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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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/

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.

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?

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.