tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post5498490865508084731..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Atheist WarsJean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-24425885089564015502009-08-15T18:09:16.515-05:002009-08-15T18:09:16.515-05:00I'm not sure why you're trying to put a se...I'm not sure why you're trying to put a sentence of mine under the microscope. It just doesn't really matter if I may have slightly exaggerated their clarity. I don't really think I did, but...really, who cares?<br /><br />To my mind the serious issues have been covered thoroughly. It's obviously not going to fly for you to try to end this discussion with some sort of Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-18370520513119605912009-08-15T14:01:43.794-05:002009-08-15T14:01:43.794-05:00Oh that theory - well neither do I. But I don'...Oh that theory - well neither do I. But I don't think I need to. Perhaps I misunderstood you - but if so, frankly, I think it's because you were not clear. I took this<br /><br />"Actually, they outright say in their book that they'd like atheists to speak--but plainly, relying on arguments to persuade people. They couldn't be more clear that what they object to is the Ophelia Bensonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-86655883111683470012009-08-15T12:55:16.323-05:002009-08-15T12:55:16.323-05:00I don't subscribe to the theory that things sa...I don't subscribe to the theory that things said very clearly in notes and blogs are not absolutely clear. Sure, if they'd want to make a big point of supporting vocal atheism, they would have put that in the body of the book. But that's a matter of emphasis, not clarity.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-88507655396636695182009-08-15T12:31:03.472-05:002009-08-15T12:31:03.472-05:00"You just can't seriously think they want..."You just can't seriously think they want atheists to be quiet, if you've read their book and blog."<br /><br />Of course you can - because one of their many flaws is incoherence. Another is a failure to notice incoherence. Another is a constant habit of shifting their ground. (Another is oversimplification, and another is a failure to acknowledge the implications of their own Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-2124610919300298132009-08-15T07:04:48.810-05:002009-08-15T07:04:48.810-05:00"this" meant erv's lovely epithets."this" meant erv's lovely epithets.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-51542161085611503682009-08-15T07:03:46.743-05:002009-08-15T07:03:46.743-05:00Hmm...methinks there's an important distinctio...Hmm...methinks there's an important distinction between saying they aren't being flogged and saying they deserve to be flogged. The flogging (I would think) is beyond dispute. So I think my choice of words is A-OK. But I'm glad this wasn't out of the clear blue sky...my hope for humanity is now slightly restored.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-35377518191205641972009-08-15T06:06:51.216-05:002009-08-15T06:06:51.216-05:00Note how "erv" calls them "Mooneyti...<i>Note how "erv" calls them "Mooneytits and Cockenbaum".</i><br /><br /><i>Should I describe this guy as a fair and balanced critic?? Or should I say he's flogging them?</i><br /><br />As Ophelia pointed out, erv is a female student, she writes about everything with the same outrageous style, the "-tits" thing is a running joke on her blog, and she's Tuulihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17139693087141113292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-6679098887645075282009-08-14T18:51:31.014-05:002009-08-14T18:51:31.014-05:00I don't think where it's written matters, ...I don't think where it's written matters, because we are asking what these people really think about atheism. The endnote does let you know. You said you think they want atheists to be quiet. Well, now we know they don't.<br /><br />A great deal of this book is in the endnotes. They explain at their blog that their editor advised them do write that way. I think that's a flaw, butJean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-53961683975639211462009-08-14T18:25:48.558-05:002009-08-14T18:25:48.558-05:00Jean...come on. An endnote! You said "they ou...Jean...come on. An endnote! You said "they outright say in their book that they'd like atheists to speak--but plainly, relying on arguments to persuade people. They couldn't be more clear that what they object to is the mocking and insulting of religion, not atheism" - then you point to an endnote! When all the endnotes are unmarked. Come on. Your idea of "say outright"Ophelia Bensonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-7776615722702342292009-08-14T16:33:12.645-05:002009-08-14T16:33:12.645-05:00Where they outright say they'd like atheists t...Where they outright say they'd like atheists to speak, but plainly, relying on arguments--<br /><br />Footnote 105, on Dawkins:<br /><br />"Dawkins's wit is devastating, and his arguments powerful as well, but that's precisely the point: Why then does he need to express them with such condescension?<br /> We want to emphasize that New Atheists enjoy freedom of speech. No one isJean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-40018469869095909482009-08-14T12:23:53.191-05:002009-08-14T12:23:53.191-05:00Where in their book do they say that they'd li...Where in their book do they say that they'd like atheists to speak plainly, relying on arguments to persuade people? I don't see anything that even resembles that description. What I see is (on p 97 of the book, the bit you were looking at yesterday, I think) an enumeration of what they call '"New Atheist" voices,' to wit Harris Dawkins Hitchens Dennett, concluding<br />Ophelia Bensonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-64813269677304719902009-08-13T19:12:41.916-05:002009-08-13T19:12:41.916-05:00Actually, they outright say in their book that the...Actually, they outright say in their book that they'd like atheists to speak--but plainly, relying on arguments to persuade people. They couldn't be more clear that what they object to is the mocking and insulting of religion, not atheism. There's a huge amount of space between being silent and being confrontational.<br /><br />As for my hostility. I think not, but I have to say I'Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-17878104848588916822009-08-13T18:41:29.432-05:002009-08-13T18:41:29.432-05:00Sigh. Yes of course "flogging" is a meta...Sigh. Yes of course "flogging" is a metaphor - a tendentious, hostile metaphor. That's the point. All your hostile metaphors are reserved for M&K's critics, and all your charitable reading is reserved for M&K.<br /><br />"I just see no evidence whatever they have any desire to attack the largest group, of which Mooney is of course a member."<br /><br />In otherOBnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-69956432841700952432009-08-13T14:11:39.934-05:002009-08-13T14:11:39.934-05:00My point in bringing up PWG was just the obvious o...My point in bringing up PWG was just the obvious one. When you talk about "atheists" you're talking about a large group with mixed attitudes. The mix is especially visible in PWG.<br /><br />Then there's a subset--the new atheists. They're more organized, more confrontational, more evangelistic. They think atheism is important and want to change minds.<br /><br />Then Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-68618859010939779242009-08-13T13:57:57.919-05:002009-08-13T13:57:57.919-05:00But it's not obvious that he's not complai...But it's <i>not</i> obvious that he's not complaining about or attacking atheism per se. What's <i>Philosophers without Gods</i> got to do with anything? I've read it, but what makes you think Mooney has? (And at least some of the essays in it are every bit as "confrontational" [loaded language again] and "combative" [ditto] as anything the other "new"Ophelia Bensonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-53513359582621291222009-08-13T12:51:30.578-05:002009-08-13T12:51:30.578-05:00I can't look up pages because I have UA on a K...I can't look up pages because I have UA on a Kindle. But I think I'm looking at the right passage. At that point they're gathering evidence that there's this new phenomenon of confrontational atheism. They talk about all the stars of the movement. But then they cut to the chase and explain what their beef is against them, and it's about science. <br /><br />"If the goalJean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-30864683044236852192009-08-13T12:02:37.114-05:002009-08-13T12:02:37.114-05:00See, for instance, pp 97-8 of UA for instant evide...See, for instance, pp 97-8 of UA for instant evidence that that's a mistake. It's all about "the New Atheists," not just the Evil Three.Ophelia Bensonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-82058023439769446672009-08-13T11:59:52.298-05:002009-08-13T11:59:52.298-05:00"I think their argument is aimed at a subclas..."I think their argument is aimed at a subclass of atheists--not you (if I may say so), or Christopher Hitchens, or even Sam Harris, etc. etc. It's aimed exclusively at the confrontational atheist science educator. Dawkins, Myers, Coyne, that type of person."<br /><br />But why do you think that?Ophelia Bensonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-25180183493612040922009-08-13T11:44:01.832-05:002009-08-13T11:44:01.832-05:00As to the personal issues--who's doing the mis...As to the personal issues--who's doing the misrepresenting and being ad hominem, etc., I don't see it the same way.<br /><br />You seem to see them as attacking all atheists. I really don't see it that way. I think their argument is aimed at a subclass of atheists--not you (if I may say so), or Christopher Hitchens, or even Sam Harris, etc. etc. It's aimed exclusively at the Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-29022980640854834342009-08-13T11:07:32.087-05:002009-08-13T11:07:32.087-05:00"So I see M&K as trying to have a debate ..."So I see M&K as trying to have a debate about how atheist science-supporters should communicate with the public. As I see it, those being criticized are too furious about being criticized to just calmly proceed with the debate."<br /><br />Well, again, that simply overlooks how much misrepresenting and blackguarding M and K have done, and it also overlooks the fact that they are Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-50269433685386880842009-08-13T07:42:09.063-05:002009-08-13T07:42:09.063-05:00A couple of analogies occur to me.
There are big ...A couple of analogies occur to me.<br /><br />There are big debates among animal rights folk about how to communicate with the public. Lots of organizations agree on beliefs, goals, ideals, etc., but they have different strategies. You can find lots of the moderates (the Humane Society, etc), attacking PETA for the way it communicates. The moderates will accuse PETA of alienating people, etc. Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-73933001849946150822009-08-12T14:28:09.618-05:002009-08-12T14:28:09.618-05:00Jean, yes, you're wrong about this particular ...Jean, yes, you're wrong about this particular thing. It's not the question about potential harm - it's the way they go about it. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the possibility with reasonable people who ask it in a non-tendentious way - but Mooney and Kirshenbaum <i>aren't those people</i>.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-64452649585162396552009-08-12T14:13:55.004-05:002009-08-12T14:13:55.004-05:00Ophelia, I don't agree with you that they'...Ophelia, I don't agree with you that they're asking a rhetorical question about Dawkins's book. I think they mean it. In fact, in a previous post I asked the very same question about Dawkins that they ask....despite being a Dawkins-lover. It is a sincere, non-hateful question! So it's not a matter of me giving them the benefit of the doubt. <br /><br />It's not a rhetorical Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-63252227622402872182009-08-12T14:12:15.582-05:002009-08-12T14:12:15.582-05:00I've never said they don't have proof, bec...I've never said they don't have proof, because that would be silly, because proof is much too high a standard. I've said they don't have evidence or argument.<br /><br />Of course it can be good to ask the question - but that's not what they did - they did yet another vituperative inaccurate piece attacking three people and a group ("the New Atheists)) they dislike by Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-69240629587341457422009-08-12T14:11:11.419-05:002009-08-12T14:11:11.419-05:00"It's surely a good question how "ne..."It's surely a good question how "new atheists" are affecting science literacy. It can be good to ask the question, even if nobody knows the answer."<br /><br />But they're NOT asking the question, and they're providing the answer DESPITE not knowing what it is.<br /><br />"M&K have a theory about this I find interesting, plausible, and inoffensive, but I&Tea Logarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12988083093668660064noreply@blogger.com