Wow. Most of that article was an at least tolerable biased description of the two different approaches being taken (of course putting themselves in the better light, but who doesn’t). Then, I got to the end:

“Despite the resultant bitterness, however, there is at least one figure both sides respect—the man who started it all: Charles Darwin. What would he have done in this situation?”

What Would Darwin Do (WWDD)? Seriously? I can only imagine this is specifically intended to make atheists angry, which is petty, rude, and a bunch of other things besides.

With this in mind, I reread a lot of the article, and it seems like it is mostly intended to make those of us who believe in actually attempting to reason with people angry. And the descriptions seemed ridiculous in their one sided-ness.

Consider this:

“In this context, the New Atheists have chosen their course: confrontation. And groups like the NCSE have chosen the opposite route: Work with all who support the teaching of evolution regardless of their beliefs, and attempt to sway those who are uncertain but perhaps convincible.”

I think this pretty much speaks for itself, but the implication that we are just trying to argue instead of actually convince people is ludicrous. *sigh* This really belongs in the Hall of Shame.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Most people are religious.  We need to work with them, so it is wise not to alienate them.  The question is how much accommodation is possible without undermining our efforts?  Most scientists realize that they only get to work because the larger culture supports them.  So, we all owe respect to those around us, but that doesn’t mean we need to make room for any and all ideas.

Even religious people know what it’s like to reject an idea.  They would be stretched beyond their limit by belief in elves or fairies, even though the evidence for them is of the same quality as the evidence for their beliefs. 

I think it boils down to tone.  People are primarily emotional and have to learn to use their mental faculties.  All sides need to approach each other with an attitude that shows that we really need each other, that we don’t wish for the other’s demise and that our real project is to live together on this lifeboat.

This doesn’t mean we have to respect elves, fairies or the idea of an intervening God.  But, if we want to progress together, we have to respect the people who hold those beliefs.  I am a former believer.  I can identify with such people.  Some of them are future atheists.  Others are happily scientific in some areas and find no contradiction in indulging in supernaturalism when it suits them. 

Atheists are a minority.  We should be happy that we have freedom of expression and not be eager to go on crusades, even for scientific truths.  As frustrating as it is, humans are largely theophilic and to resist that fact would be unscientific itself.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It seems that with his subtitle, “Must science declare a holy warp on religion”, Mooney does much to fan the flames.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Homostoicus: But of course, this is the M&K shtick. Their ideas could not stand on their own merits. They are name droppers of the sleaziest variety, like the Kwok’s of the world. They disparage the Dawkins and Meyers of the world just to get attention. Considering some of the intelligent things Mooney HAS written in the past, it only makes this present stance all the more (embarrassingly) suspect that it’s just a publicity stunt.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“WWDD” is a JOKE *facepalm*  Also Darwin was an atheist, so I don’t see the purpose in pointing that out.  Darwin, if he lived in our times, would have been an outspoken atheist.  Critical mass has already arrived decades ago.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

LOL just realized that the two authors were at Beyond Belief 2008.  Unrefined writing style is unrefined.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“Must science declare a holy war on religion?”

Yes.

If people are continuously told that, in the 21st century, religious belief is ridiculous and dangerous, perhaps they’ll embrace science and reason. (Maybe that’s wishful thinking, though).

I laugh at articles from moderates and religious apologists about how certain atheists should be less combative about religion. They say atheists should have more respect for faith. Whatever. Atheists aren’t blowing people up, telling kids they’re going to hell or trying to deny other humans the right to marry because of what was written in a book more than 2,000 years ago with the help of a deity that can’t be detected by our five senses (or 10 senses, if you want to go beyond Aristotle’s classifications).

Is it accurate or helpful to tell Americans that science and religion are compatible worldviews, when they’re not?Does saying so help Americans embrace science and reason?

Whenever I see a church, I mutter to myself “What a waste of time, money and resources.” I think of them as beacons of ignorance, and religion as a roadblock to enlightenment.

Continue making people question their faith. Even stories like this keep the spotlight on the battle between naturalism and supernaturalism, as Dawkins puts it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Dealing with religious people is analogous to dealing with drug addicts.  Bashing them on the head with reasonable argument has little effect.  There’s no need to be unkind.  Listening intently to a religious person, and asking questions in a level matter-of-fact tone can plant the seed of inquiry in a nonthreatening way.  The best we can can hope for for them to leave the conversation with genuine questions about belief.  We need to recognize that any individual’s progress in reason will take time, perhaps years. 
If the religious person gets loud or threatening, then we can make matter-of-fact references, in a level tone, to the important values of our constitutional democracy, or step away.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I echo ClearPursuit’s point.  The addiction metaphor is worth exploring because we have abundant data on dealing with drug addicts.  Perhaps it can help us deal with believers.

Since religious people are addicted to their beliefs, we aren’t going to see them showing up for rehab just for fun.  They will need to hit bottom first or at least have some undesirable symptoms.  No addict comes in for treatment while in the throes of opiate-induced ecstasy.

I hit bottom with religion very gradually.  It took years of preparation through my own efforts at thinking about the great questions.  Then, books by Dawkins, Harris, etc, gave me the push I needed.  But we have to remember, most people aren’t even curious about the big questions.  They are busy making a living and keeping themselves entertained the rest of the time.

The world is far less religious than it was a century ago.  I credit science and its achievements for this.  As we continue to do great science, we can expect this trend to continue.  So that’s a plus.

All we can do is maintain an attractive alternative so that when people are finished with belief they will find a fertile culture waiting for them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Don Severs’ notion of “hitting a religious bottom,” analogous to the experience of a drug addict, is interesting.  In the world of drug treatment, a “bottom” is generally defined as an event, or point of recognition, where the untoward effects of the drug substantially outweigh the drug’s perceived benefits, e.g., the addict loses a job or a relationship.  A catalog of the untoward effects of religion may be worth developing - and useful in discussions with believers.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Yet again, the theists make way with their clever insinuations, subtly shifting the debate in their favour. Take a look at this comments thread and count how many times the following proposition is uncritically accepted: “New Atheists are, or want to be, rude to theists.” The entire conversation here is about whether we should be rude to the theists or not, as if it is a given that this is what the new atheism is all about. Yet nowhere have I seen Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, Coyne, Hitchens or any of the other recent atheist writers suggest by word or deed that we should be anything other than civil and reasonable in our responses. They call for strong attacks on the beliefs, not the people holding them. Of course, this is the very behaviour that theists would like to characterize as rude, since they consider belief to be a matter of principle rather than reason. It is their old trick of making their position an a priori assumption and arguing from there. There is no reason for us to buy into their characterization, or to accept it when we hear it from moderate enablers like Mooney. If Mooney wants to argue that stringent attacks on ridiculous beliefs are rude, then he will respectfully step aside as I make my case that no decision should be made without reference to an astrological chart.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Tilberian is correct.  The recent atheist writers are civil and reasonable, and express some remarkable human compassion.  Despite the claims of theists, the voice of religious skepticism is often profoundly empathetic.  And so, there is a beautiful quote from Bertrand Russel:  “One by one, as they march, our comrades vanish from our sight, seized by the silent orders of omnipotent death. Very brief is the time in which we can help them, in which their happiness or misery is decided. Be it ours to shed sunshine on their path, to lighten their sorrows by the balm of sympathy, to give them the pure joy of a never-tiring affection, to strengthen failing courage…in hours of despair.” - from Why I Am Not a Christian

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I wonder what the word “holy” in the title is doing? Is it supposed to amplifiy the word “war”? Is it there to make it more catchy? Is is fashionable? Is it cool somehow? Is it how we do things these days? Is is the new standard?
Or is it just some kind of standard phrase, something that we hear and read often lately and simply adopt because we don´t really care? Did it just slip in there by reflex ala copy & paste? Was somebody just not really thinking while typing it?
It does not make any sence there at all. If the tilte of this article is already so sloppy then why bother to read the article at all? “Science declaring ‘holy’ war”... that is so dumb it actually hurts.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.