The New Atheism
Has atheism become too radicalized and militant? Some people think so. After the jump, I’ll discuss why some atheists have become disgusted with the modern face of the movement, and talk about what I’ve seen in my own experience.
For the sake of full disclosure, I’ll start with my religious experience during my 22-year life time.
I have never attended a session of church. Except for a couple months of attending Sunday school several years ago, I was not brought up in a very religious household. My father, while professing a belief in God, is very opposed to organized religion. My mother is perhaps a little more accepting, but still does not attend church. Historically, my family associates most with the United Church of Christ. In all, I label myself closest to a apathetic agnostic. This form of agnosticism posits that there is little proof of the existence or non-existence of God, but that since any God that may exist appears unconcerned for the welfare of those below it, the question is largely academic.
That may explain that while I do not believe, I’m fascinated with religion in all its form. Some of the articles I like to read the most pertain to religion, and it is my goal to read all the major religious texts before I’m dead. Well, going with the territory of being interested in religious is being interested in atheism and agnosticism, and the behavior of those movements.
For the most part, I believe atheists are fine, moral people who simply do not believe in a deity. Despite what some social conservatives may try to argue, atheists can be upstanding citizens who contribute to society and follow the rules of that society. However, I don’t deny that many of the values we hold come from the Judeo-Christian tradition, though I’d argue a lot of these values can be found in other belief systems as well. For instance, “thou shall not kill” is pretty a universal value.
On the other hand, there does appear to be a new movement among some atheists that I think is anathema to the message of atheism. This group of atheists, who among their number seem to be a lot of young people around my age, believe that simply not believing in a deity is not enough. Rather, they feel that those who do believe are not only misguided, but must be ridiculed for their beliefs. Similar to some “prepare for fire and brimstone” evangelical Christians, these atheists may suggest that believers are either brainwashed or ’stupid’ for believing in a religion.
One blogger, Freddie, is unhappy about this (h/t Andrew Sullivan):
But then there is atheism, where it is apparently the case that you can always come closer to righteousness by expressing still-greater contempt for those with which you don’t agree. Now, this is all very strange; though growing, the atheist minority is stilled dwarfed in this country and in this world by the religious. And how can you possibly change people’s minds if you’re constantly ridiculing them? Doesn’t make much sense.
Indeed. Any argument about religion (or non-religion) needs to be backed up with solid arguments stating your position and why you think it’s right. You can hardly win someone to your cause by ridiculing them for what they already believe.
The piece of work Freddie was responding to started out, I think, good. Biologist PZ Meyers was defending Webster Cook, a student at the University of Washington, who left a Catholic mass with a Eucharist wafer after Cook claims he was confronted roughly after not consuming it straight after it being blessed by the priest. That is certainly inappropriate, if true. I don’t defend Cook for not following the Eucharist tradition, but come on. Meyers is right, it is a piece of bread, holy or not. From what I understand, Cook’s claim was that he wanted to demonstrate to a friend he brought along what the traditions of Catholics were. I don’t see the need for any rough handling by church officials (which is why Cook brought it home). Anyway, the Eucharist has now been returned after Cook received threats from other Catholics.
Where Meyers goes wrong is at the end of his post:
So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.
This is the kind of ridicule I’m talking about. There is no need for it. It’s one thing to express displeasure at some inappropriate tactics by church officials, and quite another to rub it in to the face of those who may simply believe that they were acting in the best interest. The whole situation has Freddie, who is a fellow non-believer, despairing:
The new atheism has made its challenge, then. And here is my answer. I don’t believe in God, in any meaningful way. I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jew, or whatever else you will. In questions of public policy I feel religion has no place, and rational discourse has to rule. I don’t want religious artifacts in the public square, I don’t want creationism taught in public schools, and I don’t want any religion privileged in any way by government. I am, in most every way that matters, a natural ally of atheism.
But atheism has expelled me. It has expelled me because it has in its heart contempt and loathing and fear of the other. So I reject it. I don’t reject all atheists; many atheist are uninterested in ridiculing the religious– they simply want to be left in peace, and not have religion forced on them or on the law. That, to me, is a principled atheism, and one I am happy to coexist with. But this new atheism, this anti-theism, has only contempt at its heart, and I reject it as thoroughly as it has rejected me.
Emphasis mine. I couldn’t agree more. It only hurts a movement when people like Meyers display such tactics. A middle age biology professor is not the only person I’ve seen displaying such a anti-theistic attitude. Recently, I joined a group on Facebook devoted to atheists, agnostics, and other non-believers. One of the first topics I came across was titled “Why Gay Christians.” Here are a couple of the more interesting posts:
Mainly because they feel they have no other choice. Just like any other Christian, they’re brainwashed into believing and fearing anything that is not jesus.
And really though, the same question could be ask of why do Black people remain in America, despite their treatment? Why do women remain in misogynistic, abusive relationships? Why do crack addicts keep smoking?
Because they don’t know any better.
I still think though that people go to church for much the same reason a rape victim blames herself.
I mean, it couldn’t be because they’ve thought it over and decided that they truly believe? Or that they believe God also loves them? No, because that wouldn’t make any sense. Now, not all the posts were like those, but many were, and the same patterns follow in other topics. With attitudes like this, is it little wonder atheists sometimes receive an equal amount of ridicule from the religious? Neither is good nor healthy.
One of Andrew’s readers simply isn’t having what Freddie says:
I sincerely believe that most atheism is spawned not out of hate and elitism, but out of love. Atheists like me have simply lost all faith that religion can exist without being used as a tool for justifying war and subjugation. If it could, even scientists that cringe at the thought of accepting supernatural beliefs would probably learn to coexist peacefully with theism, given that many beliefs system also catalyze acts of great compassion. But in the end, I’m torn as to which notion is more naïve and idealistic: a world without theism or world in which theism does not lead to human suffering.
I also think that at its core, atheism is not a thing that you can equate with hate. However, the problem comes when some of the leaders of the movements, the Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ of the world, feel that religion is not simply wrong, but its followers are delusional.
In the end, the world would be a better place if these atheists could do what they often argue some religious people don’t: keep their beliefs simmered down into well reasoned arguments, and not troll-worthy bashing. For my part, saying that someone is delusional for having a belief in a deity is no better than a religious person saying that an atheist is doomed for an eternity of fire and brimstone. It certainly doesn’t advance intelligent discourse, and only spreads enmity.
I wonder if this spread of this "anti-theism" has been sparked by the rise of the more conservative Protestant churches that has been happening over the last 30 years or so.
In the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s most American Protestants were mainline/oldline Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, etc., who held a intellectualized and centrist to liberal beliefs. It was a time dominated by people like existential theologian Paul Tillich.
Starting in the 70’s, their numbers began to decline and they were replaced by more conservative denominations, such as Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, and the Evangelical Free Church (my own). These denominations place more emphasis on right belief and right behavior, and in addition put heavy emphasis on converting others. This clearly represented a greater threat to atheism than the old Protestants to whom the faith was more of a college debate and who wouldn’t try to convince anyone.
Thus I suspect the new atheism came up in response to this more aggressive faith.
Atheism is radicalized? Huh? Lets look at the news story referenced above: Kid goes to church, kid takes wafer, kid gets DEATH threats. Biologist points out stupidity, threaten to steal more wafers, HE get DEATH threats…
Militant atheists write books and blog posts. Militant theists fly planes into buildings and blow up clinics.
How is being "anti-theist" going too far?
As for why some atheists think being religious is bad (and delusional) I will provide a quote (which I’m sure I’ll butcher):
"Not caring whether your beliefs are true is like having your money and not caring where it came from."
False belief will kill. True ones may not always save the world, but they will always cause less harm.
I agree with you about the importance of true beliefs vs. false beliefs (though we obviously differ on what constitutes true beliefs).
But I would argue that if you value your beliefs you also have to act on them, not just state them. And if someone has a false belief then great harm can result.
Sorry (I feel a rant coming on), but this article has an ignorant whining tone that really gets under my skin. It’s like a child complaining, "Stop it! Stop it! You’re upsetting me…" The idea can be boiled down to this: It’s fine to not believe in gods, just so long as you don’t get too uppity, disagreeing and upsetting our deist friends. To begin with, I detest the constant misuse of the word ‘militant’ in describing people who hold & share strong beliefs/disbeliefs. When is the last time an atheist bombed an abortion clinic, went on a jihad, or kidnapped & decapitated their opponents? Atheism is probably among the most peaceful groups along the religious spectrum and it’s a special form of ignorance to use a word like militant just because it sounds more frightening than more appropriate words like argumentative or outspoken. And what is meant by suggesting the latest movement of atheists "is anathema to the message of atheism"?!? Uh, last time I checked, atheism is just a lack of belief in any deity. It’s not a religious organization around which any of us can be an anathema. Is this a case of using words that sound quasi-intelligent without knowing what they really mean? Going on to characterize outspoken atheists as having "ridicule" as their primary goal and comparing it to Christians preaching "fire & brimstone" makes no sense at all. I’m sorry to rant on, but the arrogant assumptions made in forming this judgement upon outspoken atheists is deserving of ridicule. It may have been more accurate to say that we sometimes come across as ridiculing our opponents, and sometimes we even mean to come across that way. It doesn’t mean we aren’t trying to change minds of that person or, more likely, people who come across the discussion later. I am a former Christian and my mind was freed in part due to how ridiculous Christian arguments clearly were. So, is the suggestion that we all just keep our beliefs to ourselves, sit down and shut up? Has the author never noticed that people like Richard Dawkins and Ellen Johnson have often made valiant attempts to be as civil, rational and logical as possible while they are pummeled with ignorant and often bigoted challenges to atheism? And what planet is he from if he truly believes that outspoken atheists are just ridiculing without making rational arguments?!?! Has he never read arguments from any of the people he’s caricaturing and is he totally unaware of the depth of logical fallacies atheists have to work against? I understand that you can go on YouTube and find religious people along the spectrum, including atheists, that may give their position a black eye by just being rude and spiteful. I can also see that, even when presenting a very logical argument, we atheists often show our frustration as we try for the ##ieth time to unstick some people from the same old fallacious webs they’ve weaved. It would be great if we could all be perfect "saints" while making these arguments. Given that we’re human, some people may just have to grow up and figure out that serious arguments can become difficult and sometimes ugly, but avoidance is not a good reason to tell everyone to just talk nice or they should give up, sit down, and shut up.
Most of the anthiests I know arent merely people who just dont have a beliefe in anything higher than themselves. They are anti-God and have a great hostility for Christians. After engaging many of them in conversation I have come to the conclusion that many do indeed believe in God, they just hate Him.
Atheism too militarized? This calls for:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy5CbhQFx9M
Seriously, antitheists have been beyond mild. What is the worse they have done? Been assholes? Yeah- what a shocker- that is SO terrible. It is worth noting that, by default, religions consider atheism false, atheists deluded and nonbelievers destined to burn in hell. They just don’t say it to be polite. Atheists simply are pointing out the ideas are nuts! Think of it as how we dealt with racists- after all, their beliefs were obviously false. What do you expect people to say?
The term for being opposed to religion is antitheism, composed of three parts- atheism, religion is bad and activism. The first two are factual claims and the third is a moral one.
I think Tom & John may be missing the point here. No one is equating the 9/11 extremists with Dawkins or Hitchens, and no one is saying you can’t disagree or argue with theists. But just like in any debate, there is no need for anyone on either side to be a pompus asshole about it. A lot of the big name atheists today make very good arguments and have valid points to share, but too often they present them in an unnecessarily rude way.
It’s all a matter of disagreement. A theist can see all the exact same evidence as an atheist and still find room to believe in a god – that’s why they call theism unfalsifiable. Just treat it like any other disagreement and make sure you stay polite & don’t throw all class out the window just because you see things differently. Saying “they started it” doesn’t make you any less of a dick. Seriously – is there suddenly something wrong with taking the high road?
Rationally. How could there be a god? How could god exist? Why would he allow this stuff to happen? Why would he not step in and make us do right?
Rationally god does or should not exist. Thankfully for me I am not a rational man.
I think my arguments are being misconstrued. I don’t call for "sitting down and shutting up." My post says quite the opposite, and calls for civil and well reasoned debate. Civil debate can get heated, so I have no issue there.
However, atheists do often come across as bashers, and I think this is especially true of the younger generation (of which I am a part), though not always.
Yet, I do not deny that some strongly religious people can do the same, and I argue that for some atheists to use these tactics is just as bad.
At its heart, this is an argument about which is more important, facts or feelings.
Religious beliefs are not factual and thus cannot ever be supported rationally. They are subject to the whims and ‘traditions’ of literally thousands of sects, and new ones are invented every day. Often times, they cause people to commit inhumane acts or acts that are just plain incomprehensible (like getting upset about someone walking out with a cracker, for example).
If we care about truth and reason, we have no choice but to brand the beliefs delusional. As tough as that may be for believers to hear, it is a required tactic if we are to move forward and evolve as a species.
Religions have gotten a free ride for centuries. Prior to the founding of the U.S. they were often part of the government. Even though in America we are officially secular, religion still keeps creeping into our government policy.
Atheists are right to be upset. Ridicule is only the beginning. If we want a sustainable, rational and just society, religion will have to be marginalized, no matter how much that may hurt some people’s feelings.
Imagine if someone started a Church of Harry Potter or a Church of the Jedi (actually already exists). Are we really supposed to take them seriously? Of course not. We all know these are forms of entertainment and we don’t have to ‘respect’ other people who pretend they’re real.
The world’s major religions are no less ridiculous, they are just older and more widely accepted. They need to get over themselves, and quickly. I’ll be there stirring the pot until and unless that happens. Call me as many names as you like, I’ll take reason over superstition, and I’ll keep insisting you’re insane if you don’t.
"Religious beliefs are not factual and thus cannot ever be supported rationally"
Apologetics is an entire field that was developed to provide rational arguments for religion, so this contention of yours that there’s no rational basis for religion is bogus. And since society has managed to "move forward" without religion disappearing, so your crusade seems rather pointless.
——————————————————————-
"Atheists simply are pointing out the ideas are nuts! Think of it as how we dealt with racists- after all, their beliefs were obviously false"
"how ridiculous Christian arguments clearly were…we atheists often show our frustration as we try for the ##ieth time to unstick some people from the same old fallacious webs they’ve weaved"
And you wonder why people call you militant*?
* "1 at war; fighting 2 ready and willing to fight; esp., vigorous or aggressive in support or promotion of a cause."
Webster’s New World Dictionary: Third College Edition
Oh, but Connor, you make the point for Black Sun well. (Jason, take note). By calling atheists militant, you are equating them with other militants, yet if compared the actual actions of these "militants" you would see a great disparity.
The "fighting" (from the definition) on the part of the New Atheists takes a form very different from the "fighting" theists are willing to engage in. Has Dawkin firebombed a clinic? Has Hitchens called for the death of his critics? Has Myers organized an army and taken over cities and towns? No.
As for apologetics, please! Pascals wager? The ontological argument? "Fine tuned" universe? The kalam argument? Argument from Miracle? There has never been an apologetic that didn’t either try to redefine reality to fit the argument, ignored the reality, or gave up and said "To hard, God did it!" It’s the 2nd century equivilent of "plausible deniability".
The idea behind the definition of "militancy" was to make the same point you make…that "militancy" doesn’t have a fixed definition, it can involve a great many things.
And I never said that apologetics would convince everyone; I just wanted to point out that it is possible to use rational argument with religion. Whether it can be used successfully or not is another matter.
To the atheists in the comments thread, a recommendation: do not get into an argument about the existence or not of a god or gods. Yes I know the idea is absurd, yes I know you want to tear your hair out, but take a deep breath and calm down. Mostly because that ISN’T the point of the post and the subject will be derailed by it. Also because, and trust me on this, the more religious people around here will not be swayed, not today.
Michael has described himself as an agnostic, not a deist. They are very different concepts. I personally find the hostility agnostics get from both theists and atheists very disagreeable, even if I often find that most agnostics are "semantic atheists" (if necessary I’ll link to a post on the subject).
But to get to the heart of the issue I see two main issues.
One is the perpetual confusion between atheism and anti-theism (some commenters even spell them in a sort of hybrid word).
First of all, non-belief in a deity does not automatically translate into animosity towards religion. It is true that an atheist is more likely to be an anti-theist than a religious person of course, and its no surprise that the most vocal anti-theists are also atheists, but the two are not one and the same nor are they linked. The majority of atheists I know are merely indifferent to religion. The reason atheism and antitheism are made out to be the same has several factors. Antitheistic atheists are more likely to talk about religion than indifferent atheists, so they are more visible. Additionally, the most prominent antitheists are also the most visible atheists, and an inspiration to millions of them who see that it is ok to be an atheist and be open about it. Particular to American society is the stigma associated with atheism. Most people will likely know more atheists than they think, but most will be silent about their religion for fear of mistreatment. The vocal ones are likely to be the most antitheistic ones, reinforcing the antitheism = Atheism.
Another misunderstanding is the whole "hating god" concept that Chuck mentioned above. By the way, saying that atheists actually simply believe in god but hate him is manifestly absurd, unless you believe all atheists are amoral and evil (which is an option, if a bigoted one). The confusion, such as it is, arises from the religion=god equivalency, also not correct. People can hate religion and not hate the concept of a god. The world is full of people who believe in god but are disgusted by religion. Personally, I find the Abrahamic god to be a rather nasty character of fiction, but I can’t hate him much more than I hate the villain in a movie. Religion however is very real, and you can hate it without even thinking about the god character at all.
Finally there is a matter of scale. Michael maintains that there is too much aggression and dogmatism in what he calls the "new atheism" for his taste. That’s fine, though I disagree with him. He did not suggest that Dawkins is the same as Osama bin Laden or abortion clinic bombers. There IS a matter of scale to be considered of course. The "new atheists" are lambs compared to your run of the mill religious fundamentalists, but that does not negate the possible argument that they are too aggressive. Personally, I find being smilingly told that a loving god has my grandfather and great-grandmother in hell for the crime of not believing in him rather aggressive itself, and it’s considered completely respectful in society. To each their own.
You’re insisting we use "well-reasoned arguments" against people who make death threats….over crackers?
You’re kidding, right? Sorry, but respect is earned, not given.
When believers think you deserve to be tortured in the fires of hell for all eternity and see this a all part of a wise and awesome God’s plan, I would think it’s rather normal for atheists be just a little, itty-bitty pissed off.
Atheists kept quite and respectful for much of the 90’s and it got us nowhere. I say give the new atheism a chance. Unlike the kow-towing, eager to please, whining agnostics, at least the new atheists can write bestselling books and have the courage to point out the emperor has no clothes.
Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against such unintelligible propositions. -Thomas Jefferson.
I do not believe in the value of Homosexuality. I do not believe in the value of Atheism. I do not believe in the value of Polygamy. I do not believe in Barak Obama.
Those are largely opinions that are based in facts that rule my life. They are not the 10 commandments for anyone other then myself and they ARE subject to negotiation.
However the point is simple. When one believes what they believe why is it so important that we force or convince others that our beliefs are right and theirs are not?
Atheists. I believe that there is not a lake of fire and brimstone. What I believe is that when non believers lay their heads down for the final time that they have squandered their chance to move on to whatever god has in store for us as we move thru the cosmos on the spirital trip towards godlikeness.
There is no right or wrong choice. Only a choice for immortality. Many do not find that compelling or appealing. For those they get to close their eyes one final time. For those who choose to move on then that is a choice that they made freely without arm twisting by the almighty.
Somewhere the rainbow ends. How close are we? I believe we are close in this form. I believe judgment is simply going to sleep and never waking up. That is the eternal damnation of a lost soul. One who could………but chose not to.
You lost me at the point you claimed there is such a thing as "The New Atheism." I understand why you would fall into that trap, it seems that there is, but it’s just that atheism is (a bit) more mainstream now. That does not change the fact that this has been the face of the atheist movement since it has existed as a social movement, in the United States at least. And I, as a scholar with a degree in religious studies, see this focus as objectively justified when you give a fair look at atheists. For those who aren’t atheists, how can you blame them for being militant (and I’m using that term very loosely)? They are people who are living for the betterment of this life, while seeing others who are willing to throw away the one life they have, in the process affecting others negatively, all in a quest to get to some better life that the reality we live in gives neither reason nor mechanism of existence, outside of the supernatural ? and that allows no falsifiable test of a claim. It?s enough to turn anyone bitter.
You know, as I was reading your sentence, I was replacing the things you said ("living for a betterment of this life", etc) with arguments some evangelicals give for why they openly try to "save" people. Trying to shove any belief (or non-belief) system down someone’s throat is not the way to do it, I think. And that’s my whole point of this entry.
Way to generalize. And sure, why not? That’s the whole point of a good debate. To give reasons to back up your point of view, not bash the other side for their’s.
Nice shot there. I still think you can point out the fallacies in religion with resorting to personal attacks and insults.
I don’t agree with religion either, more or less, and I agree it’s been the basis for more wars and discrimination than it hasn’t. But I certainly don’t blame most believers for it. I do get angry over some people who make it their job trying to oppress due to religious reasons (Jesse Helms, etc), but these people are a small portion of the overall population. As it is with atheists, so I have no grudge against most of them.
I don’t know. I guess I just have a "live and let live" attitude toward believers. I don’t see the need to ridicule their belief.
I disagree quite a bit with that statement. There are lots of beliefs we ridicule on a regular basis, and should ridicule.
The belief that darker people are of an inferior race has fueled pogroms and slavery.The belief that women should be subservient to men is deeply held by some Muslim men and women has lead to the senseless deaths of unknown numbers of women.The belief that God does not want his believers to wear a condom, even if it means they could die of a preventable disease is killing many people around the world, most notably in Africa.The belief that prayer can heal and that modern medicine is bad for one’s soul causes the needless deaths of hundreds of children around the world each year.These deeply and sincerely held beliefs are dangerous, evil and barbaric. There is no polite way to say that, and there shouldn’t be.
How small a number of people should die before a false belief should not be ridiculed? 2? 1? What if the belief simply causes unnecessary pain, like a Muslim pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription to a Jew, or a family on fixed income sending money to a millionaire televangelist?
Beliefs, regardless of there origin (bible, pseudoscience, dreams) should be held up for open examination and judgment based on there real merits. If lacking in merit and they are STILL believed, then they invite ridicule, just as people who believe the earth is flat are ridiculed, or people who hold to the humours theory of disease.
We should not give privilege to beliefs just because they are beliefs. Left unexamined they will cause harm. Religion has been given a free ride for far too long. If left to its own devices in a modern world full of globe-spanning technology, we are inviting disaster.
Here in the UK so called militant atheism is a reaction to recent attacks on the secular state by god-botherers who have gained public support whilst hiding their religious agenda – against the wishes of many voters. Faith schools are encouraged whilst they have been allowed to covertly select the less disruptive students at the expence of other schools. In some areas it is impossible to find a school where the children of atheists will not be made to feel that they are second class.
Key areas of our care system are soon to be run by private, self serving, religious organisations at taxpayers expence.
Government ministers follow a religious agenda, consulting religious bodies on secular matters whilst ignoring the the rights of atheists.
Yes, some of us are militant and not too soon.
"The belief that God does not want his believers to wear a condom, even if it means they could die of a preventable disease is killing many people around the world, most notably in Africa.The belief that prayer can heal and that modern medicine is bad for one’s soul causes the needless deaths of hundreds of children around the world each year."
Wow, you’ve managed to encapsulate the entire belief systems of all world religions!
Seriously, there are far beliefs and concepts in religion than that, some positive, some negative. What you’re doing is cherry-picking the worst ones and saying "This is what religion is".
Oh I agree. I am cherry picking, no doubt. But what I am picking is really happening, really causing harm. The point in my post was to ask a core question: Why shouldn’t we ridicule this? Why should a belief system that leads to that situation be allowed special status, free from meaningful examination? Why are people allowed escape the debate by saying, "Oh, I just have faith."
I know what I chose was a harsh example, and not indicative of a system of belief as complex as Christianity. But, as a system of belief, it has lead directly to that situation without ever being required to fully justify itself. It refuses to justify itself.
Here is my view on the process: Make an assertion. Someone asks for supporting evidence/information/rational. You provide none/not enough. You now have choices:
1. Provide real evidence
2. Withdraw the assertion
If you do not choose either of those options, but instead continue to wish that people stop asking you questions and just do as you ask, you are acting irrationally, and are now open for ridicule.
You are still free to hold your beliefs. Lets make that clear. You have the right to think and even say what you want concerning your beliefs to anyone who wants to hear it. Write a book, have a TV show, stand on the corner with a sign. I’ll fight anyone who says you can’t.
I just may be standing next to you with mine that says "That guy is a wacko".
Hmm, I wonder how it will be decided that the evidence/information isn’t sufficient. Seems kind of subjective to me…
Actually, I wouldn’t mind it if someone told me my beliefs were wacko. At least that would get straight to the point.
"For my part, saying that someone is delusional for having a belief in a deity is no better than a religious person saying that an atheist is doomed for an eternity of fire and brimstone."
If forced off your "apathetic agnostic" fence, how likely is it, would you say, that an actual, literal hell for human "souls" exists?
Highly unlikely
Apathetic agnosticism is really only a couple hops toward atheism, so I already tend toward it.
First of all, I would like to say how great it is to find a place where this kind of dialogue can be had. Despite the rancorous back and forth at times, I am very impressed by the honest open debate. It is a testament to the fact that reasonable people can disagree while (mostly) holding to a principle of basic respect.
That said, I would like to put in my two cents and would appreciate any feedback from any of you. I have also felt the conflict between my humanist "live and let live" agnostic side and my more vehement Atheist self. As a person who has spent his whole life being told what to believe and enduring the intellectual bigotry that we are all familiar with, I am generally loath to impose my views on others no matter how absurd and harmful I may view their beliefs to be. At the same time, it is difficult to see some of the realities that we non-theists face without sometimes feeling that the time has come to be more assertive, and to challenge the status quo. At times, people like Hitchens and Dawkins strike me as dogmatic and causing more harm than good. At other times, however, I cannot help but admire the unyielding defense of fact and truth that religions have generally preached but rarely practiced. These are the two points of view that seem to hold sway here, and I can appreciate them both.
It seems to me that we need to start viewing ourselves as a minority group that needs to become more active politically, but only in ways that are constructive. Challenging dogma directly often has the opposite effect of that which is intended. Many theists have been so strongly conditioned that any direct attack on their beliefs serves only to trigger a reflex that strengthens it. I would like to see a web based movement that can provide the benefits of central organization while coordinating action at the local level that can produce real results. I am currently working on just such an innitiative, and I could definately use the input and insights of the kind of people I have found here. What we have in common is clearly much greater than these relatively minor differences of emphasis. We may favor different short term tactics, but effective, long term strategies should not be out of the reach of people who have the courage to use their minds.
Thank you.
Nice post, Brandon. For the record, I do believe it is possible to teach others about atheism without being preachy, dogmatic, or insulting to those who don’t accept your view.
Let me get this straight…
You guys feel that because Atheists have YET to start killing people that you’re justified in degrading others whereas Theists are not?
It’s funny…many of you seem to believe that while everything else evolves in this Universe that hatred does not. Racists were not born overnight, you know. They go through a process.
Constantly telling yourself that you are more intelligent, more rational, more moral, etc. than Theists only serves to dehumanize them. And for some reason you guys think that it’s okay because some wackjob has yet to take the next logical step and start killing people he thinks are bad for the world and for the gene pool.
Bigotry doesn’t need a sticks and stones to start…those are just the final outcome.
And Anti-Theists HAVE done horrible things in the past. In the 20th century no-less. While you may get away with saying "Atheism doesn’t do anything because it’s merely a lack of belief in God", as though this somehow helps to rid you of the burden of proof while calling others "wrong" (I may as well start redefining Theism as the "lack of belief in metaphysical naturalism" then) Anti-Theism ran rampant in Russia and elsewhere at the time.
The same rhetoric and dehumanizing attitudes being used by many of the New Atheists today were used by the Militant anti-religious, such as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc. They HATED Theists and Theism to boot. And they didn’t just start killing Theists the moment they hated them. Their hatred evolved over time.
For evidence of stages of hatred, look up the FBI reports which chronicles these transitions (the Seven Stage Hate Model).
If you honestly believe dehumanizing people or degrading them in any way is a GOOD way to get them to change their minds then you’re more anti-intellectual than they are.
Period.
I think any attempt to compare the vast majority of religious people or atheists to what some historical (or current) tyrants did/are doing in the name of these beliefs is wrong. When I speak of ‘militant atheism’, I refer to how these people think their beliefs should be spread, not how some of their members have used the belief systems to kill people.
Michael:
I appreciate your post more than you know.
I’ve quoted you in my "The Case for Spiritual Atheism" at P!
It’s incredible how much work "he got death threats!" is doing, rhetorically, here. First, it’s never been proven to my satisfaction that he actually did receive death threats. But okay, let’s posit he did. So what? What does that have to say about Dawkins or Hitchens or Dennet, et al, and their behavior? It’s either productive and fair for people to engage on the level they do, or it’s not. The fact that some nuts make death threats doesn’t change that, and constantly harping on it just reveals the extent to which the defense of sneering anti-theism is bankrupt.
H. L. Mencken famously quipped: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” At least let’s not beg the question: Theism is at best irrational, if not actually antirational. Nor is it clear to say the least, that religion succeeds in improving moral character. Now, how close does such statement of the obvious come towards sneering contempt? And when might any hint or wry irony, much less sneering contempt, even begin to become understandable or even appropriate?
.