Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D., is a professor in the School of Communication at American University. His research tracks scientific and environmental controversies, examining the interactions between experts, journalists, and various publics. In this area, Nisbet has published numerous peer-reviewed studies, has written for several leading popular outlets including the Washington Post, the Columbia Journalism Review, and The Scientist, and has been frequently called upon as a commentator by major news organizations. He also contributes the semi-regular “Science and the Media” column for Skeptical Inquirer online, and he tracks current events related to strategic communication at his popular blog Framing Science..
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Nisbet highlights the recent AAAS panel he organized titled “Communicating Science in a Religious America.” He details his ideas for the most effective strategies to engage the public about science issues, and debates whether the warfare metaphor of science versus religion undermines science education, and contrasts the approaches of leading scientists like Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson. Nisbet also explores why it might be advantageous for secularist activists to re-prioritize when it comes to working in coalition with the religious around certain issues of concern to the science-education community.
Good show. I’m already familiar with Nisbet’s advocated approach and he came across extremely well.
What I have seen lately and something I would warn Nisbet about concerning his advocacy is that he will be labeled an apologist. I have seen Michael Shermer, David Sloan Wilson, E. O. Wilson and many others given lip service in recognition for their advocacy for science and reason, but once they speak up with opinions about what they consider rational approaches, and/or criticism’s, they are simply labeled or worse. Discourse regarding science education, secularism, and morality have simply given way (in large measure) to a “war between supernaturalism and naturalism” (or science v. religion which is more to the point, atheism v. religion). I think the focus will stay this way for the majority of the more vocal (the ones being heard) for the foreseeable future, even though those such as Michael Shermer fights broadly and very publicly. At the same time, I think those such as Nisbet will continue to be seen as “not getting it” (or being apologetic, or engaging in “political correctness") with regards to religion and are becoming “part of the problem”. Those that I mentioned, and others, will continue to be pushed to the fringes as long as the perception is that their opinions about approach are seen as telling others to “shut up”. I think the idea of a “many approaches are needed” which comes and goes makes sense up to a point, some ideas will work, some won’t and that’s why these debates are helpful. Somehow some believe that labeling advocates for science and reason apologist and worse is the same as saying someone is being “hostile” or irrational. Victimization, such as I’ve pointed out will only take one, and the movement, so far.
I understand that D.J. plays the devil’s advocate, but it sounded even beyond the devil’s domain to ask; “so basically Matt, you’re saying, we need to solve all the world’s problems before we advance atheism, secular humanism etc.”. Perhaps that question comes out of the recognition that many who hear Nisbet will actually believe this and will in fact argue that idea.
Yes, Nisbet’s approach is familiar to me as well, and has a lot of validity. He is certainly right that we will need to make common cause with scientifically literate liberal religious people in order to protect the teaching of science in school.
One thing I think he should consider, though: he sees part of the draw of religion in its communitarian aspect. Religions provide a social atmosphere that helps to reduce certain sorts of social insecurities that americans face. One way that “new atheism” and other more overtly secular movements can work constructively is to provide an overtly nonreligious community that is a replacement for traditional religion. In doing so, such new communities will of necessity be replacing religious discussions, arguments and rhetoric with secular and other sorts of overtly nontheistic discussions and arguments. Indeed, I see one point of this forum as filling just such a role; and in creating new CFI centers around the world, CFI is also aiming to fill this role as well with real estate on the ground.
Nisbet is also asking those involved in the “new atheist” movement to go beyond simple atheism and on to making common cause with religious people on more immediately pressing needs, as EO Wilson is doing with his recent book on the environment. This is well and good, however we must also be aware that the “new atheist” movement is, in fact, new. That is, I don’t believe that it has been fully digested either by those involved in it or by the public at large. One goal of this movement must be to raise political awareness of government to the existence of an overtly nonreligious portion of the american public. We have Supreme Court justices who appear to believe that atheism is not constitutionally protected in the same way that diverse religious beliefs are. We certainly have politicians who assert similar claims, including the father of our current president. Arguing for freedom (and, indeed, political acceptance) of non-religion in public life must be a further goal of this movement, and this is a goal which will not be achieved by fudging over what it means to be non-religious. That is not to say that we shouldn’t aim to make common cause with minority and liberal religious folks in arguing for the freedom of nonbelief, of course. But to achieve these ends there must be a role to play in overt public displays of nonbelief, just as overt displays of homosexuality worked to make the public aware of the numbers involved as well as the deep feelings that gays and lesbians had about their own sexuality. To pretend that nonbelief doesn’t exist, or that it is simply another form of liberal religious practice, is not to make the proper claim here.
One thing I think he should consider, though: he sees part of the draw of religion in its communitarian aspect. Religions provide a social atmosphere that helps to reduce certain sorts of social insecurities that americans face. One way that “new atheism” and other more overtly secular movements can work constructively is to provide an overtly nonreligious community that is a replacement for traditional religion. In doing so, such new communities will of necessity be replacing religious discussions, arguments and rhetoric with secular and other sorts of overtly nontheistic discussions and arguments. Indeed, I see one point of this forum as filling just such a role; and in creating new CFI centers around the world, CFI is also aiming to fill this role as well with real estate on the ground.
I think you are quite right here. I have been involved with a local humanist group for many years and often recommend that people get involved in a community sense, even check out the meetup’s in your area. If these are not possible, then forum’s such as this are invaluable I believe. I think it is human nature to form community, it’s good for people for many reasons.
Nisbet is also asking those involved in the “new atheist” movement to go beyond simple atheism and on to making common cause with religious people on more immediately pressing needs, as EO Wilson is doing with his recent book on the environment. This is well and good, however we must also be aware that the “new atheist” movement is, in fact, new. That is, I don’t believe that it has been fully digested either by those involved in it or by the public at large.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. What is it about the “new atheist” that has not been fully digested? What does it mean to give the label “new” onto this atheism? If it is about an approach, then what exactly are you pointing out?
One goal of this movement must be to raise political awareness of government to the existence of an overtly nonreligious portion of the american public. We have Supreme Court justices who appear to believe that atheism is not constitutionally protected in the same way that diverse religious beliefs are. We certainly have politicians who assert similar claims, including the father of our current president.
I agree with your first sentiment here as far as I understand what is said. What “movement” are you referring, because there are many working on this front and a wider focus by those considering themselves as “new atheist” would do well in joining the debates. As an example of a great organization working toward awareness and advocacy is Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who has as their president an ordained minister. It is here that Nisbet and PZ Myers do well mentioning working with those of differing beliefs. I am familiar with the proclamation the former President Bush, which he has corrected. Perhaps you could point out examples of those Supreme Court justices who hold atheism is not constitutionally protected? I am familiar with the debates over the hanging of the Ten Commandments in court houses, but I also remember Thomas’ ideas in the losing minority opinion was vastly misunderstood when he mentioned “atheist”. What I worry about asking this question is that it becomes a topic in and of itself with the bringing in of torrent of religions encroachment into society and politics, which is recognized and I don’t think Nisbet is missing this fact.
Besides that, I think Nisbet was focused mainly on science education and communication.
Arguing for freedom (and, indeed, political acceptance) of non-religion in public life must be a further goal of this movement, and this is a goal which will not be achieved by fudging over what it means to be non-religious.
I agree that finding ways that work best to achieve this goal is a worthy debate. This is a good long term goal.
That is not to say that we shouldn’t aim to make common cause with minority and liberal religious folks in arguing for the freedom of nonbelief, of course. But to achieve these ends there must be a role to play in overt public displays of nonbelief, just as overt displays of homosexuality worked to make the public aware of the numbers involved as well as the deep feelings that gays and lesbians had about their own sexuality.
I agree, it can only help for people to come out as non-religious (though, to say non-religious does not assume one is atheist, humanist etc.) and atheistic. I’ve been doing that by simply being part of a community, including in chat and forum.
I think the connection to homosexual’s is ok, up to a point. It is/was and will continue to be advocacy for equality and acceptance. It has been a long road, even rationalist/humanist such as the well respected and influential psychologist, Albert Ellis , held that homosexuality was a pathology (a popular ideal and held by the APA) right up until his revision in the early 70’s. This was done without evidence. The movement for equality for homosexuality hasn’t seen it’s gains from isolating heterosexual’s or holding that they are “wasting their lives” as heterosexual’s. So, I think this comparison can be strained and that in fact no laws are keeping one from publicly proclaiming one as atheist. This is not to see there is no problems and indeed there is work to be done, I don’t want this to seem this is not recognized.
To pretend that nonbelief doesn’t exist, or that it is simply another form of liberal religious practice, is not to make the proper claim here.
I don’t know what you mean here, are you saying this is what Nisbet is doing?
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. What is it about the “new atheist” that has not been fully digested? What does it mean to give the label “new” onto this atheism? If it is about an approach, then what exactly are you pointing out?
Public discussion of atheism was virtually nonexistent in the US up until the publication of Sam Harris’s first book. Historically, that and the subsequent books by Dawkins, et al., were delayed reactions to the religious zealotry that was responsible for September 11, as well as the religious nature of the Bush presidency. These constitute a difference in kind from the sort of public discourse of atheism and religion that went before. I do not believe that the existence of a strong atheist community has been confronted, however, at any but the most intellectual levels of society. True, I am speaking of a simple historical intuition that I have. At any rate, I do think it’s quite too early to say that this new form of self-aware and public atheism has run its course.
MANO - 01 March 2008 10:28 AM
What “movement” are you referring, because there are many working on this front and a wider focus by those considering themselves as “new atheist” would do well in joining the debates. As an example of a great organization working toward awareness and advocacy is Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who has as their president an ordained minister. It is here that Nisbet and PZ Myers do well mentioning working with those of differing beliefs. I am familiar with the proclamation the former President Bush, which he has corrected. Perhaps you could point out examples of those Supreme Court justices who hold atheism is not constitutionally protected? I am familiar with the debates over the hanging of the Ten Commandments in court houses, but I also remember Thomas’ ideas in the losing minority opinion was vastly misunderstood when he mentioned “atheist”. What I worry about asking this question is that it becomes a topic in and of itself with the bringing in of torrent of religions encroachment into society and politics, which is recognized and I don’t think Nisbet is missing this fact.
I’m not so much claiming that Nisbet is missing this fact as that he’s not discussing it. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that Americans United isn’t doing a great job. They are. A large part of the job they’re doing is bringing together liberal religious denominations to fight for certain sorts of secular rights. But one can say this and still say that atheism and nonbelief has yet to make a real political impact on the US, and that it has a chance to do so now in a way that it has not in the past.
Where has the elder Bush corrected his former statement?
As for the Supreme Court, the justice I was alluding to before was Scalia in his dissent in McCreary County vs. ACLU, where he said, “… it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” That is, Scalia apparently believes that the establishment clause permits the state to establish “monotheism” as the state religion. Clearly, this is the kind of tendentious misinterpretation of the Constitution that has to be fought against. Fortunately his opinion is not yet law, however it is not at all clear that it wouldn’t be if the republicans could appoint one or two more theocratic justices to the bench.
MANO - 01 March 2008 10:28 AM
Besides that, I think Nisbet was focused mainly on science education and communication.
Right. What I was pointing out is that there’s more to the debate here than just science education and communication, and that limiting the discussion of “new atheism”, etc., simply to science education is to miss a good portion of what’s going on.
I’m not necessarily claiming that Nisbet is opposed to all this. I don’t think he is. I just believe that the discussion can be broadened a bit, and that some of the miscommunication between Nisbet and his new-atheist detractors come about because of these different aims. I also want to reiterate that I do agree with a good deal of what Nisbet says. He’s got some great ideas, and his approach in general is right on.
Public discussion of atheism was virtually nonexistent in the US up until the publication of Sam Harris’s first book. Historically, that and the subsequent books by Dawkins, et al., were delayed reactions to the religious zealotry that was responsible for September 11, as well as the religious nature of the Bush presidency. These constitute a difference in kind from the sort of public discourse of atheism and religion that went before. I do not believe that the existence of a strong atheist community has been confronted, however, at any but the most intellectual levels of society. True, I am speaking of a simple historical intuition that I have. At any rate, I do think it’s quite too early to say that this new form of self-aware and public atheism has run its course.
This is interesting on many levels I think. First off would be Sam Harris stating he purposefully left out referring to himself as an atheist and using the term atheism in The End of Faith. He has defended his position on atheism which is relatively negative in the sense he thinks it is a philosophically indefensible position. Also, Harris’ first book was published in mid 2004 and from what I noticed any serious attention given to atheist to the levels we see today was not until much later, perhaps as far ahead as late 2006. There were many reasons for this, one being the publication of The God Delusion and the broad appeal of organized conferences such as those by The Science Network and the Atheist Alliance. During this period many atheistic books came to market, many selling very well. PZ Myers has argued that the recognized rise in non-theist speaking out was not fostered by September 11, 2001 as many have claimed inside and outside the atheist movements. This is not taken very seriously by many, including myself, and we had seen an overall rise in focusing on religion from many quarters throughout society.
Again, I’m not sure what you mean by a “new form”, only that it is alluding to approach.
I’m not so much claiming that Nisbet is missing this fact as that he’s not discussing it. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that Americans United isn’t doing a great job. They are. A large part of the job they’re doing is bringing together liberal religious denominations to fight for certain sorts of secular rights. But one can say this and still say that atheism and nonbelief has yet to make a real political impact on the US, and that it has a chance to do so now in a way that it has not in the past.
It’s possible that atheism and nonbelief can make an impact in politics, but I would see that mainly coming from an openness for a larger acceptance of people willing to vote for an open atheist/nonbeliever. The last statistics I’ve seen on this are showing very low numbers for people willing to vote for an atheist, this will definitely change. It wasn’t that long ago that even larger numbers of the populace stated they would not vote for a black candidate.
Where has the elder Bush corrected his former statement?
The former statement of course comes from the now famous interview between Sherman and Bush that was later published in free inquiry. I am referring to Bush’s later acceptance that atheist can be acknowledged as citizens and patriots.
As for the Supreme Court, the justice I was alluding to before was Scalia in his dissent in McCreary County vs. ACLU, where he said, “… it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” That is, Scalia apparently believes that the establishment clause permits the state to establish “monotheism” as the state religion. Clearly, this is the kind of tendentious misinterpretation of the Constitution that has to be fought against. Fortunately his opinion is not yet law, however it is not at all clear that it wouldn’t be if the republicans could appoint one or two more theocratic justices to the bench.
Yes, this was the Ten Commandments case I had referred. I had mistaken Scalia for Thomas for the dissenting opinion. This is the quote that is often either misquoted or ill understood. He is not saying as you interpreted this as; “atheism is not constitutionally protected in the same way that diverse religious beliefs are.” He is arguing historical presidents for allowing the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. These include, in his opinion, the swearing in of a president on the bible etc.
Here is the fuller quote from his dissent:
Scalia -
If religion in the public forum had to be entirely nondenominational, there could be no religion in the public forum at all. One cannot say the word “God,” or “the Almighty,” one cannot offer public supplication or thanksgiving, without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs. With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists. The Thanksgiving Proclamation issued by George Washington at the instance of the First Congress was scrupulously nondenominational–but it was monotheistic. 3 In Marsh v. Chambers, supra, we said that the fact the particular prayers offered in the Nebraska Legislature were “in the Judeo-Christian tradition,” id., at 793, posed no additional problem, because “there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief,” id., at 794—795.
I had run out of allowable space to continue writing. I just wanted to add that I do not agree with Scalia’s opinion in the case and it was most definitely a establishment issue. His is the “monotheist” argument and that other forms of public religious acknowledgment are of this type. I do not think this case was nondenominational or that even matter most, it looks clearly Christian to hang the Ten Commandments in a county court house and it appears to me Scalia tried to back door it’s acceptance.
One more note. I’m glad to see a wider acceptance of criticizing religious claims. I think this can only go so far as a motivating factor though and can include those of differing beliefs. Also, regarding the “rise” mentioned in the first paragraph above I would add the incredible influence the internet has had. I can only imagine with such a vast collection of opinion now focused on atheism and religion on the internet by so many diverse voices that a leveling out will eventually take place if for no other reason then we can only give so much of our individual resources (time, money etc.) to these enterprises.
This is interesting on many levels I think. First off would be Sam Harris stating he purposefully left out referring to himself as an atheist and using the term atheism in The End of Faith. He has defended his position on atheism which is relatively negative in the sense he thinks it is a philosophically indefensible position. Also, Harris’ first book was published in mid 2004 and from what I noticed any serious attention given to atheist to the levels we see today was not until much later, perhaps as far ahead as late 2006. There were many reasons for this, one being the publication of The God Delusion and the broad appeal of organized conferences such as those by The Science Network and the Atheist Alliance. During this period many atheistic books came to market, many selling very well. PZ Myers has argued that the recognized rise in non-theist speaking out was not fostered by September 11, 2001 as many have claimed inside and outside the atheist movements. This is not taken very seriously by many, including myself, and we had seen an overall rise in focusing on religion from many quarters throughout society.
His position in End of Faith was explicitly antireligious, in the western, God-centered sense. (He was more accepting of Buddhism and other eastern religions). Whether or not he used the term “atheist” in specific is, I think, irrelevant. I know that recently Harris has come out against the term “atheist” as unhelpful or negative. But that strikes me as a separate issue having to do with political rhetoric. Yes, as I noted, publication of Dawkins’s book, as well as other similar books and indeed conferences as you note, did add on to the general discussion of atheism. However the start was at least arguably with Harris’s book. (Really, had he not published that book I don’t see how he would even have been on the radar screen for the Beyond Belief conference).
Where did PZ Myers say this about 9/11? At any rate, I respectfully disagree with him if he made such a claim.
MANO - 01 March 2008 01:36 PM
Where has the elder Bush corrected his former statement?
The former statement of course comes from the now famous interview between Sherman and Bush that was later published in free inquiry. I am referring to Bush’s later acceptance that atheist can be acknowledged as citizens and patriots.
OK, but what I was asking before is where Bush, Sr. accepted atheists as citizens and patriots. It’s not that I don’t believe you but I’d like to see precisely what he said.
MANO - 01 March 2008 01:36 PM
Yes, this was the Ten Commandments case I had referred. I had mistaken Scalia for Thomas for the dissenting opinion. This is the quote that is often either misquoted or ill understood. He is not saying as you interpreted this as; “atheism is not constitutionally protected in the same way that diverse religious beliefs are.” He is arguing historical presidents for allowing the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. These include, in his opinion, the swearing in of a president on the bible etc.
That interpretation doesn’t clearly follow from the words Scalia used. What he said, again, is that “the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” Now, it may be that he is only talking about “public acknowledgment of religious belief”; let’s hope so. But even so, Scalia is explicitly setting up a privileged position for theists as versus other sorts of religious believers. Had he not wished to do so, it would have been possible for him to have written that the Establishment Clause permits disregard of any contrary religious or nonreligious opinion.
His position in End of Faith was explicitly antireligious, in the western, God-centered sense. (He was more accepting of Buddhism and other eastern religions). Whether or not he used the term “atheist” in specific is, I think, irrelevant. I know that recently Harris has come out against the term “atheist” as unhelpful or negative. But that strikes me as a separate issue having to do with political rhetoric. Yes, as I noted, publication of Dawkins’s book, as well as other similar books and indeed conferences as you note, did add on to the general discussion of atheism. However the start was at least arguably with Harris’s book. (Really, had he not published that book I don’t see how he would even have been on the radar screen for the Beyond Belief conference).
I only pointed out his views of atheism and his deliberate exclusion of either referring to himself as an atheist or using the term atheism in The End of Faith. I did this because if we are talking about the rise of atheism and credit is given to Sam, then his views on atheism should be an important feature. Sam’s position on atheism as a political maneuver is evident by his proclamations which he also included humanist, skeptic. But, he clearly sees atheism as a philosophical indefensible position. This looks to me like a two pronged attack that is relevant to a discussion of atheism when Sam Harris is mentioned I believe. As an anti-theist, as is Christopher Hitchen’s, there is no doubt his voice is a leading clarion call.
Where did PZ Myers say this about 9/11? At any rate, I respectfully disagree with him if he made such a claim.
PZ Myers -
Further evidence of a skewed perspective comes in the next paragraph: “What kick-started the New Atheism was, of course, the attack on the Twin Towers.” Complete nonsense, especially after we’ve just been told that the New Atheism traces its heritage back to the 18th century. We proponents of atheism have our roots in ideas established well before 9/11; I don’t know anyone who was confronted by a terrorist attack and decided now was the time to make an intellectual break from prior religious traditions. And the only “of course” is the events that happened afterwards: an electorate that consoled itself with religious platitudes and rushed to favor any pious politician willing to wallop a bible. The “New Atheism” did not arise out of revulsion to Islamic extremism, but as a counter to growing public irrationality. The reason it has taken off to such a degree in America is because this is where that irrationality has been most firmly rooted and so prominently displayed. Remember, this is the country where Pat Robertson was considered a viable presidential candidate…in 1988. If you want to find the source that kick-started the New Atheism, you’re going to have to look well before 2001.
This is the same piece that PZ Myers states upfront; “First, I have to confess: I’m not a humanist.”
That interpretation doesn’t clearly follow from the words Scalia used. What he said, again, is that “the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.” Now, it may be that he is only talking about “public acknowledgment of religious belief”; let’s hope so. But even so, Scalia is explicitly setting up a privileged position for theists as versus other sorts of religious believers. Had he not wished to do so, it would have been possible for him to have written that the Establishment Clause permits disregard of any contrary religious or nonreligious opinion.
I think your mistake in interpreting what is said in Scalia’s dissent stems from the word , disregard. I believe you think he is saying that you can disregard atheist in the sense that their speech is not protected the same way as the monotheitic religionist. This is not the case, only that the opinion that a show of a monotheist proclamation, such as his example of Washington (and others throughout his opinion) would offend many and this should not be the basis to rule against hanging the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse. This is then an establishment case, not a case of an infringement on atheist constitutional protections. It ends up to be an infringement on the separation of church and state because this is clearly a Christian document and so is favoring said religion.
Re. PZ Myers, again, I disagree. Harris’s End of Faith was explicitly an attack on radical Islam and the faith that led to 9/11. I doubt it would have gotten written or published without that event, and if it had, it certainly would never have gotten Norton Press as a publisher, nor the coverage it did. Certainly it would never have been a best seller. The same can be said of Dawkins’s book. Indeed, in an interview on 10/11/2001 Dawkins had this to say:
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labelled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let’s now stop being so damned respectful!
This encapsulates the relevance of 9/11 for the new atheist movement. Before that event, many saw religion as harmless. Afterwards, they were willing to criticize it publicly. This led Dawkins to his Root of All Evil? BBC series, once again explicitly about 9/11, and then his book. None of this would have happened but for 9/11. The books wouldn’t have been written, they wouldn’t have gotten first-rank publishers, they wouldn’t have been so widely reviewed and they wouldn’t have become best-sellers.
Of course, PZ Myers is absolutely right that there was an active atheist contingent before 9/11. The roots of atheism go back to ancient Greece, after all. But the “new atheist” movement per se is a product of 9/11.
Not sure about the claim re. Scalia. Not exactly following your argument.
I’d still be interested to get that GHW Bush citation if you can find it. ...
Not sure about the claim re. Scalia. Not exactly following your argument.
Scalia is arguing that the fact this may be a denominational document, The Ten Commandments as displayed in the county court house, is not relevant because there is already an acceptance of other forms of public displays of religion that are monotheistic on and in public arenas, which he is identifying the Ten Commandments document as. He is trying to put aside the fact this favors a specific religion, in this case, Christianity, and instead can be viewed as just another public display of a view from a monotheistic belief. We can disregard the concerns of those other belief systems and is thus not an establishment case because there are other public displays of a monotheistic kind, this of course can’t happen… “without contradicting the beliefs of some people that there are many gods, or that God or the gods pay no attention to human affairs.” He offers the idea of “devout atheist” to point out this also includes those of no belief in God’s. In short, we are not offending anyone in a special way because the president is set that monotheistic displays are already accepted. This is only an argument to attempt to set aside the display of the Ten Commandments in this case as an establishment case.
Right, Mano, I do see that, but the implication of Scalia’s argument is as I’d claimed before. That is, it seems Scalia is arguing that since there are already public displays of a monotheistic kind, the country is already a de facto monotheistic theocracy. Monotheists’ religious beliefs are apparently more protected than the beliefs of polytheists or atheists. This is an intolerable claim, of course.
Thanks for the conversation today, Doug. Something came to mind when seeing that Richard Dawkins quote and our discussion over the impact of 9/11. It’s the opinion that has been forwarded, most notably by Zbigniew Brzezinski, HERE.
He revealed that CIA support for the mujaheddin had started before the 1979 Soviet invasion and was indeed designed to prompt a Soviet invasion, leading them into a bloody conflict comparable to America’s experience in Vietnam. This was referred to as the “Afghan Trap”. Brzezinski viewed the end of the Soviet empire as worth the cost of strengthening militant Islamic groups.
Seems strange to think that support was given that lead to the rise of strengthened militant Islamic groups that would lead to 9/11 that in turn inspired that Richard Dawkins quote. Seems we sure weren’t given them much “respect”.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. What is it about the “new atheist” that has not been fully digested? What does it mean to give the label “new” onto this atheism? If it is about an approach, then what exactly are you pointing out?
Public discussion of atheism was virtually nonexistent in the US up until the publication of Sam Harris’s first book. Historically, that and the subsequent books by Dawkins, et al., were delayed reactions to the religious zealotry that was responsible for September 11, as well as the religious nature of the Bush presidency. These constitute a difference in kind from the sort of public discourse of atheism and religion that went before. I do not believe that the existence of a strong atheist community has been confronted, however, at any but the most intellectual levels of society. True, I am speaking of a simple historical intuition that I have. At any rate, I do think it’s quite too early to say that this new form of self-aware and public atheism has run its course.
Doug, I agree that Sam Harris’ book had enormous impact on public discussion.
From my perspective, the books by John Shelby Spong provided some opportunity for discussing that the Bible was not literally true, and as a recognized member of the church hiearchy he brought some inherent credibility. However, he doesn’t consider himself an atheist {I think}.
There have been years of growing stress: evolution vs. creationism; I think during the hey-day of the Soviet Union atheism was discredited as un-American (hence putting “under God” into pledge of allegience, etc.) and maybe this postponed rational discussion.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. What is it about the “new atheist” that has not been fully digested? What does it mean to give the label “new” onto this atheism? If it is about an approach, then what exactly are you pointing out?
Public discussion of atheism was virtually nonexistent in the US up until the publication of Sam Harris’s first book.
