Point of Inquiry: PZ Myers vs. Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney

Point of Inquiry's latest podcast featured biologist and atheist blogger PZ Myers discussing accomodationism with host Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney. It quickly turned into a two-on-one debate with PZ holding his own (and his apparent temper) quite well.

Here's the link: http://pointofinquiry.libsyn.com/rss

The core of the issue is this: Should atheists be nicer to theists about their incorrect ideas, simply because they might be liberal, progressive, or even scientists advancing some of the same causes in the realm of science education and critical-thinking?

For example, does Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project and now head of the National Institute for Science get a 'free pass' from is nutball brand of theism?

PZ was totally right on the money essentially saying that no idea is exempt from scrutiny.

Simply because we're in majority agreement with someone is no 'free pass' for bad ideas. I may think highly of someone, but if he/she claims to be psychic or sincerely advances some other woo, the skeptical boxing gloves come out and my opponent better be ready. I don't see god claims as any different or less erroneous than claims about homeopathy, acupuncture, Autism-vaccine stupidity, moon-hoax claims and the Chupacabra.

Jennifer Michael Hecht made a vague accusation to PZ that 'you might be a little wrong', but this is a statement that doesn't make any specific claim against PZ. Instead, she is defending a straw-audience of people she has deemed too delicate to handle the scrutiny of claims that she herself has rejected.

Despite the lighter tone of accomodationist atheists, they've rejected Biblical claims as much as PZ or Richard Dawkins and according to many Bibles, are going to a Hell that's just as hot. After all, Psalms 14:1 does not just call the 'aggressive atheists' fools, it deems us all fools and claims we've done abominable works and that none of us has done good.

Why would someone who rejects religious claims fret about the tone of another atheist who openly rejects the same claims, for an unspecified audience? In my view, it's a gross underestimation of the resilience of people who CAN handle hearing a tone she thinks is too much for them. So, while PZ might seem too harsh to some, Chris Mooney and Jennifer Michael Hecht simply underestimate people and their ability to deal with dissent, but they're all atheists who probably arrived at their conclusions in different ways.

It's like me strongly rejecting racist claims, and then some fellow-racist-denier says, 'hey, don't you think you're being a little harsh on the racists?'. Yes, because racism is wrong, and it needs to be resisted, but the racists would likely take offense to either of our arguments. Style be damned, the message is the same, and some styles work better for some than others.

This issue here is not being 'a little wrong', it's about specific claims and how no erroneous idea is exempt from scrutiny. Why all the fuss about tone between people who agree that no religion they've heard to date is worth believing?

How do the memes of religion spread in the first place? Why are so many people currently infected with bad cases of religion? Most people were simply told to believe the religious ideas they're infected with, and often at a young age where these bad ideas bypass their undeveloped logic.

The voices which might object to these claims have either been silenced, excluded, drowned-out by the masses and sometimes outright killed. Why on Earth in 2010 should theists expect any special treatment when religion brought us hundreds of years of Dark Ages, and continues to be a blight on progress?

While Jennifer Michael Hecht and Chris Mooney on Point of Inquiry are both atheists, they seem to somehow want to avoid 'offending' theists, especially those who are 'on our side' when it comes key issues such as reproductive rights, evolution, science in general, etc.

The mistake Jennifer and Chris make is that they wrongly assume that most theists (or people) necessarily shut down when 'offended', assuming they're offended at all by mere skepticism.

Some people can handle direct confrontation of even their most sacred ideas, and others want to kill us for merely drawing cartoons or even just admitting to being insufficiently pious, let alone an atheist. If we encourage logical accomodation, then we dim the voices of dissent, and I think that's an exceedingly bad idea when unchecked religion can inspire such suffering.

The Christian Bible even says that atheists are 'fools' and that there are 'none that doeth good' in Psalms 14:1, and some christians actually call this the 'good book'! Sorry, what was that about tone again? Islam recommends death for any who leave Islam and has a practice where women are oppressed, worth half of a man and sometimes killed to 'restore honor' if they get raped, date the wrong person or not properly covered with the Hijab, Abaya and Burqa. Sorry, what was that about tone?

As we've seen, Islam motivates its adherents to 'slay the Infidel', and people such as Kurt Westergaard or Molly Norris are threatened with death for drawing the 'offensive' cartoons about Mohammad, and there's already been an attempt on Kurt Westergaard's life...good thing he had a special saferoom installed in his house. Theo Van Gogh wasn't so lucky, he was murdered for his movie about Islam called 'Submission', and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, his partner, is still under armed guard.

Historically, there's a common theme with religion: It likes to silence its opposition. The answer is not less skepticism or 'nicer' skepticism but to stay the course. What we're seeing is two different worlds: Islam is how the world is when religion has too much power. Unchecked dogma leads not just hurt feelings but outright suppression of dissent.

While Christianity is more reformed, its adherents often encourage dissenters to be silent either because they consider it rude, impious, blasphemous and otherwise uncomfortable to deal with...but there was a time when Christianity's answer to 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' was oppression or death....kind of where Islam is now. We can thank skeptics and science for the reform forced on Christianity, and that same skeptical fortitude will eventually tame Islam but it won't go quietly into the night.

Skepticism and critical-thinking should be employed early and often, regardless of who it offends. The fact is, sometimes you get through to people whether its the more aggressive forms of atheism from Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or PZ Myers, or the accomodationist styles of Jennifer Michael Hecht or Chris Mooney. Reason works, but only if someone has agreed to honor reason over dogma. Failing that, ridicule is often a good counter for those being dishonest with their foundational assumptions or who refuse to acknowledge a lost point.

There will *always* be those offended by atheists or even skeptics whether we simply identify as such, wear a Darwin shirt or bring scathing critique in full-length, best-selling books. We need to encourage critical-thought and not further foster the silly idea that beliefs have merit just because they're sincerely held. Beliefs have to be justified, and nobody and more importantly, *no idea* is exempt from this. No belief should be respected merely because it's sincerely-held, just as we wouldn't respect the sincere beliefs of racists, sexists, homophobes, Creationists, anti-vaxxers, birthers, moon-hoaxers or those who claim to have a private audience with space-pixies.

Personally, I am very grateful for the person who openly-questioned my sincere Christian beliefs when I was 20. A month later, I was an atheist. My de-conversion was exceedingly fast (with some emotional upheaval), but I know others who I've personally helped de-convert who also became atheists rather quickly once the logic set-in. I have an aggressive skeptical style which doesn't tolerate logical inconsistency that well since I tend to see it as dishonesty.

If that person many years ago hadn't had the intestinal fortitude to question my beliefs, I might be posting a Christian blog entry today. I'd have much less respect for someone who lets me languish in the land of delusion simply because he or she didn't want to hurt my feelings...and put his/her personal comfort over facts.

Those who sacrifice personal comfort to question your assumptions are actually doing you a favor. The proper tack here is not to suppress critical-review, but to embrace it, check your assumptions, and be glad we can actually have a conversation without being burned at the stake for heresy.

-dB-