On bigotry and Einstein.

[eomer]

I note that a dominant theme here is an attempt to define and understand the meaning of bigotry. In particular a commonly recurring argument is over the accusation that some atheists are guilty of bigotry toward religions. A recent post cited this quote of Einstein:

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

I share the group's apparent interest in understanding bigotry in the context of religion. I spent the last hour or so trying to find the larger context of that quote or some other writings of Einstein where he elaborates on this brief statement about bigotry. While I failed to find that directly, I did find various statements on religion by Einstein that might help us infer what he meant, most of which are excerpted in this blog article, which I recommend to you, about "Einstein & God":

http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2006/08/einstein_god.html

But a quote that isn't in that article is the one I found especially relevant to the question of what Eistein meant by "bigotry":

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.

From a letter written by Einstein on 3/1/1954, about a year before his death
http://antitheist-atheist.blogspot.com/2012/07/einstein-letter-on-religion-to-erik.html

Einstein apparently did not consider it bigotry to have or to express his own strongly-held opinions that the beliefs of others were not only mistaken but also foolish or ridiculous ("childish&quot . I think this position matches closely with that of many atheists (including those who are labeled "anti-theists" by some here) and is in opposition to the bigotry accusation as it is commonly made here. Bigotry, to Einstein and in my opinion, is something that goes beyond expressing these kinds of views, even strongly, and so to me would consist of hatred and inciting violence, things that I don't think anyone here has been guilty of.

[skepticscott]

1. Good thing Einstein isn't posting here

I can think of more than a few apologists and religionists on this board who would be putting all sorts of nasty labels on him. They pay as much empty lip service to "tolerance" as they do to "discussion".

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

2. What Einstein said is not bigotry

However, when Richard Dawkins says that raising a child to be Catholic is "worse than child abuse", that is bigotry.

[mr blur]

3. No, I don't think it is.

But then I happen to think it's true.

[cbayer]

8. I don't think anyone here is surprised that you identify with Dawkins.

[rug]

9. Do you also agree with Dawkins that child sex abuse is "yucky"?

[eomer]

13. Here is Dawkins' full statement, to avoid discussing a piece of it out of context.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/118

[cbayer]

16. In which he says that being brought up catholic is harder to get over than

being sexually abused.

[rug]

20. He also said "she got over" it.

"She told me of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky but she got over it."

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Famed-atheist-professor-says-being-raised-Catholic-is-worse-than-child-abuse-184604441.html#ixzz2HEo9IAHq

That statement is a monument to ignorance.

[eomer]

25. It is a quote of an actual victim of child sexual abuse. How can it then be ignorance?

And, I would add, I was a victim of child sexual abuse when I was seven and I my reaction was about the same - I didn't give it much importance and saying it was "yucky" sounds about right. In my case an older neighborhood boy chased me and my brother around his bedroom and tried, with some limited success, to press "himself" against us (said part being bared, not clothed). There was also a bit more to the incident, some milder stuff, the details of which aren't important.

Dawkins makes it clear in his article that not all sexual abuse can be classified as merely "yucky", and I would say the same. My experience was merely at that level but there are surely other incidents that go much farther and are much more serious and troubling. To say that his statement is an example of ignorance is clearly fallacious - his statement is a quite true account of a particular incident, one that I can attest to because I experienced it myself.

[rug]

28. It's a mistake to extrapolate from anecdotes.

A mistake Dawkins gleefully made.

[eomer]

30. No, a mistake that Dawkins consciously avoided, as did I.

Dawkins carefully pointed out that other instances are different, the opposite of extrapolating.

[rug]

33. Not only did he extrapolate but he used this woman's story of abuse as a platform

on which he stepped to proclaim his predisposed conclusion.

[eomer]

40. He did not extrapolate in the way you insinuate. He did quite the opposite.

Here are Dawkins' words in his article:

Of course I accept that his misdemeanors, although by today's standards enough to earn imprisonment followed by a life sentence of persecution by vigilantes, were mild compared to those committed by some priests now in the news. I am in no position to make light of the horrific experiences of their altar-boy victims. But reports of child abuse cover a multitude of sins, from mild fondling to violent buggery, and I am sure many of those cases now embarrassing the church fall at the mild end of the spectrum . Doubtless, too, some fall at the violent end, which is terrible but I would make two points about it. First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn't mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/118

He clearly says that there will be some instances where the victim isn't affected much and thinks the incident was merely yucky and other instances that are violent, painful, and terrible. Your insinuation that he extrapolated to say that all sexual abuse is merely yucky is quite the opposite of what he actually said.

In other words, Dawkins is quite accurate in his description of these matters - you're engaged in constructing an imaginary straw man version that you can pretend to knock down.

[cbayer]

41. While I agree that he does make a distinction about the degree of violence associated

with abuse, my read is that he tends to minimize it in general or, at least, say that most abuse isn't all that bad.

And his general conclusion is that being raised catholic is generally worse than sexual abuse.

That's an absurd conclusion, imo, and he would be hard pressed to present any evidence to support it.

[eomer]

47. I agree with most of that, but not completely with your conclusion.

Agreed that he does say most abuse by the priests wasn't that bad, more or less. Technically he says "many" rather than "most" except in one case where he says "most", but in that latter case what he actually says is that most physical abuse is milder than violent sodomy, which is a bit different. But, generally, I agree that the gist is the same as what you said about it not being all that bad.

Also agreed that he says being raised Catholic is generally worse than most sexual abuse (I added the word "most&quot .

But I don't agree that one would be hard pressed to present any evidence to support that conclusion because I myself am evidence of it. I was raised Baptist and I was the victim of mild sexual abuse (one incident when I was seven, details elsewhere in this thread).

I did not suffer any significant anguish over the mild sexual abuse - just thought it was strange, knew that I did not want to play that game, and avoided any chances in the future but remained friends with the older boy and had no further problems over several years before we moved away.

I have suffered, on the other hand, from the standard Baptist teachings I was subjected to. Over the last decade or so, roughly the decade of my fifties, I have finally researched for myself some of the history of the Bible and the story of Jesus. As a result I have become quite angry, mostly at my parents and aunts and uncles - angry at my parents because it was their decision to subject me to Baptist teachings and angry at my aunts and uncles because they, among others, were my Sunday School teachers.

I am angry because the story they told me was carefully crafted to leave out a large number of facts. So many facts and facts that are so central to the story that the result must be called a deliberate deception whose scale is quite large.

I don't have time this morning to elaborate much more, but this realization about how and what I was taught and the anger that I feel over it does cause me, still, significant anguish. This is Dawkins' central point (and the comparison to sexual abuse is actually not) and that people are caused anguish by it at various points in their lives is in fact something that can be shown through evidence.

[cbayer]

50. And my anecdotal evidence would be exactly the opposite of yours.

I experienced some inappropriate sexual behavior, which I would describe as traumatic and was raised in the church by a minister, no less, which I would say had no traumatic effect whatsoever.

I will concede that some people could experience trauma when raised in some churches, particularly those that are deeply fundamental and rigid. I would not say that is particularly true of the catholic church and, again, would say that would have a very difficult time backing up his assertions with any data, which kind of flies in the face of his claims about scientific fact.

At any rate, my feeling, which is shared by a growing number it seems, is that Dawkins is increasingly bad for the growing movement of non-believers. It's positions like this that make him noxious and I will continue to criticize him while supporting those within the movement that I think are positively pushing an agenda I agree with.

[rug]

42. "a gentle pedophile"?

A truly disgusting remark rooted in his age and in his arrogance.

But it's useful to contine his crusade.

[okasha]

44. Oh, I can hardly see the keyboard through my tears

for the gentle pedophile doomed to a life of persrcution.
I wonder how his friend feeels now that Dawkinns has made it clear that his sympathy lies with her molester.

[eomer]

46. Of course he never says any such things.

His sympathy obviously lies with the victim - he never says that milder sexual abuse is excusable, he only says that it is milder. And he never says anything about the abuser being persecuted.

Why make things up? Why not criticize, if that's your opinion, what he did actually say?

[okasha]

48. Read yourown post #40.

Dawkins refers to the priest's acts as a misdemeanor. He saya that by current standards, this «gentle pedophile» wouldd face imprisonmentt followed by a life sentence of persecution by vigilantes. It's in the excerpt you quoted..

I did criticize what Dawkins actually said. Why are you attempting to defend his hypocricy?

[eomer]

51. Thanks, I stand corrected.

Here is the part you're referring to:

Of course I accept that his misdemeanors, although by today's standards enough to earn imprisonment followed by a life sentence of persecution by vigilantes, were mild compared to those committed by some priests now in the news. I am in no position to make light of the horrific experiences of their altar-boy victims.

Dawkins is wrong, you're right - that is no way to characterize this kind of crime. While it's true that fondling a seven-year-old is milder than violent rape, an adult you engages in it, especially an adult in a position where children are entrusted to his care, deserves serious punishment, lifelong censure, and lifelong quarantine from contact with children.

[okasha]

52. Absolutely.

That's why the attempt to cover up attacks on children was such an abysmal moral failure. Pedophilia cannot be cured. The only way to protect children is to deny the pedophile access to them Permanently.

[eomer]

22. Dawkins didn't say that - the girl who was abused did.

At least in this article, the only statement to that effect was by the abused girl:

Her view now is that, of these two examples of Roman Catholic child abuse, the one physical and the other mental, the second was by far the worst. She writes:

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yuchy' while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest ? but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."

[rug]

23. She said it was "yuchy". Dawkins said she got over it.

That's worse.

[eomer]

26. No, he said that she told him she got over it.

He relayed her account, but at the same time made it clear that there are other instances of sexual abuse that the victims don't get over.

You hurt your case by so transparently needing to put words into his mouth that he didn't say.

[rug]

29. It's not in her alleged quote.

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yuchy' while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest ? but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."

Those words are Dawkins as recorded in his interview, not his website.

[eomer]

31. Yes it is: "I never lost sleep because of the priest..." (eom)

[rug]

32. From which Dawkins said, "She got over it."

That was big of him.

[eomer]

39. That is simply untrue. Here is the exact quote.

I watched the video of the al Jazeera interview and transcribed the relevant section (beginning at 20:24) for you:

There are shades of being abused by a priest and I quoted the example of a woman in America who wrote to me, saying that when she was seven years old she was sexually abused by a priest in his car and at the same time a friend of hers who was also seven, who was Protestant, or who was of a Protestant family I should say, died. And she was told that because her friend was Protestant she had gone to Hell and would be roasting in Hell forever.

And she told me that of those two abuses she got over the physical abuse, it was yucky but she got over it, but the mental abuse of being told about Hell she took years to get over.

As you can see from the part I bolded, he clearly is quoting how the victim described her own reaction to the abuse.

I know you don't want this to be the case because you're invested in your distorted version, but the facts are right there in the video and in the written words of Dawkins. What he says is that there are some cases of sexual abuse that do not do much damage and there are others that do great damage. Do you disagree with that? As I said elsewhere in this thread, I myself am an example of a victim of sexual abuse for whom very little reaction or damage occurred.

He didn't extrapolate to say that all sexual abuse is merely yucky or that all victims just get over it - you're trying to put those words into his mouth but he plainly, as can be proved from his spoken and written words, said the opposite, that only some victims fall into this category and others do not.

[rug]

43. That is not a quote.

It is his retelling of this story on his way to topple a steeple.

I didn't put words in his mouth. He did.

[eomer]

45. Being interviewed before a large live audience/cameras, he quoted her in the form of a paraphrase.

In his written article he quoted her verbatim.

In his paraphrase he gets the gist of it correctly - she did in fact say that she got over the sexual abuse.

[okasha]

27. It seems that this victim

may have suffered from PTSD, which is a common outcome of sexsual abuse. Surviving sexual abuse isn't equivalent tio «getting over it.» Once again, Dawkins shows himself about as sensitive to women as HenryVIII.

[trotsky]

10. What else did Dawkins say?

Oh yeah, this:

‘It seems to me that telling children that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to Hell and roast forever – that your skin grows again when it peels off with burning – it seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse, that will give more nightmares, that will give more genuine distress because they really believe.’

I think mentally terrorizing children is child abuse. In this very forum, some of your fellow Dawkins-haters okasha and Starboard Tack actually agreed with him (and me) on this. So we're all bigots, according to you.

[rug]

21. As Dawkins would say, "Get over it."

[okasha]

4. So it isn't bigotry

unless it bleeds?
How complacent of you.

[eomer]

11. To clarify, when I said "hatred and violence" I meant that either one is bigotry.

In other words, no, it doesn't have to bleed. Hatred (with no blood spilled) is enough to be bigotry.

Admittedly the distinction between hate speech and vigorous (but acceptable) discourse would require more exploring. But I do say that speech can sometimes be hate speech and that hate speech can be bigotry.

[trotsky]

49. Take a closer look at that Einstein excerpt.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." (Emphasis mine.)

Atheists in this group have been called bigoted, intolerant, all sorts of nasty names for saying things FAR less than that. To top it off, he throws in a "nothing can change my mind" at the end demonstrating that other charge often hurled at atheists here, that somehow we are closed-minded.

But nobody's calling Einstein bigoted for this - so why the double standard? Why is it OK for him to say something like this, but atheists here who express similar (and even milder!) sentiments are shouted down?

Looks like Einstein is just as "bad" as Richard Dawkins!

[tama]

6. Very nice letter

Worth clicking the link and reading the whole of it, not just the part quoted in OP.

"Bigotry" has, IMHO, lot to do with in-groups and their "others", especially dehumanizing those "others" into enemies who don't deserve the basic humane treatment reserved to members of the in-group. Einstein takes lot of care to avoid possibility of such hostile perceptions:

Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e. in our evaluation of human behavior I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.

I would guess that perceptions of "bigotry" in this group and generally in this field of discussion have lot to do with what are sometimes called "arguments of tone" and brushed of as such, not so much with differences in intellectual convictions.

[cbayer]

7. I don't find Einstein's remarks to be bigoted at all.

He has a POV and he expresses it. He does not argue for the elimination of all religion, mock or ridicule all religious believers and place himself in a superior position because of his POV.

While he may reflect the POV of many atheists, he does not represent the anti-atheists, rapid and not, who can be seen here and elsewhere.

Hatred can be seen on a daily basis. The wish to discriminate against and set oneself above is often on full display. The broadbrushing of all believers with a single brush is present in amost every thread. That's bigotry. Violence is not necessary.

[eomer]

12. I agree that violence is not necessary and that hatred can be bigotry (sorry if that wasn't clear).

Speech can definitely be hate speech and hate speech can be bigotry.

On your other point, I don't necessarily agree that anti-theists in this group go beyond the level that Einstein was at but am open to exploring it. I do see posts using language like "absurd" and "ridiculous", which seem to me equivalent to Einstein's use of "childish"; I also see "fairy tales", "myths", and "superstitions", which seem equivalent to Einstein's "childish superstition". I'm not so sure whether I've seen much broad-brushing so I will watch more carefully for that. If and when it occurs I join you in criticizing it. Can you point to an example?

[cbayer]

15. Oh, they most definitely do.

There are some here that are here for one reason only, and that is to attack, ridicule and feel superior to believers.

Dawkins is a self described anti-theist and he has some acolytes here. He's a bigot, imo.

If you don't see it, that's ok. I don't see much of it anymore either, but that is by active choice.

[trotsky]

17. You were asked for specific examples...

and all you did was attack and call names. Who's the one misbehaving, cbayer?

[dimbear]

34. Like Amos, Joel, Jeremiah, and a number of the Apostolic fathers, some recognize

the utility of the 'attack.' We want you to know that there's a better future out there filled with reality and tolerance. Sometimes that involves demonstrating that now (in a religion haunted world) error abounds.

[cbayer]

35. Oh, how gracious of you to *save* people.

You sound just like a proselytizer.

[dimbear]

36. Of course I do that on purpose. I'm glad it amuses you.

I hope that lurkers will see how the old religious arguments sound when they're turned around.

[cbayer]

37. They sound just the same and both religious and non-religious have members who

truly believe them.

They have the way and are of the opinion that they need to tell everyone.

[dimbear]

38. It's like Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People." n/t

[okasha]

24. You'r not sure yoiu've seen broadbrushung

of religion and religious persons? Scroll on down the page to the «3 universal truths» thread.

You may begin criticizing as from now.

[eomer]

53. Thanks, I mostly agree with you. Criticism commenced.

See thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121862282

[trotsky]

14. Your sermonizing and lecturing wouldn't look quite so hypocritical...

if you didn't let stand - without any comment whatsoever - the broadbrushing of atheists in this very group. But then you're probably too busy setting yourself above everyone else to notice.

[Jim__]

18. A little context on Einstein's letter.

Einstein was writing to Eric Gutkind about his book, Choose Life: The Biblical Call To Revolt (the link is to the full text of Gutkind's book). He was not idly ridiculing someone else's views, but rejecting the views of a book that urged a radical form of Zionism on people. An excerpt from the book:

...

In the atomic ages the lands may be deserts and the home
caves. This is the prophecy of the Torah (Deut. 28). There
is no escape from the global conflict. No groups will find a
hiding place where it will be "safe." Nor can the Jew ex-
pect that his plight will be given just consideration. Zion-
ism must be a challenge, but must not beg for favors from
power-groups. Political Zionism needs boldness. It must not
forget the fact which is actually a chance that Eretz Israel
occupies a central position in the clashing of tremendous
powers, of powers that rise and powers that decline. Palestine
is today and has always been a pawn in the hands of
powers that revolve around her.. She is the hub of the wheel
of history. She has seen these powers crumble to dust in
the course of history. The "center of the world" does not
derive its strength from guarantees, charters or bargaining,
but from the fact that it is at the heart of world-conflicts.
Seen from this center the powers and their conflicts are laid
open. What no normalization-Zionism can ever achieve radi-
cal zionism can: to rise to the heights of a key-position from
which to act, a position where "power" is no longer neces-
sary.

"Everybody was born in Zion.", This key-
axiom of human rights may give us a clue to a better under-
standing of genuine Zionism. "The Torah that emanates
from Zion" teaches us that everyone has his roots in Zion.
Nobody, nobody at all, is without this eternal root. A place
is provided for each of us, and so is a goal. All ideologies
which deny this axiom deny Man. Zion is that plane where
our eternal roots live together in peace. Only on that plane of
an ultimate togetherness of men can Man be "at home," never
on a lower plane. The togetherness of men is the absolute
presupposition for home, security, freedom and life. None
of these goals can be attained on a lower level than Zion.
The light from Zion cannot be brought down to the level of
the "normals," to the paganistic way of life. The nations
must ascend to Zion, where the doors are wide-open for
them. Zionism is always an Alijah, an ascent, in the pro-
foundest sense of the word; it is no missionary act. And the
right to live in Zion is not a favor to be bestowed by govern-
ments or politicians. To accept Zion as a gift from them
would mean to replace Zionism by a fake.

There are not several Zions. Zion is ab-
solutely unique. Zion's singularity is its very significance. The
word Zion is a singular which has no plural. There is no
Zion in the conceptions of other cultures or nations in any
period of history. The attempts to copy Zion may confuse
the issue of Zion's uniqueness, but none of these imitations
has the faintest resemblance to the original. We misunder-
stand what Zion really is when we compare it with other
holy places, shrines, temples, with religious Utopias like the
City of God in the Christian conception, or with esoteric
havens of mystical philosophies.

First of all: Zion is conceived as a city. A city is not merely
a conglomeration of people, different from a village only in
degrees. Not even enormous chaotic masses of people, as in
Babylon, can make a place a genuine city. A city is an as-
sembly of people founded and based on a philosophy. Gen-
uine cities are the milestones on the roads of advancing man-
kind. The most decisive steps in historic evolution have been
made in the cities, not in the country. Zion stands for the
invention of the city.

...

[tama]

19. Thanks for the context

Einstein certainly was not a fan of national socialism.