Robert Wright’s rant against New Atheism

May 26, 2016 • 9:00 am

On his Templeton-funded “MeaningofLife.TV” site, Robert Wright fulminates about New Atheism (click on screenshot below). I’m pleased to see that both Krauss and I are included on Murderers Row along with the remains of the Horsepersons (sadly, Wright identifies me as a “paleontologist,” which is bizarre.) His beef: New Atheists lack “intellectual humility,” instantiated by their belief that “we’re sure that God doesn’t exist”. But that’s not true: we think it highly probable that God doesn’t exist, which is the scientific attitude. (See The God Delusion.)

We’re also said to be advocates of “scientism” and that we see no good products of religion. The “scientism” accusation is a canard, and I’m sure that most of us accept that religion can sometimes motivate good works. The claim is not that, but, on balance, that religion is inimical to human progress.

Screen Shot 2016-05-25 at 11.52.29 AM

As he’s done so often, Wright argues (25:50) that there may be some teleological force behind the universe—something that may, for instance, have created the laws of physics. Although he, like John Horgan, claims to be a nonbeliever, they both fit Dennett’s definition of “believers in belief”: those who say, “Well, I see no need for religion, but it’s really good for all those Other People.” In fact, he’s loath to find any endemic problem with religion; when religion behaves badly, it’s often caused by people who criticize religion (43:30)! The lesson: we should stop criticizing religion, and I think Wright would be really happy if we’d do that.

The bit goes on if you click on the section called “the holy war against religion.” Here Wright takes out against antitheism, the attempt to dispel religious notions held by others.

As I said, MeaningofLife.tv was begun last year with a grant from the Templeton Foundation, and I’m sure they love the attack on New Atheism. So long as somebody attacks the antitheists and also leaves room for the possibility of the divine, as Wright does, the money will keep coming. I just found out that Wright also has an 18-month position as a Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at the Union Theological Seminary, with the mission of finding compatibility between science, spirituality, and religion. Wright’s position is, of course, funded by Templeton. 

UPDATE: At lunch I watched an hour of the 90-minute Union Theological Seminary debate between Wright and Lawrence Krauss, and I recommend it. There’s an epic quarrel about the question of “how do you get a Universe from nothing?”, and that alone is worth the time.

 

h/t: candide001

The humiliation of Ahmed Mohamed

September 18, 2015 • 10:15 am

Last Monday’s detention of 14 year old Ahmed Mohamed in Texas—a bright young man who was arrested, cuffed, and taken to police headquarters for bringing a “device” to school, which turned out to be an electronic clock that was a science project—has aroused tremendous discussion throughout the U.S. A lot of this discussion centers on whether he was detained because he was a Muslim, and we need to have this discussion (see below). But largely neglected is another point: whether, in the U.S., we have created such a climate of fear that kids of all stripes are being humiliated and mistreated for “infractions” that are trivial and dumb. But let’s back up and discuss three questions:

Was it proper to detain Mohamed?  Clearly not; it was reprehensible. The kid was humiliated, taken out of the school, and put in handcuffs. Having been arrested, cuffed, and thrown in a paddy wagon for protesting apartheid at the South African Embassy, I know how frightening that is, and I knew it was coming. But imagine how much more humiliated Mohamed was to have been perp-marched to jail in front of his school peers. The photograph of the cuffed child is heartbreaking: it shows a kid who has suddenly come into conflict with society for reasons he can’t fathom—a kid who in a matter of minutes lost his innocence.

The school and cops could have done many other things that would not have scared and humiliated Mohamed. They could have, as Cenk Uygar notes in the video below, simply taken him to the principal’s office and waited until the “device” was inspected and cleared. Then they could have apologized for what they did to him. They have not.

But there are two silver linings that came from his arrest. The first is that he’s garnered tremendous support from Americans, including President Obama, has prospective employers contacting him (he plans to go to MIT), and, I suspect, has a bright future. The second is that it may allow us to reassess what we’re doing to our schoolchildren with these draconian regulations, as well to continue our discussion of “Islamophobia” and do some soul searching about how we treat Muslims.

Was his being a Muslim the main reason he was detained? This is not yet clear, and may never be. The school and police have said that Mohamed was treated like any other child, regardless of who they are, but I’m not so sure about that. The anti-Muslim accusations are apparently based on a single statement by a policeman who, arriving at the scene, said this: ““Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”  That’s suspicious. And although the school and rest of police haven’t said anything that implicates the boy’s religion in their behavior, we don’t know what went through their minds, or whether the school acted as they did because they knew he was a Muslim. As skeptics, we shouldn’t immediately assume that this is what happened.

Of course it’s not just Muslims who have been treated horribly by schools for innocuous behavior. Ken White, a first-amendment attorney who writes at Popehat, gives some other chilling examples:

In his head, Ahmed lives in an idealized world he learned about in robotics club: a world where individuality and curiosity and initiative are appreciated. Or at least he did. But this week he found out that he actually lives in a different world, a grim real world controlled by school administrators and cops who are deeply suspicious of individuality, if not openly hostile. Ahmed lives in a world where children’s lives are limited by the stupid, ineffectual fear of the petty and the ignorant. He lives in a world where school administrators strip-search thirteen-year-old girls to look for ibuprofin and suspend eight-year-olds for making pretend finger-guns while playing cops and robbers. He lives in a world where police arrest seven-year-olds for bringing a nerf gun to class and perp-walk twelve-year-olds in front of their peers for writing “I love my friends” on a desk with a marker.

. . . Did the putative adults pestering Ahmed do it because his name is Ahmed Mohamed and he’s brown? Maybe. “Yup. That’s who I thought it was,” said one officer mysteriously upon seeing him. But on the other hand, this is the era of zero tolerance and of institutionalized paranoia and of petty little people using fear to hold on to power. This is what our kids’ lives are like, and we’ve decided to accept it. Schools are safer now than before, but we’ve decided to feed on the fear the media feeds us and accept that they are more dangerous, justifying harsher treatment of kids. Kids are safer than ever, but we’ve consented to being constantly terrified about various menaces to them. Cops are safer, but we’ve decided to accept their narrative that they are the targets of an unprecedented war, and hand them the power they say they need.

We need to stop detaining any kid for innocuous behavior under these stupid “no tolerance” policies. As White points out, perhaps Mohamed’s detention would have happened regardless of his race or faith, or perhaps it’s a simple example of racism: because his skin is a different color than that of most other kids. Or perhaps it’s a true example of “Islamophobia”: what I consider the demonization of individual Muslims because of their faith—not the criticism of the religion. I doubt we’ll ever know the answer, and we certainly shouldn’t rush to judgment with cries of “Islamophobia!” As atheists, we’re supposed to rely on evidence rather than preference. But we still need to search our souls about whether we harbor overt or covert bigotry against Muslims. (More on this below.)

Was atheism responsible for the “climate of fear” or “fear of Muslims” that led to  Mohamed’s detention? Here I say, “I think that’s a dumb and irresponsible accusation.” Yet some people have pinned the detention of Mohamed on anti-Muslim sentiments aroused by atheists. In the Young Turks video below, for example, Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss the incident, and Kasparin says this at 7:50:

“. . . [Mohamed is] a victim of the fear-mongering we’re talking about now, Cenk. The same atheists who spend all their time debating about which religion is the worst and coming to the conclusion that Muslims are the most violent and they should be the most feared and we should put all of our attention on them—okay, that’s the kind of fear-mongering that leads to an innocent 14-year-old being arrested for doing a science project.”

Now Kasparin’s statement is palpable nonsense for several reasons. (The rest of Uygur’s and Kasparin’s discussion seems quite reasonable). First, the teachers who called the cops and the cops who arrested the boy were almost certainly not atheists (this is Texas, remember?). They may have been bigoted against Muslims, or acted out of racist rather than antireligious motivations, but I doubt that any of them have even heard of Sam Harris or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. If they were anti-Muslim, that almost certainly came from the kind of bigotry that arises from Christianity or xenophobia. But let’s not pin it on unbelievers. That is “atheistphobia.”

This brings up the distinction between dislike of Islam and dislike of Muslims. The latter is often called “Islamophobia,” but I’d prefer to call it something like “Muslimophobia” to draw a distinction between bigotry against individuals and criticism of the harmful tenets of Islam.

It seems the most rational (and effective) course of action to criticize the tenets of religions while avoiding demonizing believers.  On this site I criticize Christianity far more often than Islam, although I consider Islam at present the more dangerous faith. This is because I’m more familiar with the excesses of Christianity, which come to my attention more frequently (often from readers). Further, Christianity is in the process of discarding its pernicious doctrines, while Islam retains many of them, including institutionalized discrimination against women and gays, and the belief by many that it’s proper to kill apostates or nonbelievers. But make no mistake about it: I dislike all forms of religion, which I see as superstitions. But let us not say that all faiths are exactly equal in how much hatred and discrimination they inspire.

And let us not discriminate against people simply because of their faith. That is true “Muslimophobia,” and is not becoming to atheists or secularists. If humans do something bad in the name of their faith, we can criticize them, arrest them, and so on. And if we think that religion makes people do bad things, by all means criticize that religion and its effects on the human psyche. But remember that there are plenty of good religious people, Muslims and non-Muslims, and they deserve the same individual treatment and respect as does everyone else.  So yes, I stand with Ahmed Mohamed, I stand against anti-Muslim bigotry, and I stand against the culture of fear that is making us suspect that any innocent child with an aspirin, a clock, or a nerf gun is a terrorist.

h/t: Robert D.

Why do many atheists hate the New Atheists?

September 13, 2015 • 12:00 pm

One thing I don’t fully understand is the depth of rancor that many atheists have towards the “New Atheists,” especially people like Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Richard Dawkins, and the late Christopher Hitchens. We’ve all seen it, and I’ve written about it many times. One example is a new book by An Atheist Who Shall Not Be Named, The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists, discussed on The Godless Spellchecker‘s site. (Hemant Mehta has just written his own take on the book.)

The critique of New Atheists by other atheists seems to consist largely of ad hominem accusations, distortions of what they’ve said (Sam Harris is particularly subject to this), and, most of all, complaints that they dare criticize religion publicly. As Nathaniel Comfort said in the comments section of his own Nature review of Dawkins’s new autobiography:

I do say. You’re making an absurdly large leap and insulting the many atheists (including myself) who are perfectly happy to leave people alone with their views if they let me alone with mine. Dawkins, et al. are evangelists for atheism. That’s what I’m criticizing. Just as not all straight people are homophobes, not all atheists are eccesiophobes. And you can be scientific without being scientistic.

This is an explicit statement that if you publicly and passionately criticize religion, you’re the Wrong Kind of Atheist. You’re insulting the Quiet Atheists.

Now I’m perfectly happy accepting that it’s not the style of some nonbelievers to openly declare their atheism, much less to publicly criticize religion. But why go after the ones who do, especially when they’re simply articulating the reasons why the non-vociferous atheists have rejected religion?

I can think of a couple of answers. The first is simple jealousy: some atheists haven’t achieved the fame or public profile of people like Hitchens, and so attack their character rather than their arguments. It’s also a way to get attention for yourself if you feel unappreciated.

The second is the feeling by the Quiet Atheists that “New Atheists don’t represent me,” and so they must be called out. But since when have prominent New Atheists ever said they represent all atheists? They are representing their own views, and I doubt that any of them have said that they speak for all nonbelievers.

The attacks by atheists on New Atheists stand in strong contrast with how religionists act when they disagree. Christians, for instance, don’t spend lots of their time attacking the character and arguments of other Christians like William Lane Craig or Pat Robertson. Yes, I know that there is some criticism along those lines. But I can’t think of a Christian or a Muslim who makes their living writing article after article criticizing individual coreligionists. Nor, do I think, do believers try to damage other believers by consistently misrepresenting their positions or questioning their characters. When they do engage in such criticism, they’re usually straightforward about their disagreements, not prone to distortion, and are rarely snarky.

Finally, believers who do criticize coreligionists—Maajid Nawaz and his criticisms of radical Islam, for instance—usually don’t engage in character assassination or personal attacks: they go after what they see as the palpable dangers of extremist faith.  If your response is that “well, some atheists see New Atheism as extremist, too” I’d reply that the New Atheists aren’t even close to damaging society in the ways that Boko Haram or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his ISIS organization are. New Atheists just write books and give talks; they don’t urge their followers to kill people, forcibly impose their views on others, or urge the murder of those they oppose.

These are just some tentative thoughts, but the rancor of atheist criticism about New Atheists repeatedly surprises and saddens me. And I don’t fully understand it. Readers are invited to share their opinions below.

h/t: Barry

On admitting error

June 2, 2015 • 3:00 pm
It is a fact universally acknowledged that an error, once discovered, must be admitted and made public—especially when you are a scientist or a skeptic, for what is skepticism but winnowing away the error to find truth?

Hemant Mehta (the “Friendly Atheist”) is to be commended for pointing this out on an issue that has been extremely corrosive and inflammatory on atheist websites; so corrosive that many, myself included, chose not to write about it at all. I’ve deliberately refrained from accusing others of criminal acts, harassment, and the like on this site, for I feel that serious accusations like these are properly adjudicated by the authorities—usually courts of law—rather than by the commentariat of blogs, who, inflamed by rhetoric, often bay for blood.

But there comes a time, and the time is now, when those who traffic in such accusations must be called to account, particularly when they’ve erred, tarred someone’s reputation, and then, when their accusations prove to be false, quietly ignore them rather than admit error. This behavior is shameful and reprehensible, and Hemant properly calls it out. Go read his piece.

Alain de Botton, master patronizer, ruins the Rijksmuseum

April 26, 2014 • 9:58 am

As if it weren’t enough that Alain de Botton tells atheists that we need atheist church-equivalents, and how to set them up, he’s apparently now doing the same in the art business, at least according to the Guardian. Their new piece, “Art as therapy review—de Botton as door-stepping self help evangelist,” by Adrian Searle, bascially takes de Botton apart like a house of cards.

I visited the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam a few years ago, and had a great time seeing what few Rembrandts were on display (it was being renovated).  Now, however, the museum has reopened, but there’s a skunk in the woodpile: a Mephitis mephitis named de Botton.  For some unaccountable reason the Rijksmuseum has agreed to allow de Botton (below) to put up giant Post-It™ style notes next to the paintings, telling the viewer how he/she is supposed to react to the paintings.

Alain de Botton at the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam
de Botton at the Rijksmuseum. Photo by Vincent Mentzel

Read for yourself:

A flashing neon sign hangs over the grand entrance to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. Art Is Therapy, it reads, mirroring the cover of Alain de Botton’s recent book Art as Therapy, written with the philosopher and art historian John Armstrong.

The Rijksmuseum reopened last year after major reorganisation and restoration, to almost universal acclaim. It had more than 3 million visitors in 2013. They thought they had a museum; what they have is a crammed-to-the-gills tourist attraction. It’s the Tate Modern effect.

Perhaps troubled that 3 million visitors was not quite enough, Rijksmuseum director Wim Pijbes invited De Botton and Armstrong to make an “intervention”. The authors have filled the place with loud, intrusive labels – giant Post-it notes that often dwarf the exhibits – along with a number of thematic displays.

Art Is Therapy, De Botton, Armstrong, Rijksmuseum
Photograph: Olivier Middendorp

And oy, what the notes say!

“You suffer from fragility, guilt, a split personality, self disgust,” reads a note next to Jan Steen’s 1660s genre painting The Feast of Saint Nicholas. “You are probably a bit like this picture,” the label goes on. “There are sides of you that are a little debauched.” The labels tell us what’s wrong with us, and how the artworks and artefacts they accompany can cure our ills.

In front of Rembrandt’s Night Watch, the crowning glory of the collection, another big yellow label tells us what it believes we are thinking: “I can’t bear busy places – I wish this room were emptier.” De Botton sees the Night Watch as an image of communality, which I suppose it is. There’s not much fellow-feeling in the audience around it, and I guess that’s the point, too.

Can you believe that?

Here’s another one, completely superfluous. Perhaps it went next to a Mondrian.

De Botton, Armstrong, exhibition label

More from Searle’s piece:

Next to Vermeer’s Woman Reading a Letter and his quiet Delft street scene, beside teapots and Chinese gods, alongside an Yves Saint Laurent dress and aRietveld chair, the labels proliferate. De Botton is trying to mend what he sees as a disconnection between art and life, between past and present. This is an unexceptional ambition. Artists and designers do it all the time. Why do we need De Botton? In a display of 19thcentury daguerrotypes, under the curatorial theme of memory, we are told we are in “one of the saddest rooms in the museum. You might want to cry.” Why? All the people in the pictures are dead. They generally are in photographs this old.

Banality and bathos are the stock-in-trade here. De Botton’s curatorial rubrics – as well as memory, there’s fortune, money, politics and sex – are anodyne, his insights and descriptions shallow and obvious. De Botton insists that art can tell us how to live: “It should heal us: it isn’t an intellectual exercise, an abstract aesthetic arena or a distraction for a Sunday afternoon.” His petulant tone is wearing. I also dislike the self-improvement shtick. In front of an athletic bit of statuary, a label inquires why, if we can accept going to the gym to improve our bodies, we don’t visit the museum “to work on our character”.

. . . De Botton’s evangelising and his huckster’s sincerity make him the least congenial gallery guide imaginable. He has no eye, and no ear for language. With their smarmy sermons and symptomology of human failings, their aphorisms about art leading us to better parts of ourselves, De Botton’s texts feel like being doorstepped. But art contains concentrated doses of the virtues! You could coerce any art at all into his cause of mental hygiene and spiritual wellbeing. De Botton reduces art to its discernible content. He doesn’t make us want to look at all.

But tell us how you really feel, Mr. Searle!  All I can say is that I’m very glad he had the temerity to call this bovine guano exactly what it is.

de Botton has an obdurate streak of both pedantry and self-styled superiority that we’ve learned about from his interaction with the community of nonbelievers. Do we really need someone telling us how we’re supposed to feel in an art gallery? And who has the right to tell us how we’re supposed to feel? The good thing about art is that each person brings his or her baggage and history to each work of art, imbuing it with different meanings. Imagine what would happen if de Botton went next door and got his sticky fingers on the Van Gogh Museum!

What baffles me is why this man has any reputation at all.  I suppose it’s because Brits, like Americans (and now presumably the Dutch) like self-helpy stuff, too. And apparently de Botton runs a “School of Life” in London whose purpose is to teach students the way to lead a meaningful life.

In short, he appears to be Britain’s answer to Deepak Chopra, without the quantum stuff and merchandise. I’ll take my art straight, thank you.

Professor Ceiling Cat has arranged a demonstration of what would happen were de Botton to get hold of literature in the same way. We’d likely see stickers in bookstores like this:

raquin_9981

Picture 2