I thought it died 10yrs ago, after Sam Harris rejected the term and refused to self apply it, but here's the post mortem.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449931/new-atheists-american-left-wing-schism-islam-organized-religion

My question remains, what the hell is the difference betseen "New Atheism" and plain old atheism?
And what was wrong with old atheism?
Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jung Un, Castro, the unfortunate stench of genocide lingers on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2017 10:32PM by koriwhore.

Anything else is just made up stuff -- like religion

"New Atheism" is a bullshit term.

The only thing that's dead is you, along eith everyone else. When you die, that's it. Turn out the lights, the party's over.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gmQuIpM4h6A#



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2017 09:42AM by steve benson.

This seems to be the essence of the argument:

"Battering a fundamentalist straw-man with an equally fundamentalist materialism, New Atheism is one big category error. Over and over, its progenitors demand material proof for the existence of God, as if He were just another type of thing — a teacup, or perhaps an especially powerful computer."


Yes, the new atheists lose because they demand material proof of God. The Bastards.

And, in the end, that's why the new atheists were so hated by Christians - because they asked the simplest of all questions.

Even though New Atheism is officially dead, it's going to be tough for Christians to let go of the term. After all, anything but answer the simple, but maddening, question.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2017 12:28AM by thingsithink.

So there. Materialize that.

Your confusing new atheism with the god partical.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2017 03:16AM by Cpete.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My question remains, what the hell is the
> difference betseen "New Atheism" and plain old
> atheism?

Nothing, unless you're a writer/publicist looking to come up with some story.

> And what was wrong with old atheism?
> Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Kim Jung Un, Castro, the
> unfortunate stench of genocide lingers on.

Since none of those "genocides" had anything to do with atheism, that's a straw-man. Humans have plenty of genocides to remember and not repeat, and nearly all of them are the result of ego-driven asshats trying to consolidate political power.

"New Atheism" was never a "thing." It was a label made up by journalists -- mostly non-atheist ones -- for something they found threatening.

"New Atheism" was never a "thing." It was a label made up by journalists -- mostly non-atheist ones -- for something they found threatening.

COMMENT: While I agree that it is a misleading term, and that it was coined by journalists, whether religious or not, I am not sure that journalists made up the term because they felt threatened. I believe that "New Atheism" was intended to describe a brand of atheism that was more "in your face" in approach. This is certainly the tone of Harris, Dennett, Hitchens, and Dawkins, all of whom wrote books specifically to endorse atheism while denigrating religion. I don't think it is illegitimate to coin a term to separate out a subgroup that has a unique agenda or attitude; and certainly does not imply that such attitude or group is threatening.

I assume that the OP's question is whether we are still seeing this brand of atheistic activism in mainstream culture. From my perspective Dawkins in particular has been discredited, and the atheistic rhetoric has in general toned down. It also seems to me that this is at least in part a backlash from those liberals who wanted to embrace cultural diversity, particularly one that welcomes Islam.

I didn't even know about New Atheism. What about Cherry Atheism or Atheism Zero? As long as we're going all Madison Avenue on the theme, why not? I guess I'll stick with Classic.

Atheism never comes up in my life except talking about it here on RFM. Nobody I know is particularly interested. However, New is an odd adjective since atheism is a natural state up until someone tells you about their God that you better believe in if you know what's good for you and/or want to be part of the "in crowd."

Atheism. It' the "real" thing.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As long as we're
> going all Madison Avenue on the theme, why not? I
> guess I'll stick with Classic.
>
> Atheism. It' the "real" thing.

I've got a couple of cases of "New Coke" in the basement, if anybody's interested.

Are you a New Atheist or old Atheist?

I'd would respond with a blank store. I don't believe in any religion but I don't KNOW for a fact either.

I'm in the " I could give a shit about the afterlife".

Phazer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you a New Atheist or old Atheist?

I'm a middle-aged atheist. :)

BTW, "atheist" isn't capitalized.
Unless you're making up a term like "New Atheism."

I always have trouble with discussions in which people treat religions and atheistic ideologies as distinctly different phenomena.

Any real definition of religion has to be broad enough to encapsulate Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, animism, etc. Those are all systems of thought that purport to explain the origins and future of life, imply a moral code, etc. That these systems of thought do not have an animate or personal "God"--or in some cases even a concept of God--doesn't render them areligious. So unless we are going to restrict "religion" to the western tradition, we have to define that term as something like "a school of logical, existential, and moral thought based largely on faith."

But once one gets to there, it immediately becomes apparent that political ideologies also qualify as religions. Marxism, for instance, tells us is a faith-based explanation of history requiring certain forms of behavior and promising a future of bliss. Sometimes communists add cults of personality, with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao and others serving as saints with a unique grasp of ultimate truth; and more immediate leaders like Stalin, Mao, and the three Kims the objects of veneration approaching worship in its intensity. The same is of course true of national socialism on the right, with Mussolini and Hitler cultivating cults of personality and demanding fanatical zeal of their followers.

So if we go with a term like "religion" broadly defined or substitute something like "faith-based ideology," radical political philosophies and religions look very much alike. Their similar use of emotional appeals to get people to commit horrible acts both individually (Laban's head) and collectively (the genocide against the Canaanites or the Crusades) also appear fraternal.

The problem with religion is the appeal to emotion over reason and conscience, and God or a belief in God is not essential to that dynamic.

If everything is a religion, then the word is meaningless...

So while "radical political philosophies" (who decides if they're 'radical' or not?) may indeed involve "faith," and may have some similarities to some religions...they're not religions. They're political philosophies. Even if they're followed with "religious" zeal.

Religion has a definition. You even mostly stated it ('...purport to explain the origins and future of life...'). That's what makes religions different from political philosophies, radical or not.

:)

What is your definition of religion, Hie?

Marxism tells us where life came from and where it is going, both individually and collectively. It presents a struggle between right and wrong, a moral code, and an historical direction. It also promises a paradise to come that must be accepted on faith. Does not that meet my standard, the one you described as "mostly" sufficient?

If you look at some dictionaries' attempts to define religion, you'll see what I mean. They posit both a theistic/supernatural faith and a broader definition meaning a system of thought that relies on faith.

Why do the dictionaries get there? Because the latter is the only way you can encompass all the "religions" of the world. Webster, for instance, offers "4) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." That is the only way you can capture Taoism and Confucianism. You will conversely also find analysts who describe Confucianism as a political philosophy.

The problem is that in the real world phenomena don't fit into precise formulae. They often belong simultaneously to different categories. The fact that you and I were reared in a theistic culture does not mean that what we impulsively believe is "religion" is right. Functionally and sociologically, there is little difference between ideologies of mass mobilization (better than "radical?") and religion.

Recognizing that fact allows a substantially better understanding of both politics and religious faith.

I'm pretty sure that there is a difference between nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. Being religious about a cause does not make the cause a religion. And associating some things to a cause that might also be associated with a religion does not make them cousins.

I'm not even sure you could argue chicken and egg here because Marxism was never a political movement. It was an economic and social theory that was used to justify a movement.

Regardless, disassociating religion with the supernatural is not a tenable argument. It broadens the field so much that it removes the very thing that make religion different. It is like saying that trees and ants are the same because they are both alive.

So Taoism, Confucianism, and Shintoism are not religions?

The Tao is an unknowable path which is the underlying order under which everything operates. Since one of the most fundamental qualities of the Tao is that it cannot be known it is a religion.

Confucianism is religion since it is the pursuit of the convergence of the self (soul) with heaven.

Shintoism is a religion for lots of reasons, one of which is simply because the word Shinto translates to "the way of the gods"

You associate these as something different because they are about a human saving themselves, ignoring the fact that they still require a human salvation.

Regardless, however humanistic many eastern religions are, they still incorporate at the core, concepts which are supernatural. It is simply not honest ignore the supernatural concepts in religion for the purpose of making something like Keynesian economics a religion.

Jacob, you are throwing terms around without understanding them.

Taoism: You say that since Taoism posits an underlying order that humans can't understand, it is a religion. If that is the case, my believing that there are physical and other systems informing the universe that I do not understand makes me religious. Indeed, it would make all the famous atheistic thinkers religious.

Historically, the reason Taoism (Daoism) collapsed as a religion was precisely because it did not address the supernatural (which you earlier described as a definitional prerequisite for religion) and hence lost followers to Buddhism when it entered China. In short, people wanted to believe in a higher power, a soul, salvation, and future happiness, and Taoism offered none of that. What followed its displacement by Buddhism was the mystical reinterpretation of Daoism as Daojiao, which never took root except as magical practices that persisted for centuries as a marginal phenomenon. Daojiao and Buddhism were arguably supernatural systems of thought, but Taoism never was.

Confucianism: Confucianism is in no way the convergence of the self with Heaven. Heaven in Confucianism is a concept like the atheistic Einstein's God, or Jefferson's providence, or Kant's historical gheist, or Hegel's thesis/antithesis. It is a statement of how things function materialistically and how society should be. Moreover, the convergence is to be the organization of the state and society with the proper model. There is in Confucianism (as in Taoism) no concept of a soul, no concept of an afterlife, no notion of salvation. There is no supernatural power.

Shintoism: The way of the gods, yes. But what are the gods? They are trees and rocks and waterfalls, natural phenomena. There is in Shinto no human soul, no afterlife, no supernatural power. It is like Taoism a philosophy encouraging people to make peace with their situation, in practice a form of meditation.

That is why the people who first studied Asian religions had to redefine the word "religion." In several of these schools of thought there is no "God," no "supernatural power," no human "soul," no "afterlife." The only definitions of religion that include all of the major world faiths focus not on dogma but on practice and functionality. Your attempt to shoehorn Taoism, Confucianism, and Shintoism into a western concept of religion shows why the broader definition is the only anthropologically reasonable one.

I was going to respond point by point but I decided against it. I've heard time and time again this idea that certain supernatural ideas are different than others thus negating any criticism. I reject that which puts me at odds with you.

I respect that you have a different opinion.

And I respect your views. Thanks for the conversation.

My point, Jacob, is that people who study world religions--not just Western religions--realize that the notions of God and the supernatural are peculiar to certain traditions. By insisting on those as elements of religion, you basically state that half of humanity (at certain points in history well more than half of humanity) had no religion at all.

That is a curious finding, since those people had "scriptures," seminaries, meditation and other practices, etc. They had religions without God, without the supernatural. What do you call those interpretations-of-reality-with-practices if not religions?

What this means is that ultimately anyone who wants to avoid ethnocentric myopia ends up defining the word broadly. Your comment about the difference between adjectives, nouns and adverbs is irrelevant. When Websters and the other dictionaries define "religion," they are explicitly defining a noun. There are different meanings to that noun, including a narrow Western one like you and Hie are insisting on using; and broader ones that include non-Western religions. The reason the dictionaries do that is because sometimes discussion of religion includes world religions and not just parochial ones.

If you want to say that "religion" must include beliefs about the supernatural, you are asserting that only the faith of your community and similar ones count. That is an arbitrary standard; it discounts the experience and practice of vast swathes of humanity.

Please show me a religion that doesn't have a supernatural element at the core.

How about a guy who practices his trombone every day and find it calms his mind and gives him a feeling of serenity?

A religious practice? A religious guy?

What I am trying to explain is that narrow definitions are artificial. If you define religion in a non-parochial way, in a way that includes most of the major world religions, the strict dogmatic lines break down.

Is that inelegant? Yes, absolutely. But many human and sociological phenomena are inelegant; they don't fit into pristine definitions and categories. It is precisely where the distinctions break down that we can learn more about humans and about how we function individually and in groups.

The first example of this is sociological. It is a fact, and there are lots of academic studies about this, that when you define religion broadly enough to eliminate the western bias, you get a category that includes mass movements. I believe this is hugely important, hugely helpful. Why? Because it tells us that when you see a crowd riot or a totalitarian state with a personality cult, you need to think of it not just as a political phenomenon but also as sharing a lot of faith-based and irrational characteristics. The demonization of Jews in Nazi Germany, the scapegoating of "the other" to reduce criticism of a government or to reinforce a sense of community, the whipping up of xenophobic sentiment to fight a war: these are somewhat easier to understand as a mixture of politics and religious emotion than as strictly political developments. Are there differences between political movements and religions? Yes, a lot. But there are also important similarities--and seeing those is helpful.

The second example is the one to which you point: meditation. Several major world religions focus on practice a lot more than on dogma. Taoism is one; some of the Indian traditions are another. Recall the Buddhist teaching: if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him lest you focus on him and doctrine rather than your own improvement. Doctrine is never as important as practice, as meditation. Indeed, some sects of Indian religions abandoned doctrine altogether, asserting that one should get lost in the practice and not think about the relevance of meditation at all.

This is a psychological observation as opposed to the foregoing sociological/political one. So yes, there are religions that emphasize meditation almost to the exclusion of doctrine. And we know medically that meditation has significant emotional and health benefits. So the question you raise, whether a person who uses music to achieve inner peace is practicing religion, is a lot more relevant than it may seem. In Buddhist monasteries (even some Christian ones) the act of scrubbing a floor is viewed as promoting meditation and harmony. In Bali, the city of Ubud, the traditional religion teaches that crafting art is meditation and hence religion. So yes, craftsman are engaging in religion when they carve statuary.

I would step back and say that no matter what you believe about religion per se, practicing music would in some places and times count as religious activity and hence religion. From our perspective, an important point is that any repetitive discipline can function as meditation and hence deliver some of the emotional and health benefits that we traditionally associate with religion.

Is your trombonist acting religiously? In some ways, no; but in some perhaps surprising ways, yes he is.

Well, religion is getting to cover most everything. I know stamp collectors who find the same serenity that students of the trombone experience.

So, maybe the challenge is for someone to come up for a new word that encompasses groups like mormons and catholics but excludes Charlie Parker.

wrong place - edit



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2017 06:19PM by thingsithink.

Yes, that is where we are headed.

The problem arises from two sources. First, humans and their behavior are messy. It is really hard to come up with logical definitions that are not problematic on the edges. Second, whenever you develop an intellectual scheme based on one culture or one tradition, the odds are very high that that model won't work in other contexts. Both are relevant to our discussion of religion.

But the point you make is precisely where the interesting work is being done. Although uncomfortable in many ways, it is in thinking about the marginal cases that we get the new insights about the human condition. In my opinion there are no clear divisions between philosophy, western religion, world religion, political movements, sociology, personal mindfulness techniques, and psychology. These are more like overlapping ranges on a spectrum of human experience.

And I, for one, would be highly tempted to include Charlie Parker in my idiosyncratic definition of religion. In that sense I am a fan of Balinese Hinduism!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What is your definition of religion, Hie?

I use the definition (in our language) that is the "consensus:"

"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

That fits all of the "religions" you mentioned, and none of the political ideologies you mentioned.

BTW, since when does Marxism "tell(s) us where life came from and where it is going, both individually and collectively..."?

Marxism says nothing about "where life came from." Nor about where it's going. Nor anything about a "paradise to come." It *does* make some observations and claims about *humans* and their social/economic systems, and makes claims about what the "best" kind of social/economic systems are -- but that's not the above.

Hie, the reason dictionaries offer multiple definitions is because different definitions are appropriate in different settings. In this case you need a different definition for world religions than you do for western religions.

Your idea of the "consensus" definition of religion is problematic. It is the consensus in the United States and perhaps Europe. It is assuredly not the consensus in India, whose population is greater than that of the entire Western World. Nor is it the definition in China or much of the rest of the world.

You then state that your definition of religion--"the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"--encompasses the religions I mentioned. It in fact does not. There is no supernatural controlling power in Confucianism. There is no supernatural controlling power in Taoism, other than an incomprehensible order that could equate to the lack of a Grand Unifying Theory tying quantum mechanics to "normal" physics. The fundamental doctrine in Taoism is that humans cannot understand reality. That is it. That is the Tao Te Ching; that is the Zhuangzi.

The second part of your definition "a personal God or gods" gets us even farther from a reasonable position since it rules out Buddhism and Hinduism as well as the Chinese faiths. There are "gods" in Hinduism and (at least) Theravada Buddhism, but they are illusions. Ultimate reality has no God or gods. Nirvana, the ultimate goal for humans, literally means the "extinguishing" of the soul.

It's not my idea, nor my definition.

It's the one in the dictionary.

And while you're certainly entitled to your own opinion about it, and to try to change it, the word researchers who came up with it disagree wholeheartedly with you about whether it covers all the world's religions or not.

At any rate, argue that definition all you want to -- political ideologies aren't religions. And I haven't got a clue where you got your ideas about Marxism...they didn't come from Marx, other than a few comments where he (quite mistakenly) tried to conflate biological evolution with "social evolution." Anyway...

Allan Megill argues that “Marx and Engels were willing to appeal to Darwinism for propaganda purposes,” but any impression that Darwinian evolution is similar to Marxism is “totally false.”
Naomi Beck claims that for Marx and Engels, “Darwin’s theory fulfilled for them only the function of a pretext and was not in reality connected with their views.” Engels’ comparison of Marx and Darwin was just an opportunist attempt to “establish Marx’s independent scientific status as Darwin’s equal.”
D. A. Stack says that Engels’ remarks at Marx’s graveside were part of a “parochial propagandist campaign to steal the Darwinian mantle… The term ‘Darwinian’ was sought as an honorific title, nothing more.” Engels was just “keen for Marxism to bask in the reflected glory of Darwinism.”

Peace.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2017 07:18PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Hi Hie,

A couple of points. On Marxism, I did not mean to suggest that Darwinism informs the ideology. What I meant was that in its atheism it assumes materialistic origins for life. Put simply, there was no pre-existence, there is no soul. That is the unasserted foundation for a materialistic world view and hence for Marxism.

On the question of definitions, yes yours is "a" dictionary definition. But so too is the one I quoted above. A huge number of words have multiple dictionary definitions. Often the different definitions arise when used in different contexts: "organ" means one thing in music, another in medicine. Both are dictionary definitions and both are accurate. It is therefore a species of willful ignorance to insist that the only correct definition of "organ" is a musical instrument with pipes.

In the field of religion, you are not going to find scholars of Chinese or Indian religions who use the Eurocentric definition that you advocate. Why? Because it doesn't encompass several of the largest and most influential religious traditions. Unless you are willing to say that only Europe and a few other places have ever had religion, you'll need a less ethnocenric and more capacious definition.

I readily admit that my extension of he word religion into the political realm, while an explicitly acceptable usage according to Webster's and many other dictionaries, is not standard. It is, however, common among students of revolutionary and totalitarian movements. Nietzsche spoke of it; and it is blindingly and intentionally obvious in the term "cult of personality." In fact, many of the best contemporary observers of Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, and mob violence were struck by the religious nature of those phenomena.

Likewise, academics who work on mass movements speak frequently of the similarities--and sometimes the identity--between political movements and religion. One example would be Eric Hoffer's seminal book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Another would be the book written by a team at Leiden University, Political Religion Beyond Totalitarianism. Yet another such treatment is the book by A. James Gregor, the Berkeley professor and Guggenheim Fellow who published through Stanford: "Totalitarianism and Political Religion: An Intellectual History." This stuff has a solid pedigree going back at least 150 years.

It's okay if you choose to stick with a narrower interpretation of the word religion, but I'm telling you with all sincerity that you are missing out on some of the most enlightening political analysis available. When one encounters phenomena that violate our existing definitions or beliefs, we can recoil in discomfort or we can examine the reasons for the blurring. It is often through examining those places where conventional wisdom and meanings break down that science and sociological understanding improve.

Marxism tells us where humans came from and where we are going. It begins with Darwinism and it ends with an egalitarian and classless society. The purpose of human existence is to advance society towards that goal. Is that supernatural? No, but it is a faith-based worldview with a corresponding moral code.

The truth is that much of Western philosophy stems from Christian roots. Hegel taught a historical dialectic that produced social progress towards a final, perfect society. Kant taught that there is a historical spirit that is leading us to the same place. He also proposed an ethical code, the categorical imperative, based on that worldview. Marx assumed that historical progress and then described the end state, an egalitarian classless society with no war and no crime.

It doesn't take much effort to see those philosophies as Christianity minus God. The notion that the thesis/antithesis conflict leads to progress is dubious given that it manifestly has not happened in politics or international conflict since Hegel's day. The same is true of Kant's historical gheist and Marx's notion of conflict leading to the absence of conflict. In all these cases you have to believe in the dogma despite empirical evidence to the contrary. There is also a final state of humanity that, again based on faith, looks a lot like a millennial existence or paradise or heaven.

Those "philosophies" all imply a supernatural power driving humanity in a certain direction. It is supernatural because it sure as hell isn't evident in the world around us. Technology and state power have improved massively but moral standards have not. I realize that what I am saying isn't "religion" in the western sense that you favor, but it is more religious than, say, Confucius's political philosophy. In fact Eastern religions and philosophies do not assume historical progress--for example, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Legalism all assume(d) moral and sociological stasis. That is the global "consensus," with the western philosophical predilection an important but clearly minority position.

Nietzsche's great insight was to observe Eastern religions and philosophies and then to ask the relevant question. Why do the Western philosophers all assume progress when that is an unproven tenet? There is no logical reason to presume that, and none of the philosophers have gone to the trouble of proving it. They are consequently faith-based, essentially the same as religion, and hence unpersuasive. In some ways he was wrong, but in some ways he was correct.

You are an intellectual heavy weight. You are producing ideas which delve deeper than rehashed material atomism from the ancient Greeks to find meaning. Good on you. What part of the world do you live? I would love to have coffee with you...

No, it's just that New Atheism is tired of the Same Old Bullsh¡t.

My thoughts here.

New atheism was/is a reactionary movement. The decibel level of certain religious beliefs was raising unchecked. New atheism was an attempt to talk over those beliefs. The problem of course is that core atheism is super boring. Who wants to hear someone loudly claim that they lack a belief? So a handful of people started pontificating on a false premise that their atheism somehow was informing their beliefs in other matters.(Or it might be better said that those hearing the pontification falsely tied the atheism and other beliefs together.) If it is dying or dead it would simply be a reflection on the loudness of the people who were/are pontificating.

To be fair, I am an atheist and I actively disbelieve a ton of shit. I am not very vocal about the disbelief but I do think this puts me into the new atheism category.

The difference I see between New atheism and old atheism is that new atheism isn't scared to mock religion. Old atheism was more respectful, and less openly mocking. New atheisms goal is to mock religion into obscurity. Connection with religion does not automatically making something deserving of respect.

There is a difference between "New" atheism and "Old" atheism; both are the lack of belief, but "New" atheism discusses non-belief different.
I am so going to get flak for linking to this:
https://everythingisfiction.org/2015/01/20/assholes-a-theory-of-new-atheism/

No flak.
It was an interesting opinion on the matter.

Mostly, it backs up the idea (presented above) that "New Atheism" isn't anything new at all. It's just a label some folks who were riled up about atheism being more publicly discussed came up with.

And his personal opinion is largely founded on his opinion of the so-called "New Atheists" personally as assholes. Which is fine, except that it's a rather silly ad-hominem that doesn't actually address anything. Even assholes can make good points, and whether or not they're assholes is entirely subjective anyway.

He also insists on capitalizing "atheists" throughout the piece, which is equally silly.

"New Atheists are assholes because . . . [t]hey are overly critical of a particular position, and yet they feel as if they are immune to counter criticism because their position is incapable of being incorrect.
This is partly shaped by the style of their arguments, the way they seem, with such ease and skill, to set up straw man positions, only to easily knock them down."

COMMENT: Although calling someone an "asshole" is not the least bit helpful in assessing their arguments, I find the substantive criticism in the above quote to be generally accurate. In general, the popular anti-religion books of Dennett, Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens are poorly reasoned, arrogant in tone, and laced with straw man arguments that betray that they have only a very superficial understanding of religion, and the motivations that lead people to a religious worldview. In general, they assert their own brand of scientific rationality that dismisses entirely the transcendent aspects of religious experience, as well as paranormal "spiritual" reports generally. That might be O.K. in other contexts, but not when seriously discussing religion while claiming to be objective. (They need to take a lesson from William James) Perhaps more noteworthy considering their scientific orientation is that when discussing science they are tuned into classical Newtonian determinism, leaving the more open epistemological aspects of quantum mechanics, and its religious implications, barely mentioned, much less seriously discussed.

In short, in their attempts to make the religious seem foolish, they themselves come across as both arrogant and ill-informed, making "asshole" a tempting label.

Henry,
Don't give into temptation :)

You make some good points, some not so good ones. Thanks for the thoughts.

There are no "religious implications" in quantum mechanics, by the way <grin>.

Somewhere in all of this I smell the claim that "I'm not a religious fruitcake who has no basis for my belief any more than you are because you're religious too."