Why I Think the New Atheists are a Bloody Disaster

Beliefnet ^ | August 14, 2009 | Michael Ruse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

In my seventieth year I find myself in a very peculiar position. Raised a Quaker, I lost my faith in my early twenties and it has never returned. I think of myself as an agnostic on deities and ultimate meanings and that sort of thing. With respect to the main claims of Christianity - loving god, fallen nature, Jesus and atonement and salvation - I am pretty atheistic, although some doctrines like original sin seem to me to be accurate psychologically. I often refer to myself as a very conservative non-believer, meaning that I take seriously my non-belief and I think others should do (and often don't). If someone goes to the Episcopal Church for social or family reasons, or because they love the music or ceremonies, I have no trouble with that. Had I married a fellow Quaker, I might still be going to Quaker meetings. But I have little time for someone who denies the central dogmas of Christianity and still claims to be a Christian, except in a social sense. No God, no Jesus as His son, no resurrection, no eternal life - no Christianity. As it happens, I prefer the term "skeptic" to describe my position rather than "agnostic," because so often the latter means "not really interested" and I am very interested. Like Thomas Henry Huxley, I am deeply religious in a total absence of theology. Unlike his grandson Julian Huxley (and others like Edward O. Wilson), I am totally uninterested in a "religion without revelation." I loathe the term and the idea of "humanist." One religion in this lifetime is quite enough thank you.

Without burnishing my halo too much, I think - and I warned you that I am a very conservative non-believer - that the most important parable is that of the talents and that in this lifetime, although never succeeding (thanks to my own moral frailty), I have tried hard to use that which has been given to me. In particular, I have striven to move beyond the comfortable life of a university professor - and I have been a full-time philosophy prof since I was twenty five - to engage in the public sphere on issues that I think morally important. Specifically, I have engaged in the science-religion debate - more precisely in the Darwinism-Creationism debate - for over thirty years. I have written on the subject, I have lectured regularly on the subject (on average, I give a talk about every two weeks and many are on this topic), and I have appeared as witness in a court case to defend the US separation of Church and State.

That the Creationists and fellow travelers, notably proponents of Intelligent Design Theory (IDT), would dislike my views I take as axiomatic. They should dislike my views for I spend my life fighting against these people. I say this notwithstanding the fact that, at the personal level, I have good and friendly relations with many of the leaders, including Duane T. Gish, Phillip Johnson, and Bill Dembski. I do not consider these people to be evil or motivated by money - anything but this latter, Gish could have made millions in the motivational speaking arena - although I deplore their beliefs and think them deeply dangerous. I will say however that I was disappointed that when Ben Stein tried to make me seem foolish in his movie Expelled, not one of them sprang publicly to my defense. Anyone who did not condemn that gross piece of distortion of the issues should feel really ashamed.

Which brings me to the point of what I want to say. I find myself in a peculiar position. In the past few years, we have seen the rise and growth of a group that the public sphere has labeled the "new atheists" - people who are aggressively pro-science, especially pro-Darwinism, and violently anti-religion of all kinds, especially Christianity but happy to include Islam and the rest. Actually the arguments are not that "new," but no matter - the publicity has been huge. Distinctive of this group, although well known to anyone who studies religion and the way in which sects divide and proliferate, is the fact that (with the possible exception of the Catholic Church) nothing incurs their wrath than those who are pro-science but who refuse to agree that all and every kind of religious belief is wrong, pernicious, and socially and personally dangerous. Recently, it has been the newly appointed director of the NIH, Francis Collins, who has been incurring their hatred. Given the man's scientific and managerial credentials - completing the HGP under budget and under time for a start - this is deplorable, if understandable since Collins is a devout Christian.

I am not a devout Christian, yet if anything, the things said against me are worse. Richard Dawkins, in his best selling The God Delusion, likens me to Neville Chamberlain, the pusillanimous appeaser of Hitler at Munich. Jerry Coyne reviewed one of my books (Can a Darwinian be a Christian?) using the Orwellian quote that only an intellectual could believe the nonsense I believe in. And non-stop blogger P. Z. Myers has referred to be as a "clueless gobshite." This invective is all because, although I am not a believer, I do not think that all believers are evil or stupid, and because I do not think that science and religion have to clash. (Of course some science and religion clashes. That is the whole point of the Darwinism-Creationism debate. The matter is whether all science and religion clash, something I deny strongly.)

Let me say that I believe the new atheists do the side of science a grave disservice. I will defend to the death the right of them to say what they do - as one who is English-born one of the things I admire most about the USA is the First Amendment. But I think first that these people do a disservice to scholarship. Their treatment of the religious viewpoint is pathetic to the point of non-being. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing. As I have said elsewhere, for the first time in my life, I felt sorry for the ontological argument. If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.) Conversely, I am indignant at the poor quality of the argumentation in Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and all of the others in that group.

Secondly, I think that the new atheists are doing terrible political damage to the cause of Creationism fighting. Americans are religious people. You may not like this fact. But they are. Not all are fanatics. Survey after survey shows that most American Christians (and Jews and others) fall in the middle on social issues like abortion and gay marriage as well as on science. They want to be science-friendly, although it is certainly true that many have been seduced by the Creationists. We evolutionists have got to speak to these people. We have got to show them that Darwinism is their friend not their enemy. We have got to get them onside when it comes to science in the classroom. And criticizing good men like Francis Collins, accusing them of fanaticism, is just not going to do the job. Nor is criticizing everyone, like me, who wants to build a bridge to believers - not accepting the beliefs, but willing to respect someone who does have them. For myself, I would like America to have a healthcare system like Canada - government run, compulsory, universal. It is cheaper and better. But I engage with those who want free enterprise to be involved in the business. Likewise I engage with believers - I don't accept their beliefs but I respect their right to have them.

Most importantly, the new atheists are doing terrible damage to the fight to keep Creationism out of the schools. The First Amendment does not ban the teaching of bad science in publicly funded schools. It bans the teaching of religion. That is why it is crucial to argue that Creationism, including its side kick IDT, is religion and not just bad science. But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If teaching "God exists" is teaching religion - and it is - then why is teaching "God does not exist" not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment. Perhaps indeed teaching Darwinism is implicitly teaching atheism. This is the claim of the new atheists. If this is so, then we shall have to live with it and rethink our strategy about Creationism and the schools. The point is however that the new atheists have lamentably failed to prove their point, and excoriating people like me who show the failure is (again) not very helpful.

I think that P. Z. Myers and his crew are as disastrous to the evolution side - and people like me need to say this - as Ben Stein is disastrous to the Creationism side - and the Creationists should have had the guts to say so. I have written elsewhere that The God Delusion makes me ashamed to be an atheist. Let me say that again. Let me say also that I am proud to be the focus of the invective of the new atheists. They are a bloody disaster and I want to be on the front line of those who say so.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The "new atheism" is basically the same as the old atheism.

"In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind--the Catholic Church." [T. H. Huxley]

Click here to learn the truth about evolution scientists and the new atheists

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

the new atheism ping

[LiteKeeper]

What is the opposite of “evangelistic”? The new atheists are more aggressive, more fervent about their faith...faith in naturalism.

[MichiganConservative]

I was once in a class with this guy as a guest. He was spouting off rapid-fire and eventually started getting agitated. He said he was disappointed that no one was saying anything. He had been talking about eugenics and Nazi science.

He said something like he thought the references to Nazis would get someone to argue with him and it was obviously just a “ruse” to get people to argue. I sighed and thought to myself that I figured he was being serious.

I think most of the other students in the class were with me and were thinking about what was for dinner and hoping this disgusting old man would shut up and go away.

[OneWingedShark]

There’s a ‘new’ and ‘old’ atheism?

Interestingly, Christians & jews were the original ‘atheist,’ as they didn’t have a statue-god [or nature-god] like everyone else in the Roman empire did.

[DeweyCA]

FTA: "If teaching "God exists" is teaching religion - and it is - then why is teaching "God does not exist" not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment. Perhaps indeed teaching Darwinism is implicitly teaching atheism."

Atheism is a religion. It expresses definite opinions about topics that have religious implications.Teaching secular humanism in public classrooms is slowly destroying our children's faith and their parents are letting the government schools get away with this. It's so sad.

[Charlespg]

For myself, I would like America to have a healthcare system like Canada - government run, compulsory, universal

Another dammed commie
No government has the right to tell people what doctor they can go see ,any more then they have the right to sell you as a slave

[Calm_Cool_and_Elected]

ping for later

[BibChr]

So... you’re surprised that an atheist would be arrogant and terminally self-absorbed, and would view the universe and its inhabitants as existing for his condescending amusement?

[MichiganConservative]

Not really. I assumed he wanted to enact eugenics laws and was upset that those stupid “fundies” were repressing him.

Turns out that he’s a libtard, too.

[Tribune7]

It is ignorant to conflate “creationism” with ID.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

related thread - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2317595/posts - the opposite of atheism - the Certainty of Heaven!

(two sermons by Dr. D. James Kennedy - listed there - in which atheists are mentioned - both sermons - and their experience at the end of life.....)

Learn about such great skeptics as Thomas Paine and Voltaire - discussed in the 2nd sermon.

[tpanther]

For myself, I would like America to have a healthcare system like Canada - government run, compulsory, universal...

It fascinates me how someone can claim to be conservative and make these kinds of statements.

[GodGunsGuts]

Thanks for the ping. If the new atheists are a disaster to Temple of Darwin evangelism, then so much the better. Wasn’t it CS Lewis who said that all who refuse to become God’s servants will become His tools?

[Shooter 2.5]

Atheism is a religion.

Exactly and both sides would be much happier if they remembered that. Respect a person't right to believe what they want and then let it go.

One of the things I like about atheists is they aren't being good so they get the gold filled pot at the end of the rainbow. As an experiment, tell an evangelist you aren't interested in going to heaven and you want to be dead for eternity and wait for their answer to that.

[eyedigress]

tell an evangelist you aren't interested in going to heaven and you want to be dead for eternity and wait for their answer to that.

I'm an Evangelical Christian. My response is; I hope you find eternal life. God Bless

[count-your-change]

“invective” hurled against him by Dawkins and Coyne?

What does he they are? Christian gentlemen?

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

see post 12 above....

[metmom]

In the past few years, we have seen the rise and growth of a group that the public sphere has labeled the "new atheists" - people who are aggressively pro-science, especially pro-Darwinism, and violently anti-religion of all kinds, especially Christianity but happy to include Islam and the rest.

I never would have guessed.....

[metmom]

He’s pretty mixed up, for sure. He makes a few good points, but seems to contradict himself for most others.

[metmom]

But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If teaching "God exists" is teaching religion - and it is - then why is teaching "God does not exist" not teaching religion? Obviously it is teaching religion. But if science generally and Darwinism specifically imply that God does not exist, then teaching science generally and Darwinism specifically runs smack up against the First Amendment. Perhaps indeed teaching Darwinism is implicitly teaching atheism.

What we've been saying.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[metmom]

As an experiment, tell an evangelist you aren't interested in going to heaven and you want to be dead for eternity and wait for their answer to that.

Probably that you won't be dead for eternity, you'll end up living somewhere.

It's your choice but you can't say you weren't warned.

[tpanther]

One of the things I like about atheists is they aren't being good so they get the gold filled pot at the end of the rainbow. As an experiment, tell an evangelist you aren't interested in going to heaven and you want to be dead for eternity and wait for their answer to that.

Well, if 10% of the population is right, what's to gain or lose. On the other hand if 90% of the population is correct, everything is to be lost or gained, for eternity.

By the way, being good's got nothing at all to do with it. At least in the Christian sense.

[Slings and Arrows]

The South Park guys summed up Dawkins & co. perfectly:

“It’s not enough to be an atheist. You also have to be a d*ck about it!”

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

He’s pretty mixed up, for sure. He makes a few good points, but seems to contradict himself for most others.

He is, after all, one of these "new atheists". It's nice to see them eating their own dead this way. Ruse says some funny stuff:

If we criticized gene theory with as little knowledge as Dawkins has of religion and philosophy, he would be rightly indignant. (He was just this when, thirty years ago, Mary Midgeley went after the selfish gene concept without the slightest knowledge of genetics.)

You know, the selfish gene theory can be summarized quickly like this: genes make you do everything that you do, and they are selfish. Mary Midgely rightly pointed out that genes are no more selfish than water molecules are. One does not need a Ph.D in genetics to critique a theory like Dawkins's selfish gene. All one needs is common sense, a thing Dawkins lacks. Ruse also makes an interesting freudian slip:

The First Amendment does not ban the teaching of bad science in publicly funded schools

I guess that's why Darwinism is still taught in public schools.

[Shooter 2.5]

For some reason, I am not interested in eternal life. It might be fun to be aware without the limitations of a human body with it’s medical problems but I think I couldn’t stand to be around that long.

Thank you for the concern.

[Shooter 2.5]

That’s another point religious people have to avoid. Just because an athiest isn’t interested, a Christian has to avoid theological blackmail. It isn’t ethical to threaten someone to join their ranks by the possible dangers of eternal damnation.

I mentioned I like the atheists I had met because they were good without a possible reward. They also seem to be decent people despite the threat of limitless torture.

[Shooter 2.5]

Completly true based on Christian theology. I just hope you are a deeply religious person and not someone simply hedging their bet.

[MichiganConservative]

...they were good without a possible reward.

There is a reward. It is social acceptance. Atheists tend to conform to the societal and cultural norms of the prevailing culture of the people in the area in which they find themselves living.

[Shooter 2.5]

You’re not even close. Atheists are shunned by this Christian society. I have seen more hatred, distrust and anger by Christians than by the atheists.

Some of this is due to half of the atheist community. That half is the political part of atheists. Those are the ones I am not comfortable with. That half is the “bomb throwers” who want the attention by suing some community for putting up a Christmas tree.

[goodusername]

“You know, the selfish gene theory can be summarized quickly like this: genes make you do everything that you do, and they are selfish.”

—The selfish gene theory says nothing of the sort. People should read the book instead of just the title before commenting on it. It neither says that genes make us do anything, nor that genes are literally selfish.
It’s a theory about what the level of selection is.

“Our brains are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them.. we do so in a small way everytime we use contraception. There is no reason why we should not rebel in a large way too.” - The Selfish Gene

This is what the book is about:
“I shall argue that the fundamental unit of selection, and therefore of self-interest, is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of heredity.”

“Mary Midgely rightly pointed out that genes are no more selfish than water molecules are. One does not need a Ph.D in genetics to critique a theory like Dawkins’s selfish gene. All one needs is common sense, a thing Dawkins lacks.”

—Anyone with common sense realizes that no one (let alone scientists) thinks that genes are literally selfish. (If this were the first time I’d seen such criticism of Dawkins I would actually think it was meant as a joke.) Common sense also says one should read a book before criticizing it: “Throughout this book, I have emphasized that we must not think of genes as conscious, purposeful agents.”... “We have even used words like `selfish’ and `ruthless’ of genes, knowing full well it is only a figure of speech.”

There are knowledgeable criticisms of Dawkins (such as Gould and Mayr who argue that the level of selection is the individual organism rather than the gene level), but this emphatically is not one of them.

[goodusername]

“It is social acceptance. Atheists tend to conform to the societal and cultural norms of the prevailing culture of the people in the area in which they find themselves living.”

—Social acceptance... of atheists? Relative to who? According to every poll I’ve seen, they are the most despised group - probably in large part due to them NOT conforming to societal and cultural norms.

[metmom]

Except that the reaction against the bomb throwing atheists isn't necessarily *hatred* as so many atheists like to toss the word around. Christians pushing back in like with lawsuits etc isn't hatred. We're just not going to be pushed around.

There's been an unfortunate tendency amongst all groups these days, to paint the opposition as *haters* when one merely voices disapproval, disagreement, whatever, of ones beliefs. So someone who disagrees with atheism, is portrayed as a *hater*. Someone who disagrees with Mormon doctrine is a *Mormon hater*. Someone who disagrees with Catholic doctrine is a *Catholic hater*. Someone who disagrees with homosexuality is a * hater*.

I mean, it's ridiculous that anyone can't even express an opinion about someone else without someone screeching *hater*.

Now that doesn't go to the level of beheading someone, or burning them alive and desecrating their remains. Yes, that would qualify as hate. But simple disagreement, no....

So Christians pushing back, or warning atheists of what they really believe are the serious and long term consequences of their decisions, is not *hate* any more than someone warning you that a bus is about to hit you and even pushing you out of the way of said bus, is hate. On the contrary, if you see someone that you genuinely believe is in harms way, the *hateful* thing to do is....nothing.

So Christians warn people of the long term consequences, pray for them, and hope they come to the same realization. It's genuine concern for their well being.

[metmom]

—Social acceptance... of atheists? Relative to who? According to every poll I’ve seen, they are the most despised group - probably in large part due to them NOT conforming to societal and cultural norms.

No. In large part because of the active undermining of said society by the likes or Madeline Murray O'Hare, Newdew, Dawkins, etc.

The ones who don't want the free exercise part of the First Amendment to apply to religion, who try to push it out of all areas of public life, who tell Christians to keep it in the home or in the church, *where it belongs*.

Umm, no.

[goodusername]

While I don’t believe most atheists do any of that - there’s a phrase for what your describing - it’s rebelling and fighting against societal and cultural norms. So you’re agreeing with me.

[tpanther]

I just hope you are a deeply religious person and not someone simply hedging their bet.

Why do you say that?

[Shooter 2.5]

It sounded like you figured the odds of a heaven by the ratio of believers/nonbelievers.

Personally, I don’t care anymore as I get older. Free country and all of that.

[metmom]

I know that most atheists don’t do stuff like that.

I don’t think that they are the most despised group, either.

I don’t despise atheists who want to take away our rights any more than anyone else who wants to take away our rights.

It’s not a matter of fighting cultural norms. Lots of people have done that in the past, like the hippies. There are many who are doing it now, like homeschoolers.

Fighting cultural norms isn’t the issue. Unconstitutionally depriving us of our rights is and that’s what people are fighting and that’s what people have no use for.

Besides, the atheists aren’t fighting cultural norms because , if atheists on this board are any typical example, they are constantly bragging how they are more moral than most religious people.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I know that most atheists don’t do stuff like that.

Atheists say there is no God and that man has no soul. They also want to teach such views to your children. Atheists have more than a few screws loose. They are a menace to society. Who in his right mind says there is no God or that you have no soul? Think about it. Atheism is certainly an abnormal state of mind. The burden is on them to demonstrate why sensible people should take them and their atheistic blather seriously... there is no God, you have no soul, it's all "chemicals in your head", genes are selfish, everything is an accident, atheism isn't a belief, you can't prove anything, cabbages are atheists... blah blah.

Oh look! The Atheist Alliance is having another convention soon! You can't miss this, man! Bill Maher and Clinton Richard Dawkins are gonna be there. Help them raise some money for the noble cause of spreading atheist bullsh*t throughout the universe! Donate now! Hey look at this promo poster! They are DOING IT FOR YOUR KIDS!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Fighting cultural norms isn’t the issue. Unconstitutionally depriving us of our rights is and that’s what people are fighting and that’s what people have no use for.

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!

[Gordon Greene]

Good post. Reasoned debate is necessary and welcome. Most (and I repeat... “most” not all) of the evolutionists and atheists on this site are without a shred of decency and wouldn’t know an honest debate if it bit them on the butt and presented a valid birth certificate.

That doesn’t make the writer of this article correct, but the Bible is clear, “He who seeks shall find.” If he’s looking and he’s honest, he’ll come around.

[tpanther]

Oh OK...that 90% vs. 10%....I was merely repeating what I had read about 10% of the population being atheist...no idea how accurate that number is, but honestly I’m not certain the other 90% will constitute the percentage getting into heaven for the gate is narrow.

I was merely pointing out that the majoriy of people believe in a creator, but as to where they’ll wind up...in the Christian sense, this is defined Biblically as those that trust Christ as their saviour.

Not by doing or not doing good works, etc.

As far as a pot at the end of the rainbow, if you’re in the right frame of mind you can find that here and now, but you just can’t take it with you.

I guess it all comes down to trust. I trust that the One who created me cares enough about my eternal soul to keep me around, within reach if I need Him, if I push Him away He won’t force me to stay close.

Ultimately, you are in control when it comes to your eternal soul. Free will.

In my mind it boils down to spending it with God or without Him, presence in His light, or total black utter darkness and dispair without His presence and light.

In the end, I trust God to know what He’s doing, being God and all.

And overcoming my ego was no easy task!

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

“I shall argue that the fundamental unit of... self-interest... is the gene..."

Genes have no more self-interest than water molecules do.

“I have emphasized that we must not think of genes as conscious, purposeful agents.”...

It is better then, to not keep talking as if they are.

“We have even used words like `selfish’ and `ruthless’ of genes, knowing full well it is only a figure of speech.”

In other words, he is using words like 'selfish' and 'ruthless' knowing full well he's talking sh*te out of his gob. But if it's just a "figure of speech" then you don't need a degree in "gene theory" to critique it. A degree in literature is more than enough. Or better yet, some measure of common sense. A thing Dawkins entirely lacks.

[goodusername]

“Genes have no more self-interest than water molecules do.”

—Yes, but because of the effects of genes and natural selection, genes behave as if they do.

“It is better then, to not keep talking as if they are.”

—Why? It’s a useful metaphor. Such metaphors are used in science all the time and no one complains. In chemistry teachers will say that certain atoms “desire” a certain number of electrons to be “happy”, in physics they say that “nature abhors a vacuum”, etc. For some reason when critiquing Dawkins some seem to lose such simple common sense.

“In other words, he is using words like ‘selfish’ and ‘ruthless’ knowing full well he’s talking sh*te out of his gob. But if it’s just a “figure of speech” then you don’t need a degree in “gene theory” to critique it. A degree in literature is more than enough. Or better yet, some measure of common sense. A thing Dawkins entirely lacks.”

—I have no idea what any of that means. Because he used a metaphor, a literature degree is more than enough to critique the theory that genes are the unit of selection? Huh? Is a literature degree all that’s needed to critique modern atomic theory?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

because of the effects of genes and natural selection, genes behave as if they [have self-interest].

No they don't.

It’s a useful metaphor.

It's a stupid metaphor. When you say "genes are selfish", you must mean that it is a figure of speech for "genes are not selfish". How can it be otherwise? And when you say "genes are ruthless", you must mean that this is a metaphor for "genes are not ruthless", and by "genes have self-interest", you must mean "genes do not have self-interest". All this sounds very witty to the atheist ear, but to normal people it's just stupid.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Besides, the atheists aren’t fighting cultural norms because , if atheists on this board are any typical example, they are constantly bragging how they are more moral than most religious people.

They also brag about being more conservative than most posters here, at least on FR they do. They are here to save the conservatives from themselves. They probably chuckle about this on other forums.

Do you guys remember when the atheists (like Coyoteman) used to go on about how the Theocracy is coming and the Dominionists and Christian talibans were gonna take over and how religious people are gonna overthrow the government and force the Bible down your throat and make you pray at gunpoint and all that? Remember how they liked to paint themselves as concerned conservatives that were fighting an immanent religiocracy that was gonna turn the USA into a Christian version of Afghanistan? Such good conservatives, these atheists, no?

But do you know where they got this idea? Well, it's from Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. The book is promoted by the Atheist Alliance. Michelle Goldberg is one of the looniest liberal-left wingnuts out there. Some Amazon comments:

This book is a left-wing, ultra-liberal polemical diatribe that was written by a young woman who, while a college student at SUNY Buffalo, seems to have overdosed on Hannah Arendt's book about the rise of Nazi totalitarianism in Europe and thinks it is happening here because of the Bush Administration. She did not, apparently, take American History 101, with the result that she exhibits no knowledge or understanding about religion in American history and grossly exaggerates the importance of today's Christian fundamentalist movement in America politics. Her suggestions about what the liberal left must do politically to prevent America from becoming a Christian Nation are truly hilarious. A terrible book, disjointed, repetitive, rambling, much in need of a good editor. Anyone who buys this book will be wasting his money. It adds absolutely nothing to the sum of our knowledge about Christian fundamentalism in America today.

---

Michelle Goldberg does not like Christians. Michelle Goldberg thinks that Christians smell bad. Michelle Goldberg gets an icky feeling when she stands next to a Christian, and, later, Michelle Goldberg is sure that Christian cooties crawl up and down her body. Ew. Michelle Goldberg needs to take a long, hot shower.

All is not lost. Michelle Goldberg is a liberal. A progressive. A multiculturalist. Michelle Goldberg celebrates diversity.

So, Michelle Goldberg met with Christians, and they were nice to her. She realized then that her prejudice was incorrect. Christians confided their deepest concerns. Like her, she discovered, Christians want a healthy, happy, safe America, where children thrive, the truth is proclaimed, and freedom and justice prevail. They may disagree on how to achieve these ends, but Michelle Goldberg realized that we all have to live with people with whom we disagree, and that the challenge is to find that way of coexisting with diverse neighbors that makes America great, and our democracy, not only strong, but possible.

The final paragraph, above, is, of course, wishful thinking.

"Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism," is the most hateful book I've ever read, and I study hate and have read classics in the genre. What makes this book so painful is that when other hate mongers were plying their trade, they had some wound that the reader could understand as exacerbating their hatred. What happened in Goldberg's short, privileged life to make her hate so much?

[goodusername]

“It’s a stupid metaphor. When you say “genes are selfish”, you must mean that it is a figure of speech for “genes are not selfish”. How can it be otherwise? And when you say “genes are ruthless”, you must mean that this is a metaphor for “genes are not ruthless”, and by “genes have self-interest”, you must mean “genes do not have self-interest”.”

—Umm, that’s how all metaphors work. The thing that’s being called X isn’t really X, but just a description of, say, how something behaves or some other characteristic. When Jesus said “I am the vine; you are the branches” do you think Jesus meant that literally that he’s a plant?
In this case the “selfishness” of genes is a description of how the effect of genes is only to maximize the propagation of said gene and not necessarily the other genes in the genome or the host organism - and thus the unit of selection should be viewed as the gene and not at the organisimal level.
I really have no idea what you’re trying to argue. Are you saying that all metaphors are stupid because they are too confusing to you?
I don’t know how else to explain it to you or help you out. Understanding metaphors requires some common sense. And someone who can’t understand such a simple obvious metaphor probably shouldn’t be criticizing the common sense of others.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

that’s how all metaphors work... In this case the “selfishness” of genes

is about as reasonable as the constipation of genes, or the paranoia of water molecules, or the sexual deviancy of genes, or any number of idiotic meaningless metaphors that atheists find extremely witty.

The incredible thing about this is the way atheists insist that these insipid atheist poetical musings be taken seriously as "science". You need a degree in "gene theory" to fully appreciate a coffee-table book about constipated, sex-mad, sleep-deprived and paranoid genes written by a raving atheist.

[metmom]

They also brag about being more conservative than most posters here, at least on FR they do. They are here to save the conservatives from themselves. They probably chuckle about this on other forums.

Do you guys remember when the atheists (like Coyoteman) used to go on about how the Theocracy is coming and the Dominionists and Christian talibans were gonna take over and how religious people are gonna overthrow the government and force the Bible down your throat and make you pray at gunpoint and all that? Remember how they liked to paint themselves as concerned conservatives that were fighting an immanent religiocracy that was gonna turn the USA into a Christian version of Afghanistan? Such good conservatives, these atheists, no?

Who could forget?

It sure is a good thing we don't have one of those right wing extremist theocrats in the White House, now isn't it? Lord knows where we'd be going now if McCain and Palin were in.

Good thing we have a science adviser who isn't some kind of pseudo-conservative nutjob who thinks that God created the world and the life in it.