"An Embarrassment to Atheists?" ;-)
I routinely visit the blogs of people who comment here to see if they represent themselves the same way on their own blogs. William Hawthorne has been commenting here and has been a bit annoying, so I thought I'd take a look.
He comes across as really well-read and really intelligent here, but this is far from the impression I get from his blog, and the issues he comments on. I initially saw a problem when he claimed to list books in support of Christian theism and inadvertently listed one book that was critical of it here. [Does anyone know which one?...Does he?]
Anyway, in one post on his blog he says the RRS is "an embarrassment to atheists." I am always extremely amused whenever a self-proclaimed Christian apologist is concerned for our good name. It is so disingenuous that I just bust out laughing. Imagine, a Christian actually wanting atheists to better represent themselves so they can be more effective!? It's so funny I'm still laughing, and it has nothing to do with the RRS either, since I didn't watch those videos and don't even know what he thinks the RRS has done, except that he's concerned the RRS might give us atheists a bad name. In any case, the only person who represents my beliefs is me, and as such no other atheist is an embarrassment to me. It's a non-sequitur.
15 comments:
John if your completely comfortable having a stripper and a college drop-out being the poster-children for atheism then that is just fine with me. I myself would sooner have Bertrand Russel and AJ Ayer but hey, what do I know, I cant judge who you wish to represent atheism, after all im a Christian and should just be concerned with trying to make sure our poster-child isnt Benny Hinn or whatever.
Once again GB, I was commenting on the issues he deals with on his WHOLE blog, not just this one post, and I did say I don't know what the issue was about, and I don't need to. Do you really care whether I or any other atheist embarrasses ourselves? Would YOU hope that I wouldn't embarrass myself for the atheist cause? That would be like saying you hope atheism has a good name, and I frankly think saying that is disingenuous...a lie.
And who said anything about a poster child, anyway? I wouldn't make anyone like that a poster child for atheism, and my opinion is the only one that counts, because it's my opinion. Your thinking skills are showing again. Zip up, okay?
John I would like atheism to be polite and get its facts right, something the rrs doesnt do at all. That the rrs has become increasingly popular is well known. My thinking skills most certainly are not lacking your trying to avoid the issue, the issue being that they right now are the most outspoken and probly best known group of atheists and they are indeed making atheism looking like an incredibly rediculous belief system indeed (something which, to some extent, I disagree with if the correct term of atheism is used, though i disagree with it strongly.
From the post - In any case, the only person who represents my beliefs is me, and as such no other atheist is an embarrassment to me.
Interesting point. Only its just like the Benny Hinn example; i.e. try getting everyone else to play by those rules. Every time Christian debaters turn around they find a photo of Pat Robertson or Benny Hinn pinned to their butt by an atheist. After a while you'll feel the same about the "Rapid Response Squad".
Of course, to hold you to the views and tactics of RRS is intellectually dishonest, so I see your point too.
Yeah im not saying John that you support them. Im just saying that they have certainly gained alot of attention and seem to be generally condoned by most atheists, including persons like yourself. I cant understand if you thought I was saying something I wasnt though.
Mr. Loftus,
First, I am not a "self-proclaimed Christian apologist", although given the books I listed, I could understand why you came to that conclusion. Second, the only book on that list which is seemingly incompatible with Christian theism is Dombrowski's, which can still be used (and has been used) by Christian theists to understand objections to the ontological argument. (He defends the argument.) Third, the view that RRS is an embarrassment to atheists is endorsed by atheists themselves; it's not something I invented. And finally, I guess I have to say that I don't appreciate your implicit accusation that I'm being "disingeuous". In the same sense that many atheists would admit that Westboro Baptist is an embarrassment to theists, I admit that RRS is an embarrassment to atheists. There's nothing disingenuous about this. You and I may have fundamental worldview disagreements, but as independent thinkers we can still acknowledge bad PR (as it were) on either side.
Gordonblood said:
if your completely comfortable having a stripper and a college drop-out being the poster-children for atheism
And what praytell is wrong with strippers and college drop-outs? (Keep in mind you're talking to a college drop-out) Personally, I think part of the reason the RRS has been so successful is because they are relatively average people - people that are approachable and that the average member of their target audience (high-school and college age individuals) can relate to. Instead of ivory tower professors and intellectuals.
Kinda like a certain 1st century Jewish miracle worker... ;)
John, I rarely comment here so I'm probably not worth the trouble to research, but I blog exclusively on LiveJournal, and under a different name to boot. If you really want to read it, I'll send you the URL, but I won't post it here because I have a rather nasty internet stalker. (Which is why I switched in the first place.)
I guess it just shows to go you that there are all kinds of approaches to advertising one's belief. I would be hard put to say which I find more offputting: the tactics of the RRS, say, or Frank Walton. But who cares? The important thing as I see it is to get people to think critically, and behave nicely. Exactly how that is to be achieved is not an easy question to answer.
My personal formula is more or less like the winning program of the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: Tit for Tat. That is, I start out nice. If my opponent is nice in return, I respond nicely. If my opponent turns nasty, I respond with ridicule, but tempered with mercy, as an attempt to get back to niceness.
Doesn't always work, and sometimes I let a good jibe slip out, but it's more fun and fruitful than just being nasty, which lots of people on both sides are.
I'm gonna have to side with nightmare here. I've seen the RRS in action on various videos, i've read a lot of their work and i think that they are a very positive thing for atheism. As for Kelly and Brian being a stripper and college drop out, thats irrelevant and pretty close to rubbishing their arguement based on their character. Not very enlightned.
The RRS serves a function. John Loftus and many of the contributors to this site make very educated arguements that cut deep into christian theology and apologetics. I find these articles fascinating but they simply don't apply to the majority of people that classify themselves as christian. Most christians don't read apologetics, aren't theologically trained and don't critically think about their religion.
The RRS provides a much more accessible voice. Many christians have never heard the arguements against christianity before and aren't overly bothered about them, but Kelly and Brian put these arguements across in a way that is understandable without any deep religious education.
Furthermore, their publicity stunts (such as the blasphemy challenge) and their public debates (such as the hilarious Cameron and Comfort debate) are a good way to change large numbers of peoples views on atheism. In the Cameron/Comfort debate the RRS made the evangelicals look not just wrong, but like ignorant fools. And that got broadcast on national TV.
I mean no offence to John or other published auhtors here, but your works will never have this kind of mainstream appeal, you are aiming at the theistic elite, the RRS are aiming at everyone else. You serve your role in the atheism debate and they serve theirs.
I read an article by Brian Sapient about the blasphemy challenge. In it he mentioned two aims. Firstly was broad awareness of atheism to a public (in the US) that still view atheists as scary monsters. Second was his atated aim of showing people that they didn't have to be afraid to "Come out".
I know that he mis-imterpreted the unforgivable sin, it doesn't matter, the blasphemy challenge did its job, it made atheism talked about and showed theists that there are a large number of people not afraid to mock religion.
Finally, the RRS serves another function. With them out on the more vocal edge of atheism, it makes every other atheist, from Harris and Dawkins to Loftus and Sagan more acceptable. People can look at Dawkins and instead of seeing him as extreme, they see him as mild compared to the RRS. As an analogy, even strom thurmond looks like a reasonable moderate next to a bunch of Aryan League members.
Actually, that analogy could be seen as incredibly offensive, its not intended to be and hopefully folks can see what i mean.
Hawthorne said......the only book on that list which is seemingly incompatible with Christian theism is Dombrowski's...
Nope, you provided a list of books to defend Christian theism. Have you actually read Nowacki's book, and do you know what the publisher's goals are? I doubt it.
Listen, you provoked my ire when you responded to my stated aim to provide a list of college level books with very high priced books that you don't even own which few college students could understand, not even yourself, judging from your Blog. And anyone who reads those books would not bother to engage the people at the RRS. So I called your bluff. At least I'm not juvenile enough to respond with a list or equivalent scholarly high priced books dealing with the existence of God to trump yours, which I could do, but would be fruitless is many ways similar to why your list is fruitless.
Hawthorne said...the view that RRS is an embarrassment to atheists is endorsed by atheists themselves; it's not something I invented.
So what? Why do YOU care if they are? That's my point. Answer the question. Show me if you're being sincere here, because I just don't think so at all.
Hawthorne said...but as independent thinkers we can still acknowledge bad PR (as it were) on either side.
I am not against the RRS, nor Brian Flemming, nor the New Atheists, even if I am not in their camps.
You have no right to step inside a debate between atheists and tell us what to believe. Do you understand this? It's laughable that you think you can.
Gribble, thanks. I have little to quarrel with you here. There are different tiers to any defense of a set of beliefs. There are the elite scholars, then there are those geared to college students, then those geared to the general populace. The lower tiers learn from the higher tiers. We read the scholars and gear our arguments to the college student. So we are informing the RRS leaders and they are informing the general populace.
But you said this..I know that he mis-imterpreted the unforgivable sin...
I don't think so at all!
Cheers.
John:
I have to question your 'heirarchy' -- really just the absolute way you phrased it. Certainly it is accurate to a large extent, but I believe that each level can learn from all the others -- the ones 'below' them as well as the ones 'above' -- depending on the topic.
Perhaps I am saying this merely because, on your heirarchy, I would be on a low rung, as a college drop-out and an auto-didact, but I don't think so. I think it is basic that we should listen to everyone, that we might better understand 'things' whatever they are if we consider any insight we are given. (Of course, in practice, we don't have an infinite amount of time, and we can discover pretty quickly that some people are less likely to be worth listening to than others. Thus it is possible that somewhere in her site the 'Denise' that commented last week has somnething worthwhile to say, but her basic confusion and ignorance makes it unlikely.)
I also will go along with Nightmare in asking what is wrong with a stripper being an important contributor. (I should say I haven't gotten around to reading the RRS, so I am speaking in general terms here.)
There is nothing wrong with the profession, there is no contradiction in having an attractive body and a high-class mind, or choosing to make money from the first. (If there is, then I hope Christians will equally denounce the athletes that so frequently profess their side.) And stripping does give a person more time for personal study than, say, running a business or working in an office.
John, I'm well aware that Nowacki's book is part of a larger series (edited by Quentin Smith, who isn't friendly to Christian theism). However, if you read Nowacki's book you'd see that his discussion of the Kalam is balanced and illuminating, and it should be read by theists who employ the argument. He also defends certain key premises in the argument. For example, he uses a thought experiment involving (what David Lewis has called) gunk to demonstrate the impossibility of an infinite in a substance based metaphysic. I would highly recommend his book to Christian theists interested in natural theology. (Even Craig himself thinks highly of the book and recommends it.) Second, I have in fact read the majority of the books I listed. I own nearly all of them. I do not own Nowacki's, but a friend of mine does, and I've read large portions of it. If you want to speculate that I haven't read any of them, I suppose I can't stop you.
Incidentally, students at the university level can work through most of those books and understand them, although Koons and Hudson may require some supplemental reading.
You mention that "anyone who reads those books would not bother to engage the RRS." I think on the whole that's true. And I would prefer not to engage the RRS. But on the other hand, RRS has gained quite a bit of exposure on the popular level. I'm using my blog, not to do serious philosophy all the time, but to deal with popular level atheistic apologetics in their own language, like Dawkins and Hitchens. RRS just happened to be the first I selected.
In the same sense that some atheists care enough to point out that Westboro Baptist is an embarrassment to theists, I, as a theist, care enough to point out that RRS is an embarrassment to atheists. I don't see how this suggests insincerity on either side. You may not know this, but several theists and atheists have actually found common ground on youtube, due to their shared rejection of RRS and other intolerant organizations. I think this is a positive outcome.j
Tell you what Mr. Hawthorne, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you have been respectful of me even though I wrote this post. I'm willing to engage you respectfully from now on.
Post a Comment