On Sunday at 8AM ET on MSNBC we'll take an unprecedented look at atheism in America. Joining Chris will be the following guests, and a Christian clergyman will reveal himself as an atheist.
Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins), author of The God Delusion and The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True.
Steven Pinker (@sapinker), cognitive scientist, professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology, and author of The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.
Susan Jacoby, author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.
Jamila Bey (@jbey), host of The Sex, Politics, and Religion Hour on the Voice of Russia Radio Network and contributor to the Washington Post blog "She the People".
Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God and senior editor at The Atlantic.
Jamie Kilstein (@jamiekilstein), comedian and co-host of Citizen Radio.
-Brett Brownell (@brettbrownell) is not a guest but is video and web producer for Up w/ Chris Hayes which airs on MSNBC Saturday and Sunday morning.
Leave a Comment:
A friend of mine claimed his atheism on a dating website, all of his matches were women who moved to the US from former Warsaw Pact countries. Appearantly, those websites weigh religious preference pretty heavily.
Hi Chris, as an atheist, I'm excited to see your upcoming coverage on atheism. We're on the west coast without DVR and 5am is pretty early. Will your show be rebroadcast on CNN at a later time/date, and/or available in video segments on msnbc.com after the show?
I'm 98% sure it does re-run at 8am PT.
Video will be available here at up.msnbc.com shortly after the show airs.
When will it be up? I'm not seeing it yet.
I am looking forward to a robust and thoughtful discussion on atheism tomorrow morning... This is a subject that is not discussed enough in the public forum... Can;t wait.....!
So excited to read you are covering atheism in depth tomorrow. We're on the west coast and your show is on at 5am...and we're the last people on earth without a DVR. Will tomorrow's show be rebroadcast at a different time/day or be available as video segments on your website?
I would hope that there would be at least some balance in the atheism segment. Steven Pinker's just so stories are no longer taken very seriously and Richard Dawkins' reputation is damaged pretty heavily by his calls to purge science of anyone who believes in god.
But my guess is that this will be the MSNBC equivalent of a Fox News fluffer piece and contain NO dissenting voices or push back of any kind. Please prove me wrong.
Well, if the subject was evo-psych, I'd agree on Pinker, but the topic is atheism. He'll be interesting. As for Dawkins- he had what can almost be a "fall from grace" within *certain* elements of the atheist community after elevator-gate (look it up.) "New atheism" is far from monolithic and I think the guest list has reasonable variation- Jamie Kilstein and Susan Jacoby are good counterpoints to the rather patriarchical fuddy-duddy Dawkins and Pinker.
When the idea for this show first came up, I really hoped Kilstein would be on the panel. He has a pretty good take on atheism- while brash, he counters the xenophobia people like Sam Harris (and Dawkins) expound.
I love the criticism that shows up on this blog, as well as TRMS. Aside from the recommendations for guests and topics, the criticism of the guests and topics ranges from fairly valid to totally ludicrous, must be an awful lot of frustrated TV producers running around this country.
No paplanner version II, it's just the internet. Everybody has an opinion and they are entitled to speak to it. I don't expect the producers to cater to my wishes. I simply wish to be heard.
I keep asking Chris for the balance you mention here. Chris himself is an independent thinker. Each segment should have at least one intelligent person with a contrary view to keep the others from going off on a tangent. Otherwise you have a Hannity like panel which pleases some but does nothing to advance our knowledge of the subject being considered.
I'm another atheist who's really looking forward to tomorrow's show. It's nice to think that there's someone in cable news that realizes that freedom of religion should come with freedom from religion.
Glad to see that MSNBC is finally doing this. CNN's coverage of atheism is abhorrent, with panelists telling atheists to "shut up" and Piers Morgan practically yelling at Penn Jillette, and FOX News likes the entrapment approach (which backfires every time). The only problem I see here is that this subject deserves at least thirty minutes, being that atheists are very chatty.
Too bad. A lopsided list. Where are folks like Jonathan Haidt or existential theologians who are immune from the the Dawkins et al. critique of the old man in the sky fundamentalist views of God? Or how about a liberal Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim to represent the view that culture and politics is an expression of spirituality and empathetic connection with others- two elements sadly lacking today?
Besides the lack of philosophical contrast, politically I don't see anyone to provide the counterpoint that an abolitionist, Gandhi or Martin Luther King would provide in such a discussion.
Really, I hope for the best tomorrow, but it looks like an echo chamber list of guests to me.
I have a feeling the debate will be less about the existence of God and more on the social aspect of the "new atheist" movement. Which, like it or not, is a real thing. Having a theologian on would just make it yet another God exists! No he doesn't! debate. Yawn. You could argue for having Greg Epstein or another "accommodationist" or "fatheist" (so much jargon!) on, but I'm not quibbling too much.
As an aside, "New atheists" (ironic quotes required) focus on the "old man in the sky" version of religion because that is the religion of the average person. It's safe to ignore "existential theologians" because what they do is very different from real religion. (It's just there to make smart theists feel better about being theist.)
As for religion being culture: yes, I think that's a point many atheists miss. There is varying degrees of xenophobia in the atheist community, especially towards Muslims, and it troubles some of us. I'm sure Jamie Kilstein will touch on this.
Well I have not started up the DVR yet.
I don't think having a theologican on necessarily makes it a God exists yawner. The basic value would be to illustrate how Dawkins' target is not as monochromatic as he makes it out. There is a great deal of dispute in the various religious communities about what their particular religion means.
I don't mean quibbles here and there. For example, in the case of Christianity, most Biblical scholars agree that Revelations was not written by the Apostle John. In fact, most scholars believe that the Apostle John did not write any of the works in the bible attributed to him. Most self identified Christians believe otherwise regardless what their own biblical scholars say.
So are those who believe in literal interpretation the bible the true believers? Is everyone else just apologists and shiftless compromisers who are conflicted between this "true belief" and the rest of the sane world who believes in science? Or are the fundamentals some weird aberration strikes every established religion, those who have turned the words of the spiritual texts to stone. The stone of an idol they worship.
From this view, the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Christian fundamentalists are the true atheists worshiping before the stony idols their religions universally forbid. In many respects, Dawkins' iconoclastic struggle against the literalism of the fundamentalists is in the best tradition of spiritual reform movements. Dawkins' fervently believes in authenticity and intellectual honesty, and has a keen eye for rooting out hypocricy- all characteristics he shares with the great spiritual reformers. Dawkins may roll over in his grave if his place in history was to sweep the temple clean of the idolaters, making way for a new spiritual revival. It is conceivable this shall be the legacy of Saint Richard.
Anyway, it is not at all necessary to have a theologian on. Dawkins has a clear statement of what religion is for. Actually someone with expertise in comparative religion like Haidt might best at getting a contrasting answer to the fundamental question of what religion is for. Science has no answer for questions of what is Good and worthy of admiration. Someone like Haidt could make that contrast, pointing out how religion does what science is inherently doomed to fail at.
Have a nice Sunday. I am going for my coffee before punching the play button on the Tivo to see what mischief our dear Christopher is up to this time.
I have had atheists tell me, with a straight face and no irony intended, that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are the only true Christians today. That is how perverted the atheist idea of Christianity is. And I'm agnostic.
You are agnostic ??? Let me give you an example, how full of @!$%# You are:
Bible is a book of fairy-tales & Jesus didn't realy exist. And I'm a christian.
Glad to see that Atheism is going to get a little recognition. Hopefully a few million more Americans will shake their "Faith" that is holding them back. I'll be watchin'...
Brett, thanks for the info about video. Bravo to MSNBC for tackling this. Concur with others that a well-rounded presentation is necessary for credibility and healthy discussion. Best of luck to Chris.
Yes, it was rather disappointing that C-Span (and my local DC news) covered the Tea Party protest in Washington, DC yesterday (a few hundred people) and did not cover the Reason Rally (~10,000 attendees and a number of prominent presenters).
I lobbied with the Secular Coalition on Friday and was impressed with the number of people who participated. Having lobbied with several groups over the years, the participant level was at least as high as any group of Americans I've been with on Capitol Hill.
Good to have MSNBC at least give the subject its due. It will be seen as on that "liberal" network, unfortunately. As we asked our elected representatives, our goal should be when secularist and non-believers are included in public discussions about ethics, morals or social issues are readily as those who believe in the supernatural.
Pinker and Dawkins... Must see. Have only seen couple Up With Chris Hayes episodes but it is quite likely i will be watching a lot more. If this subject will be handled with same depth as others, it will be amazing.
Jamie Kilstein may have interesting things to say, but I'm so distracted by his Tintin hair, stubble, and tattoos that I can't "hear" him. (A downside of TV for 66 year old me.)
Great show, Chris! I was going to say 'thank god' but that would be obtuse...
I enjoyed the show until Dawkins was included. He militates so viciously against faith that I deem it irresponsible to hear him without a counter opinion. Other than that, a Christian clergyman that proclaims atheism is the ultimate oxymoronic statement.
How typical that the two groups of religious people that Mr. Dawkins questions on national television are the Catholics and the Mormons. I would love to hear what he has to say about Islam. If he truly believes his convictions he should have no qualms questioning the basic tenets of all the major religions, not just the ones he knows are "safe" to criticize.
Read some Dawkins. You'll find he treats all religions
equally.
Thanks Tobster. It is certainly one thing to do it in a book that few will read. It is entirely different to publicly denounce the beliefs of Islam on national television. I think Dawkins took the easy road today.
It is okay to doubt faith. But it seems that he takes particular enjoyment in ridiculing something that is very personal to most people in the world. I don't think he's going to win any converts with this strategy.
He has said things on television about islam before and that doesn't seem to be any problem for him...
And some things are ridiculous... No way getting around that... No matter how personal they are.
Everything Dawkins says about xianity applies equally to Islam, so just analogize yourself.
There are several reasons he could have to avoid attacking Islam on national TV- least of which is that it is very, very easy to be misunderstood. It's just a lot thornier to attack a religion of another culture without attacking that culture. Since religion and culture are so intertwined. I think, in general, atheists would be best to focus on the religions dominate in their culture, and emphasize a general disrespect of all faiths. Because really, the irrational acceptance of bad ideas is the crux of the issue, not any particular faith.
I'm wondering why Realign is invoked when it comes to demonizing certain groups, but when it comes to caring for your fellow man or treating others like yourself. Realign is separate?
VISIONS
AlterNet / By Sara Robinson
Ayn Rand Worshippers Should Face Facts: Blue States Are the Providers, Red States Are the Parasites
"There's only one way to demonstrate who America's producers and parasites really are. It's time to go Galt..."
February 29, 2012
“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross” SINCLAIR LEWIS
Rick Perry will pray for WHAT? Yea, like the so-called Christian Republicans have done anything good for this nation. Nothing but elitism, hate, bad luck and trouble, JESUS would be chasing Republicans out of the temple… But the actions of Conservative Christians in the last 2 ½ years has sealed their fate. You people have pretty much screwed over the least of your brothers/sisters for a very few vain, spoiled, cunning, silver spoon, trust fund babies.
In the name of Almighty JEHOVAH, JESUS and the HOLY SPIRIT… “ye shall sow your seed… I will set my face against you and ye shall be slain before your enemies; they that hate you shall reign over you… ye who walk contrary unto me and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins…”
Leviticus 26
Noticed the fires, winds, storms, floods, drought and environmental disasters are only devastating Red states and Republican county/city strongholds…? How about that mysterious illness Glenn Beck passed on during his 2010 DC rally? It’s spread like the wildfires destroying TX, AZ and NM? Do you have a headache Mr & Mrs Conservative? On painkillers?
One of the messengers, Lloyd the Baptist, predicted years ago. (See post December 20, 2009 on this blog) GOD DOESN’T WANT CONSERVATIVES TO VOTE! If you do vote for the evil Republicans in 2012, then you shall be in hell before the New Year...
"By 2012, the Evangelical Christian Right will become such a deluded, confused, ridicules mess, any time they gather it will seem a modern day Tower of Babble." Lloyd the Baptist
I’m so sick of these “God and country” conservative Evangelical Republicans deluding themselves that GOD or the Founding Fathers would have anything to do with them. What do you right-wingers know about GOD and what have done for the country?
You morons want me to believe JESUS (Prince of Peace) and War Profiteers are on the same side? OR that JESUS (the Healer) would be against health care for all? YEA, right... GOD endorses hate speech, greed, racism and FOX News? COME ON!
What happened to the “least of my brothers” and “peacemakers, the children of GOD”? Ohhh and Pat Robertson… how’d that George W. Bush thing work out for you? AND all you Rapture maniacs… read Matthew 24:35-36, 25:13
written on blog jinnbad.blogspot.com
Flagged for spam. It also violates the copyrights of the author. Sara Robinson is an excellent writer and journalist. She doesn't need you violating her rights to be heard. Just give a link.
The discussion on climate change leaves out the critical point that the oil industry is threatened by having the truth be known about it. Preserving the oil industry is what climate change deniers are essentially all about. Its the same reason we do not cultivate industrial grade hemp for paper, clothes, food (seeds are nutritious), medicine, etc. None dare call it Capitalism.
Thanks, Chris, for presenting this topic. You'd be hard-pressed to find it anywhere else on TV over the course of the entire year, not just on this particular Sunday morning. I agree with the previous commentor: where was C-Span's coverage of the Reason Rally? I kept looking for it, only to find a Tea Party Rally. I really wanted to attend the Reason Rally, but couldn't. So I am really happy to see it covered this morning.
Please... bring up religious zelots in our military!
We are presupposing that "God" is a separate entity. If the thought that an unlimited sharer of life is welcomed then it is possible that this merry-go-round of thoughts would cease.
The thought that "God did not create this world but certainly allows us to think we are in this world" will ease many troubles.
Why does God allow evil? Because we have free will. And because you are not your body - you are your Soul - which cannot be harmed or damaged in any way.
So do not expect God to care one way or another about what evil there is in the World. The question is not "why does God allow evil"...the question is...why do you! (meaning I, we & us...and especially me)
It must be powerful to have the ear of "GOD" and know just what HE says about everything.
Fantastic show! There are some complaints about the show being lopsided, I say too bad. The religious right has a death grip on politics and a lot of the media. It's a pleasure to see the quality of guests and intelligent discussion.
I'd like to respond to the discussion over teaching the "controversy" of evolution.
I taught the controversy for twenty years, and never had a parent on either side ever complain that I do. In fact, scientist parents have complimented the instruction, as have Fundamentalist parents.
And I would disagree with the position that it is not a controversy- it is.
And yet I agree with the points made in the discussion.
How can that be?
Because I teach history. And there is a historical controversy. I always like to tweak my science department colleague that as one with a different training, the issue is different in my specialty.
The difference in views is stark. Scientists argue that there must be evidence, while others disagree- Faith is enough. A scientist is not going to convince the other side because they are talking a different language.
So teach the controversy. But do it in history class.