in the gaps, but not really know (be certain). We can "reasonably", that is—based on probability, expect the Sun to rise in the East tomorrow, but we can't know for sure that it will.

Only a hypothetical all-knowing "deity" would know for sure, because it would know all there is to know. But we can't even know for sure that there is such a "deity", although you'd probably disagree.

Our working models, in large part defined by our limited physical makeup, provide and tap limited information. They do not reveal how things really are down to the last bit of information because they cannot access every last bit of information there is.

As such you cannot pretend to "know" the Truth. You can presume to know it, and many do, but that's just human arrogance. So, I disagree that the Truth is "something" available to us as "the criterion by which judgments as to 'fact' are made."

But if this is the actual case with you, then what is the criterion of your reasoning?

Our reasoning is based on many things: experience, culture, language, education, etc. There are a many opinions in this world as there are individuals. On some things we agree more than on others, such as physical, material, measurable, "things", and on others, more subjective and "spiritual" we don't because our experience, as we report it, differs.

How can we tell whether the "conclusions" you've evidently reached are rational or irrational?

Whether it correpsonds to the real world we are subject to or not.

you cannot clear up these matters, then why should we listen to you?

What makes you think you cleared up these matters by simply stating that you somehow know the Truth is the "the criterion by which judgments as to 'fact' are made"? Why should anyone listen to you?

The person of Jesus Christ proved it - so shut your trap.

I understand that that's your belief, but it is not a proof.

No, you reject it as a flat out - a priori - without evaluating it.

That would be an a priori rejection (of evidence), not rejecting a priori evidence as you wrote.

Again, you have throughout this thread kept moving the goalposts as far as what "proof" is

Prove it. I have consistently rejected one's belief as proof.

It has been shown that the time between the life of Christ and when the books of the NT were written are far too short for the development of 'legends'

The "experts" can't even agree on when that time is. The believers push for the earlier dates, the skeptics for later dates. nevertheless, there are sufficient variants to show otherwise. For example, there is a short and a long version of Luke's Gospel. And this work even begins by admitting it was made according to what others told the author. No different with the Acts.

Josephus is regarded as a historian - and his writings reflect the norm for the era

Regardless, hearsay is hearsay, whether it is the "norm for the era" or not. It's unreliable.

I understand that that's your belief, but it is not a proof.

No, Jesus is fact, it us just your 'belief' to deny it.

Prove it. I have consistently rejected one's belief as proof.

Easy when you define EVERYTHING as 'belief'.

GZ - It has been shown that the time between the life of Christ and when the books of the NT were written are far too short for the development of 'legends'
K - The "experts" can't even agree on when that time is. The believers push for the earlier dates, the skeptics for later dates. nevertheless, there are sufficient variants to show otherwise.

Oh please kosta - a little intellectual honesty. Even using 'late' dates the books were written within the lifetimes of witnesses - both pro and con - to permit 'legend' development.

Regardless, hearsay is hearsay, whether it is the "norm for the era" or not. It's unreliable.

You accept hearsay all the time kosta. Evaluation of Josephus is valid under the historical method. Poor kosta - all history by your definition is unreliable. How convient for an atheist - just deny everything.

Cronos to count-your-change: As a Jehovah's Witness, you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God, hence for you to argue on a thread where we debate more detailed aspects of Christianity is flying under a false flag.

Why don't you present your JW beliefs, count-your-change? Many times, other Christian posters included you in their pings, I suppose, believing that you are a Christian. Not to tell them is somewhat dishonest, don't you think? After all, you are denying their God is God!

Cronos: I don't debate with Jews when different sects of Jews are discussing fine points about their religion

Disagreeing with soemone's religion is okay, Cronos. I am open to hear JW's arguments. But to tolerate, and even use being mistaken for a Jew when you are not, and allowing yourself to be included among the Jews, as one of them, when you are not, would be the height of deceit.

It's much worse than, say, a Presbyterian participating on Catholic or Orthodox forums, pretending to be Catholic/Orthodox, and not being up front about his Protestant beliefs! It would as bad as if I were to hide my being agnostic on and pretending to be a practicing Orthodox believer on a religion forum!

I don't know what count-your-change is trying to achieve by being mistaken for a Christian and never saying a word about it. In fact, when I called him on it, because, frankly, he slipped, he was totally indignant trying to cover it up:

"When I say, 'Jesus showed he had the ability by God’s power to cure anything, even death, and would do so under his kingdom.' because that is what the Scriptures say it makes you think I am not a Christian? Really? Really? Amazing!"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.