Fragility
Daniel Dennett gives the believers just the tiniest of prods.
Today one of the most insistent forces arrayed in opposition to us vocal atheists is the “I’m an atheist but” crowd, who publicly deplore our “hostility”, our “rudeness” (which is actually just candour), while privately admitting that we’re right. They don’t themselves believe in God, but they certainly do believe in belief in God.
Yes, but that is because belief in God is a very peculiar and special kind of belief that goes all spiky and painful if outsiders explain why they don’t share it. It doesn’t work the other way, of course – non-believers don’t double up in pain if believers explain why they don’t share the non-belief. They get bored, they roll their eyes, they wish they were somewhere else with a bowl of ice cream, but they don’t break or fall apart or need hospitalization. That’s why vocal atheists are called hard names even by other atheists, while believers are wrapped in three layers of cotton wool and kept at an even temperature.
I love the note at the bottom:
• This article was amended on Thursday 16 July 2009. Moon-landing sceptics were referred to as “loonies”, contrary to the Guardian style guide. This has been corrected.
I have forborne further comment on the toothpaste twins. Those two hysterics need to be ignored.
But this is great. Dennett’s piece in the Guardian is so calm, so measured, so direct. It spells out so simply why we need to stop playing around with religious belief, why we need to stop pretending that this language game is important. Because no one really believes it any more.
Everyone knows that there are alternatives. That’s why they have to hold on so tight, and have become so shrill and uncompromising, why they break apart and need hospitlisation. In a world where those who disagree on fundamental aspects of each other’s world-views live side by side, particular religious beliefs become unintelligible and redundant. Even the religious know this. The so-called ‘new’ atheism has managed to hit this very raw nerve, which is unforgivable.
Bizarre. Absolutely bizarre! Here’s David Adams from the Irish Times:
“I do not believe in God, but I believe we need Him.”
Talk about belief in belief! He even capitalises the pronoun! DOG help us!
Ugh. And ‘The Question’ at Comment is Free this week started off with the claim (anonymous but presumably by Andrew Brown) that we all need myths.
No we damn well don’t! We need freedom from myths!
Some of us may need some myths, but just to say we all need myths without qualification is just way too broad and too stupid.
Yeah, that old ‘what have you got against stories’ bit.
Nothing, really. Stories are great. Or more precisely, some are, some are so-so, and some are incredibly overrated piles of steaming tripe venerated for all sorts of stupid reasons. But anyway, stories can illustrate, entertain, titillate, amuse, it’s all good.
I’m not griping about stories. I’m griping about lies. I’m griping about the indoctrination that surrounds them, and must surround them now. I’m griping about nasty little enclaves of people deliberately teaching each other that it’s actually okay to lie, okay to repeat certain lies, okay to pressure whomever they can to repeat those lies too, okay to lean on your children to join you in doing so, okay deliberately to corrupt and pollute reason to shield them from being unveiled…
I’m griping, incidentally about pseudointellectual bait-and-switch artists who clearly think it’s perfectly valid deliberately to confuse and muddle the issue with bullshit about ‘stories’ as well, long as we’re on the subject.
Stories my ass. Which could bring me to the next subject: that the stuff these nutters will trot out as such great ones really aren’t, not so much, either, even if you were to grant them that dodge. That’s just the bone some throw: okay, don’t so much believe it, but there are good lessons or something in holy book x. And usually, that’s pretty hard to see, too. Mostly, the lesson seems to be: you’ve got to be pretty much an asshole to get your stuff in a ‘holy book’ in the first place. Which, I guess, isn’t so much of a surprise.
Well it was myths rather than stories – but of course that is precisely the point – myths can mean both. On the other hand Brown (if it is Brown) did make clear that he meant (let us say) comforting fictions.
But yeah. That’s bullshit, and it’s bullshit of a certain kind – ‘human beings can’t do without lies so don’t even think about it.’ Blegh.
I get the feeling many (most) of these alliances are of the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort. We see atheists lining up with christians against the “new atheists” because who knows exactly; it probably varies on a case by case basis. I don’t want to overly generalize without evidence. In your “Latest News” section this is so evident in the op-eds by Paul Vallely and David Adams. It seems M&K attack the “new atheists” because they needed a reason to trash PZ in their book.
“because who knows exactly”
Quite!
I’m an atheist, but….
I’m Jewish, but….
I’m leftwing, but….
I’m Chilean, but…
I’m heterosexual, but….
I’m obsessive-compulsive, but….
I prefer Julian Baggini to Dennett, but….
This — the documented behavior where ‘believers’ get hurt when their beliefs are challenged — has to do with the brainwashing. _Leaving the Fold_ should be required reading.
asydaySeelupe
Bb5f
lobgowalbum
rpog