Home » Atheism, Culture, Humor » Radical Feminism, the Unwitting Ally of ID and Creationism

Radical Feminism, the Unwitting Ally of ID and Creationism

Radical feminists are attempting to seize leadership of the New Atheist movement (aka GNU atheist movement). With big fanfare, we hear:

Atheism Plus: New New Atheists

Let me introduce you to Atheism+, the nascent movement that might be the most exciting thing to hit the world of unbelief since Richard Dawkins
…..
there have been suggestions that atheism and scepticism are philosophies disproportionately attractive to men. Indeed, the stereotype of the atheist as white, intellectually overconfident male – as Richard Dawkins – has long been a favourite among religious apologists.
….
To remember that not all atheists look like Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is an “A” Atheist. We know what he looks like. So what does an “A+” Athiest look like? Here is an example, Rebecca Watson:

In the essay From Atheist to Creationist I contrasted
creationist Dr. Jay Wile who is a nuclear and chemical scientist,

to Rebecca Watson who is not a scientist. Which individual has more credibility in terms of rational tought?

Speaking of which, what sort of rational basis does “A+ Atheism” have? Let me quote from one of the beloved radical feminist leaders Sandra G. Harding who inspires some of the A+ Atheists (aka radical feminists):

One phenomenon feminist historians have focused on is the rape and torture metaphors in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon and others (e.g. Machiavelli) enthusiastic about the new scientific method. Traditional historians and philosophers have said that these metaphors are irrelevant to the real meanings and referents of scientific concepts held by those who used them and by the public for whom they wrote. But when it comes to regarding nature as a machine, they have quite a different analysis: here, we are told, the metaphor provides the interpretations of Newton’s mathematical laws: it directs inquirers to fruitful ways to apply his theory and suggests the appropriate methods of inquiry and the kind of metaphyiscs the new theory supports. But if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic, methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton’s laws as “Newton’s rape manual” as it is to call them “Newton’s mechanics”?

Newton’s Rape Manual

[CORRECTION: the following section (in italics) was my original post, and was pointed out to be in error by Ophelia Benson herself.

And this is the same Sandra Harding that A+ Atheist Ophelia Benson enthusiastically supports to teach science!

Ah-a. Sandra Harding has a new book – and it does look like a corker. Happily, people are taking note, and adding it to their science studies course outlines as required reading. Splendid....Great. Study of science that is more politically engaged. Great idea.

Return of Sandra Harding
by Ophelia Benson

If philosophical Darwinism has friends like Ophelia Benson and Sandra Harding, they don't need enemies.end correction]

The problem that radical feminism poses to the science of biology was already so acute in the 90′s that it was labeled a new brand of creationism. In an essay outlining the damaging effects of radical feminism on biology we read:

When social psychologist Phoebe Ellsworth took the podium at a recent interdisciplinary seminar on emotions, she was already feeling rattled. Colleagues who’d presented earlier had warned her that the crowd was tough and had little patience for the reduction of human experience to numbers or bold generalizations about emotions across cultures. Ellsworth had a plan: She would pre-empt criticism by playing the critic, offering a social history of psychological approaches to the topic. But no sooner had the word “experiment” passed her lips than the hands shot up. Audience members pointed out that the experimental method is the brainchild of white Victorian males. Ellsworth agreed that white Victorian males had done their share of damage in the world but noted that, nonetheless, their efforts had led to the discovery of DNA. This short-lived dialogue between paradigms ground to a halt with the retort: “You believe in DNA?”
New Creationism: Biology Under Attack

So alarmed with the threat to science that radical feminism poses, that Paul Gross wrote a book: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science. [Paul Gross was also co-author of the book Creationism's Trojan Horse]

Thus, the A+ Atheists are actually an unwitting ally of ID because of the utter disruption they have caused among the atheist community. The radical feminist war over Elevatorgate has permanently damaged Dawkins and the atheist community’s reputation, and damaged it far more severely in the public eye than the sum of ID and creationist writings.

To that end, let me support my A+ Atheist “new creationist” sisters (cough) in their ascendancy as leaders of the philosophical Darwinists. I’d also like to support the A+ Atheists in their desire to have women and men become more equal. Not that I agree with Professor Higgins, but let it be known, at least some men have desired greater equality between men and women:

Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man

NOTE:
this post was filed under humor

HT: Mike Gene

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

10 Responses to Radical Feminism, the Unwitting Ally of ID and Creationism

  1. My understanding is that the A+ atheists have upgraded their logos and T-shirts from plain vanilla scarlet letter “A” to “A+”

    Here is an astute commentary from
    http://anythingbuttheist.blogs.....-know.html

    Since we atheists are apparently adding symbols to the end of the letter “A” to signify what kind of atheist we are now, here are some suggestions:

    A$$: for those who see the profit potential in Atheism; it’s atheism dollar dollar bills, y’all. In gold we trust.

    AK: for those atheists who like to not only pack heat, but also demand the sort of firepower usually reserved for frontline soldiers

    A!: FOR ATHEISTS WHO ONLY TYPE IN CAPS!

    A*: for atheists who aren’t really atheists; perfect for those who believe in “spirituality” or just love going to church, even though they know there’s no god

    A&W: for atheists who like their root beer in a frosty mug

    A++: for people who want to be even snootier than those at FTB

    Am: for young atheists (get it… it’s a music pun on “A minor”)

    AP: for young atheists who are taking college classes in high school

    Ah-ha: for atheists who just realized that they don’t believe in gods

    A-: for atheists who don’t think things are going to get any better

    A™: a wholly owned subsidiary of Godless Inc.

    A?: for people somewhere between atheism and agnosticism

    A?: for talking about all atheists as a whole, added together

    A1: for atheists who enjoy steak

    A. : for those who are just an atheist, period

  2. Yikes. The lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe.

  3. 3

    I hate to tell you but you completely misunderstood me – I was being sarcastic. I don’t admire the work of Sandra Harding at all. I wrote about it in the book Why Truth Matters, very critically.

    Paul Gross is a friend of mine, and (with Norman Levitt) the origin of my view of Harding (see their book Higher Superstition).

  4. 4

    Is there some sinister significance to the giant robot poster, or is it okay for me to like it?

    (it looks kind of cool to me. very retro.)

  5. Ophelia,

    Thank you for responding and setting the record straight on my misunderstanding of what you wrote. Good luck with your A+ movement.

    I will update my post to reflect my error. Thanks.

    Sal

  6. 6

    Thanks Sal.

  7. You are welcome, Ophelia, and apologies for my misrepresentation of what you wrote.

  8. Thunderf00t weighs in here:

    http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordp.....agreement/

    He points out one of Nick Matzke’s hero’s is pledging to marginalize all who disagree with the A+ Atheists:

    “I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.”

    Richard Carrier

    and

    Yes, it does. Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.

    Richard Carrier

  9. apologies for my misrepresentation of what you wrote.

    sal can suck up when he wants to

  10. Mung, what are you trying to imply here?

    Are you saying that Sal’s apology was not sincere?

    That is called judging because you can not read Sal’s heart. You are just guessing and criticizing him based on your guess.

    Just because you may not like him or his views doesn’t mean he is insincere, although it seems that you want to believe that he is.

    I was under the impression that apologies are good things. What do you think?

    And how do you know his apology was insincere?

    Perhaps it is you who owes Sal an apology for criticizing him without first confirming your suspicion is right.

    Let’s see whether you are man enough to do it.

Leave a Reply