Effectiveness of Ridicule and New Atheism

@Faizal_Ali,

I can say for myself as a casual Christian observer reading Christians here who support Evolution, I am much more friendly to Evolution and have become more critical of ID. The reason for this is Christian and non Christian Scientists here who support Evo are respectful of opposing views. You on the other hand are scary. The description in your handle of “Militant Atheist” is quite fitting.

4 Likes

What makes you think that?

I agree that is what should be done. And it’s what I do.

1 Like

So that works for you. Good.

I can only say that, in the the 20+ years I have been following this issue, the one and only time I have witnessed a creationist switch over to accepting evolution was on a forum with a strong pro-atheist slant where creationists were mercilessly ridiculed. So different things work for different people. Avoiding public humiliation can be a strong motivator for many people.

2 Likes

@Faizal_Ali So your mercilessly ridiculed approach has produced 1 creationist switching over to Evo in the past 20 years. WOW that’s impressive!

1 Like

1 is more than zero, which is how many I have seen switch from the nicey-nicey approach. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. Just that I have never directly witnessed it.

But I will add that this entire discussion presumes that the only objective is for creationists to accept evolution. But I also see as an objective the removal of creationism and other forms of science denial (climate denial, anti-vaxx, etc.) from acceptable public discourse.

I know he’s probably one of those mean old “militant atheists” that you find so scary, but I agree with the point that Sam Harris makes here:

1 Like

So because “you” haven’t “directly seen it” (i.e being nice/respectful) you think being an ass is going to convince the creationists you’re right. OK got it, Thanks!

1 Like

This is the Dawkins approach… ridicule people till they surrender…
The power of peer pressure . Is that how scientists are also “converted” to believe in evolution?

2 Likes

No, it is not.

No. Just saying that is not the only effective approach. And, again, convincing creationists they are wrong is not the only objective. Getting then to be so ashamed of their position they refuse to express it in public would mean defenders of science would have to spend less time trying to prevent legislatures from forcing teachers to teach creationism, for example.

1 Like

So, are you recommending two ways of persuasion… one for the elite scientific community and a method based on social coercion for the “unwashed masses”?

Can you elaborate on how far ridiculing and insulting should go?

2 Likes

I definitely enjoyed the Sam Harris video—though not for the reasons his fans would intend. Just as we often see anti-evolution analogies posted on this forum which fail miserably because they fail to make sense (e.g., cell phones don’t reproduce), so with comparing theism with a belief that Elvis is still alive and is regularly seen ordering a Big Mac at a MacDonald’s. For starters, many centuries of philosophers (and even mathematicians like Kurt Godel) have pondered proofs of the existence of God and their writings help fill universities worldwide and keep entire academic departments occupied for years. Now, whether or not one happens to find the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God or the Ontological Argument for God compelling, Sam Harris comparing theism to living-Elvisism via analogizing is not a big step up from an anti-evolutionist arguing “Put a bunch of electronic components on a table and wait and see if a cell phone appears after millions of years. Case closed! Slam dunk victory for me!”

There’s good reasons why atheist philosophers like Daniel Dennet have grown exasperated with Sam Harris. Harris even managed to make the “Five Atheists Who Ruin It For Everyone Else” list in Salon magazine (hardly a bastion of theist defenders!)

2 Likes

You illustrate Sam Harris’s point perfectly. Thanks.

2 Likes

Because abrasive conversation leads to rapid breakdown of conversation, and further breakdown of trust.

What I can say is that forums like Peaceful Science, where there is less ridicule but more diplomacy yet honesty in exchanging views, are very rare. Whereas pro-atheist forums with ridicule are more common. Perhaps it’s time to try a new approach instead of trying to keep doing what we know is not effective.

Secondly, we should also play the long game. Josh probably will make people from YEC families more likely to accept evolution in the future through his talking at creationist conferences. Converting old people with entrenched views is much harder than converting young people who are undecided or trying to make up their minds.

The video you shared is from 2008. Did the New Atheist attitude work? Is religious discourse no longer acceptable in the public sphere? :sweat_smile: It seems to me that the anti-vax movement got bigger after 2008…

New Atheism is mostly dead. Its chief proponents have either morphed into something else (e.g. Sam Harris), or stopped altogether. Quoting PZ Myers:

1 Like

I’m not talking about “new atheism.” I’m talking about how to respond to creationists. Not only atheists are concerned with that.

Would this be a good time to point out that one Donald J. Trump behaved like a complete ass and 80% of evangelicals voted for him?

Doesn’t that strongly suggest that evangelicals respect that approach?

1 Like

@Mercer,

What you say about evangelicals supporting Trump despite acting like an ass could be true. But this is a different situation. @Faizal_Ali is trying to convince people of opposing views, whereas Trump was more or less preaching to the choir.

I’ve already explained that is not what I am trying to do by refusing to conceal my true attitude towards creationists. Other than the negligible number of creationists whose position is based on genuine scientific ignorance which can be rectified with information, I believe creationists will only accept evolution if their theological views change to allow that. I admit I have no idea how people arrive at their theological positions.

Ridicule and mockery, IMHO, are not intended to change creationists’ minds. Rather, they are intended to reduce the perceived acceptability of creationist ideas. Here in Canada the situation is very different than in the USA, in that we almost never hear a politician stand up and proclaim that the earth is 6000 years old. I do not believe that is because our politicians are so much more intelligent and informed than those in the US. But on the rare occasions that it has happened, the politician was immediately greeted with undisguised ridicule from all sides of the public and media, as well and censure from the party leaders. As a result we are not constantly fighting against political efforts to insert creationism into the school curricula.

I think that’s a good thing, and worth the price of the hurt fee-fees of a few religious zealots. You may disagree.

Maybe this is the case for some, but I’ve never detected in any ID circles people of faith who think ID is the only option for maintaining their faith. What you said about ID is much more likely to be true of YEC because YEC - at least the AiG version for sure, but I think the ICR version as well - is predicated on theism.

ID, by contrast, is compatible with theism, but it is not predicated on it. In fact, it has received criticism from AiG for this very reason.

David Berlinsky, who is a senior fellow of DI, identifies as agnostic.

2 Likes