Reasons for reasons for reasons
I was looking for something else, and stumbled on a blog post commenting on my post on atheism and reasons.
It’s one thing to have reasons to be an atheist (I do) and a Jew (I do), another thing altogether to adopt some level of “observance.” You can have good reasons to be an atheist, and other good reasons not to be observant–i.e. not to focus on it, talk about it a lot, promote it.
Yes but I wasn’t talking about being observant, I was talking about not pretending not to have reasons. I was talking about treating one’s atheism as if it were accidental, for the purpose of othering atheists. I wasn’t saying or suggesting that one should focus on it, talk about it a lot, promote it; I was saying that when one is an atheist one ought not to play accidental-atheist in order to suck up to the majority and throw non-accidental-atheists under the bus.
Maybe you have other goals that would be thwarted, if you got on the “religion, baaaad” bandwagon. For example, maybe what really matters to you is the environment, or poverty, or animals, and you think you can advance progress in those areas if you reach out non-divisively to both religious and non-religious people.
Which of course implies, as Mooney always does, that atheism – including atheism-for-reasons – somehow prevents “reach[ing out] non-divisively to both religious and non-religious people.” It doesn’t.
Finally, it’s a very bad idea to use the term “anti-atheist” for unobservant atheists who criticize “the new atheists.” It echoes “anti-semite” and thus misleads badly.
No it doesn’t. It’s just a shortcut, not an echo.
There are people who really do despise atheists in the way that anti-semites despise Jews. Unfortunately, I come into contact with such people, and they upset me. Critics of the new atheists (like Chris Mooney, like me once in a while) are nothing like them. The critics have reasoned complaints about a subset of atheists; they don’t despise or fear or denigrate atheists just for being atheists. They’re not “anti-atheists.” So much for that.
I disagree; I think Chris Mooney is very much like that. His complaints are not all that reasoned (he never explains why atheism prevents “reaching out non-divisively to both religious and non-religious people,” for instance), and they are very insistent and repetitive, as well as often inaccurate. Not all that reasoned. And as for “so much for that” – and as for the “Duh” in comments – well, that’s not all that reasoned either.
Ophelia, You compared Mooney to an unobservant Jew, calling him an unobservant atheist. What I gathered you meant by that came from my understanding of what an unobservant Jew is. Apparently you meant something different. OK. Re: everything else. Obviously, we just read this guy differently, though we share a keen interest in Mooneyology.
It also implies that religious people would rather abandon the poor and the environment just because an atheist was critical of religion.
And they say it’s the New Atheists who have too low an opinion of the religious.
(sorry, pressed “submit” too early)
Jean, not quite. I didn’t call Mooney an unobservant atheist – I said it’s as if he were an unobservant atheist.
That was partly facetious, and also partly about Mooney’s talking as if atheism were an identity only.
On the other hand, I had forgotten that I’d said anything about “observant” at all, so you do have a point.
Yes, we read this guy very differently. You think it’s ok that he and Kirshenbaum left out some important facts about PZ and the wafer in their book, because their point was that PZ is harsh and he really is harsh so details don’t matter. I strongly disagree; I think details do matter.
Apparently you also agree with him that “reaching out non-divisively to both religious and non-religious people” is impossible for overt atheists, and that there is no need to explain why this would be the case; you agree with him that it’s simply self-evident. (You said that once at the Intersection – you asked why people kept asking for evidence for Mooney’s claims when they were just obviously true.)
Then there are the self-hating atheists who make up weird nonsense about atheists…what is that about?
Antithesis echoes the same thing, but about thesis (or theses if you want to get technical).
PZ sent me here, and I’m glad he did.
Ophelia,
One thing I would say that is being glossed over, is that generally speaking, as atheists, we don’t adhere to a doctrine that insists that we spread our belief. We don’t have special ceremonies when people switch to our side, and we don’t condemn people to eternal damnation because they don’t agree with us.
I tend to be a lot more agressive than some atheists, and I’ll own that we don’t always do the most pleasurable job of confronting religion, but for religious people to imply that we can, when the only alternative to their belief is eternal damnation. How can we compromise with them when they believe we are going to burn for disagreeing with them.
Not to mention, i don’t specifically know of any atheists who door to door solicit their belief.
These comparisons and the demands from religious people that we accomodate them, are absurd. If this hypothetical idea of an issue where we will need full support from atheists and religious people is not sufficiently urgent and important enough for them to cooperate with atheists on it, then it isn’t an important issue to them. We simply can’t grant them so much ideological slack , especially in the realm of discussion. We don’t preach from a stage, we discuss. They stand up at a podium and give divine decrees that people MUST obey. We don’t.
It’s great too, because we are so often regarded as arrogant, but I think the arrogance can be seen in the actions of each group. They say there is a god. The billboards they rage over only say that there’s probably no god. We’re not even absolute in our claims, how can they compare us. Trying to accuse us of being a religion all to ourselves is just an intellectually dishonest trick to package us into somethign they can recognize and attack, just like methodists, lutherans and every other denomination that exists. It’s a realm we need to deny them altogether.
Those are my issues with it. Thanks for fighting the good fight Ophelia.
Thanks Casey – I’m glad PZ sent you too.
Re: divisiveness. For many years I’ve seen how people react to atheism (or more specifically, to me, as an atheist) both in classrooms and in my own conservative, Christian neighborhood. Long story why it comes up in the neighborhood, but it does. Many people do react negatively. Everything I’ve read about US attitudes toward atheism comports with my experience, so I’m not about to think I’m getting a skewed sample, either. Given all that, I don’t need Mooney to present me with a mountain of evidence about how, if educators (etc) link X to atheism, that could interfere with getting people to embrace X.
Right, I see that. But you said “you think you can advance progress in those areas if you reach out non-divisively to both religious and non-religious people” so I thought you meant that particular people couldn’t reach out or join up or whatever if they were atheists, and I just don’t see how that would even work, unless the people in question already know you (but that can’t be right because the point is supposed to be national, at least in Mooney’s version).
So yes – I can see why you for instance don’t want animal rights to get identified with atheism, and why you as a writer don’t want your books to get associated with atheism. But the larger kind of general reaching out – that I don’t see. I also don’t see why something that applies to you personally is supposed to be a general point. Mooney’s claims are universalist. And he doesn’t say “could” interfere, by the way, he says “will.”
A related point is that how people react to things can change, and one way to make it change is to change it. People used to react to homosexuality in a certain way, and that is changing. Ditto other races; ditto assertive women; etc. One way to make atheism less taboo is to make it more commonplace. We can’t do that and pipe down at the same time.
That last paragraph Ophelia is 100% correct.
Keep in mind Mooney is saying X+Y=Z where X is atheism, Y is anything, and Z is the crappy result the church claims. The thing that is making it an equation is how we’re discussing it. In reality this could never work out, because Z is not a variable at all, even though they dress it up as one. The fact of the matter is, religious people are the only ones who can ever solve for Z, because their reaction and their position on the issue is already decided.
The fact of the matter is, if atheism is some how united in supporting a single movement or cause, and that is enough of a reason for them to not be of assistance or a part of it, then they won’t do it. If the issue is important enough, they would come together.
The other thing to think about, is that often times atheists (I use that term but realistically, we’d be talking about an association of them, not just some non existant mass of them that all think the same things) put resources towards an effort. Money, physical assistance or whatever else, religion never gives selflessly. EVER. It’s a fact. It is always quid pro quo with religious establishments. Think about it, when the church is offering up help, the people who go and help are on a mission. They are doing “works” for their god, which means it is a chance to make new recruits. It always is. They masquerade so often as charitable organizations. They run like companies.
I could get into more detail, I find that Kohlberg’s stages of moral development is a really good way of looking at how and why religious people make their decisions. I know it isn’t fool proof or 100% solid fact, but the idea in and of itself is interesting when you consider the hierarchy when evaluating things that religions pass off as charitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
I guess what I’m trying to say is, Mooney is as much of an atheist as I am a priest, and hs claims should be treated as such. Consider the source, follow the money. Motives abound for that guy. You were 100% correct on the “non-practicing atheist point”.
You asked– why is something that applies to me personally a general point? I think it’s morally urgent for people to be persuaded of certain things–evolution, climate change, mistreatment of animals, etc.–so I care about how advocates talk about them. As for people’s attitudes changing–yes. But slowly. I’m not sure attitudes toward atheism are going to change fast enough. So putting the urgent messages in religion-compatible form can be morally important. It’s also important for atheism to be visible, as you say, so it’s not always easy to say how to proceed.
Casey – what about Quakers? Are they an exception? I have to admit, I have a bit of a soft spot for Quakers. :- )
Jean – agreed. All that.
I’m not actually working on anything that does seem to require a low profile on the atheism front…so that probably dulls my alertness to the problem.
Oh don’t even get me started on Quakers :D
No but seriously, yes even them!
Jean, I totally understand what you mean on that front. This is where years of sales experience and volunteering in organizations has helped me. I find that people, no matter their religious affiliations, can’t deny that something is important when the value is presented to them adequately.
The hypotheticals (maybe one or more of them are things where you have a group affiliation and put in time and/or money and it has been an obstacle) are all things that can be addressed sans theology at all. Now if that is one of their reasons for objecting to it, then you need to take their faith out of it. It’s a trick the mormons LOVE to send their elders to your home with. In fact, one of their best pitches is based on the assumption that everyone believes in god, especially Jesus, and they go from there to tie you into their stories and BAM, next thing you know you’re a mormon.
For example, animal cruelty. If they think that it is a non issue, then you can inform them of the things that happen, hell the numbers of animals killed IN shelters is staggering with nothing else thrown in the mix. Then they can’t deny that right? If they some how manage to make this a biblical issue, then you can always appeal to their sensibilites and argue thta they are perhaps neglecting the fact that their bible says those animals are god’s creatures, and even if we were given dominion over them, it doesn’t make it ok for [insert terrible animal abuse evidence here]. I mean the cool thing about th ebible is, it works for and against EVERYTHING they use it for.
I guess I’m just not seeing the overlap as much. A more specific example where maybe you’ve hit a wall would be helpful, or if you know an organization out there that needs some one who can find away to handle faith based objections or opposition, then maybe you should let me know and I can get my resume to them ASAP.
I sell a product for a company now. My faith rarely comes up, but if a customer does try to get me to come to their church or bring up god or whatever, I make sure I am clear with them that it is not something I am interested in, but I appreciate them offering. Much like at the end of a sale I ask for referrals if it has gone well, they try to hit me up for something they like. When it is in business or professional life, you do need to tread a bit carefully, but being honest wins you more points with people than anything. If the content or issue in question is atheistic, they bring god into it, we don’t. I of course in that situation mean atheistic in that the issue, in and of itself, is not a theological one. You alwayshave to remember that you didn’t bring jesus into the interaction the other party did.
I apologize for the walls of text, it’s just that I think this issue, and these discussion are the things that help make atheists stronger. I think that unless I know the answers to the questions they pose, I’m not doing my job as an atheist. Everytime a Christian comes with one of their biblical riddles that has been interpreted all to high hell to fit their goal, and I don’t have an answr for it, they feel like they won. It doesn’t matter the specific issue, but every time religion starts flailing it’s finger at us, we better be ready to turn it back to them, because they are the ones who claim what they think is right correct and absolute. They are usually chastizing us for questioning them, not for actually doing something wrong.
Jean, I just know there is a work around for these concerns, with specifics I think I could be of some help if you need.