Humanist chaplain talking nonsense
Hey guess what! News flash! Red hot item fresh off the presses that no one knew before – sit down before you read it, or the shock and surprise might kill you.
Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who’s leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.
Oh, gee, really? I had no idea, and neither did anyone else. Sharp reporting; well done.
Among the millions of Americans who don’t believe God exists, there’s a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called “New Atheists.” Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.
‘Militancy,’ of course, in the very special terms of this particular endlessly-recycled talking point, means ‘actually disagreeing with the truth claims of religion.’ Kind of a funny way to use the word, as if actually disagreeing with the truth claims of religion were much the same thing as bomb-throwing or at least a bit of window-breaking; but there you go; that’s how talking points are.
Epstein calls them “atheist fundamentalists.” He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.
Does he? Really? If so, he’s not paying attention to either group. But he probably doesn’t really see the matter that way, he probably just says he does because it sounds emphatic (or something), and because it’s such a cliché that he can’t resist it. (Compare, for just one instance, the scene in ‘The Root of all Evil’ in which Dawkins asks the gay-obsessed minister why it matters so much, what is the harm in homosexuality, why is it a problem? And the minister says because it’s a sin. And Dawkins doesn’t even retort; he lets it go at that. Are the two of them really equally rigid in their dogma? I don’t think so.)
Some of the participants in Harvard’s celebration of its humanist chaplaincy have no problem with the New Atheists’ tone. Harvard psychologist and author Steven Pinker said the forcefulness of their criticism is standard in scientific and political debate, and “far milder than what we accept in book and movie reviews.”
Just so – but have the effrontery to apply it to religion, and notice how the rules change.
But Epstein worries the attacks on religion by the New Atheists will keep converts away. “The philosophy of the future is not going to be one that tries to erase its enemies,” he said. “The future is going to be people coming together from what motivates them.”
There it is again – that chronic hyperbole about atheists. Do the ‘New’ atheists try to erase their enemies? Please. And as for people coming together from what motivates them – well some of us are motivated by, for instance, a preference for open discussion, free inquiry, rational argument, caution about belief-formation, curiosity, and respect for evidence. That kind of preference causes us not to want to ‘come together’ with people who have no such preference. Unity isn’t everything, mass agreement isn’t everything, groupthink isn’t everything, conformity isn’t everything. So have fun with the humanist chaplain thing, Mr Epstein, but knock it off with the straw man stuff.
Erf. Yeah, the “erase” thing, I’ve seen that a few times – the vague implication of genocidal intent. It always seems they could have said what they meant just as easily with no such undertone, but they intentionally and deceitfully chose to include it.
And this from people who are in fact not theists. It’s staggering.
Erf. Yeah, the “erase” thing, I’ve seen that a few times – the vague implication of genocidal intent. It always seems they could have said what they meant just as easily with no such undertone, but they intentionally and deceitfully chose to include it.
I just wish one of these people would come out and honestly say that their definition of “militancy” means “disagreeing and not apologizing for it”. Suddenly we will all be “militant”.
I dunno. Maybe it’s time to just give up and embrace it. I’m going to take the following steps to become a militant fundamentalist atheist:
(1) Start stockpiling weapons, preferably assault weapons and bomb-making materials. (Note to self: By something that will qualify as a “compound.”)
(2) Start protesting at funerals just to piss people off and get attention.
(3) Lie constantly about anyone who disagrees with me in the slightest.
(4) Every time one of my lies or flawed arguments is exposed, simply repeat it endlessly as if the exposure never happened.
(5) Start brainwashing disaffected youth to carry out attacks against anyone I disagree with – preferably suicide attacks, so my followers can’t later come to their senses and testify against me.
(6) More lying. Can’t emphasize this enough. Lie in the morning, lie in the evening, lie all the live-long day. Lie so much I can no longer distinguish the fictions I spin from the truth. The best lie is the one even I believe.
C’mon, everyone! What other steps should I take to become the militant fundamentalist atheist I’ve been repeatedly labeled?
“humanist chaplain”
Sorry, I’m going to be stuck here for a while.
What other steps – you should get yourself a complete straw man outfit, that’s what. A straw man outfit complete with ammunition belts worn Rambo-style.
Hmm. I’ve been doing some googling. This guy is even more obnoxious than I thought. The ‘atheist fundamentalist’ thing is old news, from the end of March; he got called on it, and refused to apologize. He even admitted it was bullshit and that he knew it was bullshit, and he still refused to apologize. See here.
The Institute for Humanist Studies weekly newsletter called for reactions to Epstein’s bullshit the week after he spewed it. Sadly, I didn’t save the letter that I sent on the topic, which started with a very clear reaming of this asshat, and followed with the paragraphs quoted in this feature on the responses.
I have always thought that Humanism is atheism for wimps. This just proves my point.
I have always thought that Humanism is atheism for wimps. This just proves my point.
“Converts”? Exqueeze me?
Oh, and since it’d be physically impossible to debase the level of discourse, I’ll let myself go and snigger delightedly at ‘The future is going to be people coming together.’ Yeah, baby.
“What other steps should I take to
become the militant fundamentalist
atheist I’ve been repeatedly labeled?”
Stay outspoken and focused on the
essentials of the argument – if the
cap fits, then wear it.
_
Thanks for the link, G; great stuff. (Are you sure you didn’t save the letter? Have you looked for it? Do you remember when you had it last?)
Why didn’t I know about all this?!
I think the problem with people who use these terms like “fundy atheist” is that they have built into their ideology (i.e., religion) an enemy category. There is not only a god who creates an ordered world, but a satan who seeks to destroy it. And of course this destroyer has hordes of minions (i.e., us). So it is virtually impossible for these religious folks to see anyone as just a person with a rational point of view, backed up by rational arguments, which could be countered with other arguments, thus leading to a normal sort of conversation. Rational people have to be “agents of the devil,” and therefore fundy atheists.
As for any alleged humanist chaplains at U.S. universities founded in the colonial period, I have no reports of their existence. I cannot vouch for their alleged states of mind, or indeed their degrees of sanity, at this time. Check back with me later.
But JonJ, the matter at hand isn’t fundamentalist religious believers accusing atheists of being fundamentalist or militant. I mean, who cares if they do? No one who regularly reads B&W expects better reasoning or argument from religious fundies, I suspect.
It’s other nonbelievers using such defamatory, inflammatory, and pig-ignorant language that’s raising ire around here: I was pissed (and said so) when Julian Baggini pulled this move, and I have enormous respect for him. This self-important, self-promoting git Epstein has done nothing to earn my (or anyone else’s) respect, so he gets even less slack.
It’s enough to make a guy downright militant.
I don’t think it’s just religious fundamentalists who use language like “fundamentalist atheists.” Self-described “humanists” will do it too. Folks like Epstein seem to have enough of a religious streak in them, despite calling themselves humanists or even atheists, that they get into this defamatory frame of mind, too.
This whole subject–religion, science, atheism, whatever–is getting so many people’s brains boiling that it’s hard to find anyone talking sense any more. (Except on this site, of course.)