that old rugged crosstalk

Tristero's new entry includes links to both  PZ Myers and to my post about tristero and Sam Harris (welcome, Digby readers!  It's an honor to have you). So I found myself reading Myers' blog for the first time in quite a while.  Myers is an avowed atheist, while I call myself a "spiritually-inclined agnostic," but here's an atheist goal I can wholeheartedly embrace (as articulated by Myers):

"The atheist goal is not the elimination of religion, but a reduction of its impact in secular functions, like government."

I've been working toward that outcome for some time.   Some will ask, Won't that kind of thinking encourage ruthless government behavior?   There's no evidence to suggest it will, and plenty to suggest otherwise.  After all, there's no study linking more ethical public policy to religiously-founded governments, and there's plenty of documentation of the problems with theocracies past and present. 

On the other hand, neither is there evidence that eliminating religion altogether will make human life happier, healthier, or more ethical. That's  why I've tangled with Sam Harris and others that have been described (by me and others) as "evangelical" or "militant" atheists:  Our differences don’t involve issues of belief itself, but center on the claim that the world would be better off with the total elimination of religion. Harris et al. assert this, yet provide no evidence for their argument.

Still, because I agree with Myers & Co. on the role of religion - especially fundamentalist religion - in public life, I've written much more about religious extremism than I have about "militant atheism."  After all, which one presents a clearer and more present danger in today's world? 

(One religion-related post, Unscientific American, was up on the front page of Richard Dawkins' website for quite a while.  I disagree with Dawkins on a number of points, but it was gratifying to find common cause with him on this topic.)

The link also reminded me of my  attempt to define "militant atheism" and what seemed to be the logical flaws in its argument.  Myers' response was to that post to label me "another backlasher" - meaning, I suppose, that he assumed I had orthodox religious beliefs of some kind - and to dismiss my arguments as follows:

1. This "backlasher" describes "militant atheists" as having characteristics A, B, and C.
2. I (Myers) don't have characteristics A, B, and C.
3. Therefore the "backlasher" doesn't know what he's talking about.

The more logical conclusion - that Myers is not a "militant atheist" by the definition used in that piece - is not considered.  The very reasonable statement by Myers quoted above supports that conclusion - he's not one.  But his characterization of my position, that militant atheists "believe that religion is the root of all evil," is a distortion of what I wrote.   

If Myers bothered to read the Harris piece I was critiquing, "Science Must Destroy Religion," he found this statement:  "Religion is fast growing incompatible with the emergence of a global, civil society. "   That statement is flatly incompatible with Myers' comment that atheists "don't seek the elimination of religion."  Or am I missing something?   

That's why, ultimately, addressing this topic was frustrating.  You have somebody like Harris, who says "The difference between science and religion is the difference between a willingness to dispassionately consider new evidence and new arguments, and a passionate unwillingness to do so." Yet when we met I suggested he review some demographic research that contradicted his assertions about religious people in general and Muslims in particular. He refused.   In fact, he demonstrated a "passionate unwillingness to do so."  Nevertheless, when I wrote about the encounter, his defenders thought that was just fine of  him, and even quite clever.

I bore some responsibility for the hostility, too, I suppose.  By even using a term like "militant atheism," which apparently had already become pretty inflammatory in some circles, I was adding more heat than light to the discussion.  Still, when even the more reasoned of the group (like Myers) wouldn't engage on substance, it became pretty clear my time would be better spent elsewhere.

The level of vituperation I got from atheists was unbelievable.  A number of them posted comments or sent emails that included statements like "you love it when Jesus f**ks you in the a**" and "you're a sh*tty-pants baby in diapers whining for your Daddy-God."  I believe that's known as "dispassionately considering new arguments."

(Dr. Dawkins has a chapter in one of his books that consists of insults he's received from religionists.  I think I could give him a run for his money …)

But this "debate" also provided me with my favorite of all the putdowns I've received over the years for my writing (even though it mischaracterizes me theologically):

"Why don't you come down from that cross you can't decide whether or not you believe in?"