tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post1022651153704203011..comments2024-03-12T12:23:10.033-04:00Comments on Secular Perspectives: Reaching Out to the Faithful: Does It Work?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-41177571606065805552012-07-27T20:53:03.714-04:002012-07-27T20:53:03.714-04:00I have never heard an anti-accommodationist critic...I have never heard an anti-accommodationist criticize E.O. Wilson for going to churches, and otherwise seeking out religious audiences, in an effort to alert people to the seriousness of the threats facing our environment.<br /><br />However, since he has been mentioned in this context, it is worth pointing out the obvious, that E.O. Wilson hides his atheism to the point of punting questions about his religious beliefs. The fact that there is good reason to think that he needs to avoid acknowledging his atheism so that the audience will consider his arguments on the merits is bad, it is very bad. It means his audience is not oriented to giving priority to an argument's merit, which in itself undermines the goal of taking real problems seriously by making it very easy for someone else to come along and sway the same people against E.O. Wilson's meritorious argument that are strongly backed by honest evidence with pure sophistry. After all, the arguments that the threats to our environment are serious do not lose any of their merit because the argument is being made by an atheist. So this intolerance/prejudice against atheism is part of the same problem as the more general problems of not giving priority to the evidence that turns well evidenced problems into artificial partisan controversies. <br /><br />I just think it is a tremendous mistake to try to play intolerance/prejudice against atheism against all of the other issues by declaring that challenging intolerance/ prejudice against atheism is incompatible with achieving all other goals and therefore must not be attempted. The truth is that any one goal can be set against all the other goals this way, since there is opposition to all of the goals and advocating for any one goal generates opposition. Advocating for taking global warming seriously undermines advocating for taking evolution seriously and vice versa because by arguing for either one you will undermine your trustworthiness in the minds of some people that will then carry over to anything else you say on any other controversy. But no one argues that therefore we shouldn't argue for taking global warming seriously. Instead, we look at each issue on its merits and advocate for what is best on that issue. There is no good justification for doing any differently with respect to the problem of intolerance/prejudice against atheism.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.com