Quote of the day

“Rule the first. Have a fucking sense of perspective. This is a blog. It is an ephemeral arrangement of electrons. Someday I will die, and it will fall into unread neglect, and maybe it will get archived somewhere, temporarily, but it will be completely forgotten. And when our civilization falls, it will fade into nothingness, lost and unreadable forever. Eventually our species will go extinct, and no one will even mourn the loss of the great things, let alone a blog. You are a mere burble in the flux of energy through the universe, and this collection of transient words is little more than the almost undetectably tiny hiss of static briefly put out by the collision of burbles.” – new Pharyngula commenting rules

A long reply to David Marjanović

[This post is about a very specific situation at Pharyngula which involves particularly this post and the ensuing comments there and here. The Pharyngula post was one of many about this letter presumably sent by a man to his daughter after she kicked her son out of her house when he told her he was gay:

Dear Christine: I’m disappointed in you as a daughter. You’re correct that we have a “shame in the family,” but mistaken about what it is.

Kicking Chad out of your home simply because he told you he was gay is the real “abomination” here. A parent disowning her child is what goes “against nature.”

The only intelligent thing I heard you saying in all this was that “you didn’t raise your son to be gay”. Of course you didn’t. He was born this way and didn’t chase it any more than he being left-handed. You however, have made a choice of being hurtful, narrow-minded and backward. So, while we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I’ll take this moment to say goodbye to you. I now have a fabulous (as the gays put it) grandson to raise, and I don’t have time for heart-less B-word of a daughter.

If you find your heart, give us a call

Those who haven’t followed the exchange or general situation will likely find this post boring and impossible to follow, so just ignore it.]

I’ll summarize my thoughts on the letter itself and its reception, though I’m finding the two impossible to detangle:

I’m of course very happy and impressed that the grandfather is taking in his grandson and providing him with acceptance and support. I also endorse his informing his daughter of his support for his grandson and telling her in no uncertain terms how wrong and harmful her actions have been. (This should go without saying, but I did say it several times, it was quoted several times, and some people still persist in ignoring it.)

I’m bothered by the misogynistic slur at the end. First, because bigoted slurs are a problem. Also, because it detracts from the letter’s message of love and compassion. Finally, because using a bigoted slur in a letter to someone denouncing their bigotry is hypocritical and counterproductive.

His disowning also seems to me somewhat rash and counterproductive. If, say, Chad were showing me this letter as a draft and asked me what I thought, I would (after recommending the grandfather remove the line with the slur) ask him some questions about the situation to determine if breaking off contact was precipitous and angry or whether it was warranted but other aspects of the situation. (Well, I’d give him my opinion and then try to help him find people more knowledgeable than I.)

The fact, though, is that we don’t know more details about the situation. (And even if we were to learn more details now, we didn’t have them when presented with the letter and commenting on it.) The only information we have is what’s in the letter: Chad’s mother threw him out when she found out he was gay, apparently because she has standard homophobic (religious) beliefs: being gay is shameful, an abomination, and against nature. We don’t have any indication that she was abusive prior to learning of her son’s sexual orientation or a “toxic” person or that the grandfather doesn’t have the emotional wherewithal to deal with her. Any of those – and many other factors besides – might be true, but we don’t know. Like everyone else, I can only evaluate based on the limited information available, and on that basis I think his disowning of his daughter seems like a rash decision made in the heat of anger, unlikely to be productive, and likely to contribute to further deterioration of familial relationships.

I think the disowning also comes across as rather hypocritical (as I’ll discuss below), which works against the letter’s positive intent. If part of your message is how terrible it is for a parent to disown her child, disowning your child in this angry way undercuts that message, even if it’s being done for an entirely different reason.

So, with the limited information available, that’s my reading: Taking in and supporting his grandson? Wonderful. Telling his daughter how awful her actions have been and how angry, disappointed, and ashamed he is? Great. Informing her that he doesn’t “have time for heart-less B-word of a daughter”? Unacceptable and wrong. Coldly disowning her? Seems rash and ill-advised. Hypocrisy? Not great, and counterproductive. None of the aspects of which I’m critical is the Crime of the Century. None is something we all haven’t done something similar to or that I would remotely see as erasing the great thing he’s doing for his grandson.

But it’s especially important to discuss the potential problems with the letter because of its spread and reception. I’ve seen it on at least three sites now. It’s been presented as an exemplar – a great example of how to go about things for grandparents in this situation - and the comments generally have been of the type “You go, grandpa!,” with little critical discussion. The fact that this letter has entered the internet and is being viewed as exemplary makes thoughtful criticism not only acceptable but necessary. (And yes, assuming the letter is genuine, the grandfather is a real person, but it’s not like commenting on 5-year-old Juan’s first piano recital.)

In that light, calling negative attention to the bigoted slur in the letter is extremely important (and this should not be left to women to do or defend doing). If the slur is ignored – especially by gay rights organizations promoting the letter - or people attempt to minimize, justify, or defend it, that sends the message to everyone that the community is fine with bigoted slurs against women or that misogyny should be overlooked or excused if it’s in the context or service of combating homophobia or another oppression. (As I asked previously: “If this were a grandfather disowning his gay son for misogynistic treatment of his granddaughter and the letter ended ‘…and I don’t have time for heart-less f****t of a son’, would that be ignored? Not factor into people’s evaluations? OK for feminist organizations to promote and celebrate without comment on the homophobic slur? Or is it only to be misogyny that gets minimized in this way?”) When it’s posted without comment, it sends the message to women that they should remain quiet in the interest of supporting victims of homophobia. When people do point to it and are criticized or silenced for doing so, the message is even worse.

Sexism and misogyny are far from the only forms of bigotry that people often see as justified as long as you’re fighting a good fight, but people do seem especially comfortable with excusing them. It’s even worse if we consider that for some people it might form part of the appeal of the letter, providing an opportunity to revel in someone’s telling off a “heartless B-word.” It sends the message to misogynists that, at least sometimes, the community accepts their anti-woman views.

With regard to the disowning aspect being accepted as exemplary, I’m concerned that the uncritical celebration of this act is getting in the way of considering all of the alternative responses relatives can take in this situation. Surely the ideal outcome generally is for bigoted parents to come to understand how wrong they’ve been, make amends, and work to rebuild the relationships with both their children and the family members they’ve alienated. Angrily cutting off contact, as I’ve argued, blocks off the avenues of influence and education most likely to lead to this outcome. Of course in many cases this ideal is all but impossible, or for various reasons the path to achieving it isn’t realistic or is too emotionally destructive to the people involved. (The immediate outcome here might be the best relative outcome in the field of real possibilities, but it’s far from ideal.)

But, as I’ve suggested, if people are developing a general guide with advice for relatives in this situation, I can’t imagine that – in the absence of any specific information, people would recommend angrily cutting off contact with your child until they “find a heart” as the best first option. And I don’t think “We’re not developing such a guide. We’re simply commenting on this one case” is a valid rejoinder, because this one case is being celebrated as exemplary in a general way (and necessarily in a general way, given that we don’t have any specific information about it). I suspect that if the letter about taking in the grandson had contained, instead of the disowning, a section about how he was sending his daughter some educational materials and information about organizations that could help her to understand, or that some of the other relatives would be coming to talk to her about it, or that he would be sending her updates on her son and what he’s doing, that people would consider it exemplary. Because people are focusing on the exemplary act of taking in the grandson and that makes us more likely to accept as exemplary all of the acts that accompany it.

That of course doesn’t mean people shouldn't point out that those or other options or others aren’t always possible or suitable. It’s the thoughtful discussion that’s desirable. This isn’t so much about criticizing or second-guessing people doing something good as about having a conversation about the various options available to people in the situation and the resources that might be available or be made available to them. Given that we’re effectively constructing a general guide with our comments, we should just recognize that and take a careful, thoughtful approach to the process.

And now I’m going to respond specifically to David Marjanović, because I think he’s honestly misunderstood me rather than actively tried to misrepresent me. I hate being honestly misunderstood far more than being mischaracterized or misrepresented, because being misunderstood is quite likely partially my fault, and means that I haven’t expressed myself clearly enough.

David had alleged that I had “mentioned the use of ‘her’ to refer to ‘parent’ as possible, if not likely, evidence of a misogynistic character,” which I had called “just absurd.” I made clear:

It had zero to do with anything like that. I had said his actions were hypocritical, and added parenthetically that if he was referring only to mothers when he described a parent’s disowning their child as “against nature”/bad – which is a reasonable possibility (and I provided reasons why I think that) – then he wasn’t being hypocritical. Because in that case he wouldn’t understand doing the same as a father to be equally “against nature”/bad. (And that might be a view held by many people, which could warrant some discussion.)

So, to David: To my statement “It had nothing to do with trying to paint him as a misogynist,” you replied:

*blink*

I have not tried to accuse you of somehow deciding in advance he’s a misogynist and then looking for evidence to fit your hypothesis.

No, I didn’t think that.

The other way around. I thought you were concluding from this evidence that he’s likely (though not definitely) a misogynist.

I tried to disagree with the “likely” part of that conclusion: a more parsimonious assumption, as far as I can tell, is that he used “her” to refer to “parent” just because he was talking to and about his daughter. Wondering why you had gone with a less parsimonious but scarier option, I presented a possible reason…

Yes, I understood what you were saying, but it’s confused and wrong. I’m going to make one last, this time fairly exhaustive, effort to explain. (I’m not thrilled that you didn’t seem to pay attention to the rest of the post you’re quoting in which I point to the context – a discussion of possible hypocrisy – and how my remarks formed a part of it.)

The context of those remarks is extremely important to recognize. That context was a discussion of the hypocrisy or nonhypocrisy of the grandfather’s words/act. This is the exchange:

Jacob Schmidt @ 120:

SC

It might surprise you to learn that someone can have compassion for the grandson and share the father/grandfather’s anger at his daughter, while being not particularly impressed that he would so readily and hypocritically disown his daughter and dismiss her with a misogynistic slur.

While I won’t defend his use of slurs, there’s no hypocrisy. The anger seems to be at disowning a dependent child for their sexual orientation, not disownment in general.

Me @ #121:

A parent disowning her child is what goes “against nature.”

[Of course, this ("her child") could be read - and not unreasonably in this context - as only referring to mothers, with fathers excused....]

Jacob Schmidt @ #122:

Assuming that’s a response to me… so are cars, plains, and the ink he wrote that letter with. It reads to me like he’s pointing out the hypocrisy of his daughter, not saying that anything unnatural is bad, or that disownment is bad because it’s unnatural (since that’s not why it’s bad).

Me @ #125:

It’s pretty obviously a response to a claim by her that being gay is “unnatural” and therefore bad. He’s suggesting that her disowning her child is what’s really unnatural and bad.

I assumed “her” was used because he was addressing his daughter.

Of course you did.

Me at #131:

Of course you did.

I’ll elaborate, in case anyone’s confused:

There are a few factors that would lead me to suspect that there might be sexism behind this remark (and there might not – I just wouldn’t assume that there isn’t). First, he later calls her a bitch. Second, he cuts her off as she cut off her son without viewing his own act as at all problematic in a parallel way. Third, there’s an established patriarchal cultural trope that mothers are naturally, and have a duty to be, unconditionally loving, whereas fathers have the complementary duty to offer conditional, judgmental love to improve a child’s character. According to Erich Fromm (who held this view), it’s the reason that in some cultures (like some Muslim cultures) fathers legally “take over” when a child reaches the age of 7 or 8. It’s not a bizarre belief in sexist cultures by any means. Again, his phrasing there might have nothing to do with sexism, but it’s not entirely reasonable to assume it doesn’t.

Jacob Schmidt @ #139:

I’ll elaborate, in case anyone’s confused:

No need here. I understand why, and I don’t disagree. I also know that using pronouns when addressing people is the point of pronouns, so that looked like the more valid interpretation.

He’s suggesting that her disowning her child is what’s really unnatural and bad.

But why is it bad? The mothers reasons are why; it’s not a contradiction to be against the disownment of gay teens while disowning toxic family members.

Me @ #144:

I also know that using pronouns when addressing people is the point of pronouns, so that looked like the more valid interpretation.

If you ignore context, sure, it’s the obvious interpretation that this was the sole meaning.

But why is it bad?

You’re still ignoring that it’s a parallel construction.

So the question under discussion was: In disowning his daughter after telling her that a parent disowning her child is “against nature,” is the grandfather being hypocritical?

A few notes about hypocrisy. I would define hypocrisy as: when your actions don’t match your words – specifically, here, when you condemn an act engaged in by others while doing it yourself without condemning that.

It doesn’t matter, in the context of evaluating hypocrisy, whether the behavior the person in question condemns is legitimately condemnable. We need to separate the evaluation of hypocrisy from the specific content of what someone’s being hypocritical about. So, for example, we can say Ayn Rand was acting hypocritically when she accepted government support during her illness despite inveighing against social welfare programs and their use, without agreeing with her condemnation of these programs. We can say religious people are being hypocritical if they preach against drinking alcohol while drinking themselves in private, without agreeing that drinking is sinful or that sin exists. “Condemning X while engaging in X” is hypocritical regardless of the content of X.

But evaluating hypocrisy does require trying to understanding how someone is characterizing their acts and those of others. Because it’s possible that someone might not be making the same distinctions and equivalencies we are. First, they might regard what appears to be the same act as two fundamentally different acts if, for example, done with different motives or for different purposes. Or, they might recognize acts as equivalent but have different standards for different groups based on beliefs about their different roles and duties. (This isn’t about “me vs. everyone else,” which is classic hypocrisy, but about consistently different expectations for people in different categories.) For example, there are Islamic beliefs about men and women that mean many Muslims regard the same sexual behavior engaged in by men and women very differently.

It can be difficult because sometimes hypocrisy runs very deep, and affects people’s fundamental understandings, or they’re simply unable due to their beliefs to view their actions as equivalent to those they’re condemning despite the obvious parallels. These cases maybe aren’t best discussed in terms of hypocrisy, but rather bad faith or deep-rooted prejudice. So it’s complicated, but I suppose we can say that they’re hypocrisy but at a deeper or…more collective level, but that’s different from the sort of basic hypocrisy I think we’re talking about in this case.

So in evaluating hypocrisy, I think, intent does matter: how the grandfather sees disowning children and whether or how closely he regards his own action as equivalent to his daughter’s is important here. He’s being hypocritical to the extent that he sees disowning as generally bad and the two acts as equivalent and less so to the extent that he differentiates amongst acts of disownment due to the motives or purposes behind them or holds himself and his daughter to different expectations based on their sex.

I was responding to someone arguing (in part) that the grandfather wasn’t being hypocritical because he saw the two disownings as fundamentally different due to their different reasons. Jacob Schmidt was arguing that he was specifically condemning disowning a gay child and not disowning in general, I assume focusing on the sentence: “Kicking Chad out of your home simply because he told you he was gay is the real ‘abomination’ here.”

Of course I recognize that their reasons are different, but I was suggesting, in response, that it was significant that the grandfather appeared to be making a general statement about the badness of a parent disowning a child, rather than specifying a particular type of disowning – for reason X – that he condemns and from which his act is excluded. His statement “A parent disowning her child is what goes ‘against nature’” - is a general one. (It seemed general, in addition to the content, because I recognized it as a parallel response to a presumed statement from his daughter that being gay is “against nature”/bad.)

I didn’t mention it in that post, but he also draws an explicit parallel a few sentences later – “So, while we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I’ll take this moment to say goodbye to you,” which suggests that he saw the acts themselves as the same. So my argument was that in the grandfather’s view the two disownings are in essence the same act and that therefore both should be seen as problematic by him despite their different motives. If the grandfather is saying X behavior is bad, and engaging in behavior X while recognizing that he’s doing so, that’s hypocritical.

The ONLY significance of “her” here, and the reason I italicized it, is that it brought to mind a possible alternative reading of the “against nature” sentence that would counter the argument that he was acting hypocritically. (This reading would still be entirely possible if he had said “his or her” or “their” or “a” or phrased the whole thing differently – “Disowning your child…” or whatever - but specifying “her” here led me to think about alternative, nonhypocritical readings of the paragraph.)

That alternative reading is: What looks like a general statement (“A parent disowning her child is what goes ‘against nature’”) might not really have been a general statement because he was, consciously or unconsciously, making a distinction between the roles and duties of mothers and fathers. Thus he wouldn’t be acting hypocritically because, even if the acts are the same, the people doing them are in different categories.

That’s it. I didn’t see the pronoun as evidence of sexist or misogynistic attitudes, and wasn’t trying to “explain” it with reference to them. The use of “her” simply wasn’t part of any argument I was making, and you can see that I made no argument about it or using it. I simply italicized it because it sparked the idea in my head that there might be an alternative, nonhypocritical reading in which he recognized the behavior as equivalent but saw it, consciously or unconsciously, as differently/less condemnable for a father than a mother.

No alternative nonhypocritical reading rests on the use of the feminine pronoun in that sentence, and I wasn’t trying to explain that use in terms of sexism. In #131, I offered three reasons to think he might hold (unconsciously) that sexist attitude:

• He calls his daughter a bitch at the end of the letter, and so he’s clearly not immune to his culture’s attitudes towards women.

• Just after he calls a parent’s disowning a child “against nature” and therefore bad, he makes the parallel between her disowning and his explicit: “So, while we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I’ll take this moment to say goodbye to you.” Despite this, he doesn’t appear to recognize that by his standards his act could be seen as wrong. He doesn’t appear to see any hypocrisy.

• The idea that it’s more “against nature” and worse for a mother to cut off her child is very common in his culture.*

This – not his use of the feminine pronoun - was my reasoning behind thinking it was possible that there was a possible reading of the “against nature” statement that wouldn’t contribute to the conclusion that he was hypocritical.

So, in sum, and based not just on that exchange, here are what I consider reasons to consider his action hypocritical and reasons not to:

Reasons to see it as hypocritical:

• The sentence “A parent disowning her child is what goes ‘against nature’” is a general condemnation of disowning, presumably in response to his daughter’s having said something to the effect of “Being gay is against nature,” which is also a general statement.

• He makes the equivalence explicit when he says “[W]hile we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I’ll take this moment to say goodbye to you.”

Reasons to see it as not hypocritical:

• The general “against nature” statement is preceded by a more specific one (also I assume a parallel construction) referring to reasons: "Kicking Chad out of your home simply because he told you he was gay is the real 'abomination' here.” [my emphasis] This statement is both itself specific and could possibly affect the interpretation of the more general one that follows.

• It’s plausible, for the reasons I’ve discussed, that there were sexist ideas behind what appears like a general statement about a parent’s disowning a child, meaning that his condemnation is stronger for mothers than for fathers. (It’s also plausible that there weren’t, or that, as Jadehawk suggested, he was too busy playing word games [with the parallel constructions] to notice what he was saying.)

• He says at the end “If you find your heart, give us a call,” so it’s not a “real” disowning. (I don’t see statements like this as necessarily inconsistent with disowning, but more importantly, it’s contradicted by the explicit equivalence he makes between the two acts of disownment.)

So on the weight of the evidence, on the hypocrisy scale I would give it a 7 or 7.5. My mind could be changed, and this isn’t the most important issue here, but those are my views and I certainly wanted to counteract the strange notion that this was about the pronoun.

Now, I realize that I did contribute to confusion here. It was a tense situation for me, and that can make me flippant in a way that can be hard to follow. I probably started the confusion when I highlighted only the words “her child,” which could be read, by someone assuming I’m a dolt, as suggesting that the parenthetical speculation was about what’s “behind” the use of the feminine pronoun. And despite my clarification, I didn’t do enough to make clear that this wasn’t about the pronoun when it should have been apparent that this was how Jacob Schmidt was reading me. I should have made it absolutely clear then that I was not referring to the pronoun but to the remark “A parent disowning her child is what goes ‘against nature’.” The question I was addressing was: Is this a general statement of the form X is bad, or might it be meant to apply (more) to one category of people?

In my defense, it simply didn’t occur to me, and wouldn’t occur to me, that anyone not actively trying to misconstrue my statements would think I was arguing that his use of “her” in referring to his daughter was itself evidence of anything or what I was attempting to explain the pronoun. I did recognize pretty quickly that my point might be missed – especially given the propensity of several people participating on that thread to mischaracterize my statements and arguments – and that’s why I quickly clarified, which didn’t turn out to be sufficient and might have contributed to the problem. I’m dismayed that the impression could persist for anyone that I was suggesting that the pronoun was part of any argument that I was making.

The problem in this case, though, is that there were several people on that thread who were more interested in willfully misinterpreting my statements than in engaging fairly with or honestly trying to understand what I was saying. So in the midst of this exchange, there was a post by Daz addressed to me:

So far you’ve managed to impugn the grandfather for breaking up the family, when it’s quite obvious that the mother did that quite handily when she threw her child out into the street. You’ve implied that he might well be acting misogynistically by referring to his daughter as “her” and you’ve spent gawd knows how many words pointing out that he (probably?) used a gendered slur.

I probably skipped over it at the time as it was one in a series of blatant misrepresentations (which have now been refuted more than once, including the first and third listed accusations here). I probably missed the phrase “You’ve implied that he might well be acting misogynistically by referring to his daughter as ‘her',” but even if I’d seen it I don’t know that I would have thought it worth responding to. Whatever the confusion occasioned by my remarks, how could anyone seriously believe I was suggesting any such thing? And if someone did, don’t you think it would have been a good idea to ask for further clarification rather than assume I was making that argument?

I think I also contributed to some confusion by referring too much to my views of the letter when I should have been more focused on the reception of the letter and its presentation as exemplary. I think I did make this clear eventually, and it became more so when other people helped me to clarify at Tdome, but I acknowledge that in focusing on individual acts I probably contributed to the mess about my alleged motives.

I don’t think everyone should be expected to express themselves with perfect clarity and comprehension in every blog comment. The nature of a discussion is that people’s views can change and develop or be refined in the course of the discussion. In the course of the conversation, I would have focused my arguments more clearly on the questions related to the reception of this letter and its use as an exemplar. (And I want to express my deep appreciation for strange gods, Jadehawk, consciousness razor, carlie, and others who worked to clarify rather than obscure and confuse the arguments.)

The problem is that it’s become, in my view, and for me at least, impossible to have a reasoned discussion at Pharyngula, and not only on topics like animal rights and psychiatry/psych rights that I expect to be controversial. An exchange of views, even an angry one, is impossible when some people are determined to make an environment actively hostile to you and your views. On the threads in question, I’ve been repeatedly misrepresented, often without those misrepresenting me bothering to quote my words; those misrepresentations haven’t been retracted, apologized for, or even acknowledged even after they’ve been repeatedly refuted with evidence; people have jumped to the silliest and most uncharitable readings of my words, latching onto any ambiguity, nuance, or lack of clarity to paint them in a negative light; people have attributed nefarious motives to me for which there’s no evidence; people have tried to make the discussion about me rather than the actual topic; people trying to set the record straight about what I and others have said by pointing to the actual record of comments have been attacked, sent to other threads, or threatened with banning; people have tossed in snipes at me for no purpose other than maliciousness and browbeating; strange gods has been treated cruelly and unfairly and threatened with banning for responding to these attacks;…

This pattern of intellectual dishonesty, bullying, and partiality isn’t only unkind to me and others and contrary to any decent standard of argumentation. (It might be a useful exercise for people who think I’m wrong to imagine how the response would have differed had my comments on that thread been posted instead by Caine.) It’s generally toxic to reasoned discussion and debate. I never thought I’d reach the point that I wouldn’t be particularly upset about being banned at Pharyngula.** I’ve been returning, less and less frequently to be sure, over the past couple of years probably because I remember a time when things were different. I’m sure I’m idealizing the past, but the environment in the past was in my recollection much more conducive to intellectual exchange. It wasn’t more polite or less angry; it was just that there was a greater commitment to intellectual honesty and fairness than there is now.

The creation of an elite circle of privileged commenters is also a (related) problem, as I see it. (I offered some suggestions for structural solutions, but they were ignored.) Another trend, toward the personalization of discussions - in the sense of making them largely about people’s personal experiences - is neither good nor bad, but it is a change. Since I don’t generally talk about my personal life in that context and am uncomfortable attempting to have a general or more abstract argument if other people are perceiving that as reflecting an indifference to their personal experiences or suffering or an attempt to hurt them, this change of atmosphere is less suitable for someone like me.

This isn’t about hate or even anger (which isn’t to say that I’m not angry with some people). I’m very glad I found Pharyngula and think it’s been a fantastic blog, not only for the content of the posts but for the quality of the comments and the community PZ’s helped to create. I thank PZ for that. I also think many of the people whose recent actions in some contexts I reject have done some great things there. But it’s become a hostile and unwelcoming place to me personally and a difficult one in which to have the sort of intellectual exchanges I enjoyed and learned from in the past.

As Jadehawk said, you are an activist. Similarly, I am a scientist – and that has caused trouble for me before, with other people.

First, I’m not “an activist.” I’m a sociologist, and analyzing writing is what I do.

Second, I have no idea what the relevance of this claim is supposed to be to this particular discussion, unless you’re implying that as a nonscientist – ignoring that I am in fact a social scientist, which is arguably more relevant expertise in this matter – I’m not as capable as you of analyzing discussions or that I’m coming at them from an irrational place or something. I sure hope that isn’t what you were implying, because it comes across as a fallacious and arrogant argument from authority.

Third, you made some bizarre speculation about me as a TV Trope (which, to be frank, you overuse in general; the concepts are fun and useful if applied correctly, but they’re not sociology and are no substitute for concrete knowledge and evidence) and then followed that with a statement about how this somehow reminded you of something I had said months or years ago. You provided no citation to back up your characterization of past events, which contributed to the false impression of me that others were already constructing. When I responded filling in relevant details of the story and pointing out that referring to it in the way you did was wrong, you responded

…That link seems to be the part I missed. I can’t remember anything about B&W in this context.

…Can’t remember that either. Perhaps I had left the thread by then; due to timezones, many threads go on after I visit them the last time.

…As for “links or anything”, I’m sorry to say that’s an unreasonable expectation from me – I don’t have the kind of memory or Google-fu necessary for that. I knew yours are better, so I expected you to remember the incidents in question at least as well as I do – and indeed you do. I never thought you wouldn’t weigh in!

It’s scientifically irresponsible to characterize someone’s actions or mental state without searching for and providing an evidentiary citation. No sources, no trust.

* The reasons I later mentioned that this might warrant discussion were two: first, as I said, the fact that the belief in some form is so widespread in the culture makes it more likely that it might form part of his attitude, like that of any member of the culture; second, due to the fact that the belief in some form is so widespread in the culture, it might be playing some small role in the reception of the letter. It’s possible that people reading are, without realizing it perhaps, more angry with the woman for disowning her son because she’s a mother, and in turn perhaps less critical of the grandfather’s attitude and actions towards his daughter because a) she’s a mother and therefore deserves to be punished more and b) he’s a father and so doesn’t face the same expectations of unconditional love. I don’t know whether that’s the case at all, but, as I said, discussion wouldn’t hurt.

** And no, PZ, I’m not saying I think it would be fine for you to ban me or asking to be banned, so you can’t do it and justify it as obliging my request. That decision is your responsibility, and you should do what you think is right and just and act in such a way that you’re least likely to regret and that’s most likely to earn you the respect of people whose respect you think is worth having. Since doing what’s just and right would require a thoughtful (re)reading of this and past episodes and the comments leading up to them, and it doesn’t appear you have time to take that on,…

On differences: a reply to James Croft

Sometime around my short vacation, I happened upon this post from PZ and the reply from James Croft of the Humanist Chaplaincy of Harvard. Croft, yet again, suggests that they (the Harvard Humanists) and we (atheism+ proponents or sympathizers and the gnus of whom many of the A+ people are a subset – gnus/+?) essentially share the same goals and only differ in terms of tactics and tone and the specific ranking of our priorities. He asks how atheism+ - the label for the subset of atheists who “officially” distinguish themselves in terms of their social justice concerns - differs from his or the HCH’s humanist program.*

This is all a bit frustrating given that I and others have previously carried on extended discussions with Croft and explained quite clearly, in response to his repeated insistence that there are no differences, how our goals and priorities differ fundamentally from theirs. (This has itself been irritating as it’s contradictory for them to insist that we don’t have different goals while at the same time questioning and criticizing our goals. If you want to argue about goals, as I see it, that’s fine, but you first have to acknowledge that we have a different position, and they seem unable to do this consistently.) So really I’m just summarizing what I’ve written in the past in scattered forms here and elsewhere. But it’s a useful exercise, so why not?

So…

Croft asks:

But what is the relationship of Humanism with religion, and are these critics (most of whom are expressing their personal perceptions of the term “Humanism”, to which they are perfectly entitled) giving Humanism a fair shot? Is it really true that there is a signifiant difference in view between Atheism+ people and Humanists like myself in this regard?

As PZ and others have pointed out, already there’s a problem. The criticisms I’ve read are not of humanism – the pompous capitalization still grates – but of the particular flavor practiced by the HCH group. (Croft changed his post to better reflect the fact that he was presenting his own views and not trying to speak for all of humanism. I’m not trying to speak for everyone in the gnu/+ camp, but I will write generally, and people are welcome to tell me if they think I’m inaccurately describing the movement.)

But OK, now we can get into the substance:

In order to try to answer this question I’m going to attempt to make a series of statements regarding how I understand the relationship between Humanism and religion, and I invite self-identified Atheism+ people to come give their views on the same points. Perhaps there is a real difference if view here, but perhaps the differences are overstated.

Humanists I see religion as human-made

Humanists see religion as a human-made phenomenon. Religious texts were written by human hands, religious ideas were generated by human minds, religious practices developed in human communities. There’s not a jot of divine revelation anywhere. We made this.

Humanists I reject all supernatural elements of religious beliefs

Humanism is an explicitly naturalistic worldview which rejects all supernatural elements of religious beliefs. Prayers don’t do anything magic, faith healing doesn’t work, meditation doesn’t alter your consciousness in a wooish way, your spirit doesn’t have an aura, dancing cannot bring the rain.

So far, so good…kind of. Gnu atheists(+) see religion as human-made, but I don’t see much point in specifying “supernatural elements of religious beliefs.” The word “supernatural” is a distraction here. I oppose the holding of beliefs that people don’t have a good reason to believe – faith in any form. I don’t have to worry about isolating the “supernatural” elements of religious beliefs specifically. The defining feature of a religious belief is that it’s held despite (and often because of) the fact that it can’t be defended. That’s what makes it religious. This is what leads to the heart of the difference between me/us and Croft/HCH:

Humanists I believe that many religious beliefs and practices are harmful

Many religious beliefs and practices are inhumane and damaging. Homophobia in the USA is significantly worsened by religious beliefs regarding homosexuality, just as sexism is worsened by religious beliefs about women. People are concretely harmed by religious beliefs regarding vaccination and blood transfusion. Millions have been harmed by the Catholic Church’s stance on the use of condoms. Religious groups can be seen at the forefront of pretty much every regressive social movement around today, from opposition to gay rights and reproductive rights to opposition to proper science education and sex education in schools.

Humanists believe that it is their responsibility to challenge these beliefs and practices in order to prevent the harm they cause. Humanists have been staunch religious critics since the start of modern Humanism, and many of the most widely recognized religious critics of the 21st Century identify as Humanists: Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, for example. [my emphasis]

Here, as I’ve noted in the past, is where we get to the crux of the matter. As I said above, we – and there’s nothing particularly new about this, either – are not only interested in challenging the most plainly harmful beliefs, but bad belief. (That’s why I’ve long thought that we’re more of an epistemic movement, although this doesn’t seem to lend itself well to a catchy name. …epists? epists+?) The idea that our criticism of religion is criticism of specific damaging, bigoted beliefs assumes – mistakenly and dangerously – that belief itself is neutral. Believing is not a neutral act: not ethically, not psychologically, and not socially or politically. My position, and the gnu position as I understand it, is that all faith, all believing which isn’t empirically supported/supportable or defended/defensible, all manner of arriving at beliefs that isn’t reason/evidence-based, is inherently harmful. (Perhaps it would help to lose the distinction between beliefs and practices and approach faith as a defining religious practice….)

Ethically, as I’ve discussed on many occasions, citing Allen Wood at every possible opportunity, faith can’t be justified. We have, as Wood says, an ethical duty to believe according to the evidence. (I’ve also written about the contradiction between the two attempted evasions of Wood’s argument.) I’m not going to recreate that argument again; just read his piece.

Regarding our own development, I wrote a series recently in part about some of the little-recognized psychological effects of faith: how it damages our relationships with – alienates us from - others and the world around us by interfering with our ability to respect and to know them. Faith is harmful to our psychological well-being and our actualization as people. This sort of believing is narcissistic, allowing and even encouraging us to project ourselves, our desires, and our prejudices onto other entities. It’s profoundly disrespectful and can lead us to act toward other beings in harmful ways (often with a clear conscience), but it’s also psychologically harmful to us ourselves in that our failing to understand them on their own terms means our knowledge of ourselves, and thus our psychological development, remains shallow and circumscribed.

This is why I argued in that series that science, approached correctly and with humility, is one form or element of love. Faith masquerades as loving, but it can’t really be love or form the basis for love because it disrespects that which it treats and subverts genuine knowledge. In order to appreciate this, you need to understand science and faith as distinct and incompatible forms of relationships we have with others and the rest of the world. Faith is an alienated relationship which proves destructive in many ways. Whatever apparent solace faith offers comes at the expense of our relationships, our knowledge, our capacity to act effectively, and our human development.

I’ve also talked at some length before about the political effects of faith, citing for example Alan Sokal. Sokal, who unfortunately is often embraced and misrepresented by people on the Right, is very clear that faith – that promoted by religion and even more so that promoted by governments and corporations – is a central political problem. You can see the talk at my link, but why faith is a tool of conservatives should be fairly obvious.

People don’t develop their own idiosyncratic faithy notions about gods and politics. They form their faith-beliefs based on what they’re told by religious and political authorities. So faith is part and parcel of authoritarian social arrangements, and authoritarian institutions, although sometimes bitter competitors, work together to promote these practices. Given this, it should also be obvious why science and a genuinely scientific approach to the world are essential to social justice movements of all stripes. Encouraging people to evaluate claims and beliefs empirically, and even more important teaching them how to do it, is incredibly dangerous to authoritarian systems. This has been appreciated by humanists for some time. It’s also long been understood by those whose power rests on faith, as the Republican opposition to critical-thinking programs in schools demonstrates with shocking candor.

By the time Croft gets to the next item, then, he’s already missed the boat, because when the political implications of faith as a sociopolitical practice and relation are taken into account, we see that, just as harmful and harmless faith-beliefs can’t really be distinguished, neither can forms of oppression be cleanly isolated. Faith practices and relationships are integral to oppression in every realm:

Humanists I recognize that there are forms of oppression and sources of harm which are not religious

As strong as the Humanist commitment to religious skepticism and criticism is, Humanists recognize that there are other forms of oppression in the world which demand our attention. In our desire to promote human welfare we may sometimes prioritize critique of religious forms of harm, while at other times concerning ourselves with other matters. Religion is not always the problem, and there are forms of injustice and harm which are not most closely caused by religion. Humanists have a responsibility to balance our commitment to religious skepticism against other moral commitments in an intelligent way, such that religious criticism does not become the only form of social activism we engage in.

More differences. First, comparatively speaking, when HCH people talk about confronting oppression, it seems clear that they’re placing themselves towards the charitable-service rather than the radical-social-change end of the spectrum. This isn’t particularly relevant to this discussion except in that whatever complications arise for them are likely to be distinct from those encountered by people engaged in very different forms of activism. Second, I’ll note that the people forming and sympathetic to gnu/+ are not new to engagement with other forms of social activism. I’m not sure if that is what’s being implied here, but it would be silly even to suggest that A+ is just now coming around to HCH’s priorities, having previously focused exclusively on religion. Just not true.

Third, I think I’ve been frank that from my perspective their “commitment to religious skepticism and criticism” isn’t all that strong. Religious groups aren't alone in promoting faith-belief - faith as an epistemic practice intersects across various spheres and institutions - but they’re especially harmful in that they make it a virtue to believe things you have no good reason to. Doing so, I’ve argued, is contrary to morality, psychological well-being and development, democracy, and social justice, in addition of course to the advance of scientific knowledge and thus our capacity for effective positive action.

This is why epistemic practices and specifically faith itself have to be priorities for A+ or any humanistic or social justice movement. Sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, all forms of political-economic conservatism, speciesism, anti-environmentalism, imperialism, and all forms and institutions of oppression have long relied on faith-belief. Further, addressing today’s problems – e.g., AGW, resource depletion, pandemics - requires a humble, respectful scientific approach that isn’t distorted by our projections and is thus anti-faith. This necessarily alters the calculus. If you recognize faith itself as a moral, psychological, and political problem inherent in but not limited to religion, your priorities are different. Opposing faith itself and promoting and teaching critical, scientific practices are urgent goals, not just in any individual sphere but comprehensively.

Humanists I believe in secular government

Humanists believe in democratic governance and a secular society in which religious arguments are not privileged in any way above nonreligious ones. We do not believe that religious perspectives should be entirely excluded from the public square – that would be an unacceptable infringement on the right of free speech – but we do believe that public policy should be based on secular reasoning accessible, in principle, to all people regardless of their religious perspective. “Because my religion says so” is insufficient reason to impose one’s view on others.

I agree with this. See above, though, about faith-belief and politics. The fact that faith is inherently authoritarian, even when it appears superficially or immediately to be working in the service of social justice, makes it an important priority for humanist social-justice and democratic activists.

Humanists I believe that people can derive experiences of real value from religious communities

Humanists recognize that some religious communities can provide valuable and life-enhancing experiences for their congregants, even though those experiences are surrounded by a metaphysical framework we consider to be inaccurate. Since religion is human-created it is not surprising that some aspects of religious practice respond effectively to real human needs. These needs do not necessary disappear once people give up the religious beliefs which grew up around them.

Some people find truly welcoming communities in religious spaces, when they have been rejected elsewhere (this is true of many LGBTQ people I know, for instance). Some people value the opportunity to explore moral questions which a weekly sermon provides. Some use their religious community as a base for activism and social change. Others simply enjoy the experience of a weekly set of practices which take them out of their work and home life.

While Humanists need not embrace the exact nature or justification of these practices, we recognize that some people do derive legitimate satisfaction and value from them. This does not mean we should withhold principled criticism, but it does mean that we should recognize that there is some value for some people in certain religious practices. If there are ways of secularizing the practices of religion which people find value, extracting any Inhumane elements while maintaining pieces of value, then Humanists recognize this as a legitimate choice for some. We also understand that many will not wish to do this, which is also a legitimate choice.

I think several other people have dealt with this already. I’ll just point out there have long been secular versions of all of the worthwhile practices of religion, and we can and should draw from the widest range of practices and activities that have existed. Further, I think the best practices, and those that really meet people’s needs, are those that local groups develop organically over time by chance or based on the specific interests of those involved. Let creativity run free.

Humanists I approach collaboration with the religious in a way consistent with other Humanist values

Humanists do not take a one-size-fits-all approach to collaboration with the religious. Rather we assess each situation on its merits, understanding that on some occasions it may advance Humanist aims to collaborate with religious people or organizations, while on others it will not. If Humanists can collaborate in ways which promote compassion – marching together in a gay pride rally, for instance – it makes sense to do so. If collaboration would traduce Humanist principles, however, we would not seek to participate.

I don’t disagree with this (and I doubt many do).

In sum, yes, there are differences. If this conversation is to proceed and if there's going to be a possibility of collaborative efforts, the anti-faith position has to be fully recognized and treated respectfully (which doesn’t mean uncritically). It has to be engaged. If you continue to ignore the various arguments about the ethical, psychological, and sociopolitical aspects of faith and the arguments for why, even when the specific content of a particular belief seems harmless or positive, faith itself is inherently harmful, we can’t really have a conversation.

As we’ve seen in action recently, there are certainly atheists, including many gnus, who view the promotion of atheism and skeptical thinking and the criticism of religion as largely a means to polish their superior self-image and to sneer at others. But there’s also a large group of people who have solid reasons for prioritizing faith (and religion, which is defined by and champions it) and science generally and for considering this struggle to be significant in all compassionate social justice activism. If you refuse to recognize this, you’ll continue to misrepresent us and you’ll continue to fail to understand why we don’t confine ourselves and our “But is it true? How do you know?” demands to only the most plainly oppressive and harmful claims, why we regard even liberal faith as complicit with fanaticism in an important sense, why we reject the promotion of faith (e.g., by referring to themselves as a faith tradition or a part of interfaith coalitions) by groups ostensibly aligned with us, and why we reject the idea that it’s generally more ethical and compassionate to leave seemingly psychologically comforting faith-belief unchallenged.

The question of the relationship between epist activism and other forms of social justice work (including the most radical movements for social change), to the extent that these can even be disentangled, has always been and continues to be huge and complex. It’s naturally not the case that one can be reduced to the other, such that if people just adopt a scientific worldview oppression will fade away or that if social justice movements are successful faith will be abandoned. But the relationship is clearly a positive one, and neither can succeed without the other. The matter has to be worked out in discussions and action as these movements go forward, but it can’t and shouldn’t be denied.

*It’s not the case that A+ is a new set of atheists distinct from gnu atheists who’ve come around to thinking about these issues. On the contrary, these matters have long been important within the gnu community, and there’s significant – though not perfect - overlap between the set of gnus and the A+ supporters and sympathizers. So much so that I think it’s valid to talk about differences between Croft’s views and those of gnu atheism+ generally. If that’s not too confusing. Which it might be. But I do want to head off the suggestion that Croft might be making (especially in addressing his questions to A+ people specifically) that A+ is an attempt to break off from gnu atheism and come closer to HCH-style humanism. If that’s not too confusing. Which it might be. But the HCH group has had a tendency to use issues like this for self-promotion, in the course of which they tend to misrepresent gnu atheists as uniformly fixated on religion and unconcerned with allegedly non-religious oppression or exploitation. One last note: I consider myself, and I know that I’m speaking for very few others in the gnu/+ camp, a post-humanist or post-speciesist humanist, so already there’s a considerable difference between my views and those – at least those I’ve encountered – of the HCH. But I recognize that on this matter I’m, unfortunately, not representative. And I pretty much agree with Crommunist.

Dear Paula Kirby, You're welcome.

I tried to post a comment on this thread at B&W,* but the thread was closed, so I’ll recreate and expand on it here:

What Kirby said was that, in her “years of being part of all this,” she has “seen nothing to suggest” that “women are being deliberately held back by the men in the movement” of atheism. That is not equivalent to saying there is “no sexism.” Far from it!

Whatever it is, it certainly isn't far from it, and making this sort of claim betrays an obvious agenda. In any case, from what I’ve read of Kirby, she’s shockingly ignorant of sociological realities in business and in general, to the extent that I don’t know why anyone would take her particularly seriously on the subjects of sexism or feminism. What I’ve read is, to be sure, a limited sample of her writing, but many of these comments are those people point to in defense of her case.

I can’t believe anyone who’s been involved in these discussions over the past few years could agree that there hasn’t been a serious problem with women being held back in the movement. Oh, here’s a relevant example: Some of us have been bringing up the lack of diversity amongst speakers at atheist events for years, dealing with endless comments calling us conspiracy theorists, talking about how women aren’t interested in or as well suited to taking those public roles, and all manner of nonsense.** Over and over.*** For years. Making lists (gosh, look who's on that one under K, H, and S!).

If I recall correctly, some people were touting this Dublin event in part because, finally, after all of these years of our pointing to the problem even when we knew what would ensue, this one would feature a more diverse set of panelists (at least in terms of gender). Then they have a panel of women who all agree that they don’t see sexism as a serious problem in the movement. Well, isn’t that just swell. I feel like a union activist who’s worked for years to get recognition and better pay and benefits - going on strike, being harassed, and with the risk of being blackballed - only to hear someone newly hired talk in one breath about their great health care plan and in the next deny the need for a union. I am angry.

*I have no idea what OB is talking about here, but I’m tired of feeling like I’m fighting an uphill battle and never know what’s coming next. I appreciate that she’s posted on it, but don’t understand this tendency to make an argument and then suddenly accept these strange claims.

**Fully conscious, deliberate sexism isn’t necessarily a part of this, though there’s much of that. Nor does it have to be a conspiracy. This is a stupid strawman.

***Note that on this thread Richard Dawkins said his organization was setting up a speakers’ bureau. In 2008.

It's 2011, and evidence for "god" is still not possible.

I was reluctant to return to this topic, but a recent post of PZ’s has raised it again, and some people have made comments that seem to express a sincere wish to engage with the position I’m advocating.*

Anri remarks:

And herein we have the problem of evidence for god again.

I'd like to ask, as an open question, anyone who is of the opinion that evidence for god is impossible:

If there is no state of the universe that could provide evidence for god, than how is the state of the universe relevant to the existence of god?

In other words, saying 'There is no state of the universe that could demonstrate god,' while also saying 'The observed universe does not demonstrate god, therefore do not believe' is incoherent. If the answer to Question A has no possible bearing on Postulate X, than answering Question A gives you no hint as to the truth of Postulate X, yes?

The argument that the state of the universe is a good reason not to believe in god must tacitly recognize that different states of the universe might provide more or less evidence for this concept.

Please let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree here, and if so, howso?

I’m going to assume that Anri was referring to our arguments rather than other, different ones. If that assumption is correct, yes, (s)he’s barking up the wrong tree. The argument we’re making is prior to any consideration of evidence, and renders adducing evidence impossible.

A claimed entity has to be something. If someone is claiming that some concept X exists, there must be a concept X. Without an X, it makes no sense to talk about what would constitute evidence for the existence of X, or in fact to consider its possible existence at all. References to “god” or “this concept” assume an X, but no one has been able to produce the concept in any form for which evidence could conceivably be adduced.

So, again, the problem is prior to any evidence. The state of the universe doesn’t and can’t demonstrate anything with regard to gods, since no god-concept has been brought forth for which any empirical findings demonstrate anything. Of course, nothing that isn’t defined qualifies for belief. Existence and belief are simply meaningless with regard to these vague notions. (It’s difficult in English even to describe them: “vague” or “undefined entities” presumes an underlying concept, which doesn’t exist here.)

The problems multiply when people refer to alleged qualities or aspects of these nonconcepts (anticoncepts?). IanM suggests, in response to “A coherent, falsifiable definition would be a good start, as well,”

I find that an unreasonable condition. They are arguing for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent God and yet the attributes with which they describe God leaves God immeasurable and undefined.

But here’s the same problem. “[A]n omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent X” assumes an X, which hasn’t been defined. Nor can attributes constitute a definition. We understand what “knowing,” for example, means in terms of physical entities and processes. And “knowledge” and “love” can be abstracted from these. But what does “knowing” mean divorced entirely from them? Nothing. Again, English makes it difficult to express the meaninglessness of these ideas, since even the most “immaterial” terms we have – “free-floating” and so on - still presuppose a basis in real things and processes. (Not to mention that “They don’t define it so requiring a definition is unreasonable” does not an argument make.)

Until such time as a god-concept can be defined, it’s a nonsense syllable.

(This is an important topic, and I wish to do my best to be understood in the discussion, so I hope this helps, but I’m not going to publish any unduly hostile comments.)

* The criticism of PZ along the lines of “Well, PZ would exclude himself based on that chart given that he doesn’t admit any evidence for God” is rather silly. First, the chart is about Christians, but PZ refers in his post title to creationists, who are making incorrect claims about defined and evidenced facts and theories. Second, the underlying problem with god arguments comes, as I discuss again here, prior to evidence. Since any debate concerning the existence of any god-concepts requires these to be defined, and they haven’t been, they can’t possibly be debate topics in the first place. As mikerattlesnake points out, “I would add a rule (#1) that all terms in the topic of debate are clearly defined before even considering a debate.”

Link Gnus

Just recently I thanked Ophelia Benson and Jerry Coyne for linking to my post, and now Richard Dawkins has, too. (I guess he still thinks I’m male, but I’ll live with it.) I appreciate and am enjoying the comments and suggestions – may have to write up a Part II of the Guide.

And now PZ has linked to my remarks about the possibility of evidence for a god (and also to this excellent essay). I think our position continues to be misunderstood and misrepresented. If I keep asking “Evidence for what?” perhaps it will help….

Extraordinary is one word for it.

Last week I posted on a gnus-vs.-accomodationists thread at Pharyngula. PZ, building on the “it’s about truth” theme of his conference talk, had said:

I am unconvinced by these feeble appeasement tactics that don't really advance the ideas, but do leave people unperturbed from their comfortable positions of ignorance. But here's something else to consider, if the marshmallows of accommodationism are still committed to convincing me otherwise. Even if Rosenhouse's argument wasn't valid, if there were a thousand concrete empirical studies demonstrating that my approach was turning people into fundagelical Christians faster than a tent revival, it wouldn't matter. I'd still be me. I'd still express myself as I do, as I want, because that is all I ever do here — I have never considered myself to be competing in a popularity contest.

Seeing people (understandably) express incomprehension at what might appear to be intransigence in the face of evidence, I thought Václav Havel’s work on “living within the truth” was apt (I also had him on my mind since I had just read Largo Desolato). I posted two links with excerpts from his writings. There is much contained even in these short passages from the days of the Cold War: Havel is presenting – in response to those who see politics in terms of organized movements and parties and governments – seemingly simple, personal, local acts of living within the truth as the genuine form of political action and necessary basis for any movements for change. He’s also suggesting that these acts, which are inherently defiant even when not thought of as such, have a political power in terms of changing conscience and consciousness that is largely unrecognized. Their power lies in the fact that these actions respond to a drive for honesty, a refusal to participate in a lie.

I saw these arguments as completely relevant to and supporting of the gnu atheist position: Living without beliefs that have no basis in reality and without deferring to those beliefs or the people who hold them – without practicing ritualized deference or remaining silent in the face of nonsense – is living within the truth. It’s a stand of conscience and life rather than a narrow political tactic.

After posting this, I started to wonder about Havel’s religious beliefs, about which I don’t think I had ever read anything. My googling, unfortunately, quickly turned up this bit of blather from the constitutionally confused professional troll Andrew Brown. It begins “Václav Havel made a perfectly extraordinary speech yesterday...,” and that is certainly accurate. It’s about Havel’s opening remarks at this year’s Forum 2000, which are remarkable.

Since the speech lends itself, and since it’s become a habit, I’m going to respond to Havel’s remarks as I would a blog post:

While I am aware of the countless more serious problems with human settlements on this planet – from the slums on the fringes of Asian or Latin American megalopolises to cities devastated by earthquakes or floods – with your permission I will start in a somewhat personal vein.

I’ll just start by pointing out what he’s brushing aside in this first sentence, in the form of a link:

Years ago when I used to drive by car from Prague to our country cottage in Eastern Bohemia, the journey from the city centre to the signboard that marked the city limits took about fifteen minutes. Then came meadows, forests, fields and villages. These days the selfsame journey takes a good forty minutes or more, and it is impossible to know whether I have left the city or not. What was until recently clearly recognisable as the city is now losing its boundaries and with them its identity. It has become a huge overgrown ring of something I can’t find a word for. It is not a city as I understand the term, nor suburbs, let alone a village. Apart from anything else it lacks streets or squares. There is just a random scattering of enormous single-storey warehouses, supermarkets, hypermarkets, car and furniture marts, petrol stations, eateries, gigantic car parks, isolated high-rise blocks to be let as offices, depots of every kind, and collections of family homes that are admittedly close together but are otherwise desperately remote.

...In other words all the time our cities are being permitted without control to destroy the surrounding landscape with its nature, traditional pathways, avenues of trees, villages, mills and meandering streams, and build in their place some sort of gigantic agglomeration that renders life nondescript, disrupts the network of natural human communities, and under the banner of international uniformity it attacks all individuality, identity or heterogeneity. And on the occasions it tries to imitate something local or original, it looks altogether suspect, because it is obviously a purpose-built fake.

Congratulations. You’ve discovered urban sprawl.

There is emerging a new type of a previously described existential phenomenon: unbounded consumer collectivity engenders a new type of solitude.

There is nothing new about what Havel’s describing here. Note, though, that the cause is being introduced as the “unbounded consumer collectivity,” an abstract entity disconnected from any social, political, or economic referents.

Where has all this woeful development come from and why does it go on getting worse? How is at all possible that humans can treat in such a senseless fashion not only the landscape that surrounds them but the very planet which they have been given to inhabit? We know that we are behaving in a suicidal manner and yet we go on doing it. How is it possible?

Capitalism and unequal political power. Violence. You may want to ask some of the “business leaders” participating in your conference, or maybe some of your corporate sponsors – Coca-Cola, Imperial Tobacco,... – whose names keep flashing on the side of the screen as I read your remarks. Where in the city are the conference-goers staying, I wonder? (There are several people in the list of participants whom I admire, but I don’t admire their participation.)

We are living in the first truly global civilisation. That means that whatever comes into existence on its soil can very quickly and easily span the whole world.

But we are also living in the first atheistic civilisation, in other words, a civilisation that has lost its connection with the infinite and eternity. For that reason it prefers short-term profit to long-term profit. What is important is whether an investment will provide a return in ten or fifteen years; how it will affect the lives of our descendants in a hundred years is less important.

Yes, he really said this. That disembodied consumerism is...atheism. Forget that this isn’t what atheism means and join the chorus of misrepresenters. Atheism, “in other words,” is capitalism. (I always wonder what these arguments would look like if “Jewish” were substituted for “atheistic”...) What the part about infinity and eternity is about, and what it has to do with cities, I don’t know. Sounds quite like the standard “Science lacks a sense of wonder or appreciation of the cosmic” claptrap.

However, the most dangerous aspect of this global atheistic civilisation is its pride.

Of course it is! Where would atheist-and-science-bashing be without the overweaning-pride trope?

The pride of someone who is driven by the very logic of his wealth to stop respecting the contribution of nature and our forebears, to stop respecting it on principle and respect it only as a further potential source of profit.

And indeed, why should a developer go to the trouble of building a warehouse with several storeys when he can have as much land as he wants and can therefore build as many single-storey warehouses as he likes? Why should he worry about whether his building suits the locality in which it is built, so long as it be reached by the shortest route and it is possible to build a gigantic car park alongside it? What is to him that between his site and his neighbour’s there is a wasteland? And what is to him, after all, that from an aeroplane the city more and more resembles a tumour metastasizing in all directions and that he is contributing to it? Why should he get worked up over a few dozen hectares that he carves out of the soil that many still regard as the natural framework of their homeland?

Remember: this isn’t about capitalism, but about atheism and science.

I sense behind all of this not only a globally spreading short-sightedness, but also the swollen self-consciousness of this civilisation, whose basic attributes include the supercilious idea that we know everything and what we don’t yet know we’ll soon find out, because we know how to go about it.

Not capitalism or governments at all. Nope. Don’t bother to look into it. It’s The Atheistic Technological Society pure and simple (no slight meant to Jacques Ellul’s book, which I quite liked).

We are convinced that this supposed omniscience of ours which proclaims the staggering progress of science and technology and rational knowledge in general, permits us to serve anything that is demonstrably useful, or that is simply a source of measurable profit, anything that induces growth and more growth and still more growth, including the growth of agglomerations.

Who is convinced of this? Atheists?

But with the cult of measurable profit, proven progress and visible usefulness

In other words, atheism, of course.

there disappears respect for mystery and along with it humble reverence for everything we shall never measure and know,

Naturally it follows: The problem of cities (aesthetic issues are very important; yeah, slums, too, but he’ll get to those some other time) is due to atheistic, scientific arrogance, so the solution is the return to naive, humble reverence for mystery.

not to mention the vexed question of the infinite and eternal, which were until recently the most important horizons of our actions.

This has no meaning.

We have totally forgotten what all previous civilisations knew: that nothing is self-evident.

Who has?

I believe that the recent financial and economic crisis was of great importance and in its ultimate essence it was actually a very edifying signal to the contemporary world.

Yup, the financial crisis, too – ATHEISM.

Most economists relied directly or indirectly on the idea that the world, including human conduct, is more or less understandable, scientifically describable and hence predictable. Market economics and its entire legal framework counted on our knowing who man is and what aims he pursues, what was the logic behind the actions of banks or firms, what the shareholding public does and what one may expect from some particular individual or community.

And all of a sudden none of that applied. Irrationality leered at us from all the stock-exchange screens. And even the most fundamentalist economists, who – having intimate access to the truth - were convinced with unshakeable assurance that the invisible hand of the market knew what it was doing, had suddenly to admit that they had been taken by surprise.

In fact, science told us that it would happen; it was entirely predictable to (and foreseen by) those using empirical knowledge and reason and not blinded by market fundamentalism.

I hope and trust that the elites of today’s world will realise what this signal is telling us.

To fear atheism? (Again, pay no attention to capitalism. This is all about atheism and science and how prideful they are.)

I regard the recent crisis as a very small and very inconspicuous call to humility.

Of course you do.

A small and inconspicuous challenge for us not to take everything automatically for granted. Strange things are happening and will happen. Not to bring oneself to admit it is the path to hell. Strangeness, unnaturalness, mystery, inconceivability have been shifted out the world of serious thought into the dubious closets of suspicious people. Until they are released and allowed to return to our minds things will not go well.

Yes, this is precisely what we need more of.

The modern pride that I refer to did not manifest itself in architecture only recently. In the inter-war period many otherwise brilliant avant-garde architects already shared the opinion that confident and rational reflection was the key to a new approach to human settlement. And so they started planning various happy cities with separate zones for housing, sport, entertainment, commerce or hospitality, all linked by a logical infrastructure. Those architects had succumbed to the aberrant notion that an enlightened brain is capable of devising the ideal city. Nothing of the sort was created, however. Bold urbanist projects proved to be one thing, while life turned out to be something else. Life often demands something quite different from what the architects offer, such as an urban district consisting of the strangest hotchpotch of different functions, where the children’s playground is next to the government building, the government building next to a pub, and the pub next to an apartment house, which in turn is next to a small park.

Urban planning/”development” has very often been undemocratic and imposed with no attention to real human needs or nature and no respect for the rights of people in cities. The solution is to make it democratic, rights-based, and responsive to needs. This can’t be done on the basis of reverent awe, and it requires real struggles.

Wonder and an awareness that things are not self-evident are, I believe, the only way out of the dangerous world of a civilisation of pride.

No, democracy and the sorts of struggles you used to talk about a few decades ago, which take different forms in a different context, are the only way out of a destructive world of corporate and technocratic power. These have to be founded on reason and empirical knowledge – it’s impossible otherwise.

Can anything be absolutely self-evident?

No.

Wonder at the non-self-evidence of everything that creates our world is, after all, the first impulse to the question: what purpose does it all have? Why does it all exist? Why does anything exist at all? We don’t know and we will never find it out.

These might not be questions of any value in any case. But shouldn’t you be telling this to the religious? Also, “wonder at the non-self-evidence of everything that creates our world” (a strange phrase) is also the impulse to investigating it (humbly, cooperatively, skeptically – scientifically) and discovering amazing and awesome things.

It is quite possible that everything is here in order for us to have something to wonder at.

It is?

And that we are here simply so that there is someone to wonder.

Seriously?

But what is the point of having someone wonder at something?

I don’t know. You posed the inane idea.

And what alternative is there to being?

Not being.

After all if there were nothing, there would also be no one to observe it. And if there were no one to observe it, then the big question is whether non-being would be at all possible.

The big question for whom?

A disappointing read, to put it mildly, and far removed from his earlier writings.

...I wanna puke

I watched the livestream of the Free Inquiry conference in LA this afternoon. I thought PZ’s (theme: "But is it true?") talk was great, but the pinheaded accomodationists got to me. I’ll use this comment as a launching pad:

Mooney’s argument seems to be, if you agree with Francis Collins on 99% of things, then the last 1% is totally off limits. Don’t bring it up, or you’re hurting the cause.

While we're on the subject, I have no idea what "moderate" is supposed to mean outside of a very specific context. Ken Miller is wrong about science history and how science works, he appears to have some repellent political ideas ("welfare queens"?), and his thinking about theistic evolution is erroneous. And he's a Catholic, and not a liberation theologist, so I can only assume he holds or supports many other disgusting notions (of course, he tacitly supports them by not openly refuting them and by being a member of an organization that’s about them). I agree with nowhere near 99% of what he thinks, and I'm sure this is true of Collins – an Evangelical - as well. It's also true of many "skeptics." Who is anyone to tell me which of these disagreements are important to me? Messed up, unevidenced thinking is what I'm going to fight.

…When writing the above, I almost said "especially that unevidenced thinking that has horrible effects," but that would be naïve. It ALL does. We simply cannot say, even if some religious beliefs are patently toxic, that others are benign. None are benign, because they are all premised on the acceptance of the idea that beliefs can be based on something other than evidence. If you accept that in one case, you accept it in all of them, because you’ve conceded that absurd epistemic foundation. Game over.

And which cause are the accomodationists talking about?, one might reasonably ask. Or, whose cause? I’m an anarchist, and anarchism historically has included atheism, freethought, feminism, skepticism, and science. There are parts of the movement that have gone in other directions, but my historically-based version incorporates these. Anarchism, and social justice more generally, needs and includes science (see Kropotkin, Chomsky, Sokal,…). Don’t pontificate to me about what my priorities are. And don't try to don the mantle of compassion and tolerance when your approach is mendacious and belittling.

Oh, and, by the way, I have yet to see an accomodationist who has the slightest knowledge of the history of social movements or social change. Victor Stenger alluded to the evidence from social revolutions. Outstanding. They are messy. Study them. Until you do, don’t pretend to an expertise you don’t have.

Wishing the speediest of recoveries to my phavorite blogger

That is all.

STRIKE!

Scienceblogs continues to implode. By my count, 19 bloggers have left. (Carl Zimmer has regularly updated information here, and you can follow the events on Twitter - #SbFail.) Pharyngula is on strike and may be packing up and moving on, and Orac and others are contemplating leaving as well.

One aspect of these situations that often gets lost is the emotional hardship. It's difficult to lose income and to leave a stable situation (even when it's become intolerable). But beyond that, it seems a bit like they're having to pull up stakes and relocate their town. Even if it can be rebuilt in a new, hopefully better, location, leaving behind a familiar home and history is stressful.

Best wishes to all, and I hope the community can remain intact and even grow to include some new voices (a few radicals would be great) from around the world.

You people wouldn't know scientific literacy if it...

Ay. So the recent flap concerns the NSF’s decision to remove questions on evolution and the Big Bang from its scientific literacy report. PZ has a good post about it, while some others at Scienceblogs, well, don’t.

What framing “experts” clearly fail, or in some cases refuse, to grasp is that we need to define scientific literacy in a meaningful and useful way, and if there exists more than one way of understanding scientific literacy, to focus on the one that is actually important. The concept of scientific literacy advocated by the NSF (in this decision) and some assorted dillweeds seems to be “knowledge of a collection of facts accumulated through scientific research” or “reverence for science.” But the important form of scientific literacy is understanding science as an epistemic system. Scientific knowledge is formed through the analysis of empirical evidence, and specific collective practices have been developed that have made the methods of science the means of acquiring knowledge about the natural world and given its findings a particular epistemic status. Awareness of specific facts in various disciplines is not unimportant, but anyone reasonably intelligent can memorize statements and even processes and any fool can “respect” scientific and technological achievements.

Is it important to contemporary society that a child can parrot facts about biology or cosmology if that child doesn’t understand why his or her superstitious beliefs don’t have the same status as established scientific theories, that the religious “way of knowing” about the world is no such thing, and that knowledge based on decades or centuries of research can’t be dismissed on the basis of ancient texts or the words of religious authorities, political hacks, or corporations? This is a central goal of the NSF? This is extremely dangerous to democracy.

I realize that this can be read as suggesting that even someone with a science degree can be called a scientific illiterate. That is in fact what I’m arguing. The value in scientific literacy is in understanding science epistemically and appreciating the roots of its power. Otherwise, children might as well be memorizing Bible verses or advertising jingles.

50 Smart Atheists, Chomsky and Nonbelief in the Incoherent, and the US as Mafia Don

Someone recently linked to this list over at Pharyngula: “The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time.” For some reason, I can’t get the page to display at the moment, but PZ made it, right on top of Jodie Foster (to his apparent delight). Not enough women and not enough anarchists. No Emma Goldman? No Voltairine de Cleyre? No Peter Kropotkin? To that I say Harumph. But Chomsky made the list, and I liked the quotation from him. I think I’ve found the longer version:

Do I believe in God? Can't answer, I'm afraid. I'm not being flippant, but I don't understand the question. What is it that I am supposed to believe or not believe in? Are you asking whether I believe there is something not in the universe (or the universes, if there are (maybe infinitely) many of them), and that somehow stands above them? I've never heard of any reason for believing that. Something else? What. There are many concepts of spirituality, among them, various notions of divinity developed in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions. Within these the concepts vary greatly. St. Augustine and others, for example, argued that one should not take seriously the Biblical account of God as an exaggerated human, and other Biblical accounts, because they were crafted so as to make the intended message intelligible to humans -- and on such grounds, he argued, organized religion ought to accept persuasive conclusions of science, a conception that Galileo appealed to (in vain) when he faced Papal censure.

Anyway, without clarification of a kind I have never seen, I don't know whether I believe or don't believe in whatever a questioner has in mind.

Exactly. This has long been a source of annoyance to me. I’m bothered by these “God is beyond science” and “God is an untestable hypothesis” claims. No. If you can’t describe clearly the nature of something, it isn’t beyond science. It’s beneath it. It isn’t a hypothesis. It’s incoherent rubbish. The clarification Chomsky notes as lacking concerning “God” is the responsibility of the person speaking or asking about belief. If it can’t be provided, the question isn’t worth answering (and indeed cannot be answered due to its unintelligibility).

Since I’m talking about Chomsky, I’ll put up the recent video here that I linked to at Pharyngula a while back, in which he situates the current situation in Honduras within the longer history of US policy in the Americas, characterizing the US as a mafia don:



I’ll have more to say about Honduras when I’m up to it. Lobo sworn in, more people killed, more repression, World Bank funds,... It’s depressing. But it’s far from over.

Indefensible

I’m writing a longer post about argumentation, but I’m going to leave this one first.
The following (not entirely consistent) insinuations and allegations have been made by Greg Laden in recent days:

Much of your commentary together with this statement could lead some people to assume that you have some serious antisemitic issues to deal with. I'm not saying that, but I just want you to know that it could look this way. (I don't happen to think it is the case.)

This is not about appeasement. It is about not being a racist slob.

I honestly believe that SC's commentary and other commentary on other blogs (on SB and NN) looked dangerously like antisemitism, telling the loud jew to shut up, a bit of victim blaming.

I also honestly believed that this was nothing like the intent of those who were making the comments.

Greg has been asked numerous times, in a variety of manners and tones, by a number of people to point to the specific “commentary” he’s talking about and how it can reasonably be seen this way in context, and to explain his bizarre reading of the one sentence he did single out. (Of course some people could read my comments any way at all, but they could be deluded, willfully misinterpreting, or stupid; only reasonable interpretations are material here.) He has explicitly declined to do so, as has his sidekick.

So far, the people who have preferred to quietly abide or defend these accusations, often disingenuously and callously suggesting that they’re irrelevant to some broader point he was supposedly making or of no particular significance, have also failed to cite anything specific or attempt to make any substantive case on his behalf. If anyone wants to do so, this thread is open to your comments. If you cannot produce anything in support of these insinuations/allegations but continue to ignore them and defend Greg’s “argument,” then be aware that you’re condoning Greg’s making the worst sort of charge about another person* – and one whom he called a friend – casually and baselessly, and refusing to retract it and apologize when he couldn’t defend it. You should think about how you would feel in my place.

*And let's be very clear here: the insinuation is obvious to anyone reading honestly. But even assuming he was "merely" talking about how my comments could be read by objective others, no evidence has been presented in support of that, either.