Sunday, April 03, 2011

 

Vision, Revision and History

.
Jerry Coyne is disappointed in the Center for Inquiry and, in particular, John Shook, Vice President and Senior Research Fellow at the CFI.

I don't have a dog in that hunt, so I won't comment on that part of it.

But this jumped out at me:

[F]or the umpteenth time, "faitheist" did not originate as a pejorative term, but as a term for atheists who nevertheless favor religion: those atheists who have what Dan Dennett calls "belief in belief."
Hmmmm ...

Here is where the term was "Coyned."

While it is true that Coyne originally asked for a "term for atheists who nevertheless favor religion: those atheists who have what Dan Dennett calls 'belief in belief,' he also asked for:

...a snappy, one-word name for those atheists who are nonetheless soft on faith (i.e., atheist accommodationists) ... [Emphasis added]
Are we really supposed to believe that Coyne wasn't searching for a pejorative term? Why do we need a "snappy, one-word name" for a concept like Dennett's (typically) nuanced idea of "belief in belief," unless to use it as a bludgeon against opponents? What is so onerous about referring to a philosophical contention that can be encapsulated in three words?

If that wasn't enough to question Coyne's "history" of the term, there are the suggested terms that he found to be the "Runners Up":

Godlycoddlers

Placatheists

Credophiles

Betraytheists

Muzzle-ems
I'm sorry. I no more believe Coyne did not intend the term to be pejorative than I believe that the Discoverless Institute intends ID to be science.

_______________________________________

As an aside, Coyne accuses Shook of 'redefining' "accommodationism." Where, exactly, has accommodationism been definitively defined?
.

Labels:


Comments:
Title of one of Coyne's posts:

Robert Wright’s faitheist manifesto

He goes on to write:

But I am slowly realizing that faitheism runs deep, very deep. Even atheist-intellectuals want to pat the faithful on the head: there’s a lot of mileage to be gained by attacking the “new atheists,” even if you share their feelings about God. It makes you look so nice, so friendly and inclusive. Indeed, some of the positive reviews of The Evolution of God have come from those who say that Wright’s arguments give believers “relief and intellectual ballast” against atheism.

I’m sorry, but if you’re an atheist it is simply condescending to tell people that their mistaken beliefs — beliefs with which you don’t agree — are just fine because, after all, even if you’re not going to heaven and God doesn’t hear your prayers, it’s good for you and society that you continue to hold these mistaken beliefs. It’s even more condescending — and cynical — for someone like Wright, who doesn’t accept God, to tell people that there’s “scientific evidence” for a “transcendent source of meaning” out there. If that’s not God, what is it? [bolding added]


Post

Used pejoratively? Yes, but the relevant fact is that it wasn't intended that way.

And if you believe that, you should believe that the DI is really just concerned about doing proper science.

Glen Davidson
 
I don't know where the term originates -- no doubt the pun is quite obvious! -- but Crispin Sartwell identifies himself as a "faitheist" on the grounds that the denial of God's existence is just as much a 'leap of faith' as is the affirmation of God's existence. One can follow the evidence as far it goes, but evidence and argument won't compel a clear, rational choice one way or the other. The real target of "faitheism" isn't religious belief per se, but "evidentialism", a belief about the nature of belief, which is just as central to many atheists as it is to theists.

For historical context, one could do a lot worse than read Clifford's "The Ethics of Belief" for the evidentialist view and James' "The Will to Belief" for the response. James defends the right to belief in God even when the evidence is less than compelling; Sartwell's move is to say that the same is true for the atheist as for the theist.
 
James defends the right to belief in God even when the evidence is less than compelling; Sartwell's move is to say that the same is true for the atheist as for the theist.

Damn! Just what us agnostics say! ;-)

Coyne's coinage is the relevant one for this kerfluffle but if you have an earlier reference, I'd like to have it.
 
If Coyne ever intended the term to be anything but pejorative (pull the other one), "faitheist" must have set a world record for shortest time from non-pejorative to pejorative.

And if the Disinformation Institute is lying for Jesus does that mean that on the origins of faitheist Jerry is lying for nothing?
 
Why do we need a "snappy, one-word name"
Because people like labelling stuff? was New Atheist pejorative? was accomodationist? was confrontationalist?

there are the suggested terms that he found to be the "Runners Up"
And considering the term Coyne finally chose, isn't that further proof for his position?
 
... was New Atheist pejorative?

I always wondered why some people thought it was but I always used it in scare quotes.

And considering the term Coyne finally chose, isn't that further proof for his position?

No. It clearly shows what his commentartiat thought the contest was about and Coyne's approval of the terms showed what he thought the contest was about. He didn't highligtht those terms to say "no, no, that's not what I was looking for." He singled them out for praise.
 
You know, perhaps we should borrow from Stephen Colbert and counter-label Coyne and his ilk, since they represent the One True Disbelief, as ,'trutheists'.
 
I thought Sam Harris came up with "New Atheist?" Or maybe it was a Wired article that identified him as such.
At any rate, it stuck and then, because there isn't an official "New Atheist Party" with an official platform and all, a whole lot of people self-identified as such - some with very extreme positions like a very pronounced scientism. Others who self-identified as such didn't agree with their positions, but couldn't throw them out of the party because there is no party.
And then still others started looking at what "New Atheists" actually said and gave compelling criticisms of them and, well, soon they had a label with all sorts of problems.
So to answer their critics and address the extremists, they chose to label their own label as a pejorative.
I wish I could make this kind of thing up.
 
The only problem with "trutheists" is that they'll take it straight up as an acknowledgement they are right. Afterall, we see enough of the herd mentality in Jerry's commentariat, ever ready to ignore the same logical and other fallacies they's plllory in a 'faitheist' or theist.

How about "exclutheist", since they have the truth to the exclusion of all others and, in point of fact, they're program is to exclude any but atheists from being supporters of science.

By analogy, those atheists who take an inclusive view of things and are willing on the science/evolution issue to make common cause with even us dreaded theists, could be "inclutheists".
 
I always wondered why some people thought it was
Probably because it used that way. My point is there is nothing inherently pejorative about "new atheists" as there would be with "confrontationalist".

He singled them out for praise.
And yet chose a term that had no inherent negative connotations. i too would have praised "Godlycoddlers" since I find that term amusing even if Im specifically looking for a non pejorative term.
Or try it this way - Come up with a snappy one word term for Conservatives who support the tea party (to differentiate from those who don't). Specifically a non pejorative term. is there any doubt that if the term sticks it will be used pejoratively , even if my only intention is to separate Andrew Sullivan from the rest? And is there any doubt the commentriat will come up with some insulting negative terms as well which we will find amusing?
 
Probably because it used that way.

So, basically, you're saying that any label can be pejorative if it is intended that way? When, exactly did Coyne use "faithiest" in a non-pejorative way? I think it is clear from the contest itself what Coyne's intent was from the outset ... just as the IDers intent is clear from what they say ... but if you have examples of him not using it pejoratively, I'll listen.
 
So, basically, you're saying that any label can be pejorative if it is intended that way
No I'm saying that intent is different from the way things get used. New atheist is used as a pejorative term(by accomodationist) even though there is nothing inherently pejorative about it. Like accomodationist.

but if you have examples of him not using it pejoratively,
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/accommodationist-or-faitheist-templeton-will-pay-you-big/
The negative connotations are for templeton not for the faitheist.

You are of course using the fact that Coyne criticises belief in belief to make your challenge. (I see you also didnt mention Jesuits and unitarians in your post - also an indication that Coyne promoted humorous entries )

As before I can ask for a non pejorative term for tea party conservatives , but I doubt I will be able to use it without criticising their policies in which case I too will fail your challenge even if my intent is non pejorative. Failing your challenge doesn't mean anything.
 
No I'm saying that intent is different from the way things get used. New atheist is used as a pejorative term(by accomodationist) even though there is nothing inherently pejorative about it.

Oh, it's only the "accommodationists" who have the intent? As Josh said, now pull the other one.

but if you have examples of him not using it pejoratively,
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/accommodationist-or-faitheist-templeton-will-pay-you-big/


You have to be kidding!

"Accommodationist or faitheist? Templeton will pay you big time!

Are you one of those indigent freelance writers, scrabbling hard to earn a pittance? Sick of magazines and newspapers that pay you jack?

Well, your troubles are over—at least if you’re willing to churn out accommodationist pap."

"Accommodationists" and "Faithiests" are "indigent freelance writers, scrabbling hard to earn a pittance" equally "willing to churn out accommodationist pap," is not pejorative? What alternate universe do you inhabit?

You are of course using the fact that Coyne criticises belief in belief to make your challenge. (I see you also didnt mention Jesuits and unitarians in your post - also an indication that Coyne promoted humorous entries )

Who said that Coyne wasn't trying to be humerous? If you don't understand that a humorous label can be the most vicious sort of pejorative, I again ask, what alternate universe do you inhabit?

I can ask for a non pejorative term for tea party conservatives

Well, since the tea party came up with the label themselves, I can call their conservative supporters "tea party conservatives" without making it a pejorative ... unless those conservative supporters find it so, in which case ...

"Faithiests" didn't start calling themselves that.

... but I doubt I will be able to use it without criticising their policies in which case I too will fail your challenge even if my intent is non pejorative. Failing your challenge doesn't mean anything.

I didn't criticize Coyne for criticizing his opponents. I didn't even criticize him for coming up with a pejorative term for them. I criticized him for lying about his intent to do so.
 
Blogger just rejected my message and its too late to retype

I criticized him for lying about his intent to do so.
Ah yes - Now you are a mind reader who knows what Coyne's intent was. Whatever happened to those lofty standards of evidence?

Coyne criticises belief in belief . Any term he uses to encompass that set of people will always come across as negative when he writes on that topic - irrespective of his intent on choosing a label.

If you don't understand that a humorous label can be the most vicious sort of pejorative, I again ask, what alternate universe do you inhabit?

Yes calling an atheist with belief in belief a unitarian is really a most vicious sort of pejorative.
And yes when I hear views like the above I do wish I inhabited a different universe .
 
Blogger just rejected my message

I cheched the spam trap, it wasn't there.

Now you are a mind reader who knows what Coyne's intent was.

That's why I keep referring to the IDers. If I can't make reasonable inferences about Coyne's motives and intent based on his own words, then no one can do the same about, say, the Discovery Institute, when it calls biologists "Darwinists." Or anyone else for that matter. All the Gnus would have to stop ranting about the "faitheists" and their intent to "accommodate" religion, since none of them say that that is their intent.

Any term he uses to encompass that set of people will always come across as negative when he writes on that topic - irrespective of his intent on choosing a label.

That doesn't change the obvious fact that Coyne set out to find a negative term and, right from the beginning used it as such. Again, I didn't criticize him for that ... just don't try to blow smoke up our collective asses.

Yes calling an atheist with belief in belief a unitarian is really a most vicious sort of pejorative.

When the talk.origins collective came up with "IDiots" it was funny. If you don't think it was vicious, you're not paying attention. The same with Godlycoddlers, Placatheists, Credophiles, Betraytheists and, ultimately Faitheists.

And yes when I hear views like the above I do wish I inhabited a different universe .

I'm sorry I'm goring your ox instead of someone elses' ... where you'd find it so much more "justifiable."
 
If you don't think it was vicious, you're not paying attention.
Suit yourself. I suppose you think your attempts at humor in your posts are vicious too?

I'm sorry I'm goring your ox instead of someone elses'
Oh my, What delusions of grandeur you have!
I can only say that I might in all honesty want a non pejorative snappy word for a group of people I intend to criticise (Perhaps I like the Mad Hatter and dont want tea party associated to the conservatives). Your view seems to be - it MUST be a lie!

It amuses me how desperately you want to pin stuff on gnu's.
 
I suppose you think your attempts at humor in your posts are vicious too?

Of course. How many times has PZ said that the best weapon against people like Ken Ham is to point and laugh? Humor can be a devastating tactic.

What delusions of grandeur you have!

[shrug] You're the one spending a lot of time and effort at an obscure blog wrangling over this. I gave my opinion and my reasons for it. If you disagree, so be it.

Your view seems to be - it MUST be a lie!

Again, I gave my reasons why Coyne's claim that it wasn't intended to be a pejorative appears to be false.

It amuses me how desperately you want to pin stuff on gnu's.

And it amuses me how some Gnus aren't willing to apply to themselves the same standards they apply to others.
 
Humor can be a devastating tactic.
Which isn't the same as saying it is a vicious form. Besides champions of civility indulging in, by their admission, of vicious communication should lead to a lot of tut tutting - which is curiously absent.

Again, I gave my reasons why Coyne's claim
And I gave you a corresponding example which would match Coyne's event for event. So either you believe I too would be lying or you believe there is a difference between my analogy and what happened with faitheist. You do not also explain why Coyne chose a neutral word. And you stick to your I gave my reasons.

And it amuses me how some Gnus aren't willing to apply to themselves the same standards they apply to others.
Coyne or me?
 
Besides champions of civility indulging in, by their admission, of vicious communication should lead to a lot of tut tutting - which is curiously absent.

"Championing" that people consider the possibility that their tactics and targets are not well matched to their objectives hardly requires that the "champion" eschew all tactics. Is there anything in your world that isn't black or white?

And I gave you a corresponding example which would match Coyne's event for event.

But you didn't give any evidence from Coyne to support your example ... unless you really think that link you gave demonstrated that he wasn't using the term pejoratively. In which case my response I would have is the same
as I have for people who cite the sub-title of the Origin as "proof" that Darwin was a racist ... walk away shaking my head.

You do not also explain why Coyne chose a neutral word. And you stick to your I gave my reasons.

And you stick to calling it a "a neutral word" (even though "New Atheist" somehow isn't neutral) despite the evidence of Coyne's own words in the contest and his subsequent usage of it.

Coyne or me?

Coyne certainly ... though it may be due to his sloppy thinking outside his own specialty. It was probably harsh to imply he was intentionally lying ... he may just be that un-self-aware when it comes to emotional issues, such as religion is to him.

You argue vigorously for a position, which I respect. I'd just say that I don't critize everything that Gnus say or do. But they
 
Accidental posting before finished ... here's the rest:

You argue vigorously for a position, which I respect. I'd just say that I don't critize everything that Gnus say or do. But neither is their any warrant to defend everything they say and do. Nobody is right all the time.

But some Gnus, particularly Coyne, claim to be more rational and more devoted to the "truth" than their opponents. As far as I'm concerned, that makes them justifiable targets when they fail by their own standards.

And anyone who reads this blog knows that, as far as I'm concerned, that goes for theists too.
 
Is there anything in your world that isn't black or white?
My vicious reply -
http://www.reoiv.com/random.asp?img=dadbandwandcolour.jpg&page=2
(Unfortunately I couldnt find the one which has bill watterson's reply to the syndicates claim that he sees everything in black and white)

But you didn't give any evidence from Coyne to support your example
You are a lawyer aren't you? You have to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt . My defense is merely that an analogous scenario doesn't have any lying , that the combination of the words faith + atheist isn't particularly pejorative and that tellingly Coyne didnt choose other words that clearly are , even though he could have. That's reasonable doubt for me. If you had restricted your claim to Coyne should have known that the word would be used pejoratively whatever his intent then you would have a case.

You argue vigorously for a position,
Thank you, I think.

As far as I'm concerned, that makes them justifiable targets when they fail by their own standards.
you confuse me for an accomodationist. We don't think you shouldn't criticise allies (harsh, vicious or otherwise). The argument is on the accuracy of the claim. Criticism is good , it can always be discarded when it doesn't apply.
 
Separately (because i have spare time) and you can walk away anytime-

"indigent freelance writers" - Is more to do with freelance writers being indigent in these times rather than specifically faitheists.

"Sick of magazines and newspapers that pay you jack?"
Again more to do with the state of the economy than any particular jab at faitheists

Well, your troubles are over—at least if you’re willing to churn out accommodationist pap.
The key part. Notice the "if you are willing" - implying that not all do , and not all may be willing. The jab is at Templeton that they will pay big bucks for accomodationist pap. A criticism also that templeton looks for specific accomodationist writings (of the science is compatible with religion kind)

So your turn - where exactly is the pejorative for the faitheist? - templeton is the bigger pejorative!

Notice also the distinction between accomodationist and faitheist.
 
Important point: What you call "accomodationist pap" is often referred to by others as reasonable, well-researched, thorough, intellectually honest, and just plain interesting material.
 
@Anonymous
which is a separate argument. The point that john is making is that faitheist is used pejoratively in this post - whereas "willing to write accomodationist pap" does not make the term faitheist pejorative.
if you have problems with Coyne's description of some accomodationist writing as pap , feel free to take it up with him on his blog.
 
@DeepakChopra

U mad?
 
You are a lawyer aren't you? You have to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt .

Uh, no. I never accused Coyne of a crime ... just of poor philosophy and lack of self-awareness. Even if this were a court of law instead of a blog, all I'd have to do is prove my case by a "preponderence of the evidence" ... which I think I've done, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

you confuse me for an accomodationist.

Maybe because it is an empty term of abuse ... like "faitheist".

We don't think you shouldn't criticise allies (harsh, vicious or otherwise).

I think there may be tactical reasons to let some sleeping dogs lie. But anyone who declares there are no holds barred is fair game, as far as I'm concerned.
 
templeton is the bigger pejorative!

I see, being more pejorative of someone else makes other pejoratives disappear ... or something ...
 
Uh, no. I never accused Coyne of a crime ... just of poor philosophy and lack of self-awareness.
Hmm I didnt know that I criticized him for lying about his intent to do so.
meant poor philosophy and lack of self awareness. In any case when you accuse someone of lying beyond reasonable doubt is a good principle.

is prove my case by a "preponderence of the evidence" ... which I think I've done,
Hmm a curious lack of self awareness.

I see, being more pejorative of someone else makes other pejoratives disappear
No. Im still waiting for how the word faitheist was pejorative in that post. If I said "John , if you are struggling for money, and you are willing to turn out tea party pap, fox news will pay you loads of money" - is John pejorative? assume you are some sort of conservative.

@Anonymous
U mad?
The jury's still out on that - Though there may already be a "preponderence of the evidence".
 
Hmm I didnt know that I criticized him for lying about his intent to do so.

Lying isn't a crime ... or else all politicians would be in jail.

when you accuse someone of lying beyond reasonable doubt is a good principle.

Oh, good! So all Gnus will stop accusing people of lying without proof beyond a reasonable doubt ... like those "accommodationists" who are churning out "accommodationist pap" instead of telling the "Truth"?

Hmm a curious lack of self awareness.

Simply denying the evidence is what creationists do.

If I said "John , if you are struggling for money, and you are willing to turn out tea party pap, fox news will pay you loads of money" - is John pejorative?

If Coyne had named specific people, you might have a point. But Coyne set out to create a term ... say, "Johnists" ... and made sure it would be understood as pejorative.
 
@John
So all Gnus will stop accusing people of lying without proof beyond a reasonable doubt
If they dont, they should.

like those "accommodationists" who are churning out "accommodationist pap"
How is this related to lying? Karen Armstrong churns out pap (in my opinion) - That doesn't mean I doubt her sincerity or that I think she is lying.

If Coyne had named specific people
Same principle - Indigent Free Lance Conservatives! If you are struggling for money and willing to turn out tea party pap, Fox news will pay you loads of money! I dont see how the word Conservative is pejorative. However if I criticise conservatives in a bunch of other places , it will certainly look like that , I agree.
 
That doesn't mean I doubt her sincerity or that I think she is lying.

Right! "Acommodationists" are only doing it for money, not because they actually believe what they are saying, doesn't imply lying ... at least to apologists for Gnus.

I dont see how the word Conservative is pejorative.

Well, if you had been around several hundred years ago and invented the term before anyone had applied it to themselves and made sure that everyone knew you intended it to be pejorative ... you know, the same way you claim "New Atheist" is pejorative ...

Can you at least try to be consistent?
 

Right! "Acommodationists" are only doing it for money, not because they actually believe what they are saying, doesn't imply lying ... at least to apologists for Gnus.


This is the key, Deepak. Coyne consistently implies (or writes explicitly) that Templeton is buying publicity. And yet if Sam Harris suddenly discovered he was named in the will of a rich uncle, and was subsequently able to drop hundreds of millions into the endowment of Project Reason, one gets the impression that Coyne would not extend a similar implication.

Try replacing the word "accomodationist" with "gnu" and "Templeton" with Project Reason or CFI or RDF, and see if it doesn't come off as just a wee bit patronizing. (In fact the post makes no sense without the pejorative slant--unless you want to assume that Coyne has started shilling for Templeton.)

Has anyone presented any evidence that Templeton recipients are compromising their principles to get on the gravy train?
 
John
not because they actually believe what they are saying, doesn't imply lying
What the fuck are you saying? I said I don't doubt Karen Armstrongs sincerity - i dont believe she is lying - but she still writes crap.

And you use that statement to say Im implying she's lying?

you know, the same way you claim "New Atheist" is pejorative ...

Oh really? Why don't you learn to read? - I made two statements on this regard
"Is new Atheist pejorative?" - implying that even though the term itself isnt , it is certainly used that way by accomodationists.
and an explicit statement
"My point is there is nothing inherently pejorative about "new atheists" as there would be with "confrontationalist". "
See the line that states - there is nothing inherently pejorative about new atheist
 
And you use that statement to say Im implying she's lying?

I was referring back to the Coyne post that you claim shows him using the term in a non-pejorative way.

See the line that states - there is nothing inherently pejorative about new atheist

Yes, we disagree about whether a made up term like "faitheist" is "inherently" pejorative, especially when the very process of coining it clearly indicated that it was meant that way. But you agree that any term can be made pejorative and Coyne has clearly made it pejorative by his usage of it.
 
I was referring back to the Coyne post that you claim shows him using the term in a non-pejorative way.
So if I think Karen Armstrong writes pap (which I think she does) and say hey if you are willing to write this pap(as she is a faitheist) then Templeton will pay you big bucks- then Im implying she's lying?
 
especially when the very process of coining it clearly indicated that it was meant that way.
There you go again. The original contest didn't ask for a pejorative word and one of the sample runners up were highlighted by Coyne himself as "Most pejorative" - If pejorative is what he was looking for , he should have selected it, no?. He asked for a clever word - its no surprise that he chose faith + atheist.
Try it yourself - come up with a clever word for an atheist who has belief in belief (and don't try the lame oh but why can't we use three words? ) - there are very few that you can come up with that are better - and surely you wont coyne a pejorative term right?

You can also see from the 200 comments that some are clearly insulting , but some are not (things like believists or compabilitists). So much so for the commentriat thinking that it must be a pejorative term.

So I believe it was you who said refusal to change your mind inspite of evidence is creationist behavior, right?
Let us see.
 
So if I think Karen Armstrong writes pap (which I think she does) and say hey if you are willing to write this pap(as she is a faitheist) then Templeton will pay you big bucks- then Im implying she's lying?

If you say that the reason she is writing the pap is to get big bucks instead of because she has an honest disagreement with you as to what constitutes "pap," then, yes, you are accusing her of cupidity. But if it is an honest disagreement of opinion, why make up a "snappy" word for a vague group of people and lump her in with people who may not agree with each other? Why not simply refer to Dennett's more nuanced idea of "belief in belief" and deal with each person as an individual? The very purpose of such a term is to make it possible to remove the nuance ... which is a strange objective for those who claim to be more rational than their opponents.

If pejorative is what he was looking for , he should have selected it, no?

I have no doubt that Coyne wanted to be "clever." That is not inconsistent with "pejorative."

He described "Credophiles," not to mention "Godlycoddlers," "Betraytheists," et al. as among the "near winners." "Believists" or "Compabilitists" didn't make that exalted list. What did they lack in "snappyness"? The mere fact that not every commenter thought to, or was able to, come up with a good pejorative doesn't disprove the general sense of the participants was that a pejorative was what was wanted.

"Faitheist" implies a contradiction ... mixing faith with atheism ... that Coyne has frequently implied arises from cupidity instead of an honest disagreement.

I see nothing "lame" about being more exact and nuanced in discussing honest disagreements with other people. The only reason to call others names is because you (1) think they are dishonest and aren't worth the effort or (2) you are being dishonest yourself. That's why some call IDers "IDiots" and they call us "Darwinists."

So I believe it was you who said refusal to change your mind inspite of evidence is creationist behavior, right?
Let us see.


Just as soon as you come up with evidence ... instead of excuses.
 
Splitting into two because blogger keeps saying an error occurred

A sense of deja vu reading your post - i guess its time for last comment.
If you say that the reason she is writing the pap is to get big bucks
See the causality. We already believe she writes pap. She might as well make big bucks out of it. Which is what i think Coyne intended.

why make up a "snappy" word for a vague group of people and lump her in with people who may not agree with each other?
Why indeed? Why call a group liberal - when they dont agree with each other. Why call them conservative?
Why call people New Atheists? Why call people christian and lump those who believe the Christ is divine with those who dont?
I don't know why people like labelling stuff. As an engineer, labels are useful to convey meaning for concepts (e.g. Design pattern names)
but for a group of people - I have absolutely no idea. But people do it all the time and I dont have an issue with it


Why not simply refer to Dennett's more nuanced idea of "belief in belief" and deal with each person as an individual?
See above. you are free to criticise the tendency to label groups of people. What does that have to do with saying someone is lying.


"Believists" or "Compabilitists" didn't make that exalted list.
Ah but is faitheist closer to Believists or is it closer to Betrayatheists or other pejoratives(which i think was one of the worst choices)
 
doesn't disprove the general sense of the participants was that a pejorative was what was wanted.
You are assuming a pejorative was wanted. the post doesn't say so. The commentriat doesnt uniquely think so
- no less than Junior Gnu Russel Blackford thought believist was a good match he must have not got the secret memo from Coyne to choose pejoratives
You also refuse to consider that if I ask a name for Tea Party conservatives or Sarah palin fans you would get just as many rude insults or humorous word plays.
So then according to you the very act of choosing a label for the set of people whose views you disagree with must be looking for a pejorative term. you have never said whether you accept this or not. if not why not?


"Faitheist" implies a contradiction
Yes thats sort of the point. equivalent to I dont believe in Jesus but he is divine.


The only reason to call others names is because you (1) think they are dishonest and aren't worth the effort or (2) you are being dishonest yourself.
Thats a strong false dichtomy. Im sure you can come up with enough labels that are none of the above.


Just as soon as you come up with evidence ...

Which should be translated to "Where are the transitional fossils?"

Just for the record I dont actually believe you are behaving like a creationist - I just thought I should respond in kind.
 
A sense of deja vu

Only now? I've had it for a while.

Why call a group liberal - when they dont agree with each other. Why call them conservative?

Has it been in use for centuries? Do your opponents apply it to themselves?

Thats a strong false dichtomy. Im sure you can come up with enough labels that are none of the above.

I doubt there is any that the opponents of the people to be labeled set out to create on the spot.
 
Just throwing in my two cents. I certainly didn't see it as a request for an insulting term at the time. As a matter of fact, that's why I didn't think he'd actually choose mine (godlycoddlers). I offered it up because I thought I'd get a laugh. I viewed his featuring of my submission, in the context provided by his final choice, as a confirmation of that. I just figured he wanted to give me a pat on the back for the giggles even though it went a bit too far for his purpose.
 
I just figured he wanted to give me a pat on the back for the giggles even though it went a bit too far for his purpose.

But all of his "runners up" were of the same sort. It certainly seems that he had an affinity to "giggles." At the very least, he was displaying a lack of serious consideration of the position of the people he was opposing, which calls into question his motive for "Coyning" "faitheist."

Interestingly, at least one "faitheist" may have adopted the term, as Coyne has reported. But that is hardly unusual with terms of abuse, as blacks have done with the "n-word" and Gnus did by adopting "Gnus."
 
Ahh, I'm not sure who (Coyne? A Coynehead? A Pharyngulac?) invented "accommodationism," but it too sure quacks like a pejorative duck.
 
Heh! I just saw that Michel Egnor has adopted "Egnorance" as his blog title.
 
Vaccination infections and cancer therapy okay so then the question is what about bad stress so we go to the other half per the bad news side of things K how does an adaptive system become maladaptive would be a question that would come to many people's minds mother nature's intend to the system to work in one way how come it does all these harmful things that have been rightfully attributed to due to stress but at least a chronic stress and the answer seems to be in the transition from the queue short-.



http://binaryoptionpay.com/
http://findbinaryoption.com/
http://findbestbinaryoption.com/
http://findtopbinaryoption.com/
http://binaryoptiontopbroker.com/
http://binaryoptionwork.com/
http://binaryoptionworkhelp.com/
http://binaryoptionworksupport.com/
http://listedbinaryoption.com/
http://reliablebinaryoption.com/

 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives