Thorne wrote:

I have just as much problem understanding those militant atheists who would force everyone to give up religion, just because they don't believe.
I am sympathetic to this position, but I think there is more to be said for the so-called "militant atheist" movement than is expressed above. Naturally it's meaningless to discuss the opinions of the so-called "militant atheists" or "new atheists," only because there is a diversity of opinions from a diversity of people all being labelled with the same name. But if we are talking about the most visible proponents of the new atheism, say, Richard Dawkins or his more obnoxious counterpart, PZ Myers (I spelled his name incorrectly in an earlier post), I'd have to say that their polemics are motivated by more than "just because they don't believe," and their objectives do not include forcing "everyone to give up religion."

I think their motivations are mostly political and, to a lesser but significant degree, philosophical. Dawkins and Myers, both being evolutionary biologists, are probably irritated most by the Intelligent Design proponents, whose attempts to force biology teachers to preach Christianity as science would be funny were it not for the fact that they have come close to succeeding. The movement of Evangelical fanaticism out of the megachurch and into the public square has threatened women's reproductive rights, denied our students the option of proper sex education, and crippled stem cell research. Now, we can have a fair discussion about these issues - it is not to say that the secular position is necessarily the right one (I believe it is) - but once religiously-motivated ideas become a matter of public policy, it's fair game for robust debate and vicious, irreverent criticism. Like, if you can't take the heat, get out of my bedroom, my doctor's office, my classroom & my lab.

Dawkins et al. are not interested in forcing religion out of the hearts and minds of the people. They are, however, intent on undoing the damage done by very bad men propelled into political prominence up by the god-fearing, unworldly and undereducated hoi polloi. The only way to do this is to convince people not to vote for something just because their priests tell them to. Now, I'm not sure they go about it in the right way; their PR skills are lacking - they're rude, insulting, dismissive, smug and sneering. But in the end, they're on the side of reason and liberty.

I hope this reads as a lukewarm defence of Dawkins and the rest. As I intimated earlier, they are not my favourite people, but it's only natural that in the age of The Dover Trials and "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a few scientists who don't mind being shrill would rise out of academic obscurity to confront the Religious Right's well-funded propaganda machine. In this case, I don't think a stuttering milquetoast will do the job.

PS:

Hello to fellow Pastafarians! May His Noodliness bless you with the Might and Glory of his Massive Noodly Appendage!