Misuse of the Term ‘Militant’
Loose Ends July 11th, 2007You wrote: “Either way it is the conviction and hope that, as Dawkins wishes: “religious readers who open this book will be atheists when they put it down.” It is towards this type of atheist that the perjorative ‘militant’ is prefixed.”
By this logic, anyone who tries to influence people to their point of view is a ‘militant’. Several entire professions could be labeled as such – politicians, public relations, lawyers, priests, etc… This is therefore not a useful label.
To let Dawkins defend himself: “It is too easy to confuse fundamentalism with passion.” “.. I know what it would take to change my mind [about evolution], and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming.” Dawkins, The God Delusion
I am sure if God talked to Dawkins, he would not be an atheist but probably still a scientist!
Anti Citizen One
July 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I sadly disagree about the use of the term ‘militant’.
Richard Dawkins holds an opinion, he presents that opinion, he opines that he is correct in his opinion and that others are incorrect in their opinion, he hopes that those who do not hold his opinion will come to hold his opinion through his presentation of the arguments.
He presents a worldview and defends it akin to its being a ’cause’.
He uses agressive/dismissive terminology about those who disagree with him. (Even he concedes that).
Both of these fit with the etymological variant uses of the word militant, which comes from the latin ‘militare’ meaning to serve as soldier for a cause.
I use it as a perjorative and am happy to do so and in the context of the post specified that it was used in context and not in general against atheists per se.
And with regards to your post: yes any person or institution who tries to influence peoples opinions with recourse to polemic, ridicule, abuse and so on should be termed militant. I happily extend that moniker to atheists, theists, politicians, journalists, preachers alike.
To influence by subtler or gentler means is not akin to militancy.
I hope I have clarified my use of the term militancy and demonstrated that it is a very useful term when written and read correctly.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Apart from its over broad application you seem to have adopted for the term “militant”, it is, as you said, pejorative term. You are expressive contempt or disapproval against a group or individual when you use it.
In this discussion, Richard Dawkins is the person expressing the opposing argument. You are belittling the opponent not that issue being under discussion. (You can probably guess where we are going with this). That’s ad hominem in my opinion (or more exactly it’s poisoning the well).
AC1
July 15th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I would agree with you that I was presenting an argumentum ad hominem if the argument I was presenting was concerned with syllogistic logic. But as I was arguing from the ‘theory of evidence’ it is not a fallacy to suggest as I was that RD may not be a suitable witness to the argument.
“On the other hand, the theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.”
I am not suggesting RD is lying, but he ticks the boxes for:
a) arguing from a prejudicial framework
b) attempting to deconstruct theological arguments whilst refuting that theology is a valid scholarly pursuit or one that he ought to acquire a working knowledge of, and
c)presenting the ‘evidence’ in accordance with a prejudicial bias, amplifying the negatives, negating the positives.