I am somewhat taken aback by your mentioning "the history of humankind tells us that people do not get to equality and then stop but instead rather turn around and try to begin the cycle of oppression." I assume you have thought that through enough to place that sentiment into any other religious, ethnic, or other minority. At the risk of stating the obvious, then, I find it odd and maybe a touch troubling that one group's fight for equality needs to be tinged with the specter, unjustifiably I think, of becoming oppressors once that goal is realized. Seems to me to be yet one more double-standard applied to outspoken atheists. They must all be teddy bears and not think anyone else is wrong about anything if they are to be acceptable to the greater public debate.

This is some excellent schadenfreude, much deserved. I might have found him more palatable if every sentence were not written with an implied smirk, but alas.

I wonder if there is no more insidious example of this pyramid scheme idea than that of theatre/acting grad programs. There are few industries in which the supply so overwhelms the demand, and actors become a-dime-a-metric-ton, but still countless schools charge enormous tuitions to teach armies of young actors the finer points of their craft, all so they can graduate, starve, flood the marketplace, and then eventually do something else. I say this as one who abandoned work on an acting MFA, and I have never regretted it, though I certainly still bear the debt of that one year.

Oh, no, not at all. But you make a very important point about passion-following and just seeing what happens at the other side of 6 years, which is not always accompanied by a realistic assessment of what might be available. I don't know how one assesses that to begin with, of course, and I am unaltered in my pursuit. Anyway, very good post.

This terrified me, as someone looking to pursue a doctorate at the age of 31. So, thanks. :)

I will grant you the point on willful ignorance in the particular kind of acceptance-of-uncertainty that you talk about here, but I also think that the kind of "I wonder what's out there" perspective (which is all fine and lovely) that you describe is not what most people mean when they say that they are people of faith. To be theistic, to subscribe to a faith or a creed is to have made a decision to accept as truth something for which there is no or insufficient evidence. It may be a vague conception, but it is a claim about the reality of existence nonetheless. Might it also include doubt? Might is also include questions? Of course.

It seems to me that the people of faith that you describe are not really leaping to faith at all, but I might call them agnostic, at least by your description. Indeed, there is a wealth of things at which to wonder and to marvel at our own (present) inability to understand. To accept this wonderfulness is not the same as having faith in a deity, though it is where many, I suppose, turn in the face of that wonder.

So I suppose my larger beef is with the romanticization of belief, which is what I think is implied by this "daring to know" conceit. Acceptance of and wonder at the universe's mystery is one thing, and a healthy thing. But I do not believe faith can or should be equated with acceptance of incomprehensibility. Faith has farther reaching consequences than that.

No, it is not precisely correct. When the "fundamental beliefs" we are talking about concern claims about the nature of the universe and existence upon which values, codes of conduct, laws, and mores are based, no, in fact, it is decidedly not about what people feel they can afford to leave unanswered. These fundamental beliefs are fundamental because they concern things about which people feel certain. That's why they're so damned troublesome.

And this particular clipping is something we can certainly do without: "daring to know." Especially if one is claiming that there is some grace in being willfully ignorant, or in pretending to know something one does not know, then the last thing one is doing when subscribing to a theism or supernaturalism is "daring to know." Rather, one is "acquiescing to uninformed guesses."

Robert (#60):

I think if we consider the works of Dawkins and Harris to be offensive, then the bar is far too low. If kid glove sensitivity is what is required, then everything is going to be seen as an unfair, overly aggressive attack. If something is a deeply held belief, then it should not be so easily withered by critique. I do not mean to suggest that these folks are PR experts and always come across as perfect gentlemen in all cases, but on the whole, to say that a group of people's contentions about the nature of the universe are totally misguided, while not a comfortable thing to hear, is not an unfair attack. In the world we're not living in, any refutation of religion is instantly equated with assault. If similar tactics were used to refute a political ideology, no one would bat an eye.

Believe me, I am pro-tact. I thought, for just one example, that the Freedom from Religion Foundation's "religion enslaves minds" holiday sign was a really bad PR move. I think atheists need better TV talkers to represent us than just Hitchens and Newdow. I want a far better communications and messaging apparatus behind the erstwhile atheist movement (it is what my blog, really, is all about - click the link on my name to see). So while there will always been phrases here and there from atheist X or Y that may be ill-advised, to lump them all up and say "screw them, they're all meanie-heads" is too easy and just wrong. The arguments are sound, serious, and necessary. They may not always be pitch perfect, but those who disagree with them need to get thicker skins.

Oh, and if you don't like Brights (I do), keep in mind that Dan Dennett has recommended we call non-brights "Supers"! Can't argue with that, can you? Very positive. :)

I am perplexed. Yes, Maher is disrespectful, because he is a comedian. But Richard Dawkins is not out there mocking the religious and making babies cry: he makes reasoned arguments and doesn't tolerate superstition to be used as evidence. How is that name-calling? I am always amazed at how someone can read books by Dawkins, Harris, etc., and come away thinking that they are bullies. Dawkins may not be the most suave personality, but he's simply stating his case with confidence. Perhaps it's the confidence that makes people so uneasy. God forbid an atheist not hedge his or her thoughts.