Here are three “atheism” clips from of Chris Hayes’s show on MSNBC this morning (there’s one on religion and global warming as well). The guests include Steve Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Susan Jacoby, Jamila Bey, Jamie Kilstein and pastor Mike Aus. In the first video, which I found a tad boring (but of course I’m already on board, and this is still a good debate to have on mainstream television), Pinker makes a good comment at 11:30 about the strongest evidence for atheism. Jamila Bey is also impressive. Keep watching after the allotted time, because it goes on.
I haven’t watched anything but the first segment of the first video, as I haz duties. Weigh in on the rest if you’ve watched them.
h/t: Reverend E!
I just watched the whole thing online. In my mind this is a watershed event, not for the particulars of the discussions, but because it happened at all. A whole hour of rational conversation about atheism on a national TV show. That’s cool.
The coolest segment, in my view, is the one where Pastor Mike Aus, a working Protestant pastor, who came out as a non-believer on the show. That’s going to make for an interesting meeting with his employer next week. Chalk one up for The Clergy Project.
I too look forward to seeing how his church leaders handle this. Will they boot him out? Will they claim he’s undergoing a crisis of faith or some such? I looked at his ministry website here: Theophilus Church, Houston site & they are unusually uncontroversial & SEEM to be mainline Christian ~ so maybe (just maybe) there is some conversion-to-atheism potential there:
Perhaps because the Pastor knows this in relation to the Biblical sources you quote:
Many biblical scholars concur that 2 Timothy was not written by Paul but by an anonymous follower, after Paul’s death in the First Century.
(Matthew 28:19) “…in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,…” (ESV). An agreed original reference. BUT, “there is no word of the three each being a separate divine person and the three together being the one Triune God.” (Ehrman)
John 14: 6-7 John is the only gospel which alleges Christ’s divine nature; the Synoptic Gospels don’t. I assume the pastor knows this.
John 14: 25-26 See above: John 14: 6-7
Ephesians – Deutero-Pauline; in other words, not written by Paul, a forgery.
2 Corinthians 5:17 – is by Paul, who understood that those in Christ were living in the end times, awaiting the Day of Judgement. Paul never hinted that to God a day was as a thousand years; he thought the Apocalypse would come, as Jesus thought, in his own lifetime. That idea did not come until much later in 2 Peter when some early Christians had to account for the delay of the Second Coming.
Romans 6:4, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 – Both, attributed to Paul, make Pauline sense, theologically; faith is enough, good deeds don’t come into it, Jewish law is irrelevant.
If the pastor is disagreeing with his Church’s mission statement, he is indeed undergoing a crisis of faith. His Church appears deeply Pauline and Paul is the Christian par excellence who promotes faith as the sine qua non of the religion. He may also (I can not view the video, so I have not seen his views) be concerned about the ad hoc nature of the evolution of early Christian theology.
Thanks DC ~ I must read more Bart E. stuff
A pleasure; from Birmingham to Solihull via Chicago.
His church reacts: HERE “We still believe
😉 “
The parts I like are when Susan Jacoby said that freedom of religion is a secular idea and when the now freethinker, Pastor Mike Ause, said that for many people community in the church is more important that the Bible. He said that there is a tribal mentality in the church.
I guess that explains why many church people are so ignorant of what the bible actually teaches. They never read it – the church community is more important
Actually Pinker was arguing that the accomplishments of Western Civilization (science, enlightenment) should be enough of an argument without the drumbeat of atheism.
He said those were the best arguments for atheism, rather than talking about atheism per se. (Which would be a very short conversation.) No mention of drums!
And really, that is what most gnu atheists do do.
/@
‘gnu atheists do do’
Sounds like a drumbeat to me, Ant!
+1 !
More like a shofar, I think.
/@
His exact words were that the best arguments for atheism *will not mention* atheism. He went on to say the reason he does not trumpet atheism is because it is a nuisance to have to deny a bunch of irrelevant considerations.
I think that’s pretty clear. We can use a whole host of reasons to promote enlightenment without, as he says, trumpeting atheism.
No, his exact words were, “aren’t going to mention atheism per se”, which sounds less prescriptive to me than “will not”.
Yes, he does talk about not trumpeting atheism (but still not about banging a drum! — nor does he say these are “the best arguments for enlightenment”, but that these are “the best arguments for atheism”).
Well, of course! Trumpeting atheism per se doesn’t take you very far! As I said, it’d be a very short blast on the shofar: “There is (almost certainly) no God!” — and then you get bogged down denying the bunch of irrelevant considerations that the theists bring up.
The best arguments — and ones that gnu atheists use often — are those that focus on how we can best explain the world around us and our place in it without the need to recourse to cette hypothèse-là.
In this respect, Pinker is rather in accord with A.C. Grayling, who’s suggested that rather than self-identifying as atheists and thus defining ourselves in opposition to theism – we should use a positive, affirmatory term such as (philosophical) naturalists. (Which is certainly what I do; see my Twitter bio – @antallan.)
Of course, we had the label “new atheists” thrust upon us, which we slyly subverted as “gnu atheists” — but atheism per se hardly defines the common gnu-atheist worldview — which is largely naturalistic, skeptical and humanistic. (Indeed, our atheism is a consequence or conclusion of that worldview, not its foundation.)
/@
I think the best route would be asking Pinker to clarify, and it’s a damned shame he was only given ten seconds to speak as he was the smartest person in that room.
I realize there’s more video so I would hope they asked him to speak more, I almost never disagree with anything he says).
I agree with the idea of NOT defining oneself in opposition to theism. This is not in order to be polite; I have no problem speaking out and I don’t give a damn if someone is offended. But rather, I think speaking out against something constantly gives it more credence. Being obsessed with religion whether in a good way or bad way simply draws attention to it. Kind of like the attention on Limbaugh.
I would go one step further and say I have no interest in defining terms. A cause? Fine. Have UCS, AAAS or NCES take schools to court for teaching Creationism. Make Federal laws. As Ben said, cut all funding for “nonprofit” churches.
Enlightenment as far as a movement goes is a good one, it seems to contradict the tenuous nature of “unifying” atheists. But it is too bad there is not a more cohesive, organized way of doing this.
I have no terms to define myself (maybe secular) but under the guise of an enlightened society I’d certainly support a march or otherwise organized effort.
Richard Dawkins was excellent as usual. Pushing the envelope by explicitly questioning Santorum believing in transubstantiation and calling Joseph Smith a fraud.
Susan Jacoby made a good point about atheists not sharing the same political values.
But I do think atheists need to build a political consensus based on reason.
Given the significant libertarian streak among atheists (e.g., Michael Shermer), I don’t see that happening. And Hitchens was a war hawk.
May I add: Richard Dawkins is correct that we ought not to show any special respect toward religion when it comes to public debate. It should be treated like any other belief, and if people choose to disrespect beliefs then that is their right.
And this was most definitely not a boring TV episode, it was fascinating, and thankfully one of the few things that wasn’t dumbed down.
The problem with this is that if it were treated like any other belief, little would change, because beliefs public treatment is actually determined more by how many people hold them and how strongly than by the reason that backs them up. Witness: the treatment of religion. It’s circular.
The point needs to be that reason does not drive public discourse nearly enough, and that needs to change.
I’m not sure we’re disagreeing here. I also think reason needs to drive opinion, rather than same old tired propaganda pushed out by the media and politicians.
While it is US centric, many of the suggestions are universally applicable.
I would suggest having a look at the ideas put forth by Sean Faircloth at RDF:
http://richarddawkins.net/videos/644419-atheism-a-new-strategy-richard-dawkins-foundation-for-reason-science-us
I watched most of this MSNBC program and thougt it was excellent.
There is only one person on this small planet that needs convincing and that is me.
I have no inclination to convert anyone or do I care.
As long as I know the truth that is all that matters.
And I do.
What is the point you are trying to make? Only you need convincing but you already know the truth-huh? How does that relate to this post?
Liked your site Stanley ~ though I needed to put on my sunglasses 🙂
That’s kind of where the mentally of little boys flying planes into buildings and another little boy strikes back against an unrelated foe because he figures his god had spoken goes, and few with any political power were willing to take a position against that little boy’s god-idea.
You certainly have a right of not getting involved just don’t think of it as highly respectable or devoid of consequences.
Have you forgotten your Donne?
Well, there is your “truth” certainly. And there are everyone else, each with their own “truth”. And it matters greatly to each.
And then we have facts. And they matter greatly to everyone. Fact: there are no gods (we should have seen them by now).
A little less Hayes and a bit more from the panelists would have been nice. I really didn’t watch the program to hear what Chris Hayes thinks about atheism or the way in which atheists behave toward theists. There is no reason to accord anyone’s religious beliefs a scintilla of respect; Hayes seemed to be implying the opposite with his criticism of Dawkins’ directness.
I thought Dawkins was spot on when discussing how a political candidate’s private belief could very well shape his public policies, and why voters might want to be more inquisitive regarding such beliefs.
I was also very impressed with Susan Jacoby and will be reading her “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism” shortly because of her most capable performance.
Pinker was also excellent.
Hayes should be given credit. He brought us a remarkable discussion and was able to keep up intellectually with his guests. Thank you MSNBC.
Thoroughly enjoyed the “Atheism in the public sphere”, “How does God fit in with global warming” & “Pastor comes out as a non-believer” clips
Jamila Bey the black “evangelical atheist” https://www.facebook.com/jamilabey is new to me & I admired her unwavering, strong opinions [she is uncompromising like Richard Dawkins I think]
Dawkins was great. However, the blue & white pinstripe shirt DOES NOT go with the lovely tie Richard ~ a dark grey shirt would have been better & RD would then have looked delightfully oecumenical 🙂
The closing remark by Chris Hayes in the “Pastor” clip echoed what Jacoby was pushing & was of course completely untrue “… we lack a vocabulary of secular inspiration”…
I hope many more well-known people will start to say publicly that religious belief is nuts & poisonous.
I gave up on network television a few years ago mainly because there was virtually nothing left of the caliber of this show. Imagine, an entire show that had substantive commentary and no phony “balance” and where none of contributors were morons who embarrassed themselves. This show is sure to be cancelled.
I’m not sure I agree with Dawkins that we should be publicly challenging the religious views of candidates even if those views don’t impinge on their policy platforms. Like Hayes says, although transsubstantiation is a ridiculous doctrine, I don’t really care if a politician believes in it because I don’t see how it could impact on his/her lawmaking.
I also disagree with Hayes and Wright, though. They seemed to be saying that when a politician’s religious views do impinge on his/her political positions, our response should be “Well, not everyone shares your religious views, so that is inadequate justification for your policy recommendation.” This response is way too weak. The appropriate response in these cases is “Your religious views are inadequate justification for your policy recommendation because they are plainly false.“
Well, looking at “private” beliefs of political candidates counts, because, (just to name few reasons):
1. It tells something about the candidate:
a) that he/she has relaxed touch with reality; more capable to be wrong in other ideas;
b) he/she can be potentially influenced by irrelevant factors or authorities (opinions of pastors or arguments anointed with Jesus etc.) and thus producing bad decisions for all;
c) if cynically manifested, such “beliefs” may signal lack of moral courage to openly admit ones true beliefs; – candidate is lying his/her career through;
d) he/she lacks skills of criticall thinking; cannot distinguish false ideas from true or reliable ones;
2. Adds more credibility to nonsensical or dangerous beliefs, making them acceptable or sign of virtue.
3. Opens a venue of exploiting huge religious bias of voter populations to score popularity points for a candidate.
I think we’re much better served interrogating the candidate’s critical thinking skills directly rather than using atheism as a proxy. Same for whether they have false beliefs about important issues.
Instead of going “Well, let’s figure out the candidate’s religious views to see whether she is more likely to have false beliefs about things that actually matter”, we should be saying “Let’s ask the candidate about things that actually matter to figure out if she has false beliefs about them.”
Also, is there even any good data that suggests that atheism is a good proxy for these other qualities, once we control for things like degree of education? I know we like to think that atheists are much more careful and rigorous thinkers in general, but I’m from Southern California, and have met plenty of non-religious people who believe in all kinds of nonsensical new age crap.
“A person who believes that Elvis is still alive is very unlikely to get promoted to a position of great power and responsibility in our society. Neither will a person who believes that the holocaust was a hoax. But people who believe equally irrational things about God and the bible are now running our country. This is genuinely terrifying.”
Sam Harris – Letter to a Christian Nation
If they represent us, then they must be wise, rational and ethical and not fools.
I am almost always in agreement with Dawkins, but the manner in which he proposed that we question political candidates religious doctrinal views seemed very clumsily argued. First of all, in the US at least, no one is going to give a damn about what a Catholic candidate says about transubstantiation. Most Americans, even most nominal Catholcs, would hear the entire exchange and think, “Transubstantiation? wtf? Who gives a shit about that?” Jamila Bey defended Dawkins position much better than he did. She gave much better examples of questions concerning religious doctrine that we should be asking religious candidates than transubstantiation. Transubstantiation it utter bullshit, but no one cares.
I did love it when the (ex?)-pastor was asked about his journey towards atheism and he cited Dawkins book – Robert Wright looked truly ticked off – heh, heh!
Sadly, there are many christians that think their wheat munchies turn into rancid meat.
I want to know what bullshit a candidate believes. If a lawmaker believes really stupid bullshit they don’t have the skills needed to make good law because lobbyists are certainly going to be trying to feed them bullshit that isn’t as obvious. Lawmakers should be highly skilled at detecting bullshit and they shouldn’t be selling bullshit either.
Bravo!
My point is this: even among Catholics, very few believe in transubstantiation. In fact, I’ll bet a minority, even among nominal Catholics, know what the stupid doctrine is. Furthermore (and this is admittedly rank speculation), I think the average American watching an interview with Rick Santorum in which he says that he accepts the doctrine of transubstantiation (I’m assuming he would) will still conclude that Santorum really thinks the communion wafer and the wine are really just symbols of, well, the rancid meat and the clotting blood of the beloved Jesus. Transubstantiation is just a bad example – just the word sounds too arcane to catch most people’s attention (present company excluded).
Remember, most Christians know less than atheists about their insame religion’s doctrines. Face it, you and I and virtually every reader of this bl.. website don’t need to question the candidates to know they believe crazy shit. Also, most of us (here) don’t have the luxury of choosing the candidate for whom we’ll vote based on their doctrinal beliefs (or claimed beliefs) because they all at least profess to believe crazy shit.
http://www.pewforum.org/Age/Religion-Among-the-Millennials.aspx
This is Total American (US) population that believe this crap, not just Millennials:
Life after death 74%
Heaven 74%
Hell 59%
Miracles 79%
Angels and Demons 68%
Now, before I present data refuting (and I can) your claim concerning transubstantiation I would like to know where you get the information to support your claim?
Face it, USian christians are loons.
You’re still missing my point. I agree with you. They’re loons – not one of these statistics surprises me. OK?
Life after death, Heaven, Hell, Miracles, Angels and Demons – all that stuff is easily understood – simple words, get it? I doubt whether most Americans even know what the word transubstantiation means. When Catholics were asked what their church teaches, “More than four-in-ten Catholics in the United States (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize but actually become the body and blood of Christ” – and that doesn’t say anything about whether the ones who do know the teaching of the church agree with it.
http://nineteensixty-four.blogspot.com/2010/10/christian-belief-in-and-knowledge-of.html
Among the American public overall, “52% say, incorrectly, that Catholicism teaches that the bread and wine used for Communion are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus” (p. 24).
At the end of the ‘Pastor Mike Aus clip’ Chris Hayes and Susan Jacoby both bluntly state that “ we lack a vocabulary of secular inspiration”. They are really doing great unjustice to so much beautiful writing by so many authors – scientists, science writers, novelists, poets!
Jacoby herself mentioned Darwin, but there are so many more splendid authors. What about Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Magic of Reality’ or Carl Sagan’s ‘Cosmos’? Those books are splendid literary achievements. And what about a novelist like Ian McEwan (‘Saturday’) – splendid passages on the human brain!
Richard Dawkins published an anthology of beautiful secular writing (or ‘vocabulary’): ‘The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing (2008). Maybe Dawkins could send Hayes and Jacoby a complimentary copy?
The secular tradition of writing on nature – using a ‘vocabulary of secular inspiration’ – is in fact as old as science itself. The history of science is also the history of describing and explaining nature. It began more that two thousand years ago. The tradition of scientific investigation is inextricably linked to the tradition of creating a ‘secular vocabulary’ to describe and explain nature.
Indeed.
In fact, I’d say the situation is really exactly the opposite! I’ll never understand why made-up bullshit is recognized by so many as inspiring. Why should I marvel at something that is not just false, but that also displays a blatant paucity of intellectual creativity. Creativity is at its best when it is founded on something secure, something real. Beauty is truth, truth beauty and all that.
And besides, the fact that creativity impresses us has nothing to do with religion. I’m sick to death of the trope that awe and inspiration are phenomena that fall within religion’s province. The beauty of Michelangelo’s Pieta or Bach’s B-minor Mass has nothing to do with religion.
Yes, it really is quite annoying to hear again and again this same platitude about beauty, admiration, enthusiasm, inspiration being incompatible with science and knowledge. What an intellectual poverty! The fact that this kind of stupid ideas are so widespread, illustrates, I think, the harm done by a religious upbringing to the growing minds of children.
Could have done with a little less of Chris Hayes opinion. He had quite a panel there; let them talk. Still, it was remarkable that such a discussion appeared on US TV at all, so I say bravo. There was one point raised by Chris Hayes that I happen to have been thinking about quite a bit of late: namely, the extent to which our beliefs are aligned with those of people we consider “authorities” (or who we like — which is why commercials employ movie stars). Even though I have read WEIT and The Greatest Show On Earth, in any argument I might get into on the subject of evolution there comes a point (rather quickly) at which I’m just going to refer the other person to books like WEIT and TGSOE rather than attempt to (poorly) regurgitate what I think I have learned from reading these books. The point here is that we all rely on “authorities”, and it seems to me that getting people to rely on scientists (rather than priests, e.g.) is the real bottom line.
Well, I’d say we consider RD, JC &c. to be good authorities because we value evidence and reason and we know that what they say is (a) based on evidence and reason, and (b) represents (very closely) the consensus of hundreds of other specialists who also value of evidence and reason.
Now, to get others to consider these people as authorities, we’d need them to value evidence and reason as well — and value them above faith. So, that is the real bottom line.
/@
Dr. Droid #15 wrote:
I understand your point but think you’re making it the wrong way. Ultimately, we are not putting our trust in scientists and relying on their authority: we are putting our trust into a system.
Science is a competitive method involving a network of checks and balances. We have confidence in scientists only because we know that anything and everything they do is vetted by critics and skeptics who are searching for errors and hoping to find them. The honesty and credibility of the individuals themselves isn’t as important as the fact that they’ve placed themselves in an open and public position where, if they make a mistake or cheat, sooner or later they WILL be caught out.
This is a very significant distinction from faith-based systems, where you choose the people who seem most reliable to you and then commit yourself to them. You believe what they tell you the way a child believes a parent, and defend them from criticism by outsiders.
I have a friend who is seriously ‘into’ alternative medicine. She tells me that the difference between us is that I trust doctors and she does not. Science tells me to trust doctors and because science is my chosen ‘authority,’ I do. She, on the other hand, thinks for herself and chooses to trust Brave Maverick Doctors who are working outside the system and seem honest and sincere and careful and caring. We’re just relying on different people, is all.
I told her no. Science is not the method you choose to use if you trust doctors. I trust science because I DON’T trust doctors. I want a mistake-catching system which will catch the mistakes made even when people mean to be honest and sincere and careful and caring.
I don’t rely on scientists. I rely on a method which tells me not to trust people — not even myself… especially myself and my judgment about character and what ‘makes sense’ to me in science. And I have confidence in those people called ‘scientists’ who take the risk and ascribe to that system themselves.
+1
Right on!
I slip ofordrom lurking for amoment to say:
Sastra your hit this one right out of the ballpark and clear across town. Brilliant comment!
I also thought Steven Pinker’s comments regarding the longer range view of progress were very insightful. He pointed out that the debate used to be over whether evolution should be taught at all; now it’s over whether ID should be taught in addition to evolution. The debate used to be over whether homosexuality should be criminalized; now it’s over gay marriage. The debate used to be over the contraception; now it’s over whether or not Catholic health services must provide it. When viewed from a longer range perspective it is clear that these shifts are indicative of a retreat on the part of the religious right: the facts are just not with them and they are losing. So look up, we are winning, thanks to the efforts of people like RD, JC, SH, CH, DD, and others. It’s just hard to see the progress when you’re enmeshed in the middle of a battle.
The tide is turning. Don’t worry about offending the adult fundamentalists. It’s the next generation that matters.
Good point. Young people don’t have a lifetime vested in fantasies and are more likely to blurt out that the emperor has no clothes on.
Watched the whole show and loved it. The thing I like is that it’s a real discussion. Not a bunch of yelling back and forth or asking questions and getting a lot of words thrown at you (never answering the question). This is a great show for Sat. / Sun. mornings!
I’m a huge fan of Up w/Chris Hayes and a big fan (with caveats) of Jamie Kilstein. This episode was basically ‘worlds collide’.
Kilstein really has, IMHO, a great take on atheism- he doesn’t hold his punches on religion being bullshit, but he fights against the xenophobia atheists like Sam Harris expound. You can criticize Islam without whitewashing Muslims.
I enjoyed the program too. There were probably too many participants. If you wanted to hear especially one of them you had to wait a long time. I really wanted to hear from Pinker, and I found he made a lot of sense. I was bemused by Dawkins’ suggestion that reporters question candidates’ specific beliefs. I wonder if some reporter will take up the challenge! I bet there would be some highly viewable footage produced as a result.