Hello to anyone who's clicked over from Pharyngula

It seems we've been mentioned rather disapprovingly on PZ Myers's blog, and we expect that skeptics who are interested in studying the evidence before drawing their own conclusions will be clicking over here to see what the fuss is about.

So, hello and welcome.

To address the issue: two things have happened which connect you to us directly to us. Somebody posting under the name 'PZ Myers' made a couple of comments linking to Dr Myers's old site; a bit suspicious, we e-mailed Dr Myers to find out if someone was spoofing his name. We haven't heard back, so we cannot make the presumption that this commenter was actually Dr. Myers absent any data to verify that hypothesis. Second, Dr Myers made a critical comment about us on his own blog:

At least since Fred turned his blog with its unique voice into a hostel for simpering accommodationists and incompetent fools, that’s [the allegation that we are hypocrites] true.

I used to read it regularly — at least a few times a week — but completely tuned out as those other weirdos turned it into a halfway house for confused blitherers.

We hope that if you read the blog here, you will come to a different conclusion.

We do not consider our position to be confused or weird. It is simply this: we believe that it is important to maintain bonds of friendship, communication and respect between people of different philosophical and metaphysical positions. (It's worth pointing out, for instance, that our administration team consists of one atheist, one Christian and one agnostic.) We are not a 'safe space' for any one group; instead we aim to be a 'safe-ish space' where the only major rule is that people do not fall below a basic level of courtesy to one another. We enjoy being a pluralistic place where we can hear worldviews that do not match our own because we feel that even if we disagree with those worldviews, it's best to hear about them from people who actually hold them. We like to learn from each other.

You could, if you like, call this accommodationist, but we do not think we're confused.

Of course we no longer have a unique voice: we no longer have a single blogger. This is now a community blog with a multiplicity of voices. We do, however, feel that we have preserved the spirit of Fred's original blog. Fred was notable for criticising what he saw as bad behaviour within his own group. The article that kicked off this fuss - a piece in which an atheist was strongly critical of atheist activist Greta Christina's stated goals of the atheist movement - was, we believed, in the same spirit. It was strongly worded, but Fred's pieces were often strongly worded as well; we did not necessarily agree with its position, but we don't refuse to publish articles just because we don't agree with them. We saw it as an article that fell just on the right side of the civility line that deserved to be put out there for debate, and which could be balanced out by other articles stating a contrary position if people chose to write them.

Well, debate happened, and attention has been called. We'll be publishing many other articles in future that express completely different worldviews. If you'd like to stick around and are prepared to abide by the community standards of 'don't be a jerk', you will be most welcome.

---

 

The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)



Comments

[The Board Administration Team]

As a side-issue: a particular poster has, for the first time in the Slacktiverse's history, just been banned. As it happens, he was an atheist, but this was not why he was banned. There was a widespread community call for his banning, including from atheist members; the reason he was banned was that he was trolling, and repeatedly making remarks that were triggering to sexual assault survivors and victims of terrorist attacks, as well as remarks that were generally felt to be racist, and responded with further mockery and trolling when these issues were pointed out to him. We would do the same for a Christian, or for anyone else; respect for people's triggers are one of the hard and fast community standards no matter what your beliefs.

[Lonespark]

...
I...would like to think Dr. Myers is aware that Fred Clark is still blogging, over at Patheos. If he likes Fred, he go there anytime. And he and his readers should, because Fred continues to be awesome.

[jemand]

I think Myers has a different view of blogs and commenters than either Fred, or all of the community here. I say this because although I really do appreciate most of his blogging, and he seems to have a high view of some of his commenters, his reaction to the Dawkin's forum debacle (really long story, don't want to rehash unless absolutely necessary) made it clear he sees blog created spaces as pretty much completely belonging to the headline blogger... and does *not* see much value in a community created only among commenters.

So, there's that.

I didn't particularly agree with the article about Greta Christina, and I'm not surprised it ruffled a bunch of feathers, but you know what, it's not all about me, and this community is a lot bigger than a single submission.

[Mmy]

@Lonespark: I...would like to think Dr. Myers is aware that Fred Clark is still blogging, over at Patheos.

Fred's current address was mentioned several times in the same comment thread as the comment quoted above. Some (?many) commenters seemed to have trouble understanding/getting that we aren't a fancommunity of Fred's or acolytes.

The quality of the "facts" about this site is hazy. For example one commenter wrote: They have permission to copy Fred’s “Left Behind” posts over there, but IMO none of his other content. -- when we, in fact, do not copy any of Fred's Left Behind posts here -- we publish short excerpts that link to the original on Patheos

AND

and I don't know why that commenter feels a need to state that in hir opinion we don't have permission to publish anything else of Fred's -- as if this was some type of "deduction from the data" when we have a clear statement about that fact in the FAQ Because of the nature of Fred's agreement with Patheos, we cannot reproduce his posts in full.

[Inquisitiveravn]

For the record, AFAIK, PZ is still blogging at the old site, it's just that since National Geographic took over Science Blogs, he's moved the political and other non-science stuff to the new site. Actually, he posts everything at Freethought Blogs; the science stuff gets crossposted to Science Blogs.

[Kit Whitfield]

I didn't particularly agree with the article about Greta Christina, and I'm not surprised it ruffled a bunch of feathers, but you know what, it's not all about me, and this community is a lot bigger than a single submission.

Well, quite. We're supposed to be a debate forum as well as a community that tolerates different opinions.

One positive thing is that all this debacle about atheism has prompted some atheist members to start coming forward with interesting articles presenting their perspective; hopefully that'll continue. We're all in favour of publishing different opinions. :-)

[Kit Whitfield]

Useful info, thanks InquisitiveRaven.

Can I just suggest that if we do get Pharyngula people posting over here, we all agree to play nice?

[Billy]

I have to agree with PZ a bit. This blog has become more scattershot since the changes. I just go through my RSS feed looking for the posts by Fred. If I could subscribe separately only to his posts, I would.

[Evil Atheist]

we believe that it is important to maintain bonds of friendship, communication and respect between people of different philosophical and metaphysical positions

Is that why you chose to publish an article saying that seeking to convert people to atheism (or to their own religion) was "pure evil"? Was that friendly and respectful?

[Wysteria]

Billy, you would perhaps do better to subscribe to this feed, then: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/feed/

[MercuryBlue]

EA: "Your position is wrong and I must change your mind" is not an attitude that shows respect for the other person's beliefs, I'd say.

[sarah]

[[Kit: Can I just suggest that if we do get Pharyngula people posting over here, we all agree to play nice?]]

Yes. Definitely. I'd even offer pie.

[AnaMardoll]

Well, quite. We're supposed to be a debate forum as well as a community that tolerates different opinions.

Yeah, I'm trying to picture a post that EVERYONE in this community would agree with. Maybe something about kittens being cute?

I have a hard time seeing through my nostalgia filters, but I kind of seem to recall that not everything Fred ever wrote was 100% agreed upon by everyone ever of all time. I could be mis-remembering. :)

[The Board Administration Team]

@Billy: I have to agree with PZ a bit. This blog has become more scattershot since the changes. I just go through my RSS feed looking for the posts by Fred. I

Fred never posts here. He hasn't posted here since early March of last year. Because many of those in this community are fans of Fred's Left Behind series we, as a service to them, try to post a link to (and a short excerpt from) each of Fred Clark's Left Behind posts.

Fred Clark does not provide us with those excerpts nor do we have any special notification as to whether, or when, they are published at Patheos.

Fred sometimes publishes two or three posts a day on his site at Patheos and if you are a fan of his work I would subscribe to its feed.

[Evil Atheist]

I'm not the one proclaiming the importance of respect between people of different philosophical and metaphysical positions. There are some beliefs that *don't* deserve respect, in my opinion.

What I'm pointing out is that if you do "believe that it is important to maintain bonds of friendship, communication and respect between people of different philosophical and metaphysical positions", it's hugely hypocritical to then publish an article which labels non-violent actions encouraged by certain belief systems "evil".

[Wysteria]

I remember fondly from my most epic lurkers days (I went years without commenting! I like commenting better~) this one time y'all got into an epic argument about pie.

[sarah]

@Wysteria: I went about a year without commenting.

Pie is, of course, a MAJOR source of contention. Apple? Pumpkin? Cherry? Chocolate? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE?

Two of my former housemates once made an amazing fresh fruit pie. I should really get their recipe.

[Lonespark]

It's a very different approach to blogging and commenting, definitely.

And that is a lovely pie.

[Lonespark]

Fresh fruit pie? As in not cooked? ...huh.

[AnaMardoll]

Also, I really appreciate both the spirit and the wording of this announcement. Thank you, TBAT. :)

[Slow Learner]

TBAT: very well-judged post. Strikes just the right note balancing welcome with a caution to behave while here.

@Lonespark, Fred's blog at Patheos has been mentioned and linked several times in the comment thread there, so he should be aware of it soon if he isn't already.

I read pharyngula regularly, but the comments can get downright nasty down below the line there. Voices of reason usually exist, but that doesn't make it a friendly place to hang out.

[Mmy]

And more importantly -- is the pie gluten-free and vegan?

[jemand]

@Billy... uh.... just suscribe in your RSS feed to the patheos link. It's easy. I have two "slactivist" RSS feeds in google reader.

And *no* complete article here is by Fred. I don't really understand what you are talking about.

I guess I didn't fully read the article here about Greta Christina. I do read her, I admire her like, tons.

Religion really, really hurt me. I still feel pretty raw around it, pretty triggered by anything religious in person, *especially* hegemonic religious expression. I see the same harmful religious environment that gave me these triggers operating on my sisters and I am ANGRY. so angry.

I mean, partly because, I think religion is just *wrong,* just that it has theories about divine agencies and the organization of the universe that just isn't consistent with reality, so I hate to see someone hurt, like I was hurt, because of ideas that don't correspond to real things.

But you know what, *part* of my anger, is because it looks like that for *some people,* religion is a human thing. Religion is a way, it seems to me at least, they play with their ideas, who they are, what they mean, etc. Like it is a human constructed game that communities can play with each other and it may not actually *matter* whether or not *all* of it corresponds to reality? Whatever. I don't really get it. But it seems that a lot of humans do get it and get a lot out of it and as long as my sisters are still exposed to the same corrosive religious environment that gave me religious triggers... well, it seems less likely they'll get to play with this aspect of being human, too. Like, I dunno if they'd want to or not, who knows, I don't particularly miss it, really, but still.

And that makes me angry.

Of course, it does seem that this meaningful / human aspect of religion is less common than corrosive hegemonic expression and it is for this reason that I support Greta Christina and other "new atheist's" goals and typically consider myself one of them. Human identity is complicated.

[Kit Whitfield]

This blog has become more scattershot since the changes.

Of course it has; it used to publish the work of a single writer and now it's a community blog that depends on contributions from members, who have a wide range of opinions and a lot of other calls on their time. That's just the nature of the beast. We're probably always going to be a bit hit-and-miss. Enough people enjoy the hits that we think it's worth doing, but if you'd rather read Fred's posts, Patheos is the place.

--

Is that why you chose to publish an article saying that seeking to convert people to atheism (or to their own religion) was "pure evil"? Was that friendly and respectful?

This question has been addressed at length in the original article's discussion thread.

Short answer: 'seeking to convert people ... is "pure evil"' is an oversimplification. The article's contention was basically that the 'purest' evil - not necessarily the severest - consists of objectifying other people and refusing to accept their right to self-determination, and that anyone, theist or atheist, who advocates an end to pluralism is necessarily wishing for something that cannot happen as long as people's right to self-determination persists.

Check the motto: it's usually more complicated than that.

As to why we chose to publish it: we knew a lot of people wouldn't agree, but we believed that properly understood, it was an article against proselytisation in any form that just happened to single out atheism because religious proselytisation already gets criticised plenty. We're perfectly happy to publish other articles that take an opposite view.

[Lonespark]

One positive thing is that all this debacle about atheism has prompted some atheist members to start coming forward with interesting articles presenting their perspective; hopefully that'll continue. We're all in favour of publishing different opinions. :-)

Yes. This. YES!!!

(is very excited about the upcoming roundtable)

[Wysteria]

My mom's picking up a pork pie on her way home today. For fresh fruit pies, I like a graham cracker crust topped with sweetened cream cheese, fresh white currants and blackberries.

[sarah]

Shoo Fly Pie--has anyone ever had it? It's a real Pennsylvania thing.

[Slow Learner]

@Evil Atheist: there is a difference between respecting beliefs and respecting a person.

There are a lot of beliefs for which I have absolutely no respect; that doesn't mean that I can't get along with a person holding that belief.
For instance, one of my closest school friends was a Young Earth Creationist, six days of creation in 4004BC etc. I find that belief simply ridiculous. That did not, however, prevent our being friends and productively discussing many other issues, and our friendship has not changed much now he's accepted evolution.

I'm an atheist myself, and I'm no accommodationist - I believe in calling out the unearned privilege of religion, and getting compulsory religion out of the public square; that doesn't mean I can't be civil with people who hold beliefs I disagree with, or learn a lot from them about what they believe, why they believe it, and a whole range of topics unrelated to their beliefs.

[hapax]

IIRC, there were flaming arguments in the pie threads from those who do not care for pie at all.

Yes, here at the Slacktiverse we shamefully mingle with the "Let them eat cake!" faction. We've even welcomed those who aver "Danish uber alles!" not to mention the hilarious parody postings of the "Pastryfarians".

I'm personally a bit leery of the advocates of the absolutist "Desert Dessert!" model, but as long as they're respectful and civil, I think their voices need to be heard.

[Evil Atheist]

So do you think it would have been civil to tell your YEC friend "What you advocate is evil in one of its purest forms"? Is that civil or respectful?

[Kit Whitfield]

There's another point I'd like to make: even in Fred's day, this has never been a very proselytisation-friendly space.

Fred Clark is an Evangelical Christian, but one who repeatedly emphasised that he considered evangelism beyond the willingness to welcome anyone who wanted to join and lifestyle witnessing (ie being a good Christian and hoping that your behaviour will do your faith credit) to be counter-productive and disrespectful. Anyone who came on the board and tried to hard-sell their own faith or non-faith would be shot down pretty fast.

Whether or not people called it evil, proselytisation has always been unwelcome here. That's one of the reasons why it worked as an inter-faith/non-faith space. One of the unspoken rules is that you shouldn't step beyond lifestyle evangelism: you could explain your beliefs if it was appropriate, discuss them and share them with whoever wanted to listen, but you were not welcome to treat other people as conversion targets. If we didn't have that understanding, we would have become a space that was only welcoming to people of whatever faith or non-faith dominated. And most people didn't want that.

So in a fairly straightforward way, being anti-proselytisation is simply a variant of 'tolerate anything but intolerance'. And that's one we've gone over many times; we mostly believe that tolerance is an active principle that includes strong opposition to intolerance, not just passive acceptance. Intolerance needs to be called out if tolerance is to survive.

People have a lot of different beliefs, ranging from the hegemonically privileged to the fringe to the persecuted, and they're all tolerated. But if somebody really isn't happy with the thought of a world where their beliefs/non-beliefs will never be the only ones held...

Well, that's somebody who doesn't want pluralism. And this is a pluralistic space.

If someone's an atheist, a Christian, a Mormon, a Muslim, a Hindu or anything else and they just want to hang around with different people, this is a good place for them. But we're probably not that safe a space for people whose goal is to have everyone come to share their beliefs.

And you know what? I'm fine with that.

[Mmy]

Is that civil or respectful?

No, but it is respectful and civil to begin by saying "This is what 'being converted would mean to me', then move to 'I presume that it would create that type of harm in others' while mentioning that it doesn't matter what the worldview is -- uprooting it is painful and traumatic" then one can proceed to make an argument that arguing otherwise is to treat people as objects to be acted on not subjects who are being acted on can be labelled (has been labelled by some stunning impressive philosophers) as "pure evil" (because such objectification is the necessary step for all further acts of evil) and then use the word evil for the first time in the last sentence of a 1200 word article.

[AnaMardoll]

So do you think it would have been civil to tell your YEC friend "What you advocate is evil in one of its purest forms"? Is that civil or respectful?

EA, you seem to be taking the position that there are some opinions ("I think X is evil") that simply cannot be expressed with civility and respect. That no matter how the opinion is expressed, the voicing of the opinion itself is beyond the pale of civility and respect.

I'm not sure what "accommodationist" means, precisely, but if I were to sit down and define what I think it means, the concept of "thinks certain opinions should not be voiced in any way, shape, or form" would be on the list.

In this space, we believe that opinions may be expressed if they are expressed in a civil and respectful manner. As those terms are subjective ones, we as a community have discussions about how to maintain this goal. You are welcome to stay for the community discussions, but framing everything in yes/no gotcha questions isn't going to get you an answer you are happy with, I'm afraid.

[Wysteria]

@EA: I think if I had a friend who believed I was doing evil, I would wish that friend to tell me. I don't think 'doing evil' and 'being evil' are the same, and there's definitely room for discussion there in my friendships. I've had very good discussion about a friend's discomfort with my beliefs sending me to hell and how she didn't like that and it worried her. I think 'I'm worried you're going to be tortured for all eternity' is right up there with 'that's actually evil, right there.' I suppose it depends how uncomfortable one is with the term evil, and how much one ended up feeling like people crossed the line from 'evil action' to 'you evil athiest,' just to take a cue from your name?

[AnaMardoll]

(ETA to above: I was basing the proposed definition of "accommodationist" on the OP quote that seemed to imply "accommodationist" was a Bad Thing that tolerates Bad Things in the name of getting along. I'm now going to go google it on the grounds that it's probably a much more Complicated Thing than that.)

[Slow Learner]

"So do you think it would have been civil to tell your YEC friend "What you advocate is evil in one of its purest forms"? Is that civil or respectful?"

In the context of one of our discussions? Maybe. Bluntness had it's place: I certainly told him that I thought his approach to the central theory in biology was obscurantist and antithetical to any pursuit of knowledge, among other things.
I have been blunter with other believers, usually those who get in my face on street corners or tell me I can't be moral, or similar.

[Kit Whitfield]

EA, you seem to be taking the position that there are some opinions ("I think X is evil") that simply cannot be expressed with civility and respect. That no matter how the opinion is expressed, the voicing of the opinion itself is beyond the pale of civility and respect.

Actually I agree with that position. 'All gay people are disgusting and should be second-class citizens', for instance, is not something one can say nicely because it is not a nice thing to say.

I simply think that 'Intolerance of other people's faith is really bad' is not in that class.

[sarah]

[[Ana: (ETA to above: I was basing the proposed definition of "accommodationist" on the OP quote that seemed to imply "accommodationist" was a Bad Thing that tolerates Bad Things in the name of getting along. I'm now going to go google it on the grounds that it's probably a much more Complicated Thing than that.)]]

It brings to mind all of the negative connotations of "appeasement," at least for me--although appeasement was More Complicated Than That as well.

Anyway:
One of my best friends is probably what I'd call post-Christian. She started out evangelical, is now agnostic. I'm a liberal Catholic (as most of you who read my comments probably know). We talk about a lot of things, and sometimes we talk about religion and faith and where we are. Where we are usually shifts from moment to moment, but that's neither here nor there. The thing is, well, the two things are 1) we've known each other since the beginning of college, almost ten years now, so we've been around for each other's journeys and 2) we respect each other enough to say, yeah, that's where you are, and I have no desire to try to change you. For me, faith is wrapped up in process. I suppose moving away from faith is as well.

[Kit Whitfield]

I'd also like to say that I, at least, respect many aspects of Greta Christina's work. She's a charismatic and talented writer. Her promotion of diversity in the atheist movement is admirable. Her investment in making atheism 'a safe place to land' is great, as is her interest in social justice issues.

There are also elements of her position that I don't like: I find her attitude towards faiths to be rather intolerant and one-size-fits-all, and having followed her blog for several years, it seems to me to be becoming more so as time goes on.

However, there are many points to her credit, and I'm perfectly happy to raise a flag for them. People are seldom all good or all bad.

[Mmy]

People are seldom all good or all bad.

Or, as our motto states "it's (usually) more complicated than that."

[Froborr]

@Kit and Mmy: Thank you for your eloquent defenses. I am getting pretty tired of having to re-explain the same points over and over, and I know you two must be pretty tired over dealing with that troll we had over the weekend, so I very much appreciate it.

@Ana: Accommodationist is what people who think all religion must be eliminated cause people who want a pluralist, tolerant society.* I have been called one a few times, and consider it a mark of pride. Tell the quality of a person by hir enemies, sort of thing. (In the same vein, I was rather tickled to be called an asshole by PZ Myers on his blog.)

*I think I once encountered Mmy using the term in a different context, but that's the only time I've seen it used outside of anti-theists flinging it at non-anti-theist atheists.

[Froborr]

@sarah: I have a good friend from college with whom I share a similar relationship. He converted to Islam not long before I met him, and at first had a good bit of "convert zeal" (not that he was trying to convert others, but he kept complaining about how other Muslims were Doing It Wrong), while I had only recently come down off my anti-theist high horse (and started losing my adolescent intellectual arrogance in general). We frequently talk a lot about where we are, and I think had a significant mellowing influence on each other.

@Kit: I only discovered Greta Christina in the wake of Elevatorgate, but I agree with your assessment: When she's not painting all religions with the same broad brush or flinging around eliminationist rhetoric, her writing is insightful and charismatic and (I hope) doing a lot to challenge the choad contingent within atheism.

[AnaMardoll]

Re: Accommodationist, since the word "accommodation" is associated in my mind with disability accommodation, my first though on hearing the term is I Gotta Get Me Some Of That.

[Evil Atheist]

So if it's evil to proselytise, then presumably you would want to persuade New Atheists and Mormons and fundamentalist Christians that proselytism is a bad thing and not a good thing? In other words, you'd seek to persuade them to change their religious beliefs - which, according to you, is evil!

[AnaMardoll]

Also, @Froborr, may I offer hugs? It's frustrating to feel like one is being persistently and willfully misunderstood in order to make a rhetorical point about a single word in a ginormous (and very thoughtful) opinion piece.

[AnaMardoll]

...then presumably...

Bad presumption. The piece was an opinion piece, not intended to persuade or convert. Read it, or don't; we're perfectly happy with you doing either.

[Wysteria]

@EA: There's a lot in the article in question, and the comment section, about what constitutes consent when it comes to persuasion, and why consent to persuasion is important. Going to a blog and reading it, for example, we generally agreed counted as consenting to allow the blog author to try to persuade you of whatever. I'm not going to paraphrase it all here, as I feel it's worth it to read the whole argument.

[AnaMardoll]

(Also, the YOU'RE DOING THE SAME THING, OH BURN! argument has been repeated ad naseum there, too. Possibly we could request that all discussion on that particular article be done in the comments section for that particular article?)

[Slow Learner]

Accommodationism, I have usually identified with the idea that Science and Religion have Non-Overlapping Magisteria, to use Stephen Jay Gould's phrase.

It has also more recently been used to refer to tone trolls trying to get outspoken atheists to shut up, because they are all too angry and loud, and they upset the poor religious people who can't handle the idea that some people don't believe in their god.

[Kit Whitfield]

So if it's evil to proselytise, then presumably you would want to persuade New Atheists and Mormons and fundamentalist Christians that proselytism is a bad thing and not a good thing? In other words, you'd seek to persuade them to change their religious beliefs - which, according to you, is evil!

As far as I'm aware, the core belief of a Christian is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who saved people from their sins, the core belief of Mormons is that a third testament was discovered/written by Joseph Smith, and the core belief of any atheist is that there's nothing supernatural going on. Proselytisation is an element of how these beliefs are acted upon, and they vary from believer to believer; the core beliefs are about the human relationship to reality.

Nobody's trying to change those.

But if the core essence of somebody's religious belief is that all other beliefs must be changed, then that is somebody whose fundamental belief is not in Christ, Joseph Smith or the Enlightenment, but in intolerance.

Do we want to stop them believing it? Not necessarily. But I think most of us are prepared to jump on them pretty hard if they try to act on those beliefs.

Beliefs and action are two different things.