Muddled Thinking from Jerry Coyne

Conrad Black wrote an article entitled, “I put this as simply as possible: Many atheists are excellent, but atheism itself is hurting the West.”  Black has a good grasp on your average New Atheist:

I have had as much as I can take for a while of the belligerent atheists who come crackling through the Internet assuming the airs of prosecutors, declaring ex cathedra that any suggestion of the existence of a supernatural force or that anything is not explicable by applied human ingenuity is medieval superstition. They have a trite little formula that they don’t have to prove the existence of anything and so have the high ground in any argument and then lapse into Hitchensesque infantilistic mockery about pink-winged little men in the clouds. They are repetitive and obnoxious and their fervour betrays the vacuity of their position. I am declaring a moratorium for at least a few months on trying to reason with these self-exalted champions of reason.

This type of summary stings because of its accuracy.  So it’s no surprise that the thin-skinned atheist activist Jerry Coyne would take great offense and flail away at Black’s article.

Coyne writes:

Now he continues in this vein with a newish column, “I put this as simply as possible: Many atheists are excellent, but atheism itself is hurting the West“. Now my first response on reading the title was this: “Even if it is hurting the West, and I believe the opposite, that says nothing about the existence of gods!”

And his first response is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction that has zero relevance.  Simply read the title of the essay – it had nothing to do with demonstrating the existence of “gods.”   Sheesh. That Coyne admits this is his “first” response tells us he is in Hyper-Skeptic Mode.

Coyne continues:

But Black still thinks that the existence of the Abrahamic God is self evident, and, moreover, that atheists, by reaping the benefits of a “Judeo-Christian civilization” without accepting God, are simply parasites on society.

You always have to wonder how some people earn PhD’s while have such substandard reading comprehension skills.   If you go to Black’s essay and search for the word “parasite,” you will discover the word is not part of the essay.  In fact, nowhere does Black even imply atheists are parasites.  This is such a typical New Atheist tactic: if you can’t rebut the actual point being made, change the point (usually through the use of paraphrase) to make it rebuttable.   After all, you’re deeply invested in that belief that your theistic opponents are a tad thick so the mind is constantly looking for any crumb that will prop up what you already believe.

Black briefly summarized his reasons for being a theist:

Because there was so much misunderstanding and overwrought, misplaced hysteria from some readers, I will wind this up by restating key points with mind-numbing simplicity. We have no idea how the universe, or any version of the life and context we know, originated. We have no idea of the infinite, of what was before the beginning or is beyond any spatial limits we can imagine, even with the great exploratory progress of science. Miracles sometime occur and people do sometimes have completely inexplicable insights that are generally described as spiritual. No sane and somewhat experienced person disputes any of this. But there is a cyber-vigilante squad of atheist banshees that swarm like bats over such comments and are hyperactive philistines better responded to with pest control measures than logical argument.

My contention is that it is more logical and reasonable to attribute these phenomena to the existence of a supernatural force or intelligence than either to deny that they exist, or to take refuge in the faith that they are merely aspects of our environment that we will eventually understand as we explore our planet and the contiguous universe.

Now note Coyne’s reply/rebuttal:

He’s equating scientific ignorance with the existence of God: the classic “god of the gaps” argument.

Whoa!  When Coyne himself tries to explain what type of data he would personally consider evidence of God, he invariably cites…..a gap!  Something science cannot explain.

Why is Coyne complaining about Black’s approach since it merely differs from Coyne’s approach in degree, not kind?  Coyne himself demands Gaps, so the problem with Black’s evidence is NOT that “it is the classic “god of the gaps” argument. ”  How could it be when Coyne’s atheism is premised on the validity of that very argument?  No, the problem is that Black’s gaps aren’t gappy enough for Coyne.  He wants bigger, better, more stupendous gaps.  He doesn’t just want a Gap, he wants a Big Ol’ Mega-sized Gap complete with fireworks.  And how will he know if he ever sees one?  Why, his atheistic spidey sense will tell him when the show begins.

Coyne also replies:

We don’t know what the first form of life was like, either. Does that prove God?

Back to the straw men.  Nowhere does Black claim to have proven the existence of God.  He merely cites aspects of our reality where he thinks it “is more logical and reasonable to attribute these phenomena to the existence of a supernatural force or intelligence.”

At this point, we can begin to see the “hyper-skpetic, debunk at all costs” filter Coyne is using as he reads Black’s article.  In his mind, Coyne hears Black accusing him of being a parasite while claiming to have proven the existence of God.  Of course, such impressions are not rooted in reality.  But because it is common for New Atheists to have a cartoonish view of theists, they impose it upon the world through their filtering. So the flaws in Coyne’s thinking go unnoticed in a rush to push the cartoon to the forefront.

Now let’s watch Coyne sink further into the depths of obliviousness.

Coyne quotes Black:

Of course, in our society, most people, including most atheists, are reasonably honest and decent and get through their lives without horrible outbursts of sociopathic behaviour. I did write that those atheists who purport to espouse the Judeo-Christian life without admitting the probability of some supernatural force are essentially enjoying the benefits of Judeo-Christian civilization while denying even the least onerous definition of its basic tenets. Thus do schism and hypocrisy raise their hoary heads.

As atheists renounce the roots of our civilization, they are troublesome passengers, and are apt to be less integral defenders of the West in time of challenge.

And responds:

First of all, although many of our ancestors were religious, that doesn’t mean that our society is a “Judeo-Christian civilization”. That means that Jews and Christians helped build it, but it doesn’t mean that all the precepts of society come from religion. Many of America’s founders, for instance, were either atheists or deists who explicitly wanted to take religion out of government. And many of the modern scientists who contributed to our well being were avowed atheists.  If there is no evidence to skeptics for a god, why must they “admit the probability of some supernatural force”? If atheists don’t, are we to be deprived of our social benefits?: “No soup for you, Heathen!”

At this point, it is clear to me that Coyne doesn’t have a clue as to the point Black is making.  For not only does he completely sidestep it, but he rattles off a list talking points that wander off in different directions.  What’s more, he doubles down on the talking point approach.

He begins by priming his readers’ minds with the appropriate spin:

He also makes the familiar claim that without God there’s no basis for morality:

Then quotes Black:

I also wrote that the atheists are becoming steadily more aggressive, more generally dismissive of the supernatural tradition, while swaddling themselves in commendable precepts that are generally variants of the Golden Rule and other such formulations. These are fine, but they will not in themselves assure a norm of social conduct and they have already led to the  ghastly enfeeblement of moral relativism. Alternative scenarios emerge of equal worthiness, as right and wrong are concepts that are diluted by being severed from any original legitimacy. All schools of behavioural conduct compete on a level playing field and disorder gradually ensues. Man is deemed to be perfectible, the traditional matrix for authoritarianism. Where there is deemed to be no God the classic human deities — or Robespierre’s Supreme Being, the Nazi Pagan-Wagnerian leaders, or the Stalinist incarnation of the toiling Slavonic masses — replace deities. Anyone who imagines that our legal system, unto itself, will assure acceptable social conduct has had little experience of it. The entire apparatus of our society of laws has degenerated into a 360 degree cartel operated by and almost exclusively for the benefit of the legal profession.

And then opens the talking point flood gates:

Well, you already know the argument against the “original legitimacy” of morality derived from religion. It’s threefold. First, Plato’s Euthyphro Argument. Does Black believe that we should stone to death those who work on the Sabbath because God said so, or do the same to kids who curse their parents? If not, why not? For the same reasons that underlie the second point: every believer picks and chooses their morality from scripture or dogma, which means there are pre-scriptural moral feelings that dictate our actions. The Golden Rule has arisen many times in history independent of religion, and had religion not arisen I’m sure someone would have adumbrated it. Further, even if it were true that people need a god so much that they accept Hitlers and Stalins as gods if they give up on conventional faith, that still says nothing about the existence of God. All it says is that some people need a godlike presence in their lives. Or does Black even really care whether or not people accept God, so long as it’s good for society?

Finally: Scandinavia, including Iceland. Those are godless countries full of moral people. I suppose Black would argue that their morality must come from their religious background, but that would ignore the recent innovations in morality, like gay marriage, that came independent of religion. Read Pinker’s The Better Angels of our Nature for more examples. If there were a jail for intellectual miscreants, Black would be in it.

All of Coyne’s taking points can be appropriately dismissed as noise.  For none of them get to the heart of Blacks’ point, probably because Coyne is intellectually incapable of grasping the point.  So let’s make it crystal clear – the point Black is making is essentially the same one Jordan Peterson made.

Here, try to focus again on what Black so insightfully writes:

I also wrote that the atheists are becoming steadily more aggressive, more generally dismissive of the supernatural tradition, while swaddling themselves in commendable precepts that are generally variants of the Golden Rule and other such formulations. These are fine, but they will not in themselves assure a norm of social conduct and they have already led to the  ghastly enfeeblement of moral relativism. Alternative scenarios emerge of equal worthiness, as right and wrong are concepts that are diluted by being severed from any original legitimacy. All schools of behavioural conduct compete on a level playing field and disorder gradually ensues. Man is deemed to be perfectible, the traditional matrix for authoritarianism. Where there is deemed to be no God the classic human deities — or Robespierre’s Supreme Being, the Nazi Pagan-Wagnerian leaders, or the Stalinist incarnation of the toiling Slavonic masses — replace deities.

I could distil the truth from each sentence, but let me make it simple.  Every time we see Jerry Coyne rail (and flail) against the social justice warriors, we are witnessing the truth of Black’s point.  For it is atheism that spawned the postmodernist movement that has taken control of more and more universities.

Social justice authoritarianism comes from postmodernism and postmodernism comes from atheism.

Finally, Coyne lets out his inner SJW:

Again. why does the Post give this guy space to make such poor arguments?

Coyne has a history of wanting to deplatform religious people given his hatred of religious people.  But the irony, as usual, is great.  Here is a man who

  1. demands gaps out one side of his mouth, yet mocks gaps from the other side of his mouth, thus demonstrating the inherent incoherence of his atheism while
  2. shows a lack of reading comprehension skills in insisting Black postures as if he proved the existence of God while bashing atheist as parasites while
  3. completely missing the core point Black raises and thinks he has dismissed it with superficial talking points while
  4. implying Black should have been deplatformed.

Wow. All of this should make anyone question whether there really is any significant difference between a New Atheist and a Social Justice Atheist.  Sounds like something worth exploring, eh?

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Jerry Coyne, New Atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Muddled Thinking from Jerry Coyne

  1. unclesporkums says:

    Exactly. Just like most of these trolls I’ve seen here in the comments section, when one of you tries to corner them on something, they repeatedly try to change the topic. I remember reading an article with atheist magician Penn Jillette when he mocked the notion of top scientists saying they believed in God, and asking “Then why are they teaching at community colleges?” Well, it’s because his types are FORCING them out of regular universities. That’s why.

  2. apollyon911 says:

    The comments on his blog also demonstrate the incoherence of atheism – at least the atheism espoused by Coyne and his followers. Ad hominem and straw-men litter the comments. Not to mention mockery and a casual dismissal of Black’s points. Why rebut when one can mock i suppose.

  3. Dhay says:

    > 4. implying Black should have been deplatformed.

    Not just de-platformed.

    Jerry Coyne > If there were a jail for intellectual miscreants, Black would be in it.

    Jailed.

  4. unclesporkums says:

    The Soviet Mindset continues.

  5. Terry Barnes says:

    I remember reading the comment section on the Christian Post some years ago. One of the Christian commentators stated that he found it funny that atheists spend so much time talking and pushing their ideology when supposedly they only have one lifetime to enjoy, so why spend it on the Internet being a jerk to believers. The commentator later said, “it’s almost LIKE a religion to them.” He actually capitalized the word “LIKE.” Of course, the atheist regulars completely ignored or missed the more damning statement that they’re wasting their one life to live being an ass on the Internet and began regurgitating atheist classics like “atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods and is not a religious belief” and so on. I actually got a good laugh from reading the comments and this article reminded me of that. It kills me that so many of these atheists like to think of themselves as “freethinkers” when the give such robotic responses.

  6. Ilíon says:

    Muddled Thinking from Jerry Coyne

    In other news, a dog bit a man.

  7. Travis says:

    It’s sad to see how people have lost the ability to think and espouse their points coherently. It seems particularly pronounced in recent years, and particularly in the realm of politics (yes, I know politics has always had its share of incoherent thought, but I think it is apparent that the partisanship has reached a point where any point that digs at the other side, no matter how ridiculous or outright false it is, is nonetheless upheld as valid.)

    The lack of charity in taking the time to understand an opponent’s arguments and points before attempting to rebut them is pronounced. Especially from the New Atheists and SJWs.

  8. Regual Llegna says:

    “Many of America’s founders, for instance, were either atheists or deists who explicitly wanted to take religion out of government.”

    Coyne feeling proud to join himself in the same group as the deists like me, but deists believe in god or at least believe in a god AKA we are theists not atheists much less gnu atheists.

    I think that they (the America’s founders) want to avoid a state monarchy not “to take religion out of government”. The gnu idea is essentially “You can not be a representative (agent of the goverment) if you are gave religious beliefs”, which is the same as “You are banned to possess power to legislate over your society if you have religous beliefs” or “You are a defective leader if you have religious beliefs” in a mayority religious country, but people from a specific minority ideological group (gnu atheists) have special rights to have power over people with religious beliefs because that somehow will be better for a society with a mayority of people with religious beliefs. MUH UNYELLING ATHEISM MARXISM COMMUNISM!.(Ableist thinking and for them acceptable bigotry of low spectations).

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    Can someone point me to the names of the “”many” of the America’s founders” that preach to the public that they were explicitly and or that they don’t believe in any form or concept of god/gods. Point me something objetive about the “”many” of the America’s founders” being atheists, not a relative phrase, you know like:
    – “I am a atheist”
    – or “i don’t believe in god”
    – or “christians are mentally ill”
    – or “religion is a lie/ religion is false/ religion is -insert slur here-” (any)
    – or “no god exist”.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    Atheists are the only people in the planet that are offended if you callany of their ideologies a religion/dogma/dogmatic (atheism, humanism, scientism, socialism, etc.). For them the word religion, faith and others in the same topic are slurs, they use those words as slurs, for them the meaning of those words is something bad and damaging to the morality, thinking and way of living of the human beings. For that reason they believe that religious belief is the worst evil. But again most of the gnu atheists (most of their fandom) side with the liberals SJWs or are SJWs and activists and those side with muslims (a religious group in social-political tension).

  9. Ilíon says:

    Many of America’s founders, for instance, were either atheists or deists who explicitly wanted to take religion out of government.

    1) The Founders are not merely the handful of men who wrote the Constitution,
    1a) most of whom were Christians, in any event;
    2) The Founders are all American citizens of the time,
    2a) the vast majority of whom were Christians;
    3) The Founders did not want to “take religion out of government”
    3a) the wanted to “keep [the federal] government out of religion”;
    4) The US Constitution does not establish a secular state — that would be France,
    4a) The US Constitution establishes a non-sectarian state,
    4b) The US Constitution presupposes Christianity.

  10. Dhay says:

    In Jerry Coyne’s blog post dated 15 May 2017 and entitled ““Ignorance = God”: Dawkins’s replacement makes noises about abandoning his nonbelief”, Coyne laments that Marcus du Sautoy, who is Richard Dawkins’ successor in the post of Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science (at Oxford University), is not an atheist.

    I’m not sure about that, myself, but the point is that Coyne is convinced Du Sautoy is not an atheist.

    Shock horror! Not just someone not an evolutionary biologist — he’s a very distinguished mathematician — but apparently not an atheist. “What kind of successor to Dawkins is this man?”

    Du Satoy is presumably regarded by Coyne as inferior because:

    So far du Sautoy hasn’t produced a body of popular writing anywhere comparable to that of Dawkins, but really, who could?

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/dawkinss-replacement-makes-noises-about-abandoning-his-nonbelief/

    OK, let’s look at Dawkins’ science books:
    The Selfish Gene (1976)
    The Extended Phenotype (1982)
    The Blind Watchmaker (1986)
    River Out of Eden (1995)
    Climbing Mount Improbable (1996)
    Unweaving the Rainbow (1998)
    The Ancestor’s Tale (2004)
    The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (2009)
    The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True (2011)

    That’s nine, to which we can add one mixed polemics/science book — call that nine and a half, perhaps: A Devil’s Chaplain (2003)

    I think we can ignore Dawkins’ polemical anti-Christian works as not science, nor promoting the public understanding of science: The God Delusion (2006)

    Ditto his two autobiographies:
    An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist (2013)
    Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science (2015)

    Still, can you name any popular works [by] du Sautoy?

    Du Sautoy has had four books published in 13 years, a rather more prolific publishing record than Dawkins’ nine and a half in 35 years:
    The Music of the Primes: Why an unsolved problem in mathematics matters (2003)
    Finding Moonshine: A Mathematician’s Journey Through Symmetry (2008)
    The Number Mysteries: A Mathematical Odyssey through Everyday Life (2010)
    What We Cannot Know: Explorations at the Edge of Knowledge (2016)

    Dawkins’ books were confined to Evolutionary Biology and the defence of neo-Darwinism; Dawkins failed to fulfill his role as Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. While the first three of Du Sautoy’s books are on Maths — the first was a best-seller, translated into ten languages — his recently published last book looks at five distinctly different areas of science.

    Surely he should be very well known by now for his science writing.

    In 2009 Du Sautoy was awarded the Royal Society’s Faraday Prize, the UK’s premier award for excellence in communicating science — Dawkins was awarded it in 1990 — and Du Sautoy received an OBE for services to science in 2010 (That OBE is one up on Dawkins.) I rather think that’s good evidence Du Sautoy is well known for his science writing (etc.)

    Well, perhaps I’ve missed it.</blockquote

    Coyne doesn't seem to know anything about Du Sautoy; Coyne should get out more, be aware there are other fields of science besides Coyne's own very narrow specialism. (And I have the strong impression, reading between the lines, that Coyne thinks the post is not what it says on the label but belongs to someone who is both a vociferous atheist and a neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Biologist. Du Sautoy must be a deep disappointment to Coyne. Tough!)

    … Farrell at least calls him on it a bit: …

    In the following paragraphs — as so often happens — Coyne doesn’t seem to understand the review he’s blogging about. If I spent time unraveling his prose, I suspect I would find muddled thinking.

    I don’t know if I’ll actually read this book …

    That’s par for the course for Coyne, and plays to my confirmation bias regarding Coyne’s very pronounced disconfirmation bias. I’ll bet he’s just read the one review, too; add in Du Sautoy’s own descriptions of what his last book is about:
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/probing-the-great-unknown/
    http://www.wired.co.uk/article/questions-science-never-answer

    Coyne’s bottom line is:

    It seems that in his Sophisticated Natural Theology™, the Charles Simonyi Professor may be bucking for a Templeton Prize.

    Ah yes, the ritual sneer: how fortunate for Coyne that if anyone shows a hint of being a hated Accommodationist™ he can insinuate they are not sincere, they don’t really believe this, they don’t believe it at all, but are selling their integrity for profit.

    This sneer happens so regularly, so predictably, that I no longer take the claim at all seriously. Coyne cries wolf too often.

  11. Dhay says:

    In Jerry Coyne’s blog post dated 15 May 2017 and entitled ““Ignorance = God”: Dawkins’s replacement makes noises about abandoning his nonbelief”, Coyne laments that Marcus du Sautoy, who is Richard Dawkins’ successor in the post of Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science (at Oxford University), is not an atheist.

    I’m not sure about that, myself, but the point is that Coyne is convinced Du Sautoy is not an atheist.

    Shock horror! Not just someone not an evolutionary biologist — he’s a very distinguished mathematician — but apparently not an atheist. “What kind of successor to Dawkins is this man?”

    Du Satoy is presumably regarded by Coyne as inferior because:

    So far du Sautoy hasn’t produced a body of popular writing anywhere comparable to that of Dawkins, but really, who could?

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/05/15/dawkinss-replacement-makes-noises-about-abandoning-his-nonbelief/

    OK, let’s look at Dawkins’ science books:
    The Selfish Gene (1976)
    The Extended Phenotype (1982)
    The Blind Watchmaker (1986)
    River Out of Eden (1995)
    Climbing Mount Improbable (1996)
    Unweaving the Rainbow (1998)
    The Ancestor’s Tale (2004)
    The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (2009)
    The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True (2011)

    That’s nine, to which we can add one mixed polemics/science book — call that nine and a half, perhaps: A Devil’s Chaplain (2003)

    I think we can ignore Dawkins’ polemical anti-Christian works as not science, nor promoting the public understanding of science: The God Delusion (2006)

    Ditto his two autobiographies:
    An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist (2013)
    Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science (2015)

    Still, can you name any popular works [by] du Sautoy?

    Du Sautoy has had four books published in 13 years, a rather more prolific publishing record than Dawkins’ nine and a half in 35 years:
    The Music of the Primes: Why an unsolved problem in mathematics matters (2003)
    Finding Moonshine: A Mathematician’s Journey Through Symmetry (2008)
    The Number Mysteries: A Mathematical Odyssey through Everyday Life (2010)
    What We Cannot Know: Explorations at the Edge of Knowledge (2016)

    Dawkins’ books were confined to Evolutionary Biology and the defence of neo-Darwinism; Dawkins failed to fulfill his role as Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. While the first three of Du Sautoy’s books are on Maths — the first was a best-seller, translated into ten languages — his recently published last book looks at five distinctly different areas of science.

    Surely he should be very well known by now for his science writing.

    In 2009 Du Sautoy was awarded the Royal Society’s Faraday Prize, the UK’s premier award for excellence in communicating science — Dawkins was awarded it in 1990 — and Du Sautoy received an OBE for services to science in 2010 (That OBE is one up on Dawkins.) I rather think that’s good evidence Du Sautoy is well known for his science writing (etc.)

    Well, perhaps I’ve missed it.

    Coyne doesn’t seem to know anything about Du Sautoy; Coyne should get out more, be aware there are other fields of science besides Coyne’s own very narrow specialism. (And I have the strong impression, reading between the lines, that Coyne thinks the post is not what it says on the label but belongs to someone who is both a vociferous atheist and a neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Biologist. Du Sautoy must be a deep disappointment to Coyne. Tough!)

    … Farrell at least calls him on it a bit: …

    In the following paragraphs — as so often happens — Coyne doesn’t seem to understand the review he’s blogging about. If I spent time unraveling his prose, I suspect I would find muddled thinking.

    I don’t know if I’ll actually read this book …

    That’s par for the course for Coyne, and plays to my confirmation bias regarding Coyne’s very pronounced disconfirmation bias. I’ll bet he’s just read the one review, too; add in Du Sautoy’s own descriptions of what his last book is about:
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/probing-the-great-unknown/
    http://www.wired.co.uk/article/questions-science-never-answer

    Coyne’s bottom line is:

    It seems that in his Sophisticated Natural Theology™, the Charles Simonyi Professor may be bucking for a Templeton Prize.

    Ah yes, the ritual sneer: how fortunate for Coyne that if anyone shows a hint of being a hated Accommodationist™ he can insinuate they are not sincere, they don’t really believe this, they don’t believe it at all, but are selling their integrity for profit.

    This sneer happens so regularly, so predictably, that I no longer take the claim at all seriously. Coyne cries wolf too often.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s