What PZ Myers Fails to Understand
Up until recently I have not criticized other prominent atheists. I have tried to be accommodating so we could provide a unified front. But that has been shattered, especially with the feeding frenzy over the insensitive comments of Richard Dawkins to the concerns of women like Skepchick. Listen, I am a feminist to the core. It's one of the main reasons why I seek to rid our world of religion, especially Christianity, my niche. But since the united atheist front is gone I've decided to speak out against my own side when it seems one of them is not helping with this goal. I take no pleasure in this. But I must.
What prompts this post of mine is something PZ Myers said about the Icelanders with their widespread belief in hidden people, or Elves:
With so many Icelanders believing in Elves this might be impossible to do, I don't know. The non-believers in Elves must have the political power and also the will to do so. If they have the political power they should do so, for with an overwhelming majority of people on their side they can, otherwise they are weak-willed wusses deserving of our disrespect. If they don't have this majority they can't do this without a high price to pay. It's as simple as that. One must calculate the costs, weight them and then decide from there. I would applaud the Icelanders if they calculated the costs, found them to be painful, and yet did it anyway. That's what I have chosen to do. For even though as a business owner I earn my living from a small believing community, I have come out as an atheist knowing there would be a minority of people who would try to starve me out of town.
Which brings me to the issue of accomodationism. If anyone thinks I am an accomodationist perhaps a recommendation from a gnu atheist might be worth reading.
Previously I offered a criticism of PZ Myers' Courtier's Reply, which he responded to here, then I basically dropped it. But it seems as though the Courtier's Reply is part and parcel of his confrontational attitude toward religion for it's based in mockery, something he wrote about recently in the Free Inquiry magazine. In that article PZ Myers says that when it comes to religion enough is enough. It's time for us to get angry and be confrontational he argues, even using mockery to get our point across. I have done that myself, so there is no disagreement here, even though I am usually respectful with believers in order to get them to hear what I have to say.
I'm sure PZ has in mind something like this Doonsbury Cartoon, which I agree with him about.
But there is something PZ fails to understand. It takes all kinds to achieve our goals. All kinds. There is no cookie-cutter mentality with atheists. He suggests "we should all takes sides," and draws a line in the sand which is indicative of saying you are either with me or you are against me (i.e., a miserable weak-willed accommodationist). Where have we heard that before from powerful people who wish to gain a faithful flock? I find this to be black and white thinking, something that is unbecoming of the intellectual that he is.
Let me provide an example for illustrative purposes. I was told by Richard Carrier that PZ was sent a digital copy of our new book The End of Christianity
for a recommendation. We got nothing from him. My question is why? I cannot accept the claim that PZ did not have time to recommend it. We make the time when we think it's worth it. If he does not recommend it I would like to know why. Perhaps he has some legitimate reasons for not doing so, and if so, I'd like to hear them. I suspect it's because the book is dealing with theology for the most part. Perhaps he doesn't know enough to recommend it, and if so, I can accept that. But since he recommends the work of Hector Avalos and Richard Carrier and they have four chapters in it, why not recommend it just for their chapters?
Now let me put this into perspective with regard to the Icelanders. How do you achieve the political power to dynamite the Elves? You must disabuse the Icelanders of their beliefs and blast them with good evidence and sound arguments. That's what I'm doing with regard to the Christians in America, so we can achieve the political power to brush aside the Sarah Palin's and Michele Bachmann's (no violence is ever intended here).
PZ, do you want to know one of the main reasons why Christians believe? Do you? It's because they denigrate science in favor of their Holy Book, as I've documented before. They will not listen to the results of science because their Holy Book says otherwise. That's where I come in. I'm trying to disabuse them of their Holy Book, and The End of Christianity does just that, so they in turn can listen to you.
Don't get me wrong. The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming and the implications of evolution are enormous, as I've noted before.
It's just that it takes all kinds. It takes us all. I highly recommend your work, PZ. Are you the only game in town or something? Why don't you recommend those of us who understand and respectfully dissect Christian theology as atheologians and secular biblical scholars, or at the very least, in this case?
If you really want to change the religious landscape like I do, then let's embrace the wide diversity of all of our gifts, just like we recognize and appreciate what women and other oppressed minorities bring to the table and treat them with the respect they so rightly deserve. There is no silver bullet when it comes to delusional believers. No more cookie-cutter mentality, okay? We need all of our efforts in every field of learning and all walks of life. No more of your drawing lines in the sand and dividing the already fragile atheist community.
Should PZ ask me why I don't recommend some atheist books it's because I'm not asked to do so, and the ones I don't recommend are ignorant about the very thing I know the most about, theology. After all, this is my expertise.
What prompts this post of mine is something PZ Myers said about the Icelanders with their widespread belief in hidden people, or Elves:
I recommend a true New Atheist solution, using the practical tools at hand. Dynamite the elves. Let's have none of this silly accommodationist nonsense with agents of superstition. Link.I don't know, but I think he's serious. Push these believers aside and blast away, and I agreed. They should. The trick is knowing how to do this.
With so many Icelanders believing in Elves this might be impossible to do, I don't know. The non-believers in Elves must have the political power and also the will to do so. If they have the political power they should do so, for with an overwhelming majority of people on their side they can, otherwise they are weak-willed wusses deserving of our disrespect. If they don't have this majority they can't do this without a high price to pay. It's as simple as that. One must calculate the costs, weight them and then decide from there. I would applaud the Icelanders if they calculated the costs, found them to be painful, and yet did it anyway. That's what I have chosen to do. For even though as a business owner I earn my living from a small believing community, I have come out as an atheist knowing there would be a minority of people who would try to starve me out of town.
Which brings me to the issue of accomodationism. If anyone thinks I am an accomodationist perhaps a recommendation from a gnu atheist might be worth reading.
Previously I offered a criticism of PZ Myers' Courtier's Reply, which he responded to here, then I basically dropped it. But it seems as though the Courtier's Reply is part and parcel of his confrontational attitude toward religion for it's based in mockery, something he wrote about recently in the Free Inquiry magazine. In that article PZ Myers says that when it comes to religion enough is enough. It's time for us to get angry and be confrontational he argues, even using mockery to get our point across. I have done that myself, so there is no disagreement here, even though I am usually respectful with believers in order to get them to hear what I have to say.
I'm sure PZ has in mind something like this Doonsbury Cartoon, which I agree with him about.
But there is something PZ fails to understand. It takes all kinds to achieve our goals. All kinds. There is no cookie-cutter mentality with atheists. He suggests "we should all takes sides," and draws a line in the sand which is indicative of saying you are either with me or you are against me (i.e., a miserable weak-willed accommodationist). Where have we heard that before from powerful people who wish to gain a faithful flock? I find this to be black and white thinking, something that is unbecoming of the intellectual that he is.
Let me provide an example for illustrative purposes. I was told by Richard Carrier that PZ was sent a digital copy of our new book The End of Christianity
for a recommendation. We got nothing from him. My question is why? I cannot accept the claim that PZ did not have time to recommend it. We make the time when we think it's worth it. If he does not recommend it I would like to know why. Perhaps he has some legitimate reasons for not doing so, and if so, I'd like to hear them. I suspect it's because the book is dealing with theology for the most part. Perhaps he doesn't know enough to recommend it, and if so, I can accept that. But since he recommends the work of Hector Avalos and Richard Carrier and they have four chapters in it, why not recommend it just for their chapters? Now let me put this into perspective with regard to the Icelanders. How do you achieve the political power to dynamite the Elves? You must disabuse the Icelanders of their beliefs and blast them with good evidence and sound arguments. That's what I'm doing with regard to the Christians in America, so we can achieve the political power to brush aside the Sarah Palin's and Michele Bachmann's (no violence is ever intended here).
PZ, do you want to know one of the main reasons why Christians believe? Do you? It's because they denigrate science in favor of their Holy Book, as I've documented before. They will not listen to the results of science because their Holy Book says otherwise. That's where I come in. I'm trying to disabuse them of their Holy Book, and The End of Christianity does just that, so they in turn can listen to you.
Don't get me wrong. The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming and the implications of evolution are enormous, as I've noted before.
It's just that it takes all kinds. It takes us all. I highly recommend your work, PZ. Are you the only game in town or something? Why don't you recommend those of us who understand and respectfully dissect Christian theology as atheologians and secular biblical scholars, or at the very least, in this case?
If you really want to change the religious landscape like I do, then let's embrace the wide diversity of all of our gifts, just like we recognize and appreciate what women and other oppressed minorities bring to the table and treat them with the respect they so rightly deserve. There is no silver bullet when it comes to delusional believers. No more cookie-cutter mentality, okay? We need all of our efforts in every field of learning and all walks of life. No more of your drawing lines in the sand and dividing the already fragile atheist community.
Should PZ ask me why I don't recommend some atheist books it's because I'm not asked to do so, and the ones I don't recommend are ignorant about the very thing I know the most about, theology. After all, this is my expertise.
0 comments:
Post a Comment