Anti-Christian Sentiment

[Rian]

Just for the record, I wouldn't consider that an "angry atheist" post. You have a lot of good points, and I like the idea of suggesting people forego a beer or a hot dog and donate it instead.

[Dr Mundo]

Just for the record, I wouldn't consider that an "angry atheist" post. You have a lot of good points, and I like the idea of suggesting people forego a beer or a hot dog and donate it instead.

but he admits he is angry. Also I share those sentiments, I am also an angry atheist. I don't see why more people aren't angry.

[Rian]

What I consider an "angry atheist" - the type that gets talked about - is one who goes further than legitimate anger expressed in a legitimate manner - it always goes from the legitimate subject to an angry, personal-attack, whiney, strawman, you're all idiots type of thing.

I don't think all angry atheists are "angry atheists" - I think the type that get complained about are the type that I'm describing. At least that's what I see.

[WorldlingWatcher]

After reading my post, I realized I didn't differentiate the 50 states of America with its federal district. I have lived in Puerto Rico the past few years, and I have been visiting since I was a child, but I was born and raised in the US Virgin islands, another US territory. And yes I'm pretty sure a lot of places around the world have changed significantly since the 60's.

And some are changing back. Because of my work I have frequent occasion to work with people from Guam. A decade ago they would rarely identify themselves as Americans as a first choice, but with the rise of China they now take every opportunity to remind interested parties that they're "Americans".

I currently don’t involve myself to much in to Puerto Rican politics, but yes there is an anti-American sentiment and a pro-American sentiment. The latter is more prominent. To be honest from what I have seen from those that have an anti-American sentiment, they are more concerned on preserving traditional Puerto Rican culture-- like the strong possibility that if Puerto Rico were to be granted statehood, the official language may change from Spanish to English.

I know there are parts of Puerto Rican culture I'd fight to preserve, like the food. There are few things more pleasing than spending a Sunday afternoon with good friends, a cold beer or two and a platter of pasteles and alcapurrias.

[Keep The Reason]

What I consider an "angry atheist" - the type that gets talked about - is one who goes further than legitimate anger expressed in a legitimate manner - it always goes from the legitimate subject to an angry, personal-attack, whiney, strawman, you're all idiots type of thing.

I don't think all angry atheists are "angry atheists" - I think the type that get complained about are the type that I'm describing. At least that's what I see.

Well, you make excuses for Francis Collins calling Steven Pinker an "angry atheist" (the kind you describe as problematic) when all Pinker did was question Collin's credentials to head up a strictly scientific Advisory while holding ideas that are counter to that Advisory's mandate. Pinker made no whiney strawman, no personal attacks, and wasn't even angry -- he just questioned Collin's credentials for that job. And Collins pulled out the "angry atheist" tactic because it has both gravitas in the square of public discourse, and therefore direct impact.

Here's the exchange yet again:

Francis Collins decries 'angry atheists' in science

USA TODAY Updated 2011-07-28 2:18 PM Calling conflicts between religion and science "overstated," National Institutes of Health chief Francis Collins complained Tuesday that vocal atheists are giving the U.S. public a false impression of science.

The former head of the U.S. human genome program and an evangelical Christian, Collins founded the BioLogos Foundation dedicated to "the integration of science and Christian faith," before moving to NIH. His comments came at a USA TODAY editorial board meeting.

Asked about complaints from researchers such as Harvard's Steven Pinker, over an avowed Christian heading a scientific agency, Collins said, "angry atheists are out there using science as a club to to hit believers over the head." He expressed concern that prominent researchers suggesting that one can't believe in evolution and believe in God, may be "causing a lot of people not familiar with science to change their assessments of it."

Now, -- here's what Pinker said to generate that reaction from Collins:

"A person's private beliefs should not keep him from a public position," Pinker wrote in 2009. "But Collins is an advocate of profoundly anti-scientific beliefs, and it is reasonable for the scientific community to ask him how these beliefs will affect his administration," he added. Collins later support for NIH human embryonic stem cell research later earned him more favorable reviews from scientists such as Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Hardly "angry athiest" verbiage on Pinker's part but a tactic used by Collins nonetheless.

Note, I had to "red" the section noted above because Rian argued that "Collins was not talking about what Pinker had said" -- when clearly he was asked directly about it, and was responding directly to Pinker's evaluation. I want to make it clear that such a diversion is not applicable; Collins was responding directly to what Pinker had said about his suitability as Chairman of the National Science Advisory Board.

[Moonwood the Hare]

KTR you have referred to this exchange several times. It has never been clear to me which of Collins' views Pinker thinks are anti-scientific. I am also a bit unclear about the public/private distinction he is making. In the present day what kind of views are wholly private?

[humanguy]

I don't see why more people aren't angry.

Because being angry is a drag, maybe?

[Keep The Reason]

KTR you have referred to this exchange several times. It has never been clear to me which of Collins' views Pinker thinks are anti-scientific. I am also a bit unclear about the public/private distinction he is making. In the present day what kind of views are wholly private?

Well, you can go research Pinker's direct views on Collins re: the matter; it's out there. It involves support for ID defenses and affiliation with the Discover Institute.

As to public/private, I'm not sure the relevancy but if I hold views directly antithetical to a Board's stated objective, then maybe I'm not the best person for the job of heading that Board. Maybe Collins needs to focus on making the case for ID, changing the prevailing scientific view by doing the work necessary to accomplish that demonstration and proof, and then he would be suited for the Board' objectives, which would have thus changed from the present understanding that ID is not supported, into one where it was.

But until such time, Collin's core views, held on theological grounds, are fine for his church or any personal labwork he wishes to pursue, but one could argue that it effectively disqualifies him from heading up the National Science Advisory Board. But let us say it does not -- Pinker has the right to make the evaluation without being labeled an "angry atheist"-- don't you agree?

[Keep The Reason]

I don't see why more people aren't angry.

Because being angry is a drag, maybe?

Anger is a core social-change driver. It's a drag being angry, but it's worse being silenced, oppressed, or disenfranchised from the public conversation or have ability to make social choices (governance). I'm not saying atheists are all those things anymore (though we are not in governance at all here in the USA.) -- but I am saying that anger is a valid social-change motivator.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I don't see why more people aren't angry.

Because being angry is a drag, maybe?

I don't know; it keeps reminding me of the man who asked Martin Luther King, 'Why are you in jail?' and he replied, 'Why are you not in jail?' I really don't think being angry is a bad thing but in terms of discussion I still maintain that you have to look at the arguments used to justify the anger and ask if they are really valid.

[Dr Mundo]

I don't see why more people aren't angry.

Because being angry is a drag, maybe?

I don't know; it keeps reminding me of the man who asked Martin Luther King, 'Why are you in jail?' and he replied, 'Why are you not in jail?' I really don't think being angry is a bad thing but in terms of discussion I still maintain that you have to look at the arguments used to justify the anger and ask if they are really valid.

^
That is precisely it. Thanks MW that was perfect.

[Keep The Reason]

I don't know; it keeps reminding me of the man who asked Martin Luther King, 'Why are you in jail?' and he replied, 'Why are you not in jail?"

Wait. Wouldn't the guy asking him that question have to also be in the jail to ask why MLK was in the jail?

[gary_s]

I've listened to some in depth interviews of Dr. Collins. He absolutely is a scientist, but he is also absolutely a believer in god. From his explanation of his beliefs and his scientific jurisprudence, I don't believe that any of his work has been negatively affected by his religious beliefs. Where he makes the atheist scientist uncomfortable is when he absolutely professes his belief in an all powerful god who created the universe and mankind, yet has absolutely no idea how, why or when this occurred. He does not reject the sciences of evolution or cosmology; he just believes in a god that communicates with people and has a place for us to go when we die. Personally, I don't take his religious beliefs seriously because I don't believe in them and he can offer no more rational explanation than my next door neighbor. However, it is a legitimate prerogative for any scientific endeavor to expect its members to conduct their work as scientists, not theists, but I see no reason why Collins would have difficulty with this. And I do agree that Collins "angry atheist" comment was unwarranted, unless there was more to that quote that I haven't seen. It seemed as if he was taking the questioning of his scientific integrity personally and reacted emotionally. Well, what do you know, he's human...

[mitchellmckain]

I don't see why more people aren't angry.

Because being angry is a drag, maybe?

Also because there is a stupidity that often comes with being angry, such as when one gets so stuck in an "us and them" mentality that you don't even listen/read any more what people actually say/write. That kind of makes communication an impossibility and when that happens what is the point of speaking/writing any more?

[Keep The Reason]

I've listened to some in depth interviews of Dr. Collins. He absolutely is a scientist, but he is also absolutely a believer in god. From his explanation of his beliefs and his scientific jurisprudence, I don't believe that any of his work has been negatively affected by his religious beliefs. Where he makes the atheist scientist uncomfortable is when he absolutely professes his belief in an all powerful god who created the universe and mankind, yet has absolutely no idea how, why or when this occurred. He does not reject the sciences of evolution or cosmology; he just believes in a god that communicates with people and has a place for us to go when we die. Personally, I don't take his religious beliefs seriously because I don't believe in them and he can offer no more rational explanation than my next door neighbor. However, it is a legitimate prerogative for any scientific endeavor to expect its members to conduct their work as scientists, not theists, but I see no reason why Collins would have difficulty with this.

If discussing whether Pinkers case has "legs" is the issue, that's of course open to debate. But that's not the point here. The point is...

And I do agree that Collins "angry atheist" comment was unwarranted, unless there was more to that quote that I haven't seen. It seemed as if he was taking the questioning of his scientific integrity personally and reacted emotionally. Well, what do you know, he's human...

This (above). That the retort wasn't warranted. Sure, he's human, no one is arguing otherwise. I merely indicate its a very classic and public use of the "angry atheist" tactic.