Why no G_d
Writing God as “G_d” isn’t just irritating because there isn’t a God, though that’s part of it. It is irritating because, in certain contexts, it is indicative of a casual assumption that religious belief is something which cannot cause offence. Why should it cause offence? Well, let’s skip over the whole horrors done in the name of Christianity thing, and also the whole religious right thing, and the whole Intelligent Design thing, etc. It’s got to do with double-standards. If I flaunt my atheism, or if Ophelia flaunts her atheism, then in certain contexts this is considered hostile, aggressive, bad mannered, etc. But it just doesn’t work the other way around. It doesn’t seem to occur to the religiously minded that just occasionally we’d rather not be confronted with their faith. This is not to say that we don’t welcome debate with the religiously minded. But it is to say that we expect them to respect our atheism in the same kind of way that in certain contexts we’re expected to respect their theism. And that means not flaunting articles of their faith in our faces.
OK, but you must admit that most theists (which is most people), don’t write it G_d. And if some people want to show reverence in that way, so what? It’s like calling someone Jones or calling him Mr. Jones. It’s hardly a slap at atheists or people who don’t think Jones is worthy of any respect.
I personally think writing G_d is a little pretentious, but someone could say the same of wearing a cross around the neck, which doesn’t bother me. I really don’t know why everyday expressions of belief or reverence should be offensive. It’s more offensive to think that religion should be confined to the church/temple.
Anita
The problem is the double-standard. If I went to a prayer meeting with a badge saying “There is no God”, then people would likely be upset.
But I can’t think of a context where a similar standard applies to the religious. I have assorted friends and relatives who know perfectly well that I’m an atheist, yet think nothing of blessing me, praying for me, etc.
It isn’t the particular religious gesture itself which is the problem (though I’ll admit I find them irritating). It’s the casual assumption that despite the fact I’m an atheist, I’m not going to mind – and the double-standard which this implies.
Is “G_d” offensive here because this is JS’s & OB’s “home”? Is it like a smoker lighting up in my non-smoking living room in the middle of the party I’m throwing?
Point of clarification–
What specifically offends you? Is it the hyper-pious refusal to spell out the word? Is it the reference to God in the first place? Am I allowed to refer to the Christian God as such? Are terms such as Heavenly Father totally out of line (I wd guess yes)? What about “Divinity”?
Please note that I’m not being sarcastic and that I too am an atheist. I suppose that as a relatively private person, I simply haven’t had to cope with the same amount of crap that you two do and so my threshold of irritation is different.
“Is “G_d” offensive here because this is JS’s & OB’s “home”?”
That’s part of the story, but not all of it. Ophelia isn’t around at the moment, so I’ll have to write on her behalf. She’ll correct me if I get this wrong.
I think her position would be that the public sphere – in the States, at least – is becoming increasingly suffused with religion. This will cash out in various ways (politically, for example – note, for instance, that even Al Gore, a scientifically literate guy, couldn’t bring himself to say that creationism is false) one of which will be, or is, that one has to be apologetic for being an atheist, but not apologetic for being a theist. That certain rhetorical rights, if you like, are granted to theists, which are not granted to atheists.
It’s not quite the same here in the UK, so it isn’t quite so frustrating, but nevertheless, I’m thorougly in sympathy with the idea that the public sphere should be free of religious language and symbols.
What makes G_d irritating is that it is indicative of the special rights that are accorded to religious language. I doubt it would ever have occurred to Ralph that G_d might offend people. Yet as atheists, we are always aware that our beliefs might result in people taking offence, feeling attacked, etc.
“What specifically offends you?”
It’s the fact that it is an overt symbol of faith. In fact, if you follow Jonathan Dresner’s line, it seems that it is almost an act of faith to write it.
That we find – offensive is the wrong word – annoying, because of the reasons I explain above.
The ‘flaunting’ business is pretty darn tricky. I’m gay; the standard language that the uncomfortable straight guy uses toward gays is “I’m fine with it as long as they don’t flaunt it,” which usually boils down to “If I can notice that you’re gay then you’re flaunting it,” which to me doesn’t seem quite right.
Is it so bad that someone uses language that leads one to infer that they are or are not religious? I would only tend to get crunchy when someone says things like “I’ll pray for you.” or some such.
What I ask, as a nonbeliever, is that believers accept that I don’t believe & that trying to make arguments and moral judgments based /only/ on their personal faith is a waste of time as far as I’m concerned.
Ben
Very quickly. I think that isn’t quite analogous because the power differential works the other way around here.
What would be more analogous would be that if in a country where being gay is not okay, there was a forum for gay people – and somebody turned up with a badge saying: “I’m part of the crowd who think gays are wrong.”
I think that would depend on what they had to say after that! I don’t see how just knowing one way or the other all by itself is especially chilling. Flip side of it of course is that I think that in general contexts I shouldn’t be jumped on for letting it drop that I’m gay or am a nonbeliever. As you rightly note, that ideal situation doesn’t hold, but enforcing its opposite doesn’t seem to accomplish much.
Matthew 11:6.
I’m around again, and have no need to correct what Jerry S said; it is exactly what I think.
“the public sphere – in the States, at least – is becoming increasingly suffused with religion…one has to be apologetic for being an atheist, but not apologetic for being a theist. That certain rhetorical rights, if you like, are granted to theists, which are not granted to atheists.”
Exactly.
And there’s actually another dimension too, which is less topical and political – less temporary, perhaps. There is a built-in asymmetry, because atheists are aware that being blunt about religion can cause a kind of pain to theists that doesn’t match anything that goes in the other direction. That, in short, one risks tampering with people’s consoling illusions. For the same sort of reason it is frowned on to tell a small child too abruptly that there is no Santa Claus. And this kind of extra element is precisely dependent on the fact that religious belief is belief. It’s not knowledge, it’s belief. So 1) it can be fragile and 2) people are defensive about it and loyal to it in a way they aren’t to knowledge. Who is pained if someone says ‘You know, the capital of Mongolia is (or is not) Ulan Bator?
But it doesn’t work that way with atheism, so theists (as far as I can ever tell) don’t give it a thought. And the result is that they get a permanent free ride. They can talk about their ‘faith’ all they want to with impunity, because it’s just not done to contradict them. Atheists cannot talk about their unfaith with impunity – because it’s not done to contradict theists. Heads I win tails you lose.
And then theists have the nerve to complain of double standards!
So, if I understand this all correctly, this is atheist space, and defense, clarification or discussion of divinity, theology or faith in anything other than a mechanistic universe in any sense but the negative is unacceptable. Sorry, the sign on the door said “discussion” and I didn’t notice the other signs.
Sorry, that came off sounding more snide that I intended it. I just meant to say that, since the history of philosophy is, for a great deal of history, the history of religious philosophy (and a great deal of it still is), I didn’t realize that the “rational philosophy” represented here included as one of its essential postulates the non-existence of God. I know that’s Ophelia Benson’s position, but I did not realize that it was a site convention.
I also find the inability to distinguish between the many competing theisms (and, by the way, religious non-theisms) a little odd, and a little disturbing. But that’s not your problem.
No, it’s not unacceptable. But. I do think religious people ought to be a lot more aware than they are of the way they rely on atheists’ inhibitions – to say things they would probably be embarrassed to say in other terms. Adults don’t generally talk about pretend playmates, or fairies, or angels (or do they – I’ve seen surveys that say some huge percentage of Americans believe in angels), or visitors from other galaxies – not seriously, I mean, as opposed to chatting about Star Trek. But talking about this other elusive mysterious invisible intangible being – that’s taken for granted. And we’re not supposed to mention how strange that is.
Cross-post. That’s okay, Jonathan. I realize I’m being tactless. But – oh well, you know the rest.
Rational philosophy? Who, us? We don’t know from philosophy!
Anyway atheism isn’t particularly a site convention, but the fact is we are both atheists, so – we’re not committed to giving religion the benefit of the doubt I suppose.
As for religious non-theism – well it’s theistic religion we’re talking about at the moment. We only have two hands you know! Well four really, but we’re clumsy.
Ben
“I think that would depend on what they had to say after that!”
Ah well there we just disagree. I think that in the situation I describe you’d have the right to be irritated.
Jonathan
“Sorry, the sign on the door said “discussion” and I didn’t notice the other signs.”
I actually think that this statement is indicative of precisely the kind of casual unthinkingness that I find problematic.
As atheists, we’re aware that there don’t have to be signs up telling us to be careful how we express our disbelief in God.
But as theists, you want there to be signs if you need to be careful how you express your belief in God.
That’s annoying. The casual assumption that theistic beliefs are acceptable in all contexts. And that’s irritating, even if in any particular context I don’t mind their expression.
Ralph
“I live in a world where there are many varieties of belief and unbelief. I intend not to insist that believers hide their belief or that unbelievers hide their unbelief.”
Yes, but you’re making that gesture from the position of the majority.
Being an atheist in the US can result in difficulties. I used to work with a guy on The Philosophers’ Magazine site who was an atheist in a small town in Texas. After it became known that he was an atheist, he was pretty much ostracised (to the extent that he had to travel to a different town to do his grocery shopping, etc).
It’s great that you’re tolerant of atheism, but you’re not the only act in town. Consequently, you shouldn’t be surprised if some atheists want, just occasionally, not to be confronted with other people’s faith (or the symbols of their faith). And the hope is that you would be sensitive enough to this fact so that you modify your behaviour when acting in a context where you had good reason to suppose it might apply.
I always particularly enjoyed reading about ‘g_ds’ in the writing of a philosophy student of my acquaintance.
Jerry, The tradition of the village atheist is an old and honorable one in the United States. Should I notify Erin O’Connor at Critical Mass that you want atheist sensitivity training on American college campuses and inclusion of g_d talk as anathma in speech codes? You sound almost as if you want coverage under some Civil Rights Act.
JS/OB: For “aetheists,” you guys seem to do an awful lot of sermonizing…. :)
“Atheists should be granted the same rights to offend someone as theists”
We are. Free speech is a right, but that doesn’t mean others are going to like it–see all the hooplah re: campus speech codes. Attacks against free-speech come from the left and right.
“spend a lot of time sermonizing, well, they are just trying to catch up to the theists in word-count…”
Well, the point is that this discussion came about not because somebody was offended by aetheist speech, but the other way around. No aetheist was harmed in the making of this discussion except that some were apparently “offended” because Ralph is either religious or decided to use a religious language convention in his post (seriously people, pick your battles! For God’s sake…or G_d…or god, damnit I’m confused….).
No one here seems to be “chilling” aetheist speech, certainly not Ralph—so the aetheist “sermon” about how religious people hold double-standards and it’s “hard” to be an aetheist (poor babies) we have received is a lot of, well, preaching to the choir…ahem.
Ralph,
I’m sorry, but I think you’re being less perceptive about this than you could be – than I would have expected from some of our conversations.
“I do not recall Ophelia Benson being told that she must respect the conventions of other people’s faith, either at Hugo Schwyzer’s site or at Cliopatria. If she choses not to respect them, she makes a choice. That’s all.”
It’s not all. Only last week you told me that you realized it was odd that you had described me as an “aggressive” atheist. By noticing that, surely you also noticed the way that kind of – casual, unthinking, as Jerry says; so casual and unthinking that you hadn’t even noticed it before – language functions as a form of coercion, of enforcement? Didn’t you? Or did I misunderstand you. And the way you accused me of calling for a “ban” when I haven’t done any such thing.
In short, you’re claiming that there is no pressure on atheists at the same moment you’re performing that pressure yourself.
Furthermore, this business about not respecting the conventions of other people’s faiths – that’s not the problem. The problem is the opposite, as I have said many times now. The problem is that I do respect the conventions, or at least what I take to be people’s sensitivities – and that means that we can’t have a proper discussion. By ‘proper’ I mean rational, truth-telling, open, unhindered. I feel constrained not to say all I think about Hugo’s post, precisely because it would be (or seem) rude, offensive, aggressive. And I sure as hell have not been convinced that I’m wrong to think that by what you’ve been saying.
Cross with James.
No, James, you have it wrong. This isn’t about poor babies, it’s not about being thenthitive. It’s about double standards, and double-double standards. It’s about the way atheists are expected to keep their views of theism to themselves, while theists can talk about the will of God and doing what Jesus wants them to do, in the expectation that few if any atheists will be rude and aggressive enough to point out that Jesus has been dead for nearly two thousand years and doesn’t want anybody to do anything and that God is a literary character who also doesn’t want anything in the real world, any more than Anna Karenina does. It is about subtleties, to be sure – about rhetoric, and expectations, and groupthink, and non-physical coercion.
And as for this –
“The tradition of the village atheist is an old and honorable one in the United States.”
That’s just nonsense! If that were true, why would it be universally agreed that an atheist can’t possibly be elected president? Why would the New Republic write a cover story about Dean’s ‘religion problem’ meaning he doesn’t have enough of the stuff?
The village atheist may be an old tradition here, but it’s certainly not an honorable one, especially not now.
Atheist is a swear-word here.
“The tradition of the village atheist is an old and honorable one in the United States.”
AKA Argumentum ad antiquitam, the fallacy that because something is old, it is good.
The same could be said of honour killings.
But that’s not even what Ralph is arguing, at least I don’t think it is. He’s countering Jerry’s point about ostracism – he’s claiming that village atheists are in fact honoured by their fellow-villagers and by the culture at large. I just don’t think that’s true. Atheism is not well thought-of or spoken-of in the US right now. In fact it can be hard to find the word without some modifier such as aggressive, outspoken, admitted, avowed, unapologetic – or worse.
I don’t recall _anyone_ telling Ophelia to keep her atheism to herself. Cite a case, perhaps? By me? By Hugo? And repeated threats to walk out of a group because some of its members do not share all of your unbeliefs is not an attempt to coerce what _can_ be said? Say what you wish at Cliopatria. “There is no G_d.” You think someone would be shocked at this late date to read that or consider it rude? It’s been said before, Ophelia. What, then, is it you wish? Speech codes banning the g_d word from your hearing? EEO protections? Affirmative Action for Atheists? It all seems a bit silly to me, but then I’m not one of them. So, tell me what is it you want? I want both you and Hugo to be free to speak as you wish at Cliopatria. I see no evidence that you cannot.
“Atheism is not well thought-of or spoken-of in the US right now.”
Ummm…have you been to a University/college recently?
Oh my goodness, we are off and running aren’t we?
Ophelia, I want to find a way for me to be loyal to my faith, and at the same time, be as respectful as possible of the fact that the constant exposure to that faith can be exhausting and even infuriating to someone in your position.
My mother is an atheist. She read Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” her first year at Vassar in the 1950s and has been convinced by him ever since. She is a kind, thoughtful marvelous woman — a winsome and charitable atheist (as well as a retired philosophy professor). She also — good mama that she is — reads her son’s blog and cheerfully disagrees. I always try — perhaps unsuccessfully — to avoid using my faith as a blunt instrument with which to beat folks around the head. Yet it is the foundation stone not only of my spiritual rebirth as a born-again adult, it is the prism through which all of my intellectual and political work gets done. I can’t simply silence it or take it off, not even for the sake of collegiality.
I’m still convinced we can have cordial and (one hopes) humor-filled dialogue.
Ralph, no, I said it was subtle. That’s part of the point. No, no one has (that I recall) explicitly told me to keep my atheism to myself – but surely you know that explicit instructions are not the only form of conformist pressure in existence?
In other words, I have been implicitly urged to keep my atheism to myself. Your post at Clio about this very exchange is one example – the stuff about Ks and mules. The implication is – surely? isn’t that what you intend? – that to dispute religious belief is to call religious people stupid. And other rhetoric, which I’ve discussed above.
And I don’t ‘want’ anything – in the sense of making a demand or trying to extort something from someone. I don’t think I ever said I did, or even implied it. I’m analyzing and discussing, or trying to; I’m not petitioning or picketing.
And I’m not threatening, either – though I do realize it sounds like that, and hesitated to say it for that reason. But that’s not the point. It’s partly just stating a fact, partly giving advance warning, partly giving advance explanation. You can tell me I’m free to disagree with Hugo all you want to, but I’m afraid I don’t believe it. That means I’ve ended up on a de facto religious group blog; since I’m not religious, that seems like a mismatch to me.
Oops, beg pardon, Hugo, another cross-post.
Well there’s the problem right there: I ain’t winsome!
cackle
Yeah, I understand about the not able to turn off thing.
[More later…]
“the public sphere – in the States, at least – is becoming increasingly suffused with religion.”
I guess it depends on what you pay attention to and who you hang around with. I know a lot of people who would be absolutely dumbfounded by that statement. They wouldn’t know how to respond – it would so be out of line with their perception. I don’t think religion is under particular attack in the US (which some of the right seems to feel), but it’s clearly not on a major upswing in popularity or respectibility, either.
Ophelia, Absolutely not! Why do you _assume_ that Ks and “mule headed anthropoids” refers to you??? Quite odd that you might think it does. “Mule headed anthropoid” with a K just might refer to a Southern, evangelical, white, male, Republican. Er, guess who of us that might be. Others of us post at Cliopatria and others of us, like you, have a sense of humor about such things. Shall I direct you to place your atheism front and center at Cliopatria? I don’t tell anyone else there much of what to do and not do. Why should I give _you_ alone instruction? Cliopatria is a history blog which includes believers and nonbelievers. If you wish to tell Hugo or me or anyone else for that matter about how our belief in G_d must inform or malform our writing of history, please do so and feel free to do so on Cliopatria.
Yes, selective perception plays a part in all of this. But – just for one example – if the public sphere is not suffused with religion, why is an atheist major party presidential candidate so unthinkable?
For that matter, even a major party presidential candidate who simply doesn’t talk about religion is unthinkable. Candidates are required not only to be religious, but to be noisily, explicitly, repeatedly religious. If they fail in that duty people shout at them until they fall into line – as with Dean.
No, Ralph, I took the K and mule to be referring to our attitude to you – to be an implication that we were calling you mule-heads, not that you were calling us that. That, in short, you were implying that we were equating religion with muleheadedness.
Well, I didn’t think that at all. It was at worst, even, self-mockery and self-indulgent. Anyway, I’ve been called worse than muleheaded and there’s even an element of truth in it, though not because I’m a believer.
fwiw, I believe that G_d is a high church Anglican (Episcopalian) affectation that arose in the late Victorian period and died out in common usage in the 1950s. It arose from a collision between the mentality that put trousers on piano legs and the aftermath of the Oxford movement, and was supposed to indicate an exaggerated respect for the big guy, such that you couldn’t even write its name.
It may have been influenced by the Jewish practice of not inserting the vowels in Yahweh, but whereas I believe YHWH is always read aloud as a different word meaning “the Lord”, G_d was always pronounced “god”.
I find it hard to comprehend that anyone under the age of eighty still does it.
Chris, it is not uncommon amongst Jewish people in my experience.
PM – Nor in mine, but that’s the Jewish tradition, which is only tangetially related if at all: I meant the high Anglican silliness. Moreover, the Jewish practice is a tradition, not a 100 year old affectation.
Chris, I meant that writing ‘G_d’ is not uncommon amongst Jewish people.
[*ooh, new transferal of copyright clause, very corporate]