Civility Out?

[MLynn]

It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

 

[Kiless]

I'd like to see the context that was snipped.

"...I happened to meet the leader of that same Christian Coalition, in the rival TV station to the BBC in Manchester. "

Did this particular Christian Coalition happen to do something particuarly rude in order to prompt this response?

(NB - this is coming from a person who has been educated in a Catholic University, has worked for Muslims, Anglicans, Methodists and currently teaches students from a wide range of cultural beliefs.... we're not all 'bad'!!)

 

[Hal Bidlack]

I found this very troubling. It would seem that the case is being made that if you don't believe "right" you should not be treated with respect.

As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.

 

[MLynn]

As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.

I'm very interested in people's thoughts on this subject. I've been told I can be a believer and a skeptic, and then there are others who say I can't be a skeptic if I am a believer of some type. I sure don't know. Your talk might be very helpful.

 

[Kiless]

Context.

I know Dawkins is a bit of a grumpy bugger (at least, he wasn't very forthcoming to me!) but we don't have enough information from the snippet of that speech to see what rationalisation he has for his rude response.

 

[MLynn]

Not a problem at all, I think context is important.

 

[crimresearch]

It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

Actually, I believe that there are manipulators who depend on politeness and civility to get away with their scams.

Going though the motions of being friendly toward them seems to me to serve their needs (if by nothing more than implying some level of acceptance), more than anything else.

 

[Kiless]

Not a problem at all, I think context is important.

Sorry, MLynn, I edited my post as the tone came across poorly.

 

[MLynn]

Re: Re: Civility Out?

Actually, I believe that there are manipulators who depend on politeness and civility to get away with their scams.

Going though the motions of being friendly toward them seems to me to serve their needs (if by nothing more than implying some level of acceptance), more than anything else.

I guess I'm naive as I've forgotten that some people are manipulative types and probably need a verbal slap on the side of the head.

 

[Brown]

As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.

Emphatically, a non-atheist can be a skeptic. Hal, you know all about Thomas Paine, I'm sure, who was both a skeptic and and ardent deist. "The Age of Reason" is a profoundly religious work, yet it is also one of the finest examples of skeptical thought ever composed.

In addition, I have encountered some individuals who incorporate skepticism into their Christian faith. They apply the repeated Biblical admonition, "Be not deceived," and use skeptical principles to separate what is good from what is hogwash. Some of them adopt a sensible view that "Any matter in the Bible that is at odds with historical fact or with scientific evidence, or that attributes any morally repugnant attribute to the Almighty (1) cannot be taken literally and (2) is of doubtful inspiration." These folks tend to be rather quiet, as they are well aware that many of the loudmouthed thumpers today would consider them not to be Christian.

As for a refusal to shake hands, my feelings are two-fold. First, courtesy is for everyone. Second, let the other guy be the first to cause injury. In other words, civility should be the norm, but if the other guy is rude, then he's "dishing it out" and he'd better be able to "take it" in return.

 

[crimresearch]

I found this very troubling. It would seem that the case is being made that if you don't believe "right" you should not be treated with respect.

As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.

We can treat people with respect by not shouting them down when they speak, or throwing things at them, or spitting on them...in all sorts of ways.

If that person has truly earned a higher level of respect (which can be done even by those with whom we may disagree on some points), we can show it by smiling broadly, applauding their words, etc.

But how does that get us to the notion that a social gesture of friendliness like a handshake is any sort of sincere showing of respect?
Especially if it is an empty gesture not backed up by anyreal feeling of friendship toward a particular person.

 

[Francois Tremblay]

As Sam Harris says in his book "The End of Faith", religious liberalism is more dangerous than fundamentalism, because it provides an atmosphere of enforced tolerence within which extremism is not exposed and indeed encouraged.

To accept, tolerate or even engage in dialogue with religious believers is to sanction their immorality and irrationality. Skeptics should empathically point out that religions contains mountains of extraordinary claims, that religion is immoral, and reject all believers from their ranks.

We would show no more benevolence towards neo-nazis or flat earthers, and yet both are far more believable and moral.

 

[Walter Wayne]

To accept, tolerate or even engage in dialogue with religious believers is to sanction their immorality and irrationality. Skeptics should empathically point out that religions contains mountains of extraordinary claims, that religion is immoral, and reject all believers from their ranks.

Ojection: assumes facts not in evidence. That said believer is immoral and religion is immoral. And as erroneously belief doesn't make one irrational it is very possible to be a religious believer and be rational.

Walt

 

[jj]

It seems atheists cannot be friends with any type of believer. Can people just be honest with each other in a communicative way or must there be offense?

http://www.randi.org/jr/040805how.html#8

There's some on each side, MLynn, there's some on each side. I think we need a lot more information.

 

[SixSixSix]

Time for someone to play the Devil's Advocate, and I have the perfect forum name...

First off - agreed about the rudeness factor; generally there's no excuse for that. I agree with Kiless that Professor Dawkins can occasionally come off as abrupt or rude; I believe generally this is not malicious (I noticed it at TAM3 when getting my books signed; he wasn't exactly chatty like say Phil Plait or Michael Shermer were).

But back to the "can you be a skeptic and still be a believer?" I'd like to bring up something that the late Douglas Adams pointed out - for some reason, in our society, we cordone off certain subjects. If you tell me that South Africa is a better cricket team than Australia, I'll think you're wrong but we can have a civil discussion regarding the merits of each side. However, if you tell me you need to start working at 4am and leave at 3pm for the next 2 weeks because of something an arguably mythical figure supposedly told you to do a couple of millenia ago, I'm supposed to simply accept that.

Why is this?

I do not respect people's religious beliefs - tolerate, sure, but I respect them no less than I respect people's opinions regarding whether the world is round or flat, or whether we actually landed on the Moon or not. There is no more evidence for religious beliefs than the most whacked out New Age woo-woo nonsense.

Thought experiment: let us suppose that a speaker was proposing to say at TAM how the fact that he believed in alien abductions/ghosts/Bigfoot/pick-your-favourite-nonsense was in no way in contradiction to the assertion that he was skeptical: would this be OK? If not, and yet belief in a deity is OK, what's the difference?

From one perspective, all religious people are skeptics. Christians, for example, are skeptical of the existence of Buddha, Zeus, Odin, Shiva, Brahma, and so on - even fundamentalist Christians fit this mold. But if you cast the net that wide, you're going to find a hard time defining something that isn't skeptical.

 

[Walter Wayne]

...

But back to the "can you be a skeptic and still be a believer?" I'd like to bring up something that the late Douglas Adams pointed out - for some reason, in our society, we cordone off certain subjects. If you tell me that South Africa is a better cricket team than Australia, I'll think you're wrong but we can have a civil discussion regarding the merits of each side. However, if you tell me you need to start working at 4am and leave at 3pm for the next 2 weeks because of something an arguably mythical figure supposedly told you to do a couple of millenia ago, I'm supposed to simply accept that.

Why is this?

Well what affect does his belief in the superiority of a sports team have on you? You compare this to a religion enforcing behaviour on people. It is right not to be civil to believers who use religion to demand others bend to their "need" or to justify bigotry. Dawkins argues in one essay (in a Devil's Chaplain, forget which essay) that society has erroneously given the magisterium of morality to religion. Religion is unfairly given a seat at any moral debate (cloning for example) when it has not justified any expertise in morality.

This is a far cry though from many Christians. Many don't belief they have a monopoly on morality. They are not all moral absolutists. Because specifics of 'the leader of that same Christian Coalition' aren't given in the commentary we can't judge Dawkins unfairly. However, your example I don't think is typical of religious believers.

...

Thought experiment: let us suppose that a speaker was proposing to say at TAM how the fact that he believed in alien abductions/ghosts/Bigfoot/pick-your-favourite-nonsense was in no way in contradiction to the assertion that he was skeptical: would this be OK? If not, and yet belief in a deity is OK, what's the difference?

If someone had several hallucinatory experiences, I would expect them become believers for a time. Said experiences are very real to the person and even skeptics have a hard time piecing together a dramatic event. I would expect said skeptic to eventually, given the time to reflect, to see the experience for what it was.

And again, I think a lot of these experiences are much different from religious belief. Many such beliefs involve very profound difficult questions, and many don't involve physical manifestations that test in the same way as abductions/ghosts/bigfoot would.

From one perspective, all religious people are skeptics. Christians, for example, are skeptical of the existence of Buddha, Zeus, Odin, Shiva, Brahma, and so on - even fundamentalist Christians fit this mold. But if you cast the net that wide, you're going to find a hard time defining something that isn't skeptical.

I would suggest that fundamentalist Christians deny the existence of Zeus, Odin, ... Different from being skeptical, where disbelief is based on questioning of evidence rather than dogma.

Walt

 

[CFLarsen]

I found this very troubling. It would seem that the case is being made that if you don't believe "right" you should not be treated with respect.

As of now, I'm scheduled to speak at TAM4 on the subject of whether a non-atheist (like me) can be a good skeptic. I am rethinking whether I should bother giving that talk at all.

It's very simple.

• Do you claim that there are phenomena found in nature that are only attributable to (insert your deity here)?
• Do you claim evidence of any paranormal phenomenon?
• Do you claim to have a paranormal ability?

If you can answer no to all questions, then you can speak.

If you can't answer no to all questions, then you won't have time to speak, because I'll demand to see that evidence at TAM4...and I won't let you off the hook until you show me!

 

[SixSixSix]

Well what affect does his belief in the superiority of a sports team have on you?

Haven't met many Australians, have you?

You compare this to a religion enforcing behaviour on people.

...

This is a far cry though from many Christians.

If you're arguing that most Christians would allow me to discuss their beliefs in a deity with the same tone that I could discuss which cricket team was better, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

If you're not arguing that, then you're agreeing that religion is somehow a taboo subject - and my point was to agree with Douglas Adams/Richard Dawkins in questioning why that was.

If someone had several hallucinatory experiences, I would expect them become believers for a time. Said experiences are very real to the person and even skeptics have a hard time piecing together a dramatic event. I would expect said skeptic to eventually, given the time to reflect, to see the experience for what it was.

I think you would find most people that are "true believers" in alien abductions, New Age, et al would be quite offended to hear you describe them as the process of hallucinations. It also begs the question of whether or not it's OK to describe people who have deep religious experiences as hallucinating.

And again, I think a lot of these experiences are much different from religious belief. Many such beliefs involve very profound difficult questions, and many don't involve physical manifestations that test in the same way as abductions/ghosts/bigfoot would.

I disagree with you there. If aliens really were abducting humans, or if it really were possible to have some affect on the world after death, I suggest these would be very profound and important facts that would revolutionise the way we see the world. On the other hand, whether or not there is a God has very little affect on most people's daily lives - it may mean no more than having to get up early on Sunday mornings instead of sleeping in.

Philosophical questions are very profound by definition, yet it is entirely permissible and encouraged to disagree with and debate philosophy (dating right back to Socrates). Why the special treatment for religion? Why is it OK for me to deride your Kantian ethics, but not OK for me to say that it's silly to believe in a supernatural wish granting entity?

I would suggest that fundamentalist Christians deny the existence of Zeus, Odin, ... Different from being skeptical, where disbelief is based on questioning of evidence rather than dogma.

I believe that to be a matter of semantics only.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Haven't met many Australians, have you?

I see, I should pretend your example was about hockey teams. Then I'll understand the importance.

If you're arguing that most Christians would allow me to discuss their beliefs in a deity with the same tone that I could discuss which cricket team was better, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

If you're not arguing that, then you're agreeing that religion is somehow a taboo subject - and my point was to agree with Douglas Adams/Richard Dawkins in questioning why that was.

I wouldn't expect the same tone. But possibly the same tone you might use to discuss how to raise children or more touchy political subject. And again, only with those who are skeptical believers. I have been able to express to very devout Christians that I thought certain concepts of god were morally repugnant, but I didn't use the same tone with which I point out that the Montreal Canadians aint worth the time to run the Zamboni around the rink.

I agree the questioning of religion is taboo, especially in public. With respect to the original post I disagree with the withheld handshake unless something more damning can be attributing to the object of Dawkins contempt. (I should note that I don't believe that Dawkins would refer to the man as an irrational bigot without cause, based on the little I've read and my impression of him at TAM).

I think you would find most people that are "true believers" in alien abductions, New Age, et al would be quite offended to hear you describe them as the process of hallucinations. It also begs the question of whether or not it's OK to describe people who have deep religious experiences as hallucinating.

I didn't mean to imply the religious are necessarily hallucinating, I was talking specifically about aliens, ghosts etc. Those religious people who do hallucinate may later come to realize it wasn't a religious experience one they hear the phenomenon described to them, provided they are skeptics.

I disagree with you there. If aliens really were abducting humans, or if it really were possible to have some affect on the world after death, I suggest these would be very profound and important facts that would revolutionise the way we see the world. On the other hand, whether or not there is a God has very little affect on most people's daily lives - it may mean no more than having to get up early on Sunday mornings instead of sleeping in.

Point Taken.

I believe that to be a matter of semantics only.

I disagree, but that may be because of ambiguity in the word skeptic. I sometimes use it interchangably with critical thinker, which I shouldn't. There is a big difference between a Christian who has 'no other gods before [the god of abraham]' and someone who doubts Shiva on physical/historic grounds.

Walt

 

[SixSixSix]

That's the problem with arguing on this board - it so rarely degenerates into flame wars.

It is true that some other subjects are taboo of course - child rearing and politics are both good examples - but neither politics nor child rearing generally deal with supernatural activities (OK, that's arguable - at least with politics). Religion appears to be the only example that comes to mind of a taboo subject involving the supernatural. Certainly telling an alien abductee that he's nuts and/or confusing sleep paralysis with his experiences will not make you seem sympathetic to the believer, but non-believers aren't likely to take you to task for questioning his beliefs. Yet there are many people - atheists as well as Christians - that feel it is inappropriate for me to question religious beliefs.

I'm coming across as a very angry spit-at-the-world atheist here; I'm really not. Some of my best friends would regard themselves as Christians - I have no problem tolerating their beliefs, and I'm actually too cynical to believe that I can change them through reasoned discourse, so I generally just let the subject drop when it arises - I am a product of the same social conditioning everyone else is, but I'm rational enough to see that there appears to be no reason other than tradition for this taboo.

I find it just barely possible to believe that there was no particular cause for Professor Dawkins reaction. He wrote some very inflammatory things after September 11 (which is probably the Devil's Chaplain essay you are referring to), and he was a supporter of the Brights movement that couldn't see (by his own admission) any fault with the fact that the name implied superiority. He's a brilliant man, and a great writer, and I'm proud to own signed copies of all his books... but I'm not necessarily sure that he can't have the odd off day.