Texas votes Nazi. Sam Harris exposes his sexism. Michael Shermer gets investigated. Richard Dawkins vomits all over the internet. I can’t keep up.
Alas, I have been doing nonstop traveling and events and work-catchup for weeks. I haven’t even been able to get to my comments queue, so I shall soon just be clearing everything to post, probably most without response or very little response, as I have no time. I’m getting caught up on backlogged work in preparation for two events in Canada that I have to travel to later this week. I apologize for the comments delay. I had hoped to find time for it in transit, but alas I couldn’t, and likely won’t (this grueling schedule shall continue for months).
But for those who haven’t been already getting the skinny, all this happened between when I got on an airplane Thursday and landed yesterday…
- Mainstream textbook publishers have voluntarily started generating Nazi-esque propaganda schoolbooks to win the vote of the Texas board of education. Details here and here. Believe me, it’s way more fucked up than you think. One by McGraw-Hill (yes, McGraw-Hill) says things like the Constitution was inspired by God’s covenant with Moses, and that the Civil War was about states’ rights and not slavery; offerings from other publishers say things like that Africa is populated by “the Negro,” and some races are descendants of Ham. I’m not making this up. It’s a crisis. And hearings on these new history textbooks are going on today. Our own Aron Ra is there.
- Sam Harris revealed in an interview that he maintains sexist ideas of gender essentialism. Basically he said atheism and skepticism are mostly a guy thing, and aren’t about the “estrogen vibe” (by which he meant, as he himself later confirmed albeit slightly qualified, women are biologically less disposed than men to care about arguments and critical thinking, at least in a publicly aggressive way). And also somehow failed to notice or mention the dozens of outspoken women in atheism and skepticism. And he still doesn’t realize why his views and what he said are sexist (he also doesn’t know how bell curves work). This is the most explicit incidence of this yet. PZ Myers has the full quote in context. Greta Christina has the definitive summary and take-down (update: see also this and this and this, which shows near gender parity in the movement, and proves low female attendance at events has more to do with how they are treated). Dan Fincke does an even more thorough number on him. Harris then attempted a tonedeaf response (which Benson, PZ, and Marcotte then fisked). In which he demonstrates he doesn’t get it. At all.
(Not only is this an exact repeat of Shermer saying the same stupid thing and not learning from it, but both are basically repeating the same stupid thing Larry Summers said and got pwned for, and which Neil de Grasse Tyson more accurately addressed and I’ve written about before, although in our community, it isn’t style that turns women away, it’s content: they love the critical posture as much as anyone, and they use and admire expressions of public outrage as much as anyone, they just don’t have the narrow-minded elitist obsessions of rich men and thus want to talk about and act on far more things than just the trivia that interests an elect boys’ club. Plus they want to be asked to participate, and they want to be treated decently when they show up.)
- Michael Shermer’s sexual creepiness and possible rapyness has been reported on by Mark Oppenheimer, a New York Times reporter, for a brief (and somewhat shallow and inaccurate) article for BuzzFeed (“Will Misogyny Bring Down the Atheist Movement“). The only new revelations are the name of the woman that it sure sounds like he raped, and documentation of the fact that he has lied about it repeatedly: depending on who he was talking to at the time, he has variably not admitted to having sex with her and then insisted it was consensual, and to some blamed the incident on his being drunk and not being able to remember, while to others insisting he was sober and totally remembered everything. I don’t see anything that alters my previous assessment (except that now we know the victim’s account matches my Scenario A, which is commonly classified as rape). One other new detail is the witness of Ashley Miller to something else he did, although she has given a much better description of the incident than Oppenheimer.
- Richard Dawkins then goes into total wagon-circling mode and tries to defend his good friends Harris and Shermer with sometimes disingenuous and (as usual for him) wholly botched use of twitter comments. See his botched attempts to defend Shermer; and his botched attempts to defend Harris, exposing his anti-feminism and contempt for womens’ opinions, although he already revealed that side of himself just a few days before; he also breaks his own condemnation of arguing by petty childish insults and petty-child-insults us for defending women and challenging sexism; for which he got pwned. Now Adam Lee has summarized what’s wrong with all this for The Guardian online.
- Oh, and as if to make things worse, it has also just been revealed that Shermer is a well-paid good buddy of Dinesh D’Souza, and not only praised his book What’s So Great about Christianity as “the best defense of Christianity that has ever been published” (he said this while introducing him at an arch-conservative libertarian conference, and was glad to see it used as a promotional blurb for D’Souza’s book), but (and this is the new thing) also told a court of law that D’Souza is his personal and admired friend, “the most…forthright and honest” person he’s ever debated and so “unfailingly fair and polite” that he should be excused from any prison sentence for his fraud conviction. Even though D’Souza is a total weasel who was trying to game the political system to favor the rich (or rather, himself, by essentially attempting to buy a member of congress, in direct and intentional violation of federal law).
Meanwhile, fellow blogger and activist Alex Gabriel needs some help surviving a financial crisis, and could use your donations (as patronage to continue employing him for all he does for the movement) or any contract work in editing or graphic design you can send his way, which he is really good at. And though I won’t be there myself, Skepticon is now raising money, as every year, in order to remain the largest free atheist conference in the country (in fact, almost the largest atheist conference, period). It is always the best conference I’ve ever been to, and that’s consistently, as I’ve been to six Skepticons (and a dozen or more others). Give them some support.
I actually think you’re being a little dishonest about a quote of Sams when you said, “. . . by which he meant, as he himself later confirmed, women are biologically less disposed than men to care about arguments and critical thinking.” Sam never said that critical thinking and arguing are more of a guy thing. He said that he thought women may be more averse to the angry and aggressive types of argument. That’s why Sam said “There’s something about THAT critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women.” He is referring to the previous statements he made about angry and aggressive argument. Now, attack that position all you like, but don’t confuse it with him stating that “women are biologically less disposed than men to care about arguments and critical thinking.”
That’s a fair point. I’ve added “at least in a publicly aggressive way” to the text. It’s still false. But accuracy is important.
Isn’t D’Souza the creep that forgot to divorce his wife before presenting his new fiancee ?
Great Xtian values.
Sort of, -ish. It’s more a problem of hypocrisy. Separated couples sleeping with other people before a divorce is finalized is normal and fine. It’s just not supposed to be what a fundamentalist Christian conservative does.
Sam Harris has explained his thoughts on his blog which seem quite plausible to me. He was asked something about why there are more males buying his books or why there are more males at his meetings etc. He admitted that it seemed to him ( although he also admitted that he was not entirely sure) that it was the case and attempted to explain it. To my mind, it certainly was not sexist. He simply garnered an hypothesis that may or may not be true, based upon our incomplete knowledge of the differences between men and women wrt aggression. He feels that his style of atheism might be ON AVERAGE less appealing to women than men. Does this make him sexist? surely not! He may be wrong, but it does not necessarily mean he is “sexist” deserving of your wrath. It makes me think you have something against Harris, although you may know things about him I do not.
I am a fan of both of you btw and have most of your brilliant works. My son finds you arrogant at times and can’t watch Dawkins, thinking you are the ones more aggressive towards religion than Harris
–go figure.
As usual, his post-hoc explanations do not represent what he said in the first place, where he made no mention of culture, for example, but only biology. He won’t admit that was a gaffe. Likewise, his post-hoc explanations still don’t get the facts right. As I show with the links I provided after his response (not just the fisks, but the data links). He is still operating with a sexist mindset, in which he has false beliefs about men and women that track traditional sexist gender assumptions. That’s surely not intentional. But that’s how sexism works: you don’t know you have sexist attitudes until you realize it.
Eight to ten years ago I might have said similar things as he did (not quite as ineptly and egregiously, but still). I had sexist ideas about women. Then I was called out on it, studied the facts, listened to and met a lot of women, and realized that. And fixed it. I abandoned those sexist attitudes.
Harris is too stubborn to do that, apparently. Even though it’s been a major public issue in the movement for the last five years, repeated twice before his remarks. He wasn’t paying attention, evidently. And just repeated the same sexist nonsense as Shermer and Summers. How can we be on this same merry-go-round a third time now, and still Harris hasn’t learned anything?
Funny, just a couple of weeks ago I was in my psychotherapy session wondering why all the online forums I seem to spend time in are 80% or more male and all the discussions I get into are of a similar, confrontational, frequently unpleasant nature. In most aspects of my personality I think I’m quite feminine, but the way I enjoy arguing with people over certain subjects – atheism among them – is something I think of as distinctly male.
My first attempt at an explanation was that most women are far too busy to waste time this way, but I don’t think that’s it. Even if they were spending the time online, it wouldn’t be at these sites and it wouldn’t be debating these issues in this way.
This is just a fact. I don’t have an explanation, it’s just something that men clearly like to do more than women. Why is it acceptable to say it’s 100% cultural but not to suggest that there might be some innate differences at work? As far as I know this is an unresolved question of science. Just because some people would like to think it’s resolved doesn’t mean it is.
I’m a feminist but I have nothing invested in our differences being entirely cultural. I don’t believe it, for one thing, and I don’t care either. Neither my feminism nor my feelings of self-worth nor my political liberalism require men and women to be the same on average. And if they did, it would be those things that had to change in the face of evidence. Political views have to bend to reality, not the other way around.
If people object to what Harris said, then what is their explanation for most of his readers being male?
The Deep Rifts™ continue. Looking forward to picking up one of your books, Richard, would like to see you on Ubelievable to make your points.
Also, help/hire Alex if you can, people.
As to Sam Harris: I wish I knew as much as he does to be able to say “I don’t know at all, but I’m sure”. Still listening.
#EstrogenVibe All The Sex Toys
Frankly, Richard, that is an appalling little list. I choose to view it as progress because during most of my life this shit was going on but nobody said anything about it because it was SOP. I choose to believe that because I am 64 years old and just watching overt racism make it’s comeback is depressing enough, thank you very much.
As sad as all that shit is, thank you for mentioning it. Because no matter how tired we all are, giving up is not an option.
Hi Richard,
While these aren’t bizarre and shocking, as we should have all come to expect this nonsense from prominent atheists and skeptics, they are bullshit that I thank you for calling out.
While I do agree with you on Harris, one comment you have made seems to be denied by the “tonedef response” Harris gave:
Harris claims what he was meaning was more specific than this, importantly, that it is about style of presentation, not of substance or ability.
Essentially he isn’t saying woman are “less disposed than men to care about arguments and critical thinking”, but that women are less “[fond of] a perceived style of religion bashing with which I and other vocal atheists are often associated”. Which could possibly be true despite likely being a product of culture not of some innate difference.
This is pretty subtle, and doesn’t really matter in my mind, because Harris is still neither supporting this generalisation with evidence nor making respectable efforts to acknowledge the often abhorrent realities of people of non-male genders participating in the skeptic and atheist movements.
Right. I’ve amended the article to reflect that. See other comment.
On the textbook thing, I just don’t get it. They stood firm on the science textbooks, wouldn’t publish any of the creationist stuff. Why, then, do the same publishers give roll over and play dead on social studies?
I do an automatic monthly donation to tfn (whom you linked above). They’re trying, but it was much easier with the science textbooks since the publishers wouldn’t back down.
These textbooks also promote climate change denial, but the science textbooks didn’t. Just bizarre.
History is softer than science. They think because it’s an “interpretation” (of historians), any interpretation carries authority. Whereas hard data in science is formidable. Also, science has a much bigger lobby, and is more connected to economics (bad science = bad economy = America be no longer great).
This is all ironic, considering treating history that way is essentially postmodern epistemic relativism, in which the truth of history is whatever those in power say happened. I say ironic, because the same people who want these textbooks normally rail against exactly that postmodern epistemic relativism as being of the Devil. Yet here they are embracing it. When it suits them.
I am so glad to see you post these firm views, Richard. I agree completely. Thank you for being so clear on this.
Dawklins has become a national disgrace to which I can only express England’s profound apologies. Anyone who can believe, as this loon apparently does, that it is a moral obligation for a woman to abort a Down’s Syndrome pregnancy has gone beyond the pale as far as many of us are concerned.
I have never understood how this person became the doyen and standard-bearer of evolutionary biology; let alone anything else. The only thing I can recall from the books that first made him famous is him touting a computer program that was supposed to demonstrate evolution. I thought the whole point was there is no programmer and no such person has to continually intervene to keep the process going.
I do not agree with Dawkins’ comments either.
But here is a little tip. Speak for yourself. I don’t need you patronizing apologies on behalf of myself or the rest of England, despite how “many of us” you *think* there are. Believe it or not, everyone else can speak for themselves. You don’t represent our whole country, so shush it. I don’t mean to sound so angry, but claiming to represent ‘my’ opinion (whatever it happens to be) just because we share a birthplace/home really rubs me the wrong way, whether online or in person.
when in Canada, will you bump into sye ten bruggencate…and the presuppositionalist ‘how-do-you-know gang?
Isn’t it time you dealt with epistemology of what ‘knowledge’ is etc.are you with e gettier? or is ‘justified true belief’ and adequate definition of knowledge?
Must one turn to objectivism and ayn rand?
I don’t understand the relevance of this question here. It’s off topic. I already deal with epistemology in my book Sense and Goodness without God and both my blogs. Rand’s epistemology doesn’t solve Gettier problems, so I don’t know why you would think it does. And Gettier problems aren’t really problems of application but semantics (they only show that we can define “knowledge” in different and counter-intuitive ways). So they are not really any obstacle to producing knowledge.
You say: “As usual, his post-hoc explanations do not represent what he said in the first place, where he made no mention of culture, for example, but only biology.”
Actually, his initial comments (as reported – I wasn’t physically present) make no mention of culture OR biology, unless you strain so hard to read between the lines that you miss what’s on them. Everyone simply assumed that he was making a narrow kind of biological claim – typically, whatever kind of biological claim the reader most disliked.
There is an ugly side to the movement revealed here, all right; but it’s in the way Harris has been flayed in effigy afterwards, probably not in his initial remarks (hard to tell out of context) and certainly not in anything he’s said afterwards.
The estrogen joke references biology. (And a sexist joke is still sexist.)
He made zero reference to culture.
And his subsequent remarks are still all wrong. He is defending sexism with pseudoscience now, and claiming it’s not sexist because his factually false claims he assures us are magically “true.” This has now been well treated by Bernstein and Marcotte. But the statistics I already linked to above, as well as ample citations of what women have been saying as to why they aren’t attending events like his for years now, already conclusively prove him wrong. Yet he persists in maintaining falsehoods. Sexist falsehoods. He doesn’t learn. He doesn’t listen.
He just makes note of an ‘estrogen nurturing vibe’ that is lacking in the atheist movement as being the reason atheism is more appealing to men rather than women. Yeah, that’s not mentioning biology *at all*. Why did he turn to a biological basis for the supposed reason the atheist movement isn’t more appealing to women? If the question were about the presence of hispanic people or LGBT people, I wonder if he would have offered a biological basis for their diminished presence.
Also, he doesn’t offer any evidence to support his beliefs. Not in the original interview, nor in his “I’m not the sexist pig blah blah blah” follow-up.
He also offered no proof that more men read his stuff than women.
Essentially, he offered a bunch of unevidenced sexist opinions while demonstrating that he completely fails to understand what sexism is.
I think what’s ugly is that the big names of our movement are placed on so high a pedestal that any criticism is called a witch-hunt. I thought the point of the movement was to examine and if necessary criticize ideas. Why do we suddenly hear things like “flayed in effigy” just because people use words to criticize words?
Added links to the above article to new entries on Bell Curves by Bernstein, a fisk by Marcotte, and a commentary by Adam Lee.
I haven’t had more than a passing glance at what Shermer and Dawkins have said in the past that was ultimately labeled sexist. However, I think in the case of Sam Harris, in my view, this is a case of hammer’s always finding nails where none exist. Sam Harris was asked questions that deviated quite a bit from his entire speech, which had absolutely no gender content at all until the reporter prompted him to comment on what some see as a controversy in modern “atheism.” If one watches the video clip (perhaps there is a more complete video online now) on youtube, one could see right away Harris was thinking on the spot while struggling to find an answer that would contain entirely non-offending words and phrases for a reporter which seems to be grasping for a story. And obviously he failed in the eyes of many. I’d shutter to think what living around those people would be like, as they seem to assume the absolute most negative meaning of any and all words used in a sentence.
I find it all mildly depressing. I think any of us, in that situation, would come off sounding sexist. I’m unsure at this point if any atheist lecturer should ever address this issue again, especially (oddly enough, based on gender) if one is a male. Nothing good will come of it. Nothing can. It is far too easy to jump to the conclusion that his every thought oozes with sexism, and yet, after reading many of his works and hearing many of his lectures, I rarely listen to much gender talk at all from him. He does quite often mention the real harm done by the world’s mainly male-dominated religions.
And yet, I fear those reading this will assume I “just don’t get it” and “need to learn” and “can’t apologize well.” I would simply urge those who think this way to ask if this is how we would want our loved ones treated in such a manner. It seems to me much more a case of rampart word play, and I see so many paraphrase his quotes and then rail against that, rather than as the awkward answer to an even odder question.
PZ ripped in to him. I’m sad to see Dr Carrier do the same. Perhaps I’m a sucker. Perhaps Harris does lived steeped in sexism, secretly thinking the woman who raised him from the age of two is somehow beneath him, just like his female editor and his female wife and child. I wonder.
I think the reaction from most people shows a total disregard for how brains actually function, how humans understand each other, and how easy it is for group think to take over. The result of this little tirade is perhaps that less people will listen seriously to what Sam Harris says, which I think ultimately is a net negative for our current world. And if you read all this and think I’m sexist, I’m sorry. But I’m also glad I don’t live around you and have to deal with the mountains you build out of mole hills (or what might seem to be mole hills). I think everyone could see sexism in partial quotes, hashtags, or paraphrases, but far fewer would see it in what he originally said in the context of the situation (which, I remind everyone, started off as a rather half-hearted joke poking fun at himself).
Best of luck everyone.
So Harris referenced biology. What’s your objection? Can you refute the idea that men and women are biologically predisposed to different modes of thinking? Note, dismissing it because you merely don’t like its consequences or because you find it politically unpalatable is a logical fallacy.
Hi Richard.
Can you help me out with one or questions I can’t seem to answer based on your book?
If Jesus is the new, better sacrifice for sin, then why does he have to be killed by demons? Could he not have committed suicide, or been killed directly by God?
Thanks.
I was at the debate today, but I arrived late and was not allowed into the auditorium until questions. I don’t worship you or anything but I was too shy to approach you.
When I got home I found that Jerry Coyne has come out as anti-feminist, or at least thinks that feminist atheists are nuts.
It’s true that in his initial comment Sam Harris didn’t mention the effect of ‘nurture’ on differences in gender behavior, but is it even plausible to contend that Sam might believe that ALL gender differences are biological? Why should the default be to impute to him a position that almost no educated person holds?
I also don’t understand why all of Sam Harris’s points in rebuttal should be dismissed as ‘post-hoc explanations’. Doesn’t Richard spend a considerable amount of time explaining his books on this blog and defending himself against critics? Is all of that ‘post-hoc explanations’ that should be dismissed out of hand? Would if be fair to say to Richard, “If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say it in the first place?”
I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t get the complete lack of charity for Sam. It just doesn’t seem reasonable and befitting a group of people who pride themselves on being, well, reasonable.
Dear Dr. Carrier, I have a somewhat offtopic question.
Current manuscripts of Lk. contain Cainan, the father of Selah, while all OT variants don’t have him, aside from LXX, which in Genesis gives the same age information about him as about his supposed son Selah.
This Cainan is used by OECs to prove that the Genesis genealogies skipped generations. YECs like AIG try to refute it by saying that:
1. Cainan in the Lk. text looks like a copyist’s mistake (and frankly, this argument looks superficially plausible the way the present it).
2. LXX was then amended by Christians to include this Cainan. And not completely at that, since he’s still absent in the Chronicles genealogies. This also explains why his info is identical to that of Selah.
As supplementary evidence they quote some Church Fathers that cite the genealogies without Cainan. Plus Josephus knows of no Cainan in this place.
From the scholars I have consulted, Emanuel Tov seems to agree that this Cainan seems to have been inserted.
This Cainan is mentioned in the Book of Jubilees, and not merely as a name, but an academic commentary says that it’s just as probable that he was inserted to conform with LXX.
So far all the evidence seems to line up against this Cainan originally being in LXX. The only question is then whether he first appeared in Lk. or in LXX. The idea of Christians inserting him to make Luke “right” seems prima facie far-fetched, yet if it happened, this explains why, e.g., Josephus knows of no Cainan.
In your opinion, which scenario would be the most likely?
Hi, Richard.
It is unclear to me why Harris’ comments constitute sexist remarks, probably because sexism is a very vague concept. Supposing that the relevant comments about women and whatever gender/sex difference are false, why go the extra mile by calling it sexist?
Please don’t respond in your typical, arrogant fashion. It is unbecoming. I am asking a sincere question.
Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist who specializes in the breakdown of religiosity in cultures worldwide, has posted a response to the critics of Sam Harris’ suggestion that biology or culture may be influential when it comes to the religious identity of men verses women.
His article lists numerous detailed studies showing that women are clearly more likely than men to identify as religious, in almost every society that we have data for.
Perhaps you would care to comment on his article? (It’s posted on The Friendly Atheist Blog)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/09/17/are-men-more-likely-to-be-secular-than-women/
*** OFF TOPIC QUESTION *** (sorry about that)
You know how some christian apologist claim that one small proof for jesus’ ressurection is that he chose to appear to women first and not men. I have never heard or seen a counter-argument along the lines of “you mean men like Pontious Pilot or the Pharisees? Why would he want to do that? What benefit would appearing to these men have for Christianity’s cause?! (sorry for the sarcasm too) Do you know of anyone using that small counter-argument Richard?
Thanks
For people who don’t know who Michael Shermer is, there is a picture of him at http://remievandeross.tripod.com/reports/travels/dragoncon2008.html where he is at something called Dragon Con in 2008.
Harris was asked why there are more men than women evident in the new atheist movement. He gave an answer that was not sexist, though the estrogen joke was impolitic. It is quite possible that his suggestion of biological differences in willingness to aggressively confront and argue (which could be linked to testosterone) is correct. That is what should be debated, not that fact that he did not say women and men (on average) have the same inclinations, preferences, skills, and behavior; which is an obviously wrong position. What bell curves tell us has no bearing on this issue. The means of many measures are NOT the same for males and female, regardless of biological or learned causes. The fact that some women are not shy about aggressive argument also has no logical connection to Harris’ point.