He’s at it again. Josh Rosenau has another post up On accommodationism. He ends with:
…I've occasionally used the term "enabler" to describe the folks who oppose whatever accommodationism might be.
Think about this. Considering a drug addict, say - which is the enabler:
- The one who helps the addict get drugs, lends him money to get drugs, who tells him drug addiction is not that bad, tells him you can do drugs and live a normal life, would never tell him to give up, or
- The one who tells the addict to stop doing drugs, says doing drugs is stupid, hides his drugs, hides his drug money, points to studies saying drugs are bad, gets angry at the addict when he’s high.
Clearly the enabler is #1.
Now, question for the class, which one (# 1 or # 2 above), by analogy, is the accommodationist, and which the new atheist?
As I wrote in a comment on Josh’s blog:
“You (the accomodationists) tell the addict (religious believer) that their religious delusions are OK and totally not inconsistent with science at all. You (the accomodationists) are the ones who actually do enable the addicts (religious believers) by providing them with their drugs (reasons why religion and science are compatible). I realize you are acting out of love for the religious people you come into contact with, but in reality, you’re making the problem worse. That’s up to you, but you really should stop this dishonest labeling of the non-accomodationists with what you are actually doing yourself. It’s called projection.”
Of course, Josh is under no obligation to respond to what I wrote, to justify his use of the word. But, if he’s not going to respond, then he should at least have the intellectual honesty to stop parroting this nonsense.