Annoying is it
And one more thing. She says something quite rude about Daniel Dennett, and what she says is not accurate. Pp. 9-10.
It is certainly supremely annoying when intellectuals talk down to religious people, speaking as if all smart people are atheists. Philosopher Daniel Dennett is particularly guilty of this. In an op-ed piece in the New York Times, he coined the term ‘brights’ for nonbelievers, suggesting very clearly that the right name for believers was ‘dummies.’
He did not coin the term, as he clearly states in the op-ed piece, right at the top of the second paragraph.
The term ”bright” is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help.
And he doesn’t ‘suggest very clearly’ that the right name for believers is ‘dummies.’ It’s true that he doesn’t disavow that, so Nussbaum could perfectly well have said that the word seems to imply that its antonym would be ‘dulls’ or similar and that if that’s not what Dennett meant he should have said so. That would be fair. But the piece in fact does not suggest (much less ‘very clearly’) that the right name for believers is ‘dummies’; that’s not the point the piece makes. I dislike the term ‘brights’ myself, in fact I dislike it in much the same way I dislike ‘precious’ and ‘deep’ and ‘respect’ especially when repeated multiple times on page after page, but however much I dislike the word, it doesn’t follow that Dennett was ‘talking down to religious people’ in that piece, and in fact he wasn’t. He was saying that atheists exist, that they’re not weird, and that they get elbowed aside by theists because they are too quiet so they should speak up more.
Most brights don’t play the ”aggressive atheist” role. We don’t want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don’t want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence. But the price is political impotence. Politicians don’t think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn’t be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don’t hesitate to disparage the ”godless” among us.
Nussbaum would have done well to re-read the piece before she wrote what she did.
I heard Dennett say in an interview with Milt Rosenberg on Chicago WGN that he was willing to call religious believers “supers” on account of their belief in the supernatural. Hardly a pejorative soubriquet!
I know what you mean about the “bright” thing. I never cared for it myself.
I have often wondered about the antonym bit though. Do the religious folks who automatically assume that someone else calling themselves a bright is a veiled putdown have a precedent in the gay = happy vs. gay = homosexual transition? I mean, were there people arguing about “teh gays are taking our language”? Or would the complaint itself have proven that they were in fact a bit, um, stodgy?
Does anyone know if there was a backlash of “straight does not mean sullen”?
“political impotence”. Sorry? Is there a political outlook exclusive to athiests?
Apart from defending and promoting secularism, what else should be done, Dennett?
Where do you live, DFG? Defending and promoting secular government is rather a major battle in the U.S., in case you’ve been living in a cave somewhere. As Dennett points out in the sentence directly following the phrase “political impotence,” American politicans frequently spew rhetoric that is openly hostile to the non-religious.
No, Dennett doesn’t go on to say that those same politicians, when elected (and re-elected), make policies and appoint administrators and pass laws which undermine secular government – because he doesn’t have to say it! It’s like pollution: It’s in the air everywhere, and everyone knows it’s there by the stench, but we breathe it anyway because we don’t have a choice. (Some even like the smell, not realizing that entanglement with government is eventually toxic to religious institutions as well.) Even our blinkered, corrupt, co-opted corporate media manages to publish frequent stories about overtly religious influences on our politicians and policies, if only because it’s too damned obvious to miss.
I’d say the ongoing de-secularization of our government is quite a good reason for the nonreligious to be concerned about their political impotence as a group, even if they don’t share some greater overarching political unity. And it seems pretty clear to me that Dennett isn’t pushing for or implying any greater political unity in this (or any other) call for nontheists to stand up and be counted as such. So why the hostility?
Where do I live? In my house! Thanks for that condescension, G. Very enlightening. I went and Googled “attacks on secularism in the US” straight away. My my, I would never have guessed!
Sorry, I am not sure of the counterpoint you are making.
I don’t care if Pollies despise my godlessness, it’s the game they are playing in the pursuit of power. Cynical, yes, but I expect no better.
I do, however, care whether secularism is eroded. So once again, apart from defending and promoting secularism, what else is to be done?
The very fact that politicians in the US are allowed to get away with insulting atheists makes it much easy for them to dismantle secularism.
The first Bush once said that atheists should not be considered citizens. Could you imagine an American politician saying that Jews should not be considered citizens?
They know atheists don’t kick up a fuss about being directly and gratuitously insulted, so what are they going to do about de-secularisation.
G. surely it is just rhetoric I am not sure there is any evidence that this translates into any kind of creeping theocracy? isnt it just good old fashioned pandering? iritating maybe but thats all.
DFG, I guess that the whole, ill-made, point of Dennett was that in political affairs being atheist disqualified you whereas being religious in some way is a necessary qualification – secularism then is at stake even when it’s not in fact attacked outright, by erosion I’d say. Isn’t that a recipe for political action – to be pro-active in view of a trend?
As to Nussbaum – I’m happy not to know anything of her.
DFG, you’re the one who expressed hostility to Dennett’s point: I wasn’t condescending, I was calling you out on it! There are very evident reasons to be concerned about secular governance in the U.S. Either you aren’t paying attention to those evident reasons, or you don’t care about them for some reason. Your response indicates that you don’t care about them, but still doesn’t give a reason *why* you don’t care. If you care about secular government, you should care about atheists’ collective political invisibility and impotence!
And Richard, try not to be completely clueless. As I pointed out, it isn’t just rhetoric when it gets put into action – as it very much does! Consider the Bush administration’s corrupt faith-based initiative programs, for one very egregious example. Or the fact that the Bush administration sets government policy on everything from stem cell research to international aid to sex non-education in schools based on a rationally indefensible, evidence-ignoring agenda that panders to dogmatic religious conservatives. Or consider the appointment of religious fanatics to important decision-making positions, like David Hager – a doctor who writes appallingly sexist books about praying away women’s medical health issues who was appointed to the reproductive health committee of the FDA.
If government policy is guided by dogmatic religious ideology rather than by evidence-driven reasoning, and the people chosen to create and enforce policy are often chosen primarily for their religious ideological commitments and only secondarily (if at all) for their actual qualifications, and tax money is being funneled directly to religious organizations which proselytize the public, I’d call that creeping theocracy. In fact, it’s not creeping. It’s rolling in like the damned tide.
Richard –
Oh come ON. You’ve been presented with plenty of evidence regarding this point before – by myself & copious others – yet you STILL refuse to acknowledge it.
Sheesh.
Nussbaum says:’It is certainly supremely annoying when intellectuals talk down to religious people’.
If she meant ‘atheist intellectuals’ she could have said that, so she unconsciously at least accepts intellectuals and those with the faith delusion are two entirely separate species.
Yeah, I love it when people who don’t live here (as DFG and Richard both don’t) blow off the significance of anti-secularism here. (DFG compensates by being v informative about Southeast Asia; also by spotting the date on ancient articles about Indonesia that I fail to spot.)
I noticed that about ‘intellectuals’ – funny, isn’t it.
Eh? Blow off the significance of Anti-Secularism?? The point re not caring what a pollie thinks of me does not mean that I have no regard as to what religious based policies they may propose. On the contrary.
erm, read my post. The question is ASIDE from defence of Secularism, what is to be done?
G.
I didn’t intend it to be a hostile comment toward Dennett. I guess I understand where you are coming from. My objection is to the implication that athiest *should* stand up for themselves as a collective. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but yes, a US in which one’s Athiest views were not harangued would be a massive improvement. It is inherent in the US? Can it be changed? How to start this change?
*Should* is the issue. I am more than happy to stand up for myself on many social and political issues and I place my position as a Athiest somewhat lower than many of these. That’s all.
G. this sort of thing ebbs and flows as administrations come and go,but in general I would say the U.S is becoming more secular, I mean surely America is more secular than it was at the time of Scopes? or can you imagine G.W.B reciting a prayer like this one from F.D.R http://boortz.com/nuze/200706/06062007.html#dday
DFG: I did read quite clearly the words “ASIDE from the defense of secularism,” and I pointed out that there need not be anything aside from that to motivate atheist unity. In the context of Dennett (or anyone else) talking about atheists’ collective political invisibility and impotence, your clause “aside from the defense of secularism” has the same feel as “Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?”
If the people who care the most about secular government (and are the least willing to tolerate creeping theocracy) are not only politically impotent, but completely invisible (both culturally and politically), then how is secularism to be defended – and by whom? Atheist visibility and unity is integral to defending secularism. You seem to want to see these integrally connected things as completely separate in principle and practice, and I don’t see how you possibly can. You seem almost to have an overdeveloped knee-jerk reaction against the very idea that you might belong to an interest group, or the idea that the nonreligious might constitute a legitimate interest group.
Or maybe not. I guess I’m still having trouble seeing what you’re on about.
And Richard, you do realize that the Scopes trial was in 1925, don’t you? And that FDR has been dead for more than half a century? The rising power of the alliance between far right political ideology and extremely dogmatic conservative religion in the U.S. is a phenomenon that really took shape over the past few decades, starting in the Reagan 80s and really taking off in the 90s, peaking (I hope) in the current Bush presidency. What the U.S. was like in 1925 or 1945 is not particularly relevant to the subject at hand.
G. my point was that in historical terms the trend is towards a more secular outlook, in some ways it might serve your cause for some of these dumb ideas( like sex ed )to be tried out by the right, because as is already becoming aparent they fail in a rather spectacular way, sucsess has many fathers but failier is an orphan.
The curse of a common language, I suspect.
The truth is that what Dennett (and perhaps Dawkins despite his location – I got the distinct impression that ‘The God Delusion’ was really aimed at a US audience) is saying may sound hysterical and over the top in the context of the UK – where the influence of religion over politics is not especially significant and more a minor irritation at the margins – and even sometimes a positive thing (possibly, I think, because of their very lack of real political power. It encourages many to act only in a way that the general population would approve of. That said, the catholic church still manages to cause an awful lot of fuss over subjects like gay adoption and abortion – but seemingly without much effect here)
However, the US, from what friends of mine who live there tell me – is a very different kettle of fish – and the idea of atheists as a marginalised group in need of a political voice I think probably makes a lot more sense than it does to British ears.
Thing is, because of the shared language, I think its often difficult for both Brits like me and for Americans to remember that people like Dennett are not necessarily addressing their own situation
I don’t understand Nussbaum here. I think that Dennett takes religion a lot more seriously than some of the enlightened liberal theologians that are on the other side (I have just picked up “The Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology”, primarily for shits and giggles). Dennett at least thinks religion is a sort of scientific answer, albeit a wrong and outdated one, while the theologians that the appeasers would prefer we support just think religion is a good opportunity to waffle about postmodernism.
Plus the Brights movement has a great name for religious people – Supers, as in Supernaturalists. They just aren’t fabulous enough to wear the name with pride.
DFG, I get your drift & I do think that the last we should do is to organize as atheists. I’m atheist & I wouldn’t join that organization so where would it get me? Should I organize into a not-quite-so-organized ethist organization to get the right to speak as an atheist?
But the point is: politically (1 beauty of politics is that you can vote for it w/o being a part of it) there should be an anti-religion-in-state party to vote for & there isn’t (religious people are very welcome to join that party as it’s not an anti-religion party).
All, as in many things the US is just a whole lot louder in this, but the issue cuts across the West – lately it is one of many ridiculous preconditions for an office of any sort to have ‘firm belief in advancing X’ where X is wishy-wasshy feel-good BS. The only precondition for any office should be that one’s good at that office, not that one’s spiritually or otherwise ‘driven’ to improve X – if all these people would just stop trying to improve their world, the world would be a far better place.
Read this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html
Pfff
You may have failed to notice that unlike you, G, DFG identifies as belonging to a different interest group – but it doesn’t make him athier.
_
So any given person can only belong to one interest group? WTF?