Michael Krasny's Spiritual Envy: An Agnostic's Quest

@ coRnflEks: Quite an essay. Being linguistically oversensitive, perhaps, I couldn't help being jarred by the essayist's repeated tendency to have his verbs disagree, numerically, with their nouns. Examples: "Great EXAMPLES of this IS ..." "... what he calls neoatheist(s)." "... these two QUALITIES more or less DISQUALIFIES him as a valid source of information." "... how many PEOPLE BELIEVES it ..." "Some animal rights GROUPS HAS made..." "... upsetting people, angering people and creatING suffering ..." "... I feel the NEW ATHEISTS HAS their work cut out for them." "They're simplY speaking strongly and clearly ..." Obviously, not all of the examples have to do with number, but they, too, scratched my linguistic chalkboard. Though your thought processes are superior, that doesn't exempt you from checking your work, professor. I tend to be typographically accident prone and always have to check my work, so don't feel like the "Lone Ranger." };-] I think I agree, generally, with your theme, especially toward the end where the implication is, cutting the dog's, or in this case sheep's, tail off an inch at a time does not spare it pain. I do wish you, and the sheep, well!

Mildly uninspiring. Although I'm not militant anti-religion either, I strongly disagree with Krasny's rosie, deferential assessment of the net effect of religion as a force for good. Additionally, his comments about the behaviors of orthodox zealots being OK as long as they don't affect him must be a misstatement. It's obvious why he has found a home on NPR which tends to favor hosts with calm, relaxed voices and equally non-confrontational topicality.

Krasny comes across as a damaged individual. I found his childhood story of abuse by his school teacher very touching... and illuminating. I can't shake the impression that he is living out his abuse and situation on a larger scale involving multiple people. His whole life is about pleasing others and being approved - confirmation that he is doing his job and is a good person. Very like the wife who keeps going back to her husband who's beating her every weekend, though I hope he is finding more good and decent people to please than bad ones. He is also think he's a very sensitive man, one of the few men who prioritize feelings before rationale. More women than men tend to think that way, but he surely is one. Clear signs of this can be found in almost every sentence he speaks, as he is always referring to his or another's emotional state when evaluating truth statements, situations and the correctness of actions. Great examples of this is when he explains that he "didn't find any tolerance for religion" from what he calls neo-atheist, or when he thinks about the profoundness of someone saying "he thought his life was blessed." What is sad but true, is that these two qualities more or less disqualifies him as a valid source of opinion. Truth doesn't change based on whether one wants it to, how many people believes it, how strongly it is believed or how much consolation it provides. He expresses disbelief when Dawkins and the other new-atheists tell it like it is, without regards to the poor woman who's whole life is based on her faith (something Dawkins would never do personally face to face like Krasny depicts it - Dawkins is a rather gentle and mellow fellow, as I'm sure he knows). But then again, he hasn't thought about whether it might just be the best thing to do in the long run and when considering the bigger picture. He doesn't consider the fact that some temporary pain today might prevent debilitating agony later on. When castrating sheep, you can literally rip their testicles off through a hole in their scrotum, or you can but a rubber band around them to cut off blood supply and to slowly whither away and eventually fall off. Some animal rights groups has made the rubber band approach mandatory in some countries, but when actually tested and measured, it turns out that the rubber band leads to more pain, and for a far longer period. To act on what we would like to think is true, without actually knowing the truth of the matter, can sometimes lead to more suffering, not less. Sometimes, telling it straight out is the best way. Taking a stand can be very hard. It can result in upsetting people, angering people and create suffering, either directly and indirectly. Krasny seems to me incapable of doing that. Agnostics may not all be cowards. I suspect a very few of them are. Most are just too sensitive, shy or perhaps unsure of themselves to have a clear opinion on such an important matter. Krasny seems like one. When it comes to my own conclusion about the subject, I think you who're reading this might already have a good picture. I think Sam Harris has the best ideas, though perhaps not the best approach. Religion has a tendency to appeal to emotions and empathy, and that is where I feel the new-atheists has most of their work cut out for them. I'm not taking the side of those who say they're doing a disservice though - I do not think they're being "strident", "arrogant" or any other unfounded allegation. They're simple speaking strongly and clearly - to which I have no objection. No, if all religion could be wiped away with a single viewing of Cosmos by Carl Sagan, then there wouldn't be any need for stronger measures like Christopher Hitchens. But I'm afraid there simply is.

Dear lord. I can't believe this guy still has the intellectual dishonesty to use the "you can't prove a negative" argument after all Richard Dawkins has written. For the record, here is once again the essence of what Dawkins says: "We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable."

it's not straw man-ing when atheists don't make that distinction. (Bill Maher is the only exception I can think of.)

He straw mans atheism by assuming it has to prove there is no god. Of course, atheists can't prove a negative. What we can disprove (ans must disprove) is theism, not deism. The speakers neglect of this difference is crucial to his main proclamation of agnosticism.