Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science writer Mark Oppenheimer asks if misogyny will bring down the atheist movement

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We’ll let him tell it:

“I ran into Shermer in the hallway,” Smith said recently, speaking publicly for the first time about what happened that night. They began talking, and he invited her to a Scotch and cigar party at the Caesars Palace hotel. “He was talking about future articles we could write, and he mentioned this party and asked if I could come, and I said yes.” At the party, they began downing drinks. “At some point,” Smith said, “I realized he wasn’t drinking them; he was hiding them underneath the table and pretending to drink them. I was drunk. After that, it all gets kind of blurry. I started to walk back to my hotel room, and he followed me and caught up with me.”

On their way from Caesars to the Flamingo, where they were both staying, she chatted briefly with a friend on her mobile phone, she told me. They got to the Flamingo. “He offered to walk me back to my room, but walked me to his instead. I don’t have a clear memory of what happened after that. I know we had sex.” She remembers calling a friend from an elevator after leaving his room. “I was in the elevator, but didn’t know what hotel.”

Over the next couple days, word spread around the convention that they had hooked up — whether the rumors began with what she told people, what he told people, or what others oversaw, it isn’t clear. Shermer went into damage-control mode. More.

Or less, maybe.

A while back, we ran a story about some stuff like this, here.

In case you wondered, you really were better off in adult Sunday School, arguing about whether God is timeless. Go back now. That’ll never end up in court. This stuff might.

See also: Fun for philosophers: Is God in time or not? (If you want something more uplifting)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Mung: Barb, do you think the Watchtower Society is misogynist? Barb: No, I don’t. What a stupid question to ask. Women and Submission God's View of Women According to the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society Women Who Are Leaving Jehovah's Witnesses Barb probably isn't allowed to read these "apostate" articles.Mung
September 19, 2014
September
09
Sep
19
19
2014
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
None so blind, A_b... Or perhaps it's just that you are not old enough to remember when hardcore porn and its effects on pre-teens, such as I mentioned, as well as the Jamie Bolger case, could not even have been imagined. Anyway, I suspect our attitudes have both been too hardened, rightly or wrongly, for these exchanges to go anywhere.Axel
September 19, 2014
September
09
Sep
19
19
2014
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
Axel, I don't have a police state. I don't live in the US. With regard to going to he'll in a hand cart, this simply isn't reflected in reality. Crime rates have been steadily declining for decades. Society is far from perfect, but I don't think there is any evidence that secularization has had an affect, positive or negative.Acartia_bogart
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
The US, itself, is reputed to be the most religious country in the Western world, but that has been made a nonsense by its actual, immemorial materialism and inevitably concomitant violence and trail-blazing sexual licence. The kindest thing that can be said about its leaders is that, if one granted that they possessed integrity, their record would be that of a collection of people with respective IQs equal to their age. The reality is that the 1% have the nation in a vice-like grip, and they have a perspective that makes Mr Magoo seem like a sharp-shooter. Slavery, the colour bar in the South, putatively the most religious part, and lingering hatred of the African Americans, nationwide, did for any hope Christianity had of avoiding the extremely confused state in which it finds itself there today. You can find posters on US Christian forums questioning the wisdom of abolishing slavery! Not envisaging themselves as the slaves, I'm sure. Another unpleasant dystopian feature is that following the Patriot Act, you now have a police state.Axel
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Yes, that is obviously true, A_B, but sex slavery... I don't think so. I have never read any suggestion that, unlike paedophilia, it had been a hidden horror, but on the contrary, that it has been a sudden massive unparalleled irruption. You read reports of it in the press and online, sometimes citing studies, but unless you're a serious student of a subject, I doubt if most of us record links, etc. But I'm sure it would be verified through various Google links. In any case, it was inevitable. Without the civilizing constraints of Christian faith, the world has been going to hell in a handcart, hasn't it? I mean, in the fifties, people were hardly angels, but even professional villains would have found it impossible to imagine the kind of insane outrages that occur today. Women ripping babies from another (living), pregnant woman's womb, etc., 9-year old lads raping and sodomizing their little class-mates, for crying out loud.Axel
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Axel: "Doesn’t a massive increase in sex-slavery, world-wide, count? And pornography and pole-dancing, in which the women eventually effectively end up the same, drug-addicted and unable to see their way out of it?" Could you provide a link to your claim? Is this a real increase, or is it just in a creased awareness of something that has been going on for centuries. For example, if you read the media, or even look at police reports, you would conclude that pedophilia is on the increase. But prior to fairly recent times, these events were swept under the rug because the perpetrator is often a family member.Acartia_bogart
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Just a bit of fun, I suppose. All right. I put my hands up. I'm just becoming an old wowser, a wet blanket. Sorry.Axel
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
A_b Doesn't a massive increase in sex-slavery, world-wide, count? And pornography and pole-dancing, in which the women eventually effectively end up the same, drug-addicted and unable to see their way out of it?Axel
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
"Since you can’t explain why atheism (Darwinism) has not resulted in an increase in misogyny..." Not having absolute moral values to draw from results in ethical and moral problems, including misogyny. For example, Richard Dawkins on Twitter:
On Twitter, he wrote: “X is bad. Y is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of X, go away and don’t come back until you’ve learned how to think logically.” One’s immediate reaction is: Calm down, dear, why would I think that? They both sound bad. Of course, we don’t denote that from your formula. Why don’t you “go away” and come back with something more convincing? Then, storm waters not sufficiently roiled, Dawkins added: “Mild pedophilia is bad. Violent pedophilia is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of mild pedophilia, go away and learn how to think.” And then, pedophilia being yesterday’s old hat, he had to one-up himself with, “Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that’s an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.”
From here:http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/31/atheist-king-richard-dawkins-s-rape-fantasy.html Misogynist much?Barb
September 18, 2014
September
09
Sep
18
18
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Mung, The behavior you decribe is demonstrated precisely because atheists have nothing enduring beyond their own opinion upon which to base their ethical and moral decisions. Consider Andrew R. MacAndrew's translation of the famous quote in The Brothers Karamazov.
Rakitin now—-he doesn't like God, doesn't like Him at all. To people like him, God is a sore spot. But they hide it, they lie, they pretend. 'Will you,' I asked him, 'try to develop these ideas in your literary criticism?' 'They won't let me do it too openly,' he said, and laughed. 'But tell me,' I asked him, 'what will happen to men? If there's no God and no life beyond the grave, doesn't that mean that men will be allowed to do whatever they want?' 'Didn't you know that already?' he said and laughed again. 'An intelligent man can do anything he likes as long as he's clever enough to get away with it. But you, you got caught after you killed, so today you have to rot in prison.' He's real swine to say that to my face; a few months ago I used to throw people like that out of the window. But now I just sit and listen to him. (Dostoevsky 1983, p. 788)
So when an atheist's solipsistic moral relativism collides with the merciless societal enforcement of a moral absolute embodied in the law, the atheist is left with few rational arguments and even fewer choices: resignation, exile, insanity, or death. -QQuerius
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
Querius and Mung, nice try, but avoiding the argument isn't debate. Since you can't explain why atheism (Darwinism) has not resulted in an increase in misogyny, as the OP claims is inevitable, I can only assume that you are conceding the point.Acartia_bogart
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Q:
It’s an appeal to history as it ought to have been...
Excellent point! And one which also highlights the hypocrisy. History as it ought to have been would have excluded atheist regimes. If not, why not? Why do I get the feeling that atheists think they are morally superior to the rest of us rubes? Am I the only one who senses this constant struggle against the "moral superiority" of the atheists? Sounds like a great topic for an OP. How to be a Morally Superior Atheist.Mung
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
Mung, It's an appeal to history as it ought to have been---a historical fantasy carefully chosen and crafted. And the resulting disasters carefully rationalized. The irony that this is done in the name of science when it's the opposite of science. That's why 2014, what might be one of the coldest summers on record, doesn't result in any hysteria over global cooling. Speaking of violence against women, according to RAINN (https://www.rainn.org/statistics), 97% of rapists in the U.S. will never spend a day in jail. Oh, yes. We've come so far haven't we! -QQuerius
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Am I the only one who thinks it odd when an atheist appeals to history in defense of their views, or even better, appeals to the Bible? Those nasty Christians and Jews. And that mean God. They ought not have been that way.Mung
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT
K:" Ironically, you have again fallen into improper causal assertions by trying to suggest an ungrounded correlation-causation link." Where have I posited an ungrounded correlation-causation link? I was simply using historically observed facts to refute the ungrounded correlation-causation link implied by the OP. The OP claimed that atheism will lead to misogyny. If this is true, where is the evidence? Atheism and secularism have been on the increase for at least a century. Surely if the claim is true, we would also see an increase in misogyny.Acartia_bogart
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
This article is an eye-opener: https://bible.org/article/christianity-best-thing-ever-happened-women It looks as if Darwin was a throwback.Axel
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
A-b: Did you not see the causal timeline (backed up by historical evidence) laid out above? Ironically, you have again fallen into improper causal assertions by trying to suggest an ungrounded correlation-causation link. The specific point regarding Darwin was long since shown by direct authentic citation also. Back to a transition that needs attention. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
But again, don’t let history get in the way of your intrinsic values.
The irony.
Don’t assume that atheists have never read the bible.
More irony.Mung
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
A_B writes, “Christianity has lasted 2000+ years without giving up misogyny.” Christianity isn’t misogynistic. “The bible was written at a time and in a society that was very patrearchal. It is only natural that the religions formed around it would tend to be male dominated. After all, it took 2000 years to have obey removed from the wife’s marriage vows.” The Bible does not condone misogynistic views of women. “Unless, of course you are homosexual, or a women who has sex before marriage, or a person of any other faith. Don’t assume that atheists have never read the bible.” I don’t assume that they haven’t. I do assume that they didn’t understand what they read, which is obvious when they try to interpret it. Your comments make this perfectly clear. The Bible does not state that women have been cursed by God (Genesis 3:14, Revelation 12:9). The consequences of original sin cause men to dominate women, which is noted at Genesis 3:16. Women were not created inferior to men (Genesis 1:27). Men and women were created with the ability to reflect God’s qualities of love, justice, and wisdom. While each sex is unique in emotional and physical makeup, they had the same rights before their Maker (Genesis 1:28-31). Eve is described as a helper and complement to Adam. The Mosaic Law also provided for women: respect and honor were due to one’s parents (Exodus 20:12), consideration was due to pregnant women (Exodus 21:22); women were seen as individuals in their own right and enjoyed a great deal of freedom (see Proverbs chapter 31). Women had the right to be educated (Deuteronomy 31:12, Nehemiah 8:2,8). The law also included detailed regulations regarding appropriate conduct among unmarried perons, showing respect for females (Leviticus 18:6,9). A man also had to take into account his wife’s physical and biological limitations (Leviticus 18:19). Women could receive inheritances just like males (Numbers 27:1-8). Also note that Jesus always treated women with respect and dignity.Barb
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
K: "A_b: FTR, correlation is not causation;" I believe that I said that. But when there is causation, you will see correlation. Since the claim here is that atheism and "Darwinism" lead to misogyny, I would expect to see an increase in Misogyny since Darwin's day. We have seen the exact opposite. You can argue that there are other factors at play, which there are, but surly a philosophy that can lead to Hitler and Stalin can keep women "in their place". But you have nothing other than an unsubstantiated claim.Acartia_bogart
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
A_b: FTR, correlation is not causation; there are underlying trends and the timeline will not bear the weight you would put on it. A check of modern history will show that civil rights movements began with the reformation era political Calvinism (which undermined the dominant influence of the inheritance of Rome on government and law) . . . cf. markers such as Vindiciae, Lex Rex, Locke, Blackstone, US DOI 1776 and its precursor the Dutch DOI of 1581, two years after Vindiciae was published under pseudonym of Duplessis-Mornay et al . . . and coalesced in the archetypal rights movement: anti slavery. From the wider impact of the Wesleyan revival, Victorian reformation, including of the status of women, as modern democracy emerged. A pivotal input was the Reformation principle of putting Scripture in the hands of the ordinary person and challenging authorities on their traditional views. The secularists were rather late to the party, had the sort of problems Q just cited, face the additional issues of nihilism and radical relativism, and latterly have hijacked rights movements into Alinskyite neomarxism-inspired radical revolution by subversion of institutions, law and governance. Hence the topsy-turvy situation we see today. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
Q: The fact of willful ignoring of evidence itself speaks volumes. I got a transition hotting up -- a live on air political suicide y/day. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2014
September
09
Sep
17
17
2014
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT
Querius "Despite, overwhelming evidence that Darwinism promoted misogyny and racism, this inconvenient truth is simply brushed off without resorting to any attempt at factual support" Or they lift their leg on the posted evidence, scratch the Earth in demonstration of their phony righteous indignation citing Godwin's Law and trot off with nose and tail in air. Only later to reappear and start up again with another time wasting diatribe they dreamed up in some far off parallel universe.DavidD
September 16, 2014
September
09
Sep
16
16
2014
11:54 PM
11
11
54
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus, I hope you realize that a_b, by her own admission, does not always read anyone's replies under the theory that "life is too short." So any evidence presented, such as the following, is typically ignored.
“Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis.
Despite, overwhelming evidence that Darwinism promoted misogyny and racism, this inconvenient truth is simply brushed off without resorting to any attempt at factual support. The word frontalis refers to the frontal lobe of the brain, which scientists once thought was the evolutionary cognitive differentiation between humans and primates, involving behaviors such as problem solving, planning, and self control. In contrast, the word parietalis refers to the parietal lobe, which scientists once thought controlled the linguistic and visual functions. So, you can see how Darwin's prejudice against women was promoted through his pseudo-scientific justification, the same type of thing that Darwinists do today. I realize that you're responding FTR, but it seems kinda hopeless. -QQuerius
September 16, 2014
September
09
Sep
16
16
2014
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT
If "Darwinism" is so incompatible with the equal treatment of women, has anybody wondered why the increase in "Darwinism" corresponds with the increased women's movement? I know that correlation does not equal causation, but that only applies when the one variable is independent of the other.Acartia_bogart
September 16, 2014
September
09
Sep
16
16
2014
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
A_b: Equality of person is not equality of moral worth of behaviour. The attempt to demand the latter in the name of the former is yet another instance of creeping radical relativism, amorality and nihilism driven by the distorting evolutionary materialist worldview dressed up in a lab coat. Amorality destroys values, and blinds us to the destructive and destabilising consequences of immorality. It may also lead to attempts to cast one moral principle improperly against another to create paralysis and confusion in the face of advancing decadence, on the agenda, might and manipulation make 'right.' (E.g. the current attempt to rehabilitate the demonically mad and ruthlessly cruel Nero in Nat Geog would be laughable, if its potential implications were not so grim.) KF PS: FTR, here is what the Bible explicitly says about our fundamental equality, in a pivotal text:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus [--> who is viewed as Eternal Logos-Creator-Sustainer of Cosmos and Redeemer] . . . [ESV]
kairosfocus
September 15, 2014
September
09
Sep
15
15
2014
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT
"Once again, you’re completely clueless. LOL" Querius, coming from you, that is a compliment.Acartia_bogart
September 15, 2014
September
09
Sep
15
15
2014
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
"For God so loved the WORLD . . ." has NO exclusions. But there is only one door. Once again, you're completely clueless. LOL -QQuerius
September 15, 2014
September
09
Sep
15
15
2014
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
"People who actually read the Bible know that it promotes the equality of people under God, " Unless, of course you are homosexual, or a women who has sex before marriage, or a person of any other faith. Don't assume that atheists have never read the bible.Acartia_bogart
September 15, 2014
September
09
Sep
15
15
2014
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
"2) #1 is irrelevant to Mung’s point that universal condemnation of slavery is an example of human kind’s intrinsic value". As an intrinsic value, the condemnation of slavery seems to have failed miserably. I would think that something that was an intrinsic value would not take over 2000 years of recorded history, and who knows how many thousands of years before that, to be universally condemned? Assuming that it is universally condemned, even today. But again, don't let history get in the way of your intrinsic values.Acartia_bogart
September 15, 2014
September
09
Sep
15
15
2014
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply