This is a reply to the second round of Kelly's critique of Chapter One. She's moving on to Chapter Two, so I shall attempt to confine myself to answering her questions and highlighting our existing points of disagreement in order to prevent any temptation to enter a vicious circle here.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/vox_response1

Quote:

I prefer your more subdued form of proselytization, but I think that the bible clearly indicates that as one of the “elect,” you should in fact feel sorrow for the fate of our heathen souls. People like Paul even wept for the lost. At any rate, this is a trivial point that is not written out plainly as a command, so I won’t press it further.

No doubt I should. And yet I don't. I never claimed to be a good Christian, much less a perfect one.

Quote:

First of all, the US is not a pure democracy, and the majority does not necessarily get their way. The government was founded upon secular principles and the absolute separation of church and state was the foundation upon which they were constructed. I also find your addition of the word “God” following “Creator” to border on dishonesty, as I’m sure you are aware that the god of the founding fathers was not the god of christianity and the creator to which they refer could very well be the universe or the deistic god in whom most of them believed. The states also cannot have laws that violate any constitutional principles and are given the power to rule only within those boundaries.

That "secular" principle is actually a Reform tradition established by John Calvin in democratic Switzerland prior to the Enlightenment. The Creator of nearly all of the Founding Fathers was absolutely considered to be the Christian God, only a very few were Deists in any sense. Kelly simply doesn't know what she's talking about here, a read through their bios on Wikipedia would suffice to set her straight. I find the "deist Founding Fathers" argument to be particularly amusing, since in light of my own idiosyncratic views of the Trinity dogma, I would be retroactively defined as a deistic ur-atheist myself. Kelly is also confusing the Constitution with the Bill of Rights here, the latter was never considered to have applied to the states until a new interpretation of the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment was applied in the middle of the 20th century.

Quote:

I see that some people have a hard time appreciating facetious sarcasm.

To quote Fred Durst, "if you don't care, then we don't care".

Quote:

I disagree here for multiple reasons, some of which may boil down to theological differences. First of all, your belief affects me because it compels you to a) write books on the subject, b) consider yourself vastly superior to those who don’t find your god’s existence axiomatic, and c) engage in the same psychological terrorism which I previously mentioned. Secondly, the bible is quite clear that my salvation is not dependent upon my actions, but rather is a gift from god to those whom he has chosen. If you believe that the bible is at least remotely accurate, then you must accept that I am walking down the path that was made for me by your god who created me specifically for the purpose of going to hell. After all, it was all planned from before the foundations of the universe. Is that not what is written?

Anyone still wondering about why I oppose omniderigence and the concept of God's unalterable and perfect plan? Once Kelly gets to chapter 15, she'll see why these has nothing to do with me or what I believe proper Christian theology to be. Kelly can't save herself, but her salvation does depend upon her action in much the same way that a drowning man has to grab the rope thrown his way.

Quote:

As far as personal beliefs and behaviors are concerned, I have already stated that I do not care what an individual person believes as long as it stays personal. Attempts to proselytize, subversion of scientific research, the desire to control uteri worldwide, do I really need to go on? Legislating morality based on your god belief immediately removes it from the personal level and places it firmly within the public sphere.

Kelly reveals a hint of the unexpected authoritarianism that lurks within so many atheists. The religious individual has the same right to voice his public will as any other. Subversion of scientific research? That's nothing more than her imagination, science has no inherent claim on the public purse. The only people attacking science labs are animal rights freaks.

Quote:

I believe that is an issue of some dispute within academia. The structure in the French government was very much feudalistic and also had similarities to caste systems as advancement through the three “levels” was difficult, if not impossible. If anything was the impetus for the revolution, it would have been the fact that the established hierarchy was oppressive and not the fault of the philosophers who pointed it out.

I suggest her take on feudalism and caste was simply incorrect, it's the result of taking a metaphor too literally. Let the reader decide.

Quote:

I don’t recall ever making a statement about any particular ethnic group. Regardless of that point, the pre-revolutionary France was very much like a caste system. I feel that the analogy is appropriate.

It's not a question of ethnicity but geography. She was talking about caste on a continent where it has never existed, and I'm pointing out that it still exists where it always existed, 200 years after the Age of Enlightenment. Regardless of how she feels, I assert that both her point that Enlightenment ended caste and her analogy that "feudalism" was caste are incorrect. Again, let the reader decide.

Quote:

I never stated that the concept itself was new, only that the right to express it, even in opposition to the government, was. And just for the record, I don’t believe in absolute free will, either. I believe that people will make certain decisions, seemingly of their own volition, based on genetic and environmental variances. The nature versus nurture debate will likely never end, but a critical examination of the studies will show that things as trivial as your vehicle preference are correlated to genetic similarity. If free will exists as you claim it does, then how is it that I have control over my own destiny which according to the bible was determined before I was even conceived?

No, she wrote: "I wonder where he got those ideas regarding man’s free will and right to exercise it. Could it be…the Enlightenment? The irony is almost overwhelming."

As she now knows, no, it could not be the Enlightenment and there is no irony at all. And despite her backpedaling, the concept of a right to exercise one's free will contra the government was not new either. The pre-Enlightenment English Bill of Rights is only one of many possible examples and contains an explicit right to free speech against the crown. Again, Chapter 15 will answer her question, I don't believe her destiny is pre-determined; I am not a omniderigiste.

Quote:

There was a form of democracy in Greece, true. I think that there are some benefits to an Athenian style democracy, personally, but the system itself was still not as sophisticated as what we have currently.

That's beside the point. Democracy and limited government both pre-date the Enlightenment. Even worse for Kelly, that more sophisticated American-style system was specifically designed to limit the will of the people... which is quite in keeping with the Enlightenment and its totalitarian impulses.

Quote:

Your assumption that I am unfamiliar with Aquinas, Augustine, or enlightenment philosophers in general is patently absurd. Not to drag “formal” education into the debate, but I did study theology and philosophy at a Jesuit university for 2 years, and have read many of the works of all of the aforementioned. “Free will” as a concept was present in christianity, but my remark was related to governments and the legal right to exercise our autonomy. I could, perhaps, chalk this up to a semantic or contextual misunderstanding, but it is also likely that you just purposely interpreted what I said in such a way that you could accuse me of ignorance of those subjects.

I have no idea what Kelly's education happens to be nor do I care. Her point is what it is, and I suggest that no one who has understood Aquinas or Voltaire would make such a bizarre statement about free will and the Enlightenment. Especially since the Enlightenment 2.0 advocates deny the very existence of free will. Again, let the reader decide.

Quote:

The idea that we are arguing over atrocities committed by “atheists” during that time period is ludicrous. I asserted that the philosophers did not advocate violence, which is true, and furthermore, there is no evidence that all or even most participants in the actual fighting were atheists. This is an assumption made by you, presumably to further your own agenda of vilifying atheists.

"Écrasez l'infâme!" Apparently Voltaire had a non-violent destruction in mind... pity the Jacobins misunderstood. But it's true, the French Revolution was only partly atheist. No doubt that's why relatively few people were slaughtered compared with later, more vehemently atheist regimes. I have no need to vilify atheists when simply citing the historical record suffices.

Quote:

Finally, killing for a specific purpose (ie in a revolution—were there no deaths in the American Revolution? That’s news to me.) would not be inherently irrational, but killing for the sake of killing would be.

Okay. I have a feeling we'll get back to this later....

Quote:

Check the Oxford English Dictionary—an atheist is one who disbelieves in or denies the existence of god. Period. I disbelieve in god based on my lack of, and in my opinion, inability to acquire, knowledge of such a being. End of story. Therefore, the only necessary commonality between myself and other atheists is that we lack belief in god. Reading the personal opinions of atheists past or present doesn’t change the fact that atheism only entails lack of belief in god. Those who conflate atheism with some larger philosophy are simply incorrect. Christopher Hitchens is politically conservative; I’m not, but we’re both atheists. I disagree with atheists who believe that one can prove that ANY supernatural being doesn’t exist (which sounds extraordinarily silly to a logical positivist), but we’re both still atheists. Get it?

And yet we find a whole host of other commonalities, including beliefs, that can't stem directly from that single, simple disbelief. We observe. Then we hypothesize. Ironically, Kelly is, like a medieval philosopher, hiding behind logic in an attempt to avoid the empirical evidence. Considering that I specifically consider the definition-based point and reject it as both observably insufficient as well as contradicted by the definitions provided by Dawkins and Harris, I find it strange that she'd wish to return to it.

Quote:

You have to be joking about Osama bin Laden, but we won’t delve into conspiracy theorist accusations.

Actually, I'm referring to an email exchange with Sam Harris here. Sam admits that Osama isn't known to have personally killed anyone, but he suggests the possibility of ethically justifying his murder anyhow.

Quote:

I desire no “new” morality, society, dictatorship, or global domination. I have no desire to make god-belief illegal or in any way restrict your right to practice your religion, but I do feel that it is hazardous to humanity and would hope to have others abandon religion of their own volition. As previously stated, as long as religion stays out of schools and governments, I’m fine with whatever you choose to believe. (There’s more to this line of thinking, but I will address it in more detail when I get to the appropriate part of the book.)

I don't disagree, except obviously for the hazardous to humanity bit.

Quote:

What is the definition of christian in your mind? If it is solely church affiliation, then I guess I’m an Episcopalian since I never officially renounced my baptism and am included in the numbers somewhere. If a christian is someone who personally accepts the main tenets of the Nicene Creed, then I think you’ll find that the numbers based on church affiliation are artificially inflated. (I want to note here that I’m not making the No-True Scotsman fallacy as I’m not arguing that those who would self-identify as christian are not christian based upon behavior or some other characteristic. I do, however, feel that many christians are the nominal sort who haven’t examined their beliefs and may not even believe Jesus rose from the dead after his propitiatory sacrifice, thereby providing an example of the type of improper group affiliation that Vox references.) If you don’t find that nugget of info compelling, why include it? Was the point not to imply that there are less atheists than even the polls report due to incorrect self-identification?

A Christian is someone who believes and openly confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord. The point was to admit that while we can make use of the information we have about beliefs and so forth, we must recognize that it is imperfect and incomplete and avoid placing too much trust in our conclusions based upon it.

Quote:

I don’t expect people, particularly the complacent and apathetic who seem so prevalent in society, to do or believe anything. If they attempt to argue a position or make a claim, then I will expect them to logically and rationally support that. If you cannot refer to a dictionary to settle a definitional dispute, to what should we refer? I understand the nuance and connotations that can be left out of dictionaries, but there must be some final arbiter within language.

Agreed, but when the definition is contradicted by the observable evidence, we need a new definition. I ultimately went with American Atheists, but I'm open to a better one.

Quote:

I don’t “practice” atheism and wouldn’t even know how to go about doing so. You may be able to correlate certain characteristics with atheism, but let’s not forget that correlation does not equal causation. Furthermore, many of such observations are biased and stereotypical. Many people will read more into a particular action than is actually there based upon the kinds of memes that have spread about atheists, so their analysis would be tainted by such a predisposition. For example, some people claim that atheists live a life of total debauchery and just want to have sex with everything in sight. Well, so do some christians, muslims, or hindus. Some atheists are celibate by choice. The sexual behavior of atheists and even the mores regarding sex are likely not that different from those of the religious. We just don’t need to feel guilty because Jesus just watched us masturbate.

We're not even talking about causation here. Sweet Darwin, but I've come to hate that correlation-causation statement, it's so seldom relevant to the point when it's cited. As for the rest, it will come up later so I'll leave it for then.

Quote:

I also feel that your group of “Low Church Atheists” was over-generalized to include a group of people whose religious affiliation is merely in question or not known. The conclusions that you made based upon their inclusion are invalid, and in my opinion, a dishonest attempt to bolster your argument.

I am far from the only person to consider the "no religion" group to have some connection to the "atheist" and "agnostic" groups. In fact, all three are usually lumped together in polls. Dawkins's entire OUT campaign is based on this concept.

Quote:

I do yoga; does that make me Hindu? Harris is an example of an atheist with whom I have some variance of opinion. We’ve spoken on some of these differences with no assertion on either side of correctness. We’re still both atheists.

I was just clarifying that neither of us were calling Sam Harris a Buddhist, that's all.

Quote:

Atheism is sometimes defined differently, and oftentimes incorrectly. I would have to re-read the referenced sections of their work to analyze their intent with using those particular definitions, but just for the record, I also disagree with the American Atheists’ description of what an atheist “is.” Many of those tenets I agree with in principle, but not as a corollary to atheism that is fundamentally necessary. Buddhism does in fact have many sects and branches that practice their religion differently. For example, the Japanese form of Buddhism is a Shinto fusion as far as popular belief is concerned. Mahayana, Theraveda, and Zen Buddhists also have differing beliefs and mythologies. That doesn’t change the fundamental aspect of Buddhism as a path by which one can attain peace or enlightenment without a necessary god of worship. It is a religion by definition, though, with a prescribed set of ritualistic behaviors, but practicing meditation does not make one Buddhist.

Okay. But whether Kelly accepts Dawkins's, Harris's or American Atheists' definition of atheism or not, they're perfectly legitimate.

Quote:

You implied some type of statistical correlation between Asperger’s and atheism; I merely pointed out that you had insufficient data to make such a correlation from a statistical standpoint. I have never personally seen Harris, Myers, or Dawkins defend the notion that all people with no specific religious affiliation or all who consider themselves secularists (which really only applies to religious intrusion into government, not personal beliefs) are de facto atheists. As far as your admitting that I “may not conflate” these differences, how exactly am I doing a “typical atheist dance routine?”

Actually, I outright stated there was a statistical correlation between AS and a certain group of atheists strong enough to suggest causation as well as some observable similarities between AS and the behavior of some notable atheists. If Kelly isn't arguing that atheism is growing or a statistically significant part of the population, I retract the dance routine comment.

Quote:

Regarding your first point, I would not label that group of people as atheists since it is merely unknown. One can have “no religion” and still believe in god or wood nymphs or anything else. As far as the HCAs go, I would dispute your characterization of them, and don’t feel that your dichotomy has an appropriate “church” for people like me. The ivory tower elitist atheists are out there, and they don’t even like me, mostly for the penury of letters behind my name.

Actually, a recent Baylor study indicates 10 percent of the "no religion" are believers. Of course, by Kelly's earlier definition, one can be an atheist and believe in wood nymphs or anything else. As for her "church", why should the religious monopolize all the denominations, I'm sure we can find one that would suit her.

Quote:

This is a perfect example of the bait-and-switch you like to pull—you claim to only be referring to Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens every time your arguments are critiqued, but then make the same claims for all of atheism and all atheists. Which is it? It would be much easier to respond if I knew your target. Unless, of course, obscuring it was intentional and the RD, SH, CH attacks are merely a rhetorical ploy meant to distract so you can surreptitiously generalize arguments against specific people and apply them to all atheists.

In this introductory chapter, I am making some broad rhetorical points most of which are based loosely on statements made in the various New Atheist books about atheists and atheism. There is a fair amount of room for interpretation and disagreement on a number of them. The reason that I'm occasionally forced to make use of my own observations in this first chapter is because the definitions provided by the targeted individuals are manifestly insufficient. As Kelly gets further into the book, she'll see that I'm making very particular cases against specific arguments made by a single individual, and there is less and less room for wiggling. This is why most of the chapter-by-chapter reviewers quit around chapter four, as they simply cannot defend their icons. Perhaps Kelly will do better, I shall certainly await her attempts with interest.