Mirror mirror on the wall
Russell Blackford said in More on H.E. Baber’s piece in The Guardian that yes there are such people as knee-jerk atheists, who are far less nuanced and thoughtful than Dennett and Dawkins and so on, but –
But that is inevitable. What movement doesn’t attract a lot of people who adopt a relatively crude version of its ideas? It’s very unfair to write in a way that perpetuates the myth that Dennett, Dawkins, etc., themselves are unnuanced and dogmatic. Any fair reading of their work shows the opposite. If anything, there is now some urgency in dispelling that myth, which is not only unfair but also making it more difficult for the individuals concerned to get a decent hearing, i.e. they have been demonised with some success.
Quite, and the myth-perpetuating and demonization are if anything getting louder and more pervasive. The Great Anti-atheist Noise Machine is leaving The Atheist Noise Machine in the dust, at least in terms of sheer volume. (In terms of quality, I would say no, but then I would, wouldn’t I.) Andrew Brown has made a specialty of it at Comment is Free belief, Terry Eagleton and Stanley Fish and John Gray have joined the chorus, Madeleine Bunting and Mark Vernon and Theo Hobson and Giles Fraser and Chris Hedges and many many more grind away at the subject week in and week out, and of course Chris Mooney is at it almost full-time.
It’s noticeable that a lot of those people would probably call themselves liberals or leftists of one kind or another – yet they seem to be curiously blind to the commonalities between their pet hobby and a good old-fashioned witch hunt. They seem to be surprisingly obtuse about the risks of the hyperbolic scapegoating they are indulging themselves in. They seem, in fact, like people who have never even heard of pogroms or Joe McCarthy or God Hates Fags. They seem weirdly easy in their minds about heaping frenzied opprobrium on people whose ideas they dislike. They seem to think they are like Stephen Jay Gould when in fact they more closely resemble Anita Bryant. Strange, isn’t it.
Reminds me of the postmodernist assault on science.
Ah, sorry Ophelia, but I think those last few comparisons are more than a bit over the line. I would not easily liken just anyone to the likes of Fred Phelps, who really is at the very lowest depths of hateful cynicism and depravity. I mean, Phelps is a monster who shows up at funerals and screams horrible things at those who grieve.
It does grate on me every time I hear one of them invoke the ghost of poor old S.J. Gould. Were he around to defend himself, they might be surprised which side of this divide he would land on.
Ohhhh oooooookaaaay, I’ll take Phelps out.
Eagleton’s biggest contribution to the debate is the half straw man, half Caliban he purports to demolish, or at least dismiss. I refer of course to ‘Ditchkins’, his conflation out of the names of 2 prominent atheists whose writings he takes exception to.
There’s always a risk to this sort of thing of course. (If Eagleton does not know it, he certainly proceeds to show it.) Half of ‘Ditchkins’ is an academic, half a journalist.
Using the same principle and in excatly the same spirit, I urge readers to consider the contribution overall of Bungleton to this contemporary discussion.
Bungleton is a product not of two lowest common factors, but rather highest common denominators. I am sure T.E. would agree.
I wish you had just left Fred Phelps. Learning about Anita Bryant, of whom I had never heard before, was a bit painful! And that cloying, artificial smile! Oh dear!
Any name containing “Bungle” can only have pleasant connotations to UK readers of a certain age.
Yes, dear Anita Bryant – what a fond memory.
While I am most grateful for the publicity–maybe it will get some people to buy my book The Multicultural Mystique –I object to this baloney about demonizing, scapegoating, pograms and to the rhetoric of victimization.
Public debate is rough and tumble. I’m irritated when atheists condemn and ridicule religious belief, but I don’t regard this as demonizing or scapegoating or “heaping frenzied opprobrium” on me or other theists–that’s the way public debate goes. That’s the free marketplace of ideas at work and I’m all for it. By the same token I don’t see why the same sort of attack on their critique of religious belief counts as demonizing, etc.
What exactly would you count as a non-demonizing response to atheists, who quite legitimately argue for their views vigorously in the public square? (1) Theists and others who take issue with their claims should shut up? (2) Theists should be persuaded and become atheists? (3) Theists and others shouldn’t attack them directly but confine themselves to writing nuanced responses to Hume, academic articles on the Ontological Argument, and such?
Harriet, I answered your question about demonization three days ago. You didn’t reply – and that’s fine, but then to bring up the same objections in a new thread is a bit much. I said on July 20 on ‘The file keeps expanding’
“I usually avoid the word ‘demonize’ and its cognates, precisely because I think it (like ‘bash’ and its cognates) is used to frame disagreement or criticism as automatically wicked. I used it to echo Russell’s use – because in the case of the torrent of attacks on ‘new’ atheists I think ‘demonization’ fits – I think the critics are (remarkably uniformly) wildly exaggerating, and often inventing, the faults of the putative ‘new’ atheists in order to demonize and bash them. That’s what I mean by it.’
I think your piece contained several items of wild exaggeration of just that kind, and I think it adds to a chorus of such exaggeration, and I also think that atheists are indeed a despised minority in the US. That’s complicated, because atheism is an idea, and in general I don’t think ideas should be defended by talk of despised minorities. But…the insistent consistent chorus of atheist-‘bashing’ does seem to me to be edging into irrational ‘demonizing’ territory. I find it disconcerting to see you adding to that chorus.
I would count as a non-demonizing response to atheists one that described them accurately as opposed to inaccurately. It’s quite simple.
I’ll just put the whole of my July 20 reply to you in, because you apparently missed it.
“Good question – I usually avoid the word ‘demonize’ and its cognates, precisely because I think it (like ‘bash’ and its cognates) is used to frame disagreement or criticism as automatically wicked. I used it to echo Russell’s use – because in the case of the torrent of attacks on ‘new’ atheists I think ‘demonization’ fits – I think the critics are (remarkably uniformly) wildly exaggerating, and often inventing, the faults of the putative ‘new’ atheists in order to demonize and bash them. That’s what I mean by it. I certainly agree with you about the difference. But I don’t entirely agree with you about what you wrote.
“I suggested that New Atheists and perhaps even more so their followers were irritating”
But you didn’t – because you didn’t say “even more so their followers” – you just said “the New Atheists.” Maybe you meant to say something different, but you didn’t in fact say it, and that’s not my fault!
Okay…you’ve never said there’s anything wrong with ridiculing religion. I apologize then. But – you did tell me you hated my – was it religion-bashing? I don’t remember, but it was that general idea. Maybe you meant mine in particular, because it’s bad, while I got the impression that it was because it’s…bashing or whatever it was. That would explain the confusion! If that’s it I beg your pardon and I’ll just withdraw the claim.
But. I have to say, your tone in the CisF piece does seem hostile to explicit atheism as such.”
H.E. What is your take on religious proselytization? Do you think Catholics should disband the Society for the Propagation of the Faith?
Ophelia, I think we should distinguish discussion and meta-discussion.
I’m all for bashing and bashing back. I don’t like it when my views are attacked but I recognize that as a legitimate part of the ongoing discussion and bash back. But then there’s the meta-disussion–when self-appointed referees (particularly when they’re also players) complain that all that bashing is too, too nasty or that this rough play is hurtful to “despised minorities.”
Of course I think it’s perfectly ok for atheists to proselytize, irritating as it is, just as I think it’s perfectly ok for Mormans to come knocking on my door, which I find equally irritating. It’s also perfectly ok for me to argue back–or slam the door in their faces if I get bored.
As far as accuracy goes, it’s at best an exaggeration to suggest that people who criticize the New Atheists and their followers hold that religion deserves some special respect–I don’t think it does–or that religious claims shouldn’t be criticized in public or that atheists should be deferential or remain closeted.
It’s also inaccurate to suggest that the New Atheists’ critics want to impose a double standard s.t. religious folk are allowed to trumpet their views publicly and evangelize but atheists aren’t. Some I suppose would hold that both atheists and religious people should be more polite and should avoid proselytizing and inflammatory rhetoric. I’m fine with both atheists and religious people putting up signs on busses and billboards, blogging, commenting and otherwise aggressively promoting their views.
It is also inaccurate to identify the New Atheism with “explicit atheism” as if the only alternative to their anti-theistic stance were being closeted or disingenuous.
“It’s also inaccurate to suggest that the New Atheists’ critics want to impose a double standard s.t. religious folk are allowed to trumpet their views publicly and evangelize but atheists aren’t. Some I suppose would hold that both atheists and religious people should be more polite and should avoid proselytizing and inflammatory rhetoric.”
Could you point out a few examples of “critics of the new atheism” who actually do apply the same standard to “both sides”? Because all I’ve ever noticed out of the finger-wagglers is demands for “respect”—and silence in the face of actual religious extremism. You know, the kind that results in people being beaten or killed.
I can point to ME. Now why don’t you point to some passages where critics of the New Atheism, the ones characterized as “those people [who] would call themselves liberals or leftists,”have demanded demanded some special “respect” for religion as such or silence in the face of religious extremism.
In all of 30 seconds, one thinks of Mooney and his framing of Crackergate. He goes on and on about how Catholic belief and ritual must be respected, while completely ignoring the religious extremism that motivated the act.
That was hard.
“I’m all for bashing and bashing back. I don’t like it when my views are attacked but I recognize that as a legitimate part of the ongoing discussion and bash back. But then there’s the meta-disussion–when self-appointed referees (particularly when they’re also players) complain that all that bashing is too, too nasty or that this rough play is hurtful to “despised minorities.”
Of course I think it’s perfectly ok for atheists to proselytize, irritating as it is, just as I think it’s perfectly ok for Mormans to come knocking on my door, which I find equally irritating. It’s also perfectly ok for me to argue back–or slam the door in their faces if I get bored.”
Now I’m just really confused. HE Baber’s Guardian piece is precisely a bit of refereeing, and it does complain about the way atheists proselytize. So how can it now be that proselytizing and bashing are perfectly OK?
Personally, I think Mormons who come to your door and proselytize are obnoxious and intrusive and treat people like they’re idiots. If atheists are doing anything like that, then they ought to be criticized for it and they shouldn’t complain that the critics are treating them like an abused minority group.
The question is whether they ARE doing anything like that. I’d say: much less than referees (like HE!) have alleged.
That’s just exactly right, Jean. Atheists don’t go door to door proselytizing. They join the public discussion, yet they’re treated as if their words are somehow more provocative, more out of bounds, than those of the religious. Many of us are really, truly sick of the false equivalence drummed up by critics of the “new atheism.” It’s dishonest and it’s unfair.
Atheists coming to your door and proselytizing…hmmm…my guess would be that that happens pretty much never!
HE, if you want passages in which critics of ‘New Atheism’ demand special respect for religion, the quickest way would probably be to a B&W search for Madeleine Bunting, Theo Hobson, Chris Hedges, Inayat Bunglawala, to name a few.
“It’s also inaccurate to suggest that the New Atheists’ critics want to impose a double standard s.t. religious folk are allowed to trumpet their views publicly and evangelize but atheists aren’t.”
No it isn’t. All the above named and many more go on and on and on about the wickedness of explicit atheism (nearly always exaggerating wildly) and never say a word about the wickedness of explicit theism.
“Some I suppose would hold that both atheists and religious people should be more polite and should avoid proselytizing and inflammatory rhetoric.”
Yeah but I’m not talking about guesswork – I’m talking about what actual people actually say. I could quote you yards of the stuff. It would take me time to track it down, but I could do it with ease. But I shouldn’t have to – you could, as Paul said, just read some Chris Mooney for example.
It’s not, obviously, a matter of critics of atheism saying “I think atheists should shut up and theists should not” – but I shouldn’t have to explain that. Come on. It’s a matter of what they do and don’t talk about – or criticize, or fume over, or bash.
Have you read Chris Hedges’s I Don’t Believe in Atheists? That would certainly be one place to look.
“Of course I think it’s perfectly ok for atheists to proselytize, irritating as it is, just as I think it’s perfectly ok for Mormans to come knocking on my door, which I find equally irritating.”
See – that’s the double standard right there. You’re doing it yourself – in the very act of exclaiming that you can’t see it! Atheists don’t ‘proselytize’ in anything like the sense that Mormons do, and atheists do not ‘come knocking on [your] door,’ so why do atheists irritate you equally?
I submit it’s because you have a double standard.
Right, there’s the bus. There’s the odd billboard. There are also of course town councils etc who refuse to allow the bus or the billboard. But in some places there are buses and/or billboards. There are books, there are blogs.
Harriet, do you take atheist buses to be the equivalent of Mormons coming to your door?
My observation of the day: When you catch someone describing their opponents’ stances and arguments in an inaccurate and/or distorted fashion and call them on it, and then the someone responds with more inaccuracies and unsupported tu quoque accusations in defense of their prior distortions (along with some red herrings and other b.s.), you can officially write that person off as not worth engaging.
Go join Maddie Bunting and Terry Eagleton and Stanley Fish and the rest of the pseudo-intellectual god-bothering hacks, Dr. Baber. You’re a damned sight smarter than they are, but your intellectual integrity is not superior in the slightest.
(And for the record, I don’t know of a more grievous insult that I can make in polite company than comparing someone to Madders in any way.)
H.E., you certainly did demonise the New Atheists, as we explained at length on the other thread. When you’re called on it, you whine. You have every legal right to whine, and I’d even support you if the state passed an anti-whining law. You also have every legal right to keep demonising the people you find so irritating (as you keep repeating, irritatingly). But don’t expect us to be impressed by either.
You’re not as smart or well-informed as you seem to think you are, and you’re out of your depth in this debate. You’re not as nice as you seem to think you are, either. Stop acting as if butter doesn’t melt in your mouth; your Guardian piece was downright nasty.
Ah yes, the door to door religionists. No Mormons in my neighborhood, but the Jehovah’s Witnesses are relentless. At least I’ve taught them to fear my sprinkler system.
Haha – if G and Russell had spoken just a little sooner, I probably would have saved myself the trouble of an exasperated post. But now we get all three!
Therefore God exists.
Aw, shit. Now I gotta believe in God – ‘cuz I’m evidence for God’s existence, and I totally believe in myself, yo!
;-)
But – it suddenly occurs to me – if I did not exist, you would have to invent me, OB!
And what makes you so sure I didn’t, G?
Mwahahaha