Because they know it teases
I immediately begin trying out Dawkins’ appeal in polite company. At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. “Who here is an atheist?” I ask. Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, “I am!” But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: “You would be.”
“Why?”
“Because you enjoy pissing people off.”
“Well, that’s true.”
It’s clear enough what we’re supposed to get from all that. One, it’s almost always a man who pipes up because men are pugnacious and competitive and obnoxious, whereas women are more tactful and co-operative and sweet and kind. Two, atheists are atheists because they enjoy pissing people off. Three, atheism of course pisses people off. Well, fuck that. I’m a woman, and I am not more tactful and co-operative and sweet and kind, as anyone who knows me will knock over chairs and hatstands in the rush to confirm. More to the point, I’m a woman and I hate like hell the idea that women are too nice to be atheist or rational or skeptical or anything else in that department of the store.
But more significant (and silly) is the assumption that atheism naturally and automatically pisses people off. That’s a very parochial assumption. Atheism does piss off a lot of people in the US, but the US isn’t the world, and in some places atheism is more boring and taken for granted than irritating. The existence of this unexamined assumption is one reason the ‘new Atheists’ are right that atheists need to speak up more.
Weird article. Gary Wolf was clearly trying desperately to pick holes in Dawkins et al’s “strident” (not again…!) approach, simply because he feels personally uncomfortable with arguments that he can’t answer…
or maybe that’s just my impression of him?
“Dawkins’ style of debate is as maddening as it is reasonable”
Eh? If something is truly “reasonable”, then it’s only “maddening” if you don’t like the conclusions…but that’s your problem for being logically deficient, no?
And what about this bit –
“The New Atheists never propose realistic solutions to the damage religion can cause. For instance, the Catholic Church opposes condom use, which makes it complicit in the spread of AIDS. But among the most powerful voices against this tragic mistake are liberals within the Church – exactly those allies the New Atheists reject. The New Atheists care mainly about correct belief. This makes them hopeless, politically.”
OB, is it ok to save myself a lot of time & effort that I don’t have, (the kids are asleep, but I don’t know how long it’ll last!), by simply saying “pfffffffftttt!!!” to that? :-)
But of course – I say ‘pffffffftt’ a lot myself. (Some people might claim that’s all I say.)
He would be an atheist, but he’s too nice?
Actually, I think now I’ll say a few words about that.
“The New Atheists care mainly about correct belief. This makes them hopeless, politically.”
So what? ‘Politically’ is not the only possible criterion. ‘Correct belief’ matters and it’s a damn good thing some people do care more about epistemology than about what’s politically expedient. So there, and yaboosucks.
Oh, OB, I forgot to say:
“Women, Know Your Limits!”
(from BBC’s “Harry Enfield & Chums” )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lrJg8NMsFw
if you’ve never seen it before, I think you might just like it…!
:-)
I know many who agree with RD yet find him maddening because of his Uber-pompous manner (their words, not mine).
So, yes, it is about pissing people off.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
My problem with the whole debate is that it is in some ways so juvenile (OOOoo, Pot Black Kettle the Calling. Again). RD makes points that the more thoughtful of us would have written in a year 9 essay. And yet people are surprised at his arguments. Should have sorted their brains out decades ago….