How Are Anti-Intellectuals Like the Roadrunner?

That analogy is friggin genius.

I think my only problem with the analogy, because otherwise it’s brilliant, regards the fact that even if injured–to the extent of being horribly mangled–the Coyote never dies. So the laws of physics don’t entirely apply to him either.
However, this point may further contribute to the analogy instead: regardless of however our arguments may backfire due to inane ad hoc responses, those responses are always non-lethal to the logical arguments we posit. Further, instead of the source of the argument dying (ie., us), it just gets to suffer in its frustration. lol

Who else is a roadrunner? Sarah Palin.

That is a great analogy, but I think the Roadrunner is cute. Anti-intellectuals aren’t cute, they’re just… yucky.

This guy has nailed it!
Wonderful analogy.
When I was a member of the Church of Christ, I was in a lengthy debate/Bible study about creationism with one of the elders. This took place in private on Wednesday evenings.
This man was no Sarah Palin. He had a Master’s of Arts in classic languages(Ancient Greek and Latin), was a professional technical writer and an incredibly intelligent human being. Still, he resorted to the “goddidit” tactic whenever confronted with the truth or reality. It was both frustrating and incredibly depressing. What a tragic waste of an incredible mind.
I wish I had known of the Roadrunner analogy back then. It would -at the least- have been fun for me to use, if not convincing to him.

The thing is, if you actually want to help someone give up their religious or irrational beliefs

This sentence hits the nail on the head for why I lump fundamental aetheists and fundamental christians in the same pile.

As a progressive christian, I no longer find it necesary to predicate my faith on the blind unwavering belief in the literal interpretation of the miracles in the bible. Yet so many aetheistist (like so many christians) cannot get past the tie between faith and irrational belief.

Why must the argument be between the two extremes? Why must religion be expunged? Yes, fundamentalist christians need to learn from science how to reform their faith to something relevant. But, fundamental aetheists also need to open their minds to the possiblity that religion (not necessarily church institutions) might just have the potential to inject real meaning into life.

Apologies to any progressive aetheists out there who happen to agree with me. I’m sure you don’t like being lumped in with the “fundies” any more than I do (albeit at opposite polarity).

Mike, I don’t think we have “fundamantalist” atheists as much as “evangelical” (conversionism) ones…and even those (if they really exist) tend to be, in my experience, “young-in-the-faith” and certainly not the norm.

Of course, I could be wrong.

There are irrational people who believe all sorts of things, even…sometimes…the same things I believe in (with inconclusive facts), and sometimes the things that are facts with very little doubt.

I have very little problem with anyone who wants to believe anything they like. My only problem shows up when they want me to believe it too.

Does this mean we get to drop anvils on them?

Call Acme.

Chal wrote:

Fundamental atheism is a nonsensical term that seems to have been made up by those seeking to create some sort of false equivalence.

Kinda like “activist judges”? Every time I hear that phrase I want to punch the speaker/writer.

one very good analogy.

“From what I can tell from the use of the terms by theists, the difference between an atheist and a fundamental atheist is that the fundamental atheist speaks.”

hahaha, good one

I don’t know, Jeff P. I don’t care to deconvert anyone but it depends on the circumstances on whether or not I remain silent. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing it with theists who are open to discussion (vs. just pretending to be in hopes of converting you, though I guess there’s some degree of that on both sides even in a friendly discussion) and I’ll be downright confrontational to those who want to inflict it on me by rule of law.

The analogy didn’t wow me but that’s probably because I hate that damned cartoon and I think he nailed exactly why I do.

I can see Mike’s point about faith not necessarily being irrational … but only from the perspective of avoiding contempt prior to investigation.

Otherwise, sorry – even as a lapsed Catholic, I am weary of hearing how all values that are good and true come from religion, when that’s simply not true: man had to have some concept of right/wrong in order to develop the concept of religion or even accept the teachings of an apparently superior/supreme being.

Claudia,

So what do fundamentalist Christians do? They want to prevent gays from getting equal rights (many would prefer homosexuality be illegal outright), want women to be forced to carry an embryo to term, even if its the result of rape. They also want their iron-age creation mythology taught as “science” in public schools and want official recognition that their religion is the country’s religion.

Even some people who are not fundamentalists ( or even Christian) believe that the baby in the womb is a life that is worth protecting.

What do fundamentalist atheists do? Uhh, they write books saying bad things about religion. They demand strict adherence to the constitutional separation of church and state. They openly ridicule creationists and fight them tooth and nail to prevent their ideas from being taught as “science” in the schools. They also try to convince others they are right by…uhm…talking to them, buying billboards and wearing snarky t-shirts. Oh, and also the aforementioned books.

And in some instances they kill millions of people to stomp out all religion in the name of the state.

@ Robert W.

You forgot to use the old stand byes; Hitler was an atheist, Stalin and Pol Pot’s motivations were strictly atheist in their origins and had nothing to do with political ideologies. Atheism is immoral and/or a religion, atheist believe in nothing…yada yada yada. Roadrunner.

Aw, Steve and RJ you beat me to the punch!

@Robert, Stalin wanted to stamp out religion because he didn’t want any competition in terms of faith. People worshipping god were wasting precious time they could spend worshipping him or his ideology. His ideology wasn’t atheism because atheism is not an ideology. Please, feel free to describe what the ideology of atheism prescribes beyond “there is no evidence for a god”. Simply stating that his atheism form the basis for his massacres in the absence of a shred of supporting evidence is what “doesn’t fly”.

As for the pro-life position yes, I’m aware that not just fundamentalist Christians hold that position. What is true however is that the position that a woman or girl who has been raped should be forced against her will to carry the baby to term even to the point of denying the morning after pill is an extreme minority position that you find ordinarily in fundamentalist Christian circles (and sometimes very conservative Catholics). Name me one anglican abortion clinic bomber.

@Jeff P: A fundamentalist Christian will say to your face that you will burn in hell and then quote bible verses to try to bring you to Christ. A progressive Christian will just think those thoughts and remain silent.

Jeff, the real liberal Christians don’t think that (and, please believe me, I am NO defender of Christians). I think that more accurately describes the moderates. Even then, they aren’t monolithic.

Claudia,

@Robert, Stalin wanted to stamp out religion because he didn’t want any competition in terms of faith. People worshipping god were wasting precious time they could spend worshipping him or his ideology. His ideology wasn’t atheism because atheism is not an ideology.

I don’t believe that is correct. His clear goal was to create an atheist state in an effort to promote communism which has as one of it’s tenets the abolition of religion. My comment was not an attempt to say that he did these things just because he was an atheist, but it he did do them to establish an atheist state, much like what was done in Albania. Which I think makes the comparison appropriate in the context of bad acts done based upon a fundamentalist fervor.

What is true however is that the position that a woman or girl who has been raped should be forced against her will to carry the baby to term even to the point of denying the morning after pill is an extreme minority position that you find ordinarily in fundamentalist Christian circles (and sometimes very conservative Catholics).

I am sure you are correct that if there is a minority of folks who argue that a lady that is raped should be forced to carry the child, those folks are probably fundamentalist Christians. But that wasn’t your original comment.

Steve,

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion? I assume not but will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Which I think makes the comparison appropriate in the context of bad acts done based upon a fundamentalist fervor.

I certainly agree that the acts were done in the context of a fundamentalist fervor. But it was not atheist fundamentalism, it was communist fundamentalism. Fundamentalism of any sort, since it requires adherence to dogma above all else, is particularly vulnerable to these sorts of acts. Religion is particularly vulnerable to fundamentalism because it places faith (belief without the requirement of evidence) at its center. However both communism and fascism show that you can have political fundamentalism as well. What I dispute is the possibility of atheist fundamentalism because atheism is not a belief system but the absence of one. For instance, I do believe you could have secularist fundamentalism because secularism actually has an attached ideology. I would dispute that this was the base or core nature of Stalinsim, though obviously persecution of religion was one aspect of it. On the same vein, religion was one aspect of Nazism (both in identifying victims and justifying actions) but I would dispute that the horrific acts of the Nazis were based on religion. Do you see the difference?

I know I know, an “intellectual christian” is an oxymoron to most of you…

Not me, fundie. I used to enjoy many a long debate with a Christian friend/coworker I had years ago. We honestly respected each other and found each other stimulating and thought provoking. I still miss it from time to time since we’ve both gone our own ways.

But I think you’re right about the core of the problem in our discussions. Christians believe god is the ultimate authority and, for Atheists, that’s kind of like making the Easter Bunny the ultimate authority. Very frustrating.

Robert,

This statement:

In other words, you can’t have communism as practiced in the Soviet union and create an atheist state without atheism.

may be literally true, but as I tried to point out in my earlier post, the actual goals of setting up a totalitarian state are much more complicated than you seem to let on. At this point, it looks to me like we’re talking past each other.

I would like to really focus on the quote from Marx that you mentioned (and truncated rather largely) in your block quote. The full quotation is:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.

There is a lot more here than you’re letting on about Marx’s thoughts on religion. Marx is saying that the purpose of a religion is to grant fantasies that bring happiness to the poor, for whom economic reality prevents from finding happiness in the present life. Religion tells that this lack of satisfaction here is ok, because they will get a better deal in the next life. If you read the quote carefully, you even see that Marx isn’t cold or without sympathy for people in this condition, there are people who are truly distressed, and religion is trying to provide solace as one might relieve physical pain with any opioid.

The critique here, is really more about a society that has become cold to its least members than about the religion that is trying to provide some bit of solace to them. The problem, and here is why the opiate analogy is so poignant, is that the opiate DOES NOT fix the problem, it relieves the symptom, pain. Religion is not fixing the predicament of these distressed people, it is causing them to forget why they’re suffering and replacing that with promises of another life where they won’t have any pain.

For Marx, religion isn’t even all that important, his key points are about oppressive economic realities, and he spends A TON of time talking about these, and a rather trivial amount of time talking about religion. If you buy his claim about the importance of fixing these economic realities, then you can see why he wasn’t a very vocal enemy of religion. If humanity could fix these economic problems that caused so much distress, then there would be no need for the soothing promises of religion, and it would simply disappear on its own.

Because of Marx’s emphasis on poltical/economic structures, there are many marxists who are actually sympathetic to religion. For example in “Foundations of Christianity” Karl Krautsky wrote that early Christianity was remarkably similar to a proletarian revolution against privileged Roman oppressors. In fact, in latin america, the catholic church used marx’s work as a basis to criticize economic injustices and they called this “liberation theology”!

I have some philosopher friends who have talked to me at length about this because it really gets their goat how thoroughly quote-mined that “opiate of the people” line is. It really bugs me when people use the Marxism-Leninism label, then apply it to soviet russia, when Marx was over thirty years dead at the time of the revolution, and over 40 years dead at the time of the founding of the Soviet Union.

@Mike, no one has mentioned it, but you may have noticed that you’ve been spelling atheist wrong. Given that it’s the most frequently used term on this site, you may want to correct that.

Apologies. My spell checker kept complaining about “atheist,” but not “aetheist”. It seemed wrong at the time, but I went with what got rid of the annoying red underline. I’ll need to check if someone screwed around with the user dictionary. Guess I should have gone with my gut… or better yet, taken the 1.5 seconds necessary to look at the banner bar and see the correct spelling…. What can I say? I clearly have egg on face for being lazy.

Perhaps I am mistaken in my use of the term “fundamentalist.” In which case, allow me to explain the reason that I chose that word. I fully realized that it would get attention and raise eyebrows… but I also believe it is the correct word. It would seem that it refers to anyone who holds (dare I say it) sacredly to a fundamental principle of their belief system and refuses to even entertain the notion that it might not be 100% accurate. It does not refer to the behavior that flows from said belief. Sadly, religious fundamentalism has more often than not let to disastrous consequences. And on that note, I would not equate fundamental christians with fundamental atheists. Where I equate the two in in the unwavering belief that the other side has nothing to bring to the table and has nothing but negative (often derogatory) things to say about them. Typically they often fail to recognize that between the extremes is a full spectrum of belief systems. I have little regard for either extreme as I am often lambasted by both.