Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma PeasePost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma PeasePost by VBMDo the militant atheists of the middle of the 20th century have a
share in the blame for the rise of modern creationism? Here is
an article I wrote on that subject after having listened to
Ronald Numbers, leading historian of the history of the
controversy.
http://submerging.reclaimingthemind.org/blogs/2007/09/17/do-militant-atheists-have-only-themselves-to-blame-for-creationism/
That is a Christian site, where I am hoping to educate my fellow
Christians regarding the history of anti-evolutionism, which I
think can only everyone involved. Any thoughts would be
appreciated.
BTW, I am a theistic evolutionist.
As a question for the group, what are the characteristics of a
'militant atheist', please illustrate with real life examples.
That is a VERY open-ended question. Surely you have been around
this NG long enough to understand why such questions do not do well
in the NG.
It was meant to be answered differently by different people for
instance I would suspect people would have different lists of who
would be militant atheists. They would also have different lists of
the characteristics of a militant.
And the point of encouraging all these different answers would then be
-- what? Don't you think I knew they would have different lists? Of
course I did. That is one aspect of it being such an open ended
question. But in order to arrive at a reasonable definition, the first
step must be to narrow down the list and agree on it.
The point is for people to think about what they mean when they use
the word 'militant' and whether they are using it as a term of abuse
towards people who they disagree with when the same methods when used
by people they agree with are not described as militant. Or do they
have an absolute standard for militancy.
Post by Matthew JohnsonAny attempt to take shortcuts around this will doom the effort to
failure, just as Euthyphro's effort to define 'piety' failed in the
Platonic dialog that bears his name (though his problem was slightly
different: he refused to move on from his incomplete list).
Well this is trying to elucidate some boundaries for the definition.
In this case you seem to insist on using the word but refuse to define
it.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma PeasePost by Matthew JohnsonIn particular, any attempt to list the _characteristics_ will run
into the sand unless we can have widespread agreement in the thread
concerning who the _examples_ are. As often, the definition should
follow the examples.
So can we even get this agreement? Can we agree that Lenin, Stalin,
Mao and yes, even Huxley, B. Russell and Dawkins are "militant
atheists"?
I think we can agree that Stalin, Lenin, and Mao were 'militant' in
that they used military might to get their way
I think you needed to use a dictionary before you wrote that
sentence. After all, the use of military might is _not_ part of the
definition of 'militant'. See, for example, the www.dictionary.com
1 - vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a
cause: militant reformers.
2 - engaged in warfare; fighting.
[fm: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant]
So you see, the actual use of military force is only in lemma 2, which
means it is NOT the sine qua non of being 'militant'.
2 is very clear cut but where is the boundary in 1? Was Martin Luther
King a militant Christian? Is Billy Graham? Is Pope Benedict? They
are all certainly 'vigourously active and aggressive'.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma Pease(I might quibble about whether atheism was their aim or a new cult
centered on either themselves or on their idea of communism).
In that case, we do not have agreement. What is worse, your reason for
not agreeing is, quite frankly, disappointing. Do you really believe
it is plausible that they had only ONE aim, whether that be their 'new
cult' or their 'idea of communism'? And even if they did, you are
assuming that "militant atheist" describes an _aim_ rather than a
_result_. But this is a bizarre assumption; I can't imagine why anyone
would believe it.
That you would waste the reader's time with such a diversion suggests
to me that you are _NOT_ serious about getting to the bottom of the
issue: "what is a 'militant atheist'"? So what is _your_ real aim,
Emma?
To get people to think about what they mean by the term 'militant'.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma PeaseIn the same way we will consider the Crusaders as militant Christians
for using military might (though their goals were often mixed also);
do you agree?
No, I do not agree. For it is pretty clear after even just the First
Crusade, that the majority of the Crusaders, and the dominant
parties/leaders among them, were NOT interested in Pope Urban's
Christian goals; they were really interested only in very worldly
things, such as acquisition and consolidation of power and
wealth. 'Militant' they certainly were, but not "militant
_Christian_". Nor were they even 'militant' in the most relevant sense
of the word.
Are you saying that even Urban wasn't a militant Christian when he
called for a crusade?
"On this account I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds
to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever
rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly
to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of
our friends. I say this to those who are present, it meant also for
those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it."
Have you read accounts of the sack of Jerusalem by the first Crusade?
The Crusaders certainly seem devout enough. Some accounts complained
about individual cases of greed but the goal of removing the 'infidel'
by military might for the greater glory of God was pretty much agreed
to by all.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1k.html#The%20First%20Crusade
"Strange to relate, however, at this very time when the city was
practically captured by the Franks, the Saracens were still fighting
on the other side, where the Count was attacking the wall as though
the city should never be captured. But now that our men had possession
of the walls and towers, wonderful sights were to be seen. Some of our
men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies;
others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers;
others tortured them longer by casting them into the flames. Piles of
heads, hands, and feet were to be seen in the streets of the city. It
was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. But
these were small matters compared to what happened at the Temple of
Solomon, a place where religious services are ordinarily chanted. What
happened there? If I tell the truth, it will exceed your powers of
belief. So let it suffice to say this much, at least, that in the
Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and
bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that
this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since
it had suffered so long from their blasphemies. The city was filled
with corpses and blood. Some of the enemy took refuge in the Tower of
David, and, petitioning Count Raymond for protection, surrendered the
Tower into his hands.
Now that the city was taken, it was well worth all our previous labors
and hardships to see the devotion of the pilgrims at the Holy
Sepulchre. How they rejoiced and exulted and sang a new song to the
Lord! For their hearts offered prayers of praise to God, victorious
and triumphant, which cannot be told in words. A new day, new joy, new
and perpetual gladness, the consummation of our labor and devotion,
drew forth from all new words and new songs. This day, I say, will be
famous in all future ages, for it turned our labors and sorrows into
joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all
Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our
faith. "This is the day which the Lord bath made, let us rejoice and
be glad in it," for on this day the Lord revealed Himself to His
people and blessed them. "
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma PeaseSo let us go with Huxley, B. Russell, and Dawkins who as far as I
know have/had no military as your list of 'militant atheists'.
BTW which Huxley? I can think of Thomas, Julian, Andrew, and Aldous
among the 4 best known. Admittedly Thomas called himself an agnostic
(he even coined the term).
Thomas Henry Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog" is the one I had in mind. I
wouldn't be surprised if a few of the others fit, too. Don't be fooled
by his own label of 'agnostic'. As Lenin said, that was a 'fig-leaf'
for his atheism.
Actually Lenin apparently said it was a fig-leaf for materialism.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma PeasePost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma PeaseAnd how do those characteristics (other than goal) differ from the
characteristics of a 'militant Christian' or a 'militant Muslim'?
This too, is quite open-ended. The discussion of this is more
likely to go nowhere quickly than do anything else. Especially
since your framing of the question seems to presume that the
characterization 'militant' must mean the same thing in all three
cases, as if the differences between 'Christian', 'Atheist' and
'Muslim' could not change the instantiation of the militancy.
So you change the meaning of militant depending on what group the
adjective is applied to; this is important to know.
The meaning of the adjective itself changes. Why are you unaware of
this? It is common in English for an adjective's meaning to change as
it is applies to different classes of substantives. "Red ink" does not
often actually refer to ink that is red. And 'red' takes yet another
meaning when it describes a person by his political affiliation.
And in fact 'red' can refer to both conservatives 'red states' or
communists 'Reds'.
I note that dictionaries usually include definitions of combos that
mean something different from the sum of their parts (e.g., 'red
ink'). I don't believe they have two different definitions for
'militant Christians' and 'militant atheists' (we won't pull in the
Church Militant which does have a special definition).
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by Emma PeaseCan you give us a list of what _you_ consider the characteristics of
I already said that any discussion based on such a list of
characteristics would run into the sand until we can agree on a list
of examples. Do you recall now? But you did _not_ agree. So guess
what: you don't get the latter list. When you stop insisting on
putting the cart before the horse, then perhaps you will get the list.
I don't refer to any of Dawkins, Huxley (any of them), or B. Russell
as militants. I'm wondering why you are and therefore what your
definition (and the definitions that other Christians who use the word
are) of militant? So again what are the characteristics for you of
1. a militant atheist
2. a militant Christian (or is no Christian a militant in your eyes?)
3. a militant Muslim
You must have some idea about what 'militant' means to you otherwise
you wouldn't use it.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht