Comments on: Charmed by Rebecca Watson

By: Anthony McCarthy

Anthony McCarthy — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:36:28 +0000

Jon, I remember how successful the Weather Underground was too. All that anger and passion produced a couple of media stars and a lot of utter futility. Compare it with what MLK got done.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:30:05 +0000

Neoconservative Irving Kristol:

We say, repeatedly, that ideas have consequences, which is true but what we have in mind are complex, thoughtful, and well-articulated ideas. What we so easily overlook is the fact that simple ideas, allied to passion and organization, also have consequences. National Review, it turns out, was part of a larger movement that created institutions which shaped and trained several thousand young conservatives, not so much to go forth and proclaim the gospel, as to go into the Republican party and gain control of it.

Well how about the consequences of those “simple ideas”, Irving? Things didn’t go so well, by the looks of today’s GOP. We have a GOP of endless culture wars, and real wars, in lieu of policy.

I think the atheist movement should be smarter than that, a more loyal follower of reason. It looks like some in the movement are realizing that there needs to be a better set of organizing ideas than just “science good, religion bad” (like you might get from Phil Hartman’s Frankenstein character on SNL):

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/robert_m_price_is_the_bible_mein_kampf/

By: Anthony McCarthy

Anthony McCarthy — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:11:05 +0000

RickK, I’ve never seen anyone lose an honest argument against an onslaught of anger. You can be angry and rational at the same time, though it doesn’t happen very often. In that case anyone who is impressed by the anger has usually missed the reason which gets eclipsed by the more exciting and base content. Looking at the “skeptics” and the new atheists anger and mockery look like they can cause a clique to congeal but they don’t make that clique operate on the basis of reason and it only attracts converts attracted to that kind of frat boy stuff.

Defending reason and science with anger and derision. My guess is junk and reason in, junk and unreason out. If you’ve got the evidence the anger and derision will just defeat it.

By: RickK

RickK — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:02:43 +0000

Different strategies work in different places. As Phil Plait said, anger is a potent weapon so it should be used wisely, but there are times when it SHOULD be used.

It’s true – people are rarely convinced by being insulted or humiliated in an argument. However, being in the audience and watching someone lose an argument and lose it spectacularly can be VERY convincing. And in the web blog world, your target isn’t the person with whom you are arguing, it’s the 100 (or 500 or 5000 or 50,000) people reading the exchange.

As they said on the post-TAM panel on Skepticality – take the “Roadhouse” approach. Be nice, until it’s time to not be nice.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:58:33 +0000

Also, don’t just bash religion’s weakest defenders. For instance, this is a very able defender of religion, who I think does well putting Daniel Dennett in context:

http://vimeo.com/7803207

It’s a long talk, and he starts out talking about the contrast between Hume and Aristotle, but narrows in on Dennett at about 42 minutes.

A short version of his take on the New Atheists is here:

http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=375

By: Amoebamike

Amoebamike — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:38:05 +0000

As you and/or Chris pointed out in Unscientific America, the atheists who use a sledgehammer to pound a tack aren’t doing anything to further their cause. Ms. Watson’s answer was spot on: take a deep breath and count to 10.