Contest!

July 10, 2009 • 1:49 pm

o.k., time to unload another autographed copy of WEIT, made out to the lucky winner of this contest:

Provide a snappy, one-word name for those atheists who are nonetheless soft on faith (i.e., atheist accommodationists).  You know them — the kind of people, like Michael Ruse,  who say, “I am an atheist, but . . .”.   In other words, the folks who, says Daniel Dennett, have “belief in belief.” That’s a snappy phrase, but it ain’t one word.

RULES:  Contest open for one week, answers on this thread.  Only two submissions per person.  Be clever, as it’s the word I want to use on this website from now on.  PLEASE do not post anything on this thread except your entries.

303 thoughts on “Contest!”

    1. Yeah, it is a continuation of the framing nonsense. (“We’re not so interested in reasoning, argumentation, accuracy — what we really need is glitter and spin.”)

      “Framers” sounds better than “framists”, I think.

  3. My first entry got lost somewhere, so I’ll re-post it:

    Shaytheists –

    Shy about their own atheism

    Shhh! to others about atheism

  4. Damn, I was thinking “agnotheist” – people who claim to be atheist but also claim that they cannot know anything about the mythical world and therefore must accept rather than challenge mysticism. Unfortunately the word is already taken.

    What about a “sindeodonist” (sine deus, without a god + donato, he gave) – someone without a god but who believes in giving (or giving in) to god. Render to Cesar what is Cesar’s! Just remember that God demands the larger portion of your earthly possessions.

  8. The intended referents are not really atheists. Would they be better named as (if the rules allow hyphenated words):

    (1) Neo-theist

    just as they rename atheists as New Atheists;
    or

    (2) Pseudo-atheist

    if you want to keep up appearances of disbelief?

  14. Professor Coyne:

    Since you’re obviously talking about people like me, maybe it would be nice to let people like me name ourselves.

    I wouldn’t mind, for example, being called an empatheist. It blends the words “empathy” and “atheist” perfectly and is not inherently derogatory or dismissive.

    An empatheist is an atheist or agnostic who, in disputes, tries to walk in the shoes of others and tries to stay open and empathetic to points of view different from his or her own (and not treat the world in Manichean terms). An empathiest is a person, in short, who has absorbed liberalism and atheism in a way that makes him or her in favor of social pluralism. He or she doesn’t want a world without religion, but a world that speaks from diverse points of view.

    An empatheist believes that a society that speaks many religious languages is better than one that speaks only one language (such as monotheism or monoatheism).

    Camus was an empatheist. He famously told a group of Christians that he thought it was important for Christians to stay Christians and speak from their tradition, even as he spoke from the vantage of his lack of faith. He wanted dialogue and alliance with reasonable religionists, not combat.

    Barack Obama is almost certainly some sort of empatheist.

    The Berkeley philosopher, Richard Rorty, was an atheist, and I don’t believe he would have been offended to be called an empatheist.

    Empatheism is a way of being in the world that blends atheism and pragmatic liberalism. It’s vaguely secular, but doesn’t want to rhetorically go after the juggler of moderate or liberal religionists. An empatheist tries to see what’s good in religion, not just what’s bad. An empatheist recognizes that there is an ontological mystery that empiricism cannot quite reach, and that religion, in its diversity, attempts to approach. The gestures of religion the empatheist does not scorn, but understands.

    —Santi

    1. “He or she doesn’t want a world without religion, but a world that speaks from diverse points of view.”

      Including the point of view that science and religion is incompatible? If yes, presumably you’d disagree with Mooney that people like Coyne should hush up a bit about their opinion?

      1. There’s wishy-washy liberalism – cant (not Kant) – and then there’s the liberalism that dares to speak its name. Yes, by all means let’s attempt to understand where someone is coming from but if we believe they are wrong or not wrong but indulging in cant then let’s speak out loud and strong. Let those who want to believe that God is behind evolution do so, but scientific institutions should not appear to endorse the view that because some scientists share this belief this means that science is or can be compatible with religion.

        Personal philosophical or religious positions are just that. Let’s all express them freely, but let’s not have the AAAS et al expressing a view ex cathedra.

    2. foolfodder:

      An empatheist is someone not personally inclined to go after religion’s juggler. I’m okay with a world where others do this rhetorical work (Dawkins, Coyne etc). I like these guys. I read them. I think about what they have to say. I’m just always going to be the kind of guy who looks for complexity, nuance, and middle ground. I think you need all kinds of rhetorical strategies at work in the world. Truth comes from lots of viewpoints contending, including empathic ones. Bulldogs and mellow dogs make for a more interesting world. I just hope that Coyne doesn’t pick a term for people like me that is dismissive and contemptuous.

      —Santi

    3. Santi’s Kitchen

      Start with the filling/feeling of existential angst and despair; Roll it all up in the stale tortilla of ontological mystery; Slather generously with metaphorical poetry salsa. Bake at room temperature for decades in the ‘be nice’ oven; Slam it into the gaps of scientific knowledge; Enjoy. Serves no one.

      The above is parody, but it seems to me that you are missing a great opportunity to improve this world, now and in the future, by resigning yourself to current levels and forms of religiosity.

      1. eenui:

        Your recipe analogy is clever. I laughed. But I really think that an atheism that is not in touch with the irony of its own positions (and not just the positions of religion) is not really an atheism engaging in fully critical thinking. Empatheists like myself, by critiquing atheism from within, are important to have in a movement (lest group-think becomes the norm). Atheism should be characterized by rigorous self-criticism, not just criticism directed outward. This is why I think it is a mistake to find a derogatory word for people like me. It’s like having a bad word for your own immune system.

        —Santi

      2. “Atheism should be characterized by rigorous self-criticism, not just criticism directed outward.”

        Can you look up the word “atheist” for me and, using the definition, defend this sentence?

        I’ll save you the time. You can’t, and you are educated enough to know it.

        Atheists are, in the real world, *all sorts of things*, but nothing is implied in our shared lack of belief in deities
        that would direct us towards any world view. There are, in short, as many characteristics” to atheism as there are atheists.

        You can see this in the fact that some want accommodation with theists, some don’t, and some (who aren’t involved in or concerned with science) don’t care one way or the other.

        You can also see it in the fact that I’m a secular humanist, but that many (maybe most) atheists are not. Secular humanism is *not* an emergent property of atheism.

        Now, you *could* say to me – as a secular humanist, you should be characterized by self-criticism, not just criticism outward. You would be right. I am. And, that said, I feel more than comfortable *also* directing criticism outward.

        I may at times even use mockery to make a point or to help someone see something in themselves that I find silly… rather than treating it like it has value.

      3. John Evo:

        It might be comforting to you personally to say: “Nothing is implied in our shared lack of belief in deities
        that would direct us towards any world view.” But it’s not true. Atheism sets you in a very definite relation to the chessboard of the world, and so necessarily offers you a different set of moves than theism. For example, atheism has to commit you to a very definite range of views concerning the ontological mystery surrounding the beginning of the universe. It has to be non-teleological. Atheism is not just disbelief in gods, it’s disbelief in the idea of God or gods writ large, which cancels options for seeing the world in teleological terms. Thus the laws of physics have to have just happened or evolved. They must have a material explanation. Also, to be an atheist means that you believe that everything that exists is in this one universe (or our universe is part of a multiverse). In any case, there is just one big thing, and it consists (crudely) of atoms and the void. These are some of the commitments entailed in calling yourself an atheist. You are committed to explaining all phenomenon in the terms of naturalism within a singular closed system (however you define the universe).

        In terms of ethics, you are also committed to a certain limited range of moves that most intellectuals find leads to either some brand of nihilism or existentialism or evolutionary psychology justification.

        When somebody says “I’m an atheist” you may not be able to guess their politics, but you can be pretty clear on the intellectual moves that they are most likely to make in regards to metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

        —Santi

      4. “When somebody says “I’m an atheist” you may not be able to guess their politics, but you can be pretty clear on the intellectual moves that they are most likely to make in regards to metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.”

        Nonsense. As an atheist I could be a strictly rational Humanist, a devout Buddhist, a woo-loving pomo New-Ager or a nihilistic anthropophagic serial killer.

        The only thing my atheism tells you is that I don’t believe in a god or gods. It doesn’t tell you why, you don’t know how I arrived at that lack of belief, nor what it implies or suggests to me. You’ve decided, apparently, that all atheists are “rational atheists”. Not so.

  15. Only 2 submissions?
    What do I get for a knock-out?

    1) Theopratt *1
    2) Liarbator
    2) Bendoverer
    2) Fableenabler
    2) Tetrahippocrit *2
    ______________
    *1 May only be meaningful to British Commonwealth readers.
    *2 An obscure Greek reference to the Four Horsemen.

  19. A term from 1980’s British political history, now completely redundant (hence could be re-used in a new context):

    The ‘Wets’

    These were originally old style Tories who thought Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatism too fervent. The term summed up their lack of courage rather well.

  21. I like to think of accomodationists as akin to Sisyphus — they work this task up the hill in order to make an evolutionary point, only to lose all that progress the moment they concede any room for theism.

    So how about: Sisyphists.

    You can call them Sissies for short, which drops the portmaneau in favor of a double-entendre.

  22. From what I read above “templetons” is certainly my favorite.

    I’ll give it a try with the two allowed entries here:

    PRatheists, for “Public Relations atheists”

    The second one a little bit more obscure:
    proscienligious; scienligion/scienligious is the obvious contraction of science & religion, a neologism I use since 2005 (is it always neo?) to describe the JTF’s and JTF’s minions efforts to regain some of the lost credibility/respectability of religion by associating it with science, whatever the need of redefining both terms are. Proscienligious thus for those that don’t clearly oppose the efforts to “muddy waters”.
    A double hit, scienligious for the templetons (I really like this one, more and more) and proscienligious for those who passively support their misdeeds.

  23. ‘Accommodatheists’.My second suggestion. The firts was ‘Buttatheists’.
    I hope I haven’t stolen anybody elses suggestions.

    1. ‘Accommodatheists’ is indeed already taken by DevonR early in the thread. So I take back that suggestion.

  25. The templetons are out there. Beware and remember that “to templetonize is never nice”.

  26. ‘Nevilles’ after Neville Chamberlain who was accused of having tried to reach an accommodation with Hitler.

  27. Ok, Nevilles is too harsh! Perhaps just ‘teapotters’ after Russel’s celestial tea device that we can’t prove *doesn’t* exist?

  30. Since hedging their bets makes them walk funny owing to having provided a crack for the wedge creationists,

    Hedgywedgie

  31. For my second entry, I think I’ll go with:

    Godnosers. In their efforts to suck up to theists, they can’t help but get a little God on their noses.

  35. fAketheists

    Hedgetheists…hedgeiists…hedgists.

    I want the book, and I like fAketheists, but I think Praytheists is probably best.

    Also, religiolous or religulous (I guess Bill Maher would win).

  39. I’ve just realized the source of resonance in my suggestion of “faith-hugger”. It has an echo of the Alien “Face-Hugger”, injecting its accommodationist poison into the healthy thoracic cavity of science.

    I want that book!

  41. @ Dave B.

    While I tossed a few into the pile myself, I will admit that none of them were “Top 5” material, while I certainly have Faith-huggers in there!

    Unfortunately for you, I’m not on the committee.

    @ Sigmund

    Muzzle-Em’s is funny too. Goddamn you people are creative.

  42. OK, for my second entry:

    “homeopatheist”: the more you dilute atheism the stronger you claim it to be.

    3. Oh, definitely – this has got to be the winner. It’s witty, nicely critical and has a genuine representative meaning.

    4. Like this one. Should come in close second to one of mine. I’m keen on getting Jerry’s autograph myself. #180

  45. UNFAITHFUL (used as a noun, of course)

    It has two meanings:

    1. not the faithfuls, including athiests

    2. those who are dishonest, inaccurate, always moving the goalpost, refusing to confront the arguments put on the table, resorting to other dirty tricks, etc.

    1. My first thought was that these folks are Uncle Tom Atheists (which is what I’ve been calling them when I rail about them to my partner) but I couldn’t quite make a word out of it.

  54. My entries:

    tiptoefarian

    atheistettante

    I tip my hat to these previous entries:

    beliefist
    templeton
    placatheist
    godlycoddler
    muzzle-em
    homeopatheist

    It’s a little troubling that some folks here don’t understand that we’re not discussing people who accept theistic evolution or are agnostics.

    We’re talking about people who self-describe as atheist, have a pro-science activist urge, use their real names, and for various reasons (empathy, patience, realism, tactics) oppose emphasizing the implausibility or wrongness of theistic beliefs in the competition for political influence. Please get the distinction.

  56. I call ’em “atheist-butts”, because of the phrase, “I’m an atheist, but…”

  62. Well, my “faitheists” entry was already taken early on.

    How about “Caspertarians” — friendly to ghosts?

    Or “NevilleChamberlainists”?

  64. In search of a cheap joke:

    Antidennettists- those who are
    antidennettic by not believing in God but believing in the belief of God

    or perhaps

    Ruseialites – belonging to the school of Ruse

  66. This is my second submission. (I hope hyphenated words are OK. If not, remove the hyphen.)

    “faith-fetishist”

    ——

    fetish : something regarded with irrational reverence.

  68. I like Kitty’sBitch’s suggestion, “Godlycoddlers,” but “God-coddlers” is snappier.

    1. Thanks Ian
      I was actually working from mollycoddle, so I went with Godly.
      I think it adds a cute factor that makes it more condescending.
      Kind of a verbal pat on the head.

      1. Ah, see what you mean.

        I retract my bastardization and submit godnobbing/godnobber.

    2. I actually almost replied to Ian earlier today to explain that one. I like it too! I have to admit there are several good ones that I could be happy with. Some really creative ideas in this thread. Yours is a definite “top 5” and I’ll be happy if you win.

    1. “Faithtool”. Nice one. Tools is what they are. They act in the interests of religious memes, but at a distance. It’s the memetic Extended Phenotype. The Long Reach of the Meme indeed!

      1. Using “meme” & “phenotype” in the same paragraph…

        Just to bring you up to date, “meme” now refers to a trend on the internet, and little else.

        I hate to tell you there’s no Santa Claus, but the proposal that “memetics” could describe the flow of cultural thought in a way similar to genetics with biological information was not borne out by fact.

        It was an interesting hypothesis on the part of Dawkins, but one that eventually bore no fruit.

  70. Well, I’ve used up my two official entries, but I thought I’d throw an unofficial entry into the mix:

    Submissives.

    Those who want scientists to tip toe around the faithful are like abused spouses tip toeing around their abusers. Mooney, Nisbet et al want scientists to act like those abused spouses and not do anything that might trigger the wrath of their abusers. I think we can do better than acting as though we all have Battered Scientist Syndrome.

  72. My entries:

    DEAF (acronym for “Deluded Evolutionist Accomodating Faith”) Can be used as adjective or noun, and carries the obvious secondary meaning that they just don’t listen to other (or their own) arguments against accomodationism very well.

    Zaphodists (or Zaphists if you like it shorter) Named for Zaphod Beeblebrox, two-headed denizen of HHGTTG. I was looking for some two-headed, mythological creature to depict their two-headed faith/science view of the world, and came across Zaphod in my internet searches. I thought he fit the bill nicely with a tip of the cap to our friend, Douglas Adams.

  73. Agnostic

    (the same position each atheist able to reason, e.g. Dawkins or Russell, holds).

    It would be better to coin a pejorative term for militant atheists.

  75. Squishies

    Because they are so sensitive to what the new atheists say. Also, once an atheist says something they think is slightly rude, that becomes more important than the truth of the statement, or why it is deserved. Also, a squishy person would be a sensitive person, and if you poked them, it would leave a mark there for a while, just like a soft sponge.

  76. Another suggestion:

    “Scientheist”

    This gets at the inherent contradiction in the “belief in belief” mindset, since there is an element of rationalist (e.g. “scientific”) and religious/believer (“theist”). Hence, science + theism = scientheist.

  78. My first thought was ‘beliefists’, and I see that has already been suggested (I suspect the winning entry is among the first 50 attempts).

    Frankly, since there don’t seem to be any religious people who go on and on about wanting to accommodate science and atheism (“Come on, my religious brethren – we know they’re wrong, but it alienates the scientists to say so!”), it seems to me that ‘accomodationist’ itself, without the ‘atheist’ modifier is not at all ambiguous.

  79. Pacifiers

    Desperately silencing others to manufacture a sham peace. (This label cuts both ways—we come off as immature and loud. Maybe it’s good to have a label that cuts both ways.)

  81. 1. From contest description:
    “Provide a snappy, one-word name for those atheists who are nonetheless soft on faith”, as opposed, I suppose, to those who are hard on faith (we all know good examples). I particularly favor ‘hard ons’ for reasons obvious to species propagation and more enjoyable, well, you know. ‘Soft ons’ are by contrast, generally undesirable for the above tasks. Essentially a useless condition, save for when a male wishes to empty the morning bladder. Therefore, submission one is derived thus:

    “soft on” + “atheist” = sofatheist

    (Also, sofa is like couch and if, in this case, theist is potatoe… generally lazy form of either).

    2. PZ used a great word recently.
    From Wikipedia:
    Tergiversation refers to the evasion of straightforward action or clear-cut statement. Alternatively, it can refer to the desertion of a cause, position, party, or faith. Its verb form is tergiversate.

    The word “tergiversation” originates from the Latin word tergiversatio, a noun corresponding to the deponent verb tergiversari, which means “to turn one’s back, to be evasive”. Tergiversari is a composite of tergum, meaning “back,” and versare, the frequentative of vertere, meaning “to turn.”

    Therefore, submission two:

    “tergum” + “atheist” = tergatheist

    Like a “back-sliding” atheist.

    Thanks for your consideration.
    Good luck to all. Lots of great stuff here.

  82. I’d call them “Coma-NOVAs”

    It sounds cool, and Mooney does exhibit that “lack of response to stimuli” (refuses to hear or respond to criticism), that a person in a coma has.

    Accomodationist arguments are rather boring and so when you hear and read the same banal statements over and over again, it does kinda induce a coma.

  83. Centrationists.

    According to Alfred Piaget’s theory of child development, children in the pre-operational stage of development display a characteristic mode of thought (among others), called centration. This is the tendency to focus on one aspect of a situation while neglecting others.

    For example, if you show a typical four year old two glasses each containing equal volumes of liquid, (s)he will claim that there is more liquid in whichever glass is taller. This occurs even if you start off with containers of equal size and shape, and pour the liquid from one of these into a taller glass right in front of their eyes. Similarly, if you have two rows of coins, both containing equal numbers of coins, and ask a child which row contains more, then they will say that the row in which the coins have more space between them has more.

    I think this is something analagous to the way accomodationists think. Someone like Eugenie Scott will focus on the fact that, for example, there are good scientists and otherwise smart people (e.g. Francis Collins) that also are deeply religious… therefore religion and science are compatible. However, they ignore the fact that it is possible for people to hold contradictory beliefs! Even smart people.

    So, just as pouring liquid into a taller glass does not mean it now has more liquid inside of it, pointing to an accomplished but religious scientist does not mean religion and science are compatible. In both cases these erroneous conclusions are arrived at because these people are failing to decenter – to think about different aspects of a situation at one time.

    Plus I like how “centrationists” rolls off the tongue. It’s also provocatively similar to a word that describes people who employ even more erroneous forms of reasoning…

  84. My 2 terms:
    1. Squares
    2. Foilists (or Foyalists)

    I think we could reappropriate the term “square” for them. No one really uses it for nerd anymore but it’s appealing because it does still have the negative connotation. But the main reason for it is because they are trying to fit a “square peg in a round hole” as the saying goes. Thus, they are “squares.”

    Another term for them could be “foilist.” You could also spell it “foyalist” to give a more obvious connection to the loyalist Americans who sided with the divine-right monarchy rather than the revolutionary (and largely secular) patriots. Other reasons for the term (either spelling) come from Hamlet. Shakespeare writes, “I’ll be your foil, Laertes: in mine ignorance.” So in their ignorance, trying to unnecessarily accommodate religion into science, they are truly neutral scientists’ foils. Lastly, foilist/foyalist works for them because according to the dictionary foil has these fitting definitions: 1. To prevent from being successful; thwart.
    2. To obscure or confuse (a trail or scent) so as to evade pursuers.

    Thoughts?

  87. I think I like “godlycoddler” the best so far… because that’s what they are doing (coddling the godly) and it sounds rhymey and silly.

    (But I want to win a signed book so I hope there is another contest soon.)

  88. I immediately thought “accomodatheists” upon reading the post 5 minutes ago (sorry, I’ve been busy). Soon saw it was one of the first suggested and it has my vote.

    So instead I will suggest my own bastardized portmanteau of “moonbeams” based on Mooney and Kirshbaum, the currently most ridiculously vocal accomodatheists.

  90. I am not able to post from my other account for some reason…

    I would suggest accommandos.

  91. If my first suggestion was:

    Wets

    my second is inspired by Ophelia Benson’s to-the-point questions for Mooney and his ilk:

    Placators

    Looking forward to seeing what wins…

  96. We don’t need to invent new words for them, there are a few good ones already in the English language.

    Spaniel.

    Lackey.

    Courtier.

    Stooge.

    Personally, I’d go with spaniel — it carries that hint of obsequious mindless devotion that’s so appropriate.

  97. “Uncle Chris” – derived from Uncle Tom and Chris Money.

    Mean, I suppose, but delicious.

  98. spoontheists (for spooning with theists in a loving embrace)

    conciliatheists

    5.5ers (out of 7 on the Dawkins atheist scale of non-belief)

    accomodatards (A-com-o-DAY-tards)

    pseudotheists

    deistophiles

Comments are closed.