Everyone is a number in this dystopian near-future where cameras track your every move. Score above 90 and your set for life. Score below 75 and you’re on your own, kid.
The Cycler Series
The Cyler Series: What would you do if you woke up one day as a member of the opposite sex? For Jill McTeague, this is no hypothetical question. It’s real life!
|
As a NY Times article points out, things have gone decidedly downhill since Sagan’s premature passing. Fundamentalism is on the rise. Evolution is on the run. And atheists, of which Sagan was one, are the most hated group of people in the country. But what’s most heartbreaking to me is the fact that Sagan and his wife and collaborator were going to use this collection of lectures as a springboard for a new TV series, called Ethos, to follow on the heels of his brilliant Cosmos. Imagine that. A TV series devoted to science’s exploration of the most profound questions of our existence. Someone needs to resurrect that series. Religion, especially organized monotheistic fairytale religion, should not be the lead player in humanity’s exploration of our existence. Scientific inquiry, especially in the hands of a master like Carl Sagan, yields far more profound and awe-inspiring revelations. Though no one could fill Sagan’s shoes, let’s nominate some candidates to carry his torch and spearhead the series. I’m afraid Richard Dawkins is probably too combative to do it and Brian Greene of The Elegant Universe is too devoted to string theory, which is dying a long, slow, and tedious death. Here are some suggestions: James Gleick who unpacked Chaos Theory quite neatly for me. The brilliant microbiologist, Lynn Margulis, whose devotion to the world of bacteria is nothing short of awe-inspiring. Practicing Buddhist and Meme Machine author, Susan Blackmore. Cognitive psychologist, Steven Pinker, who gets it wrong sometimes but is highly readable. Ann Druyan, a writer and producer in her own right who shares Sagan’s vision and knows how to bring it to light. Clearly somebody needs to resurrect this series. The world needs this point of view desperately. 34 Responses to “He’s Back!”Leave a Reply |
|
RSS Feed
At the risk of turning Liquid Logic into a full-blown Carl Sagan shrine (actually, maybe I should just do that), I am pleased to report a new collection of essays from my all time favorite science philosopher. Based on a series of lectures he gave in Glasgow in 1985 and edited by his widow, Ann Druyan, the book is called 
Carl Sagan was brilliant.
Atheists are not the most hated group in America today. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of the book Infidel, said on the Tavis Smiley show:
“You can decide to convert to another religion, or you can decide to be more moderate, or you can decide to become an Atheist. And in the west today, I’ve not seen or heard of anyone who got killed because of that, or who is threatened because of that.”
I agree with her opinion.
I don’t think religion is the lead player in the examination of our existence.
As for a TV series “devoted to science’s exploration of the most profound questions of our existence,” how about Nova?
Dawkins, Dawkins, Dawkins.
Sam Harris
Matt, I don’t understand how that quote applies to the comment that atheists are the most hated group in America today. They’re not the most hated because, in the west, they’re not lynched? I’m not following the author’s logic…
Do you seriously believe that if you profess that you are an atheist in the US you would be in “the most hated” group? Seriously???
According to this study atheists are the most hated group in America. Thankfully, we don’t commonly kill the people we hate in this country.
And here’s an interesting blog post from one of the researchers on the above study regarding the fall-out of same. He and his collaborators were very surprised by the results, but he found that people tend to quietly hate atheists. They’re not out to kill them but they would not elect one as president nor would they want their son or daughter to marry one.
Perhaps America will go the way of Europe and grow to accept atheists as rational and moral people. But America is different from Europe, particularly in its overt religiosity. And I hope when the current rancor over gay rights gives way to a freer, saner, more egalitarian worldview, that atheists don’t become the next bogeyman.
Very interesting blog entry. Yes, the general public equates “atheism” with a lack of morality so it makes sense atheists are deeply and uniformly hated. (Even homosexuals and feminists and liberals could *potentially* be moral; not so a soul-less, value-less atheist.)
What good does it do to say, “oh we’re hated! We’re despised!” except to hammer in the victim mentality into your subconscious. Enough of that already. We’re all f’n victims of life.
For the link, 2000 people were polled in Minnesota (was the study national?). I would think that people in the midwest would be more intolerant towards atheists due to the culture.
Atheists need to:
1) get a new name. “Brights” is too elitist and condescending.
2) get the message out that morality does not need to come from a deity.
3) stop whining because they will soon start to sound like yet another fundamentalist group that real people will ignore.
I am with Matt on this one (sorry Matt). For example, I suspect child molestors are more hated here in America than atheists. Also, in certain circles, Floridians who voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election are also probably more hated. Also, those who support the Duke Blue Devils men’s basketball team may or may not be more hated than atheists. Same for fans of the New York Yankees. And, sadly, I suspect trial lawyers are more hated than atheists.
All that said, atheists would do well to hire a publicist to get out the word that atheism does not automatically equate to moral bankruptcy.
Ahh, but I suspect, Rocketeer, that all those child molesters, trial lawyers and Blue Devils fans are… what else?… effin’ atheists or they wouldn’t be doing what they’re doing.
Who’s whining, Matt? Lauren’s blog was just reporting a cold, hard fact. Even if, contrary to that study, atheists aren’t the “most hated,” you’d have to agree that they’re certainly right up there. But I agree with you and Rocketeer–and the point of Lauren’s post–that atheists need better PR on that whole moral bankruptcy perception, a new Sagan-like spokesman, and a new name. “Realists?”
Hey, were not whining Matt but if that study put Jews, muslims or christians at the top of the most hated list I think a few people would have something to say about it.
Thanks, Evil David. Jeesh, I don’t know where all the vitriol comes from. Nobody’s wearing the victim banner here. As far as I can tell a group of sociologists did a study and were surprised by the results. Atheists were similarly surprised to find themselves at the top of an unpleasant heap, if for no other reason than the fact that we’ve been happily rolling along in our non-belief without a lot of trouble from you believers out there. But when you wake up one day and learn that a majority of people wouldn’t vote for you for president or want you to marry their child because they think you have no morals yeah, it makes you scratch your head.
As for improving our image, I say screw it. Why should we have to prove we’re not morally bankrupt? To those of us who suspect we are, I say, prove it.
Lauren, I think we’ve been atheist-bashed.
I’m still standing. You, E.D.?
Tall.
Six days with a fever has brought out my cantankerousness. When you have the flu, according to my faith, all atheists must die.
Poor bubala. If it’s any consolation, this atheist has just recovered from a mild cold. It’s not exactly death, but perhaps it will satisfy the demands of your faith.
Lest we forget, from 1950 to 1990, the “godless communists” were all “out to kill us.” For at least that much time, Atheism = Evil.
Whatever growing hatred/mistrust there may be for Muslims in the West, it hasn’t yet reached the level of fear we had during the cold war. And yes, Atheists today are still suffering from that stigma, just as we’re all still arguing about the “under god” clause to the pledge that was similarly inserted in 1954.
I think it’s funny that atheists take the rap for communism whereas Christians don’t take the rap for Nazism. The communists were atheists, but atheism was not their cause. It was merely a means of neutralizing competition from religious institutions. So far, in the annals of human history, I can think of no world-conquering, murderous ideology actually inspired by atheism. But I suppose there’s still time.
Agreed. Soviet Atheism was a method of control. However, Marxism did arise out of a belief that Man must out-grow old ways of thinking to truly evolve. Communism interpreted “evolution” as “coercion.”
But that may point to a problem with Atheism in the West too — we tend to define it as a “lack” of belief in God, which is literally true. But it should really be called something like Rationalism — a much stronger belief that the universe must make sense.
Called Rationalism, it’s much easier to see that this country was founded on Rationalist principles (see Enlightenment) as opposed to some frontier variant of Christian moralism.
An interesting article from today’s space.com site on American anti-science sentiments:
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_science_070215.html
Avi said: “But that may point to a problem with Atheism in the West too — we tend to define it as a “lack†of belief in God, which is literally true. But it should really be called something like Rationalism — a much stronger belief that the universe must make sense.”
I think the people on the poll (who distrust aetheists) would more likely describe Aethism as a lack of faith or even a rejection of God. Indeed, given that most people are raised with some exposure to the idea that there is a God, and that for some period of time most accept that premise (pre-teen aethists are hard to find), it follows that for many aethists the road to a “lack” of belief necessarily includes the abandonment of a once held belief. In many cases I would even imagine that the process leading up to the decision to identify oneself as an aethist could reasonably be described as a crisis of faith (the extent of that crisis would depend upon the depth of the faith). Leaving out anyone who claims to speak with God, just about any other believer in God would readily admit that they don’t know – that is why it is a belief, and that belief requires faith. So, in addition to the historic links with the cold war, aethists are probably being viewed by these people in the poll as having turned their backs on faith and God — and for those people in the poll my guess is that they wonder, just what kind of person would do that. And I submit that if they answer the question in their own minds, they don’t say, “well, scientists, rationalists, and other rigorous thinkers.” They say, it is the type of person I wouldn’t want my son or daughter to marry.
Another thought: atheists are one of the few remaining groups whom it is *politically correct* to hate. After all, over 90% of the American public, across the political spectrum — from hemorrhaging-hearted liberals to blackhearted conservatives — believe in God. The polled people would therefore feel unconstrained in expressing their hatred towards atheists as opposed to some other group (e.g., homosexuals, African-Americans) who they might secretly rank higher on their hate list.
Very perceptive analysis, Missile. And I think you’re absolutely right. Atheism is, first and foremost, a rejection of faith in God. Whether or not a person chooses to inject into the gap of a departing God some other intellectual framework, is an entirely individual choice.
I know for myself, once that gap existed, it immediately filled up with science, which proved far more alluring, intellectually rigorous, and awe-inspiring than anything I learned in Sunday School. But I suppose it’s possible to just live with the gap.
I think what Avi’s getting at is the fact that so many atheists have profoundly meaningful lives not despite their lack of faith but because of it. The more science reveals of this vastly mysterious universe, the deeper the mystery grows. Take any of the modern branches of science (quantum mechanics, chaos theory, string theory, memetics, for example) and you can see this never-ending rabbit hole of discovery in action. Every detail modern science reveals about reality is a window onto even stranger realms.
Scientific rationalism is not the dry, soulless machine it is often accused of being. Nor does it reduce nature to mechanistic, deterministic, elements. Nature turns out to be far weirder than our Newtonian forebears suspected. And it was science that revealed that.
I guess it’s probably silly of me to be surprised that people of faith disdain those of us without faith. Truth be told, I’d have a hard time being married to someone who didn’t get the same charge out of scientific rationalism that I did. But that’s because I’ve done faith. I bought the t-shirt. And I can honestly say it’s a kiddie ride compared to the mind-blowing rabbit hole adventure scientific rationalism has taken me on.
Which brings me back to my original purpose in writing this blog post. Who do we get to pitch this adventure to the general public?
Missile, the “turning their backs on God” angle doesn’t adequately explain the level of hatred and discrimination, and our continued tolerance of it.
For example, with homophobes, the overt fear seems to be that “Gay Men will like me, or otherwise infect me.” And the plausible underlying fear is “what if I’m really gay?” (whether one is or isn’t, the question can be scary to some). I can at least intellectually comprehend how, for someone who is not secure in their own sexuality, that fear could rise to the level of violence.
But with Atheists, the only thing that makes similar sense is that Athiest-haters are so insecure in their own religiousity that the mere presence of a doubter is enough to infect one with doubt.
I mean, even if denying God is the greatest sin imaginable, that’s between the Atheist and God (if you believe). The only possible harm that can come to a believer is if Atheism weakens the believer’s faith. I’d suggest that if faith is strong, then nothing should weaken it. If faith is weak, then a good dose of logic can cause the house of cards to crumble down.
So it only makes sense to me that the people who see that house of cards on at least some level level are the ones who are the most hateful towards Atheists.
Faith is tricky, Avi. It’s never perfect and it’s not immune to doubt. I think you may have identified the true source of anti-atheist sentiment: doubt. If Missile’s correct that most people start out with faith (and I think he is, in America at least) then atheists are the ones who followed their doubt right over the edge. The fact that we continue to function as sane moral people might be precisely the thing that is most threatening to a person of faith.
There’s a broadway show called “Doubt” which was quite good. It was about a Priest who may or may not have touched a boy off-stage. The play seems to center on whether the Sister in charge believes the Father without ever saying for sure whether he did the deed.
The only problem I had was that it superficially pitted the concept of “certainty” (in the Sister’s mind) against “doubt” (in ours). The true opposite of “doubt” is not “certainty” or “uncertainty,” but “faith” — in this case, faith in people.
That’s all to say that I think that true faith (beyond mere belief) requires the destruction of doubt, which I agree is problematic, to the extent one possesses and practices reason.
Reason and science are obviously based on embracing doubt and uncertainty, which is why scientific thinking is so scary and unnatural to some. In reality, going through periods of doubt can strengthen faith, but only to the extent that doubt is destroyed.
The common fallacy is thinking that if one stamps out such thinking universally, no one (esp. the haters) will have doubts.
Intriguing thesis, Avi. The opposite of doubt is faith. I like that. Both concepts are equal in their lack of certainty, but whereas one focuses on the negative the other focuses on the positive. I guess in that respect, we all practice types of faith all the time–faith in people, for example, as you mentioned.
But faith becomes delusion when a person ignores strong evidence in support of doubt–for example, refusing to acknowledge that your spouse is cheating after you’ve caught him or her in the act.
Likewise, doubt becomes cynicism when a person assumes the worst depsite evidence to the contrary.
I guess when it comes to religious faith, the evidence for doubt just kept piling up for me. To continue having faith would have required me to delude myself, something I’m frightfully incapable of. On the other hand, when it comes to faith in people, I am almost laughably gullible. Weird.
Yeah. I think that even scientists have faith in this broader sense — faith in principles, if not religion.
The most common of those is that “the universe must make sense.” We have no way of proving that any more than one can prove or disprove God. But the results so far are pretty compelling.
I guess “the universe must make sense” is the underlying bias of science. Then again, if someone discovered that the universe didn’t make sense, science would find a way to deal with it.
Despite your eloquent description of science as an exploration of a rabbit hole of never-ending mysteries, the perception is quite different. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people of faith decry the “arrogance” and “intellectual snobbery” of atheists thinking science “has all the answers.” Carl Sagan was a master at comunicating that sense of wonder and mystery inherent in the scientific process; we definitely need a worthy successor who can effectively convey that message.
Yeah. Weird that science is arrogant but having a “personal relatonship with God” is not.
What about Al Gore