Freedom of speech means you must shut up
And while I’m at it, why don’t I just quarrel with Michael Shermer’s piece too. He doesn’t resort to the childish abuse of ‘the New Atheist Noise Machine,’ but there’s plenty to quarrel with all the same.
Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance…Anti-something movements by themselves will fail.
Oh really. Such as abolitionism for instance? Anti-war movements? Anti-imperialism movements? Some anti-something movements fail, others don’t. And the ‘new Atheists’ aren’t merely against something anyway, so it’s just more straw. (People do produce a remarkable amount of straw on this subject.)
Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested.
But…they do. What’s he talking about? Of course they champion science and reason. Does he mean to the exclusion of criticizing religion? But what if they think (as they do) that religion competes with and/or damages science and reason? Are they forbidden to discuss that? If so, why? How can that possibly be justified? Especially when that’s not usually said about other ideas – champion birdwatching but don’t criticize destruction of habitat; champion feminism but don’t criticize sexism or subordination; champion education but don’t criticize ignorance. That’s childish; it’s self-helpish nonsense.
Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.
That’s the worst one of all, because it implies that criticism is incompatible with the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose – which is a stark contradiction, apart from anything else that’s wrong with it. But it’s also just damn silly, and an attempt at silencing or impeding free inquiry and criticism and thought. It is, frankly, deeply obnoxious to pretend that the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose somehow entails the silencing of people who think and believe differently and want to say so. It’s a completely inane thing to say, because it tells us to shut up so that other people can talk without hearing anything they don’t like. The logic is ridiculous, and the political import is revoltingly craven.
“A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.”
eh? Surely if you’re talking about the ‘scientific process’, then it’s a matter of “ethics”, rather than “morality” (which always comes with that tricky authoritarian, “because-my-supernaturalism says so” baggage…? Or am I just tired & malfunctioning? And anyway, since when did my THOUGHTS impinge on anyone’s freedom?? The one damn thing I thought was truly allowed to be “free” – unless I’m secretly telekinetic, of course, and cause weird stuff to happen when I’m dreaming…? :-)
Many of the people who are scolding the so-called New Atheists for their rudeness are often scolded themselves for their “rudeness.” Disagreeing with religious and paranormal claims — and saying so out loud — will always cause a certain element to scream ‘abuse.’ Shermer should know that. Dawkins and Harris aren’t saying anything much different than he says. Sometimes I think that such atheists carry around a memory of an atheist they met who kept saying the religious were “a bunch of loonies” — and that’s the audience they’re addressing.
Apply skeptical reasoning to religious claims and they shoot back an outraged “I have a right to my beliefs” — as if the use of reasoned argument is the same as suppressive force. I once used the analogy “Imagine that every time you criticized the war, or President Bush, or the Republican party, you heard ‘People have the right to vote how they want.’ You’d be insulted. Trying to persuade someone to change their mind is not a form of fascism.”
They see it with politics. Not so much with religion. Too many want religion to be an untouchable sanctuary, where you get to speculate or believe as wildly as you wish, and people have to think it means you’re deep.
The article says, ‘Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe.’ Well, surely, in this case we can. The secret is in the ‘a’ of ‘atheist’, which is a prefix, meaning without or not. So the very word contradicts his claim. Atheists are in a default position. It’s a bit like saying you can’t define someone who doesn’t believe in flying wombats as someone who doesn’t believe in flying wombats. Why would you even think about it?
Good point Andy, and as an aside, I found an error in my cherished Webster’s Collegiate – it defines an atheist as “one who believes that there is no deity”, which is, in my estimation, completely fallacious, as it is the ABSENCE of belief in a diety. My older copy (5th edition) defines atheism as “Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god, or supreme being”, which appears to be a more accurate description. How does disbelief in an idea turn into belief in non-existence? Interesting how common these mistakes are elsewhere as well…
Shermer has fallen prey to what one might call a vestigial dogma–something peripheral to religion that nevertheless works to predict the core dogma, even when the core dogma has been rejected. The belief that you cannot have any moral standards without religion is one example. Here we have another–the belief that challenging religion is not only rude, but an act of aggression that somehow forcibly strips believers of their right to believe. This dates back a long way, to the doctrine that the devil attacks believers and somehow forcibly leads them astray through superior power and guile. The mythological aspect may have been forgotten by most, but the emotive content persists, particularly in former believers (of which Shermer is one.) It is amazing how many former believers continue to harbour the detritus of their former beliefs.
Keep hammering on these idiots, OB. They deserve it!
Here’s another twit beating the “You aggressive atheists meanies are hurting people’s feewings!” drum.
And here are a bunch of sharp (in both senses) responses, including my own.