Rob Knop on Gnu Athiests

[Andara Bledin]

Blog post at Scientopia.org

Knop explains why he believes that the Gnu Athiest movement is bad for the acceptance of science. For the most part, I agree with his points regarding science, religion, and how fanaticism is directly counter-productive to any cause it's attached to.

I think he's a bit oversensitive on the GPL connection, though I can see why it might be a sore spot with him.

For background on who Knop is, I offer the following links:
LinkedIn Profile
Faculty Page at Quest University

^-.-^

[Panacea]

I'm with you there.

I really see little difference between the "New Atheists" and religious extremists.

To these guys, science becomes their religion, and heresy is something to be put down as ruthlessly as Galileo was.

[Hyena Dandy]

They are religious extremists, its as much about tribalism as the religious extremist movement its. Its about being 'Us' and shunning 'Them'.

[Ghel]

That's really funny. This guy's got it all wrong. It's the theists who have coined the term "New Atheists." Some of us atheists have chosen to change it to "Gnu Atheists" as a joke. Because the only real difference between modern atheists and atheists of the past is that we tend to be more outspoken. I like PZ Myers' definition of "New Atheists": "Atheists who value the truth of a claim foremost, and who have found that science is the best tool we have for assessing truth." That is all. Frequently, that is the ONLY thing that "New Atheists" agree on.

[Hyena Dandy]

He's wrong about what?

[Ghel]

Knop's basic premise is that the "New Atheism" movement is self-titled or self-selected. But it's not. It is only those who don't agree with "New Atheism" that think that it is anything new. It's funny that Knop refers to "fundamentalist atheists" without saying what ideas or principals they're supposedly fundamentalist towards. Plus, he never specifies who he's talking about. It's always "they" or "some scientists" or "many." Provide some quotes to back up your statements, Knop.

The last section of the blog post is the best. Confusing "Gnu Atheism" with software? Hilarious.

[Hyena Dandy]

He repeatedly explained what they're supposed to be fundamentalist towards.

So what specific things do you need numbers to back up here, so we can get the debate going?

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, he's quite specific about which group he's talking about:

... most of those in the movement formerly known as “New Atheism” seem to share the following characteristics. They are atheists. They believe the world would be a better place if religion would go away, becoming nothing more than cultural history and cultural tradition. They think that any religion that claims to be anything other than just cultural tradition is incompatible with science and the scientific world view. They believe that if somebody aims to accept science and is intellectually honest and consistent, the success of modern science must necessarily lead that person to accept philosophical materialism. They use the word “reason” as a synonym for “application of scientific reasoning”, thereby making anybody who is religious by definition guilty of thinking without reason.

And more specifically:

Beyond that, a subset of them are incredibly strident and combative.

He quite specifically names the ideas. That's all the entire second paragraph is about, and much of the third.

The last section of the blog post is the best. Confusing "Gnu Atheism" with software? Hilarious.

Do you have anything to add other than your scorn? I already know that respect is too much to ask.

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

Respect towards what? People who say we are fundamentalists who are just as bad as the Inquisition and are going to hell to boot? Because we don't believe in doing what the pope says?



Civility is such a fun game.

[Hyena Dandy]

I had a five paragraph post typed up, but have deleted it in favor of a five word sentences.

Did you read the article?

[Ghel]

If Knop thinks the "New Atheists" are doing something wrong, he first needs to demonstrate that they're doing what he says they're doing. He could have quoted something from a book written by an atheist. He could have said "so-and-so was applauded for saying such-and-such at an atheist rally on such-and-such a date." But he does no such thing. He cites no references for what he claims atheists are doing. He has not made his case that "New Atheism" is what he says it is. Until he does, it cannot be determined whether "New Atheism" is good or bad.

Respect what? There's practically nothing in the blog post that is worthy of respect. However, there is much that is worthy of scorn, starting with his misunderstanding of the term "New Atheism." The rest of Knop's blog post is built around that misunderstanding.

Edited to add: I just found an excellent blog response referenced in the comments on Knop's blog.

[Andara Bledin]

If Knop thinks the "New Atheists" are doing something wrong, he first needs to demonstrate that they're doing what he says they're doing.

You self-identify as an atheist and you, personally, have declared 1) that the world would be better without religion, 2) that religion and science are incompatible, 3) that any true scientist will become an atheist, and 4) believe that those who are religious are not entirely rational and are to be humored and ridiculed and "corrected." That list is a paraphrase of most of the points in the second paragraph.

Since you value evidence, I've included citations from the last couple of months of your posts to support my claims.

1)
* However, it takes religion to make a good person do evil things.
* And I still think that religion hampers the good that people otherwise might do.

2)
* That belief does not coincide with reality. (referencing the possibility of possession)
* Once one has learned the basics of logic and science, one can see that the claims of religion are either full of errors or unsupported.
* You know what really closes minds to knowledge? Religion, particularly theism.

3)
* If someone goes through college and realizes that the notion of god is logically unsound and is unsupported by evidence, they will likely discard that notion of god.
* As a person comes to understand how the universe really works, they're likely to give up their superstitions, their unfounded faith, or their comfortable delusions.

4)
* Yes. It has, and it can. Even if it didn't, I still think it's fair for people to ridicule ridiculous ideas - which most religious ideas are.
* But I still think that ridicule is a valid tactic in some situations.
* As soon as they state their beliefs as true, then they open themselves up to ridicule.
* Well, I must admit that it's hard not to laugh when somebody says something akin to "The universe-creating pixies forbid me from eating strawberries on Tuesdays."
* Let me push you in the right direction, and maybe you can figure out the answer to this one yourself.
* I hated having to break this quote into pieces, but there's just so much wrong here.
* That's right, you "hope." You do not have evidence. Instead of looking for your "higher power" to explain things, why don't you read some of the popular science books that are available? Learn about what we really know; it's far more fascinating than anything religion or mysticism can make up.

^-.-^

[Sleepwalker]

I had a five paragraph post typed up, but have deleted it in favor of a five word sentences.

Did you read the article?

If that was directed towards me, I was commenting on the posters in this thread, not the content of the article.

[Ghel]

Andara, I thought this thread was about Knop's blog post, and his (unsupported) statements that (1) "New Atheism" is preventing religious folks from accepting science and (2) the renaming of "New Atheism" to "Gnu Atheism" has something to do with open source software. The biggest source of criticism against him, both in the comments on his own blog and on the response on Jerry Coyne's blog, which I linked above, are that he cites no references supporting either of these claims.

If this thread was merely a not-so-clever ruse to call me out on what you think is my bad behavior on this site, then I think this is not the place for that. If you think I have broken the rules of fratching, then by all means use the report button. If you merely think I'm rude, then send me a PM, and I'll be happy to discuss it with you privately. A public forum is not an appropriate place to air private grievances.

(BTW, your "support" for #3 on your list doesn't support it. What it does support is what I have actually stated, which is that scientists tend to be less religious than the overall population, which is supported by a number of studies.)

[Hyena Dandy]

If that was directed towards me, I was commenting on the posters in this thread, not the content of the article.

I can't think of anyone in this thread who acts like that either.