Atheists like me are less willing to settle for the status quo
Jason Streitfeld says some very cogent things on the subject of public displays of atheism.
For atheists like me, there is one issue that matters most in all of this: the role of religious authority in society. I’m not saying atheists are concerned with this issue above all else. Not at all. They might be more concerned about global warming, say, or human rights violations in third-world countries. What I am saying is that, for many atheists, atheism is first and foremost about the rejection of religious authority. Public atheism is first and foremost about putting religious authority in its proper place. For us, to be a public atheist just is to deny that there is any objectively valid moral authority which religions could claim and to deny that religious authority is similar to, equal to, or in any methodological or philosophical sense compatible with scientific authority. If we cannot argue these points in public, then we cannot be public atheists in the way that is meaningful to us.
Indeed; and more: atheism is first and foremost about the rejection of religious authority, in an existing context in which religious authority is not just not rejected, not even just welcomed and embraced, but made all-but-mandatory. If religious authority weren’t always being shoved at us, it might seem otiose to bother rejecting it, but that’s not the situation we’re in – not in the US and not entirely in other parts of the Anglophone world either, let alone more frankly theocratic states. The pope thinks he has every right to order women to bear children they don’t want to bear, and to tell hospitals not to save the lives of pregnant women if it takes an abortion to do that.
News flash: The public already thinks atheists have no moral compass. People just don’t understand these issues, but they think they do. That’s the real problem: people are ignorant of their own ignorance. The public needs exposure to what atheists actually think–not in an inaccessible, academic way, but in a clear, practical and relevant way. Right now, they’re mostly relying on misinformation when they criticize atheists.
And, sadly, they’re getting even more misinformation, and old misinformation repeated and re-enforced, by some atheists. Even some atheists are telling people that atheists are rude, mean, intolerant, bullies, dicks – you name it.
Jean’s argument ultimately rests on the claim that people cannot learn what many atheists want them to learn, and that, at best, our efforts at education will be fruitless. This is what Coyne seems to be bothered about. It’s not just Jean’s conclusion. It is her argument that is so upsetting. Atheists like me are less willing to settle for the status quo. We are far less satisfied with the public’s current perceptions of atheism. Furthermore, we would rather give the public the benefit of the doubt. We are optimistic that the public can learn a whole lot more than Jean seems to think. Of course, atheists will continue to be misunderstood and misrepresented for a long time to come. But the discourse might move forward nonetheless. It certainly won’t help if we stop trying.
The status quo aspect is key. The mantra that atheists should be careful of what they say in public (and when in doubt, err on the side of saying nothing) is just more of the same. We already have that arrangement, and we think it’s a bad arrangement, and we want to Fix It. It’s the status quo, and we want to change the status quo, so that things will be better.
And I understand why. The religious do not regard their beliefs as positions, but as essential to a complete life. Check this bit, linked to from The Dish. Woodlief is in genuine anguish that his children could be lost to the great black empty of not God because he struggles to believe what he does not know to be true. It’s pathetic, but it’s true. Atheists are despised because they want to take our children from God.
Public atheism is about more than winning arguments. It’s also about sparing this man’s children the psychological pathologies of their father.
When I hear the ‘shut up you mean gnu atheists’ crap, I am reminded of MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which reads (in part):
And, the why he, of course, stated earlier:
Truth is, shutting up means you ride at the back of the bus. Forever.
That believers should be ignorant of what atheists actually think and believe can’t be considered too surprising. We’ve also seen surveys indicating they know less about their own putative beliefs than we do. When we raise our voices and mention unsavoury things in their own sacred texts, that’s another kind of information they may not always get unless we provide it. We are the only ones who will ever speak up for us, so we can’t afford to keep our mouths shut.
The idea that some atheist views are not appropriate for general consumption only promotes the status quo and prevents it from changing. How can that possibly be justified, when it is our specific aim to change the status quo in the first place. We’re not interested in getting along with religion, we’re interested in changing people’s minds, for rational and ethical reasons.
It is the very idea that some knowledge must be kept away from people for their own good that smacks of dubious elitist snobbery. That sounds rather like the old class systems and aristocracy that are completely incompatible with a modern secular liberal society.
Atheism, or new atheism, does not restrict itself to the scope of God belief, we’ve moved onto all religions and irrational beliefs that are harmful. Atheists have no problem criticising other atheists, whether for good reasons or bad reasons. That’s the kind of society we accept, one where criticism is free among people, and not protected or given special status for any particular groups.
There are no patriarchal or matriarchal leaders within atheism, everyone speaks for themselves. There is only consensus among those who decide to speak out. No single atheist or group of atheists gets to tell what other atheists can or can’t say. They have no authority to do so. They may argue using reason, but they have no special moral authority over another atheist.
This sounds to me like a case of conservatism over rationality. Conservatives are afraid of change and think of themselves as holding a special authority or status above others. It is conservativism within the atheist community that is specifically holding it back from changing from old to gnu. Conservatism and accommodationism are one and the same mentality.
You can have liberal conservatives. Conservatism is a psychological attitude that infects the mind a bit like religion. It can confuse rational thinking into practical thinking, it can make clear language obscure, and it builds up that old hierarchy where people are viewed as bad and require authority to be good. In other words, conservatism leads to religion.
@Stewart: Yes, if it weren’t for atheists, no one would ever defend atheists. Atheists don’t have their version of Nick Kristof (stalwart defender of Muslims, who views criticism of Islam as invariably inspired by intolerance).
I’m afraid that when someone insists that I should not be rude it only motivates me to at least try and be ruder. I know that’s naughty, but it’s just the way I am.
We will be able to stop pushing so hard when there are no longer objections to our equality.
As an atheist who has criticized the tact of gnu atheists, I beg to differ that I am contributing to the status quo. To the contrary, I think that one of the primary contributing factors to the second-class citizen status of atheists is precisely the tact of gnu atheists, and that is why I have chosen to level criticism of it.
Some religious theists have less-than-flattering opinions of atheists, and these perceptions are likely constructed by the views their religious leaders, peers, and texts. But even if these are the primary sources of their disdain toward and fear of atheists, these perceptions are reinforced by the rudeness and condescension that some atheists choose to engage them with. Some atheists will charge: “Well we are disliked simply because we are atheists,” but I do not believe this is the case. In fact, I think believing that will support the status quo more than anything else. Our behavior and our message can totally influence the perceptions others will have of us.
It is in consideration of this idea that I believe that we as atheist activists should reevaluate our behavior and our message. What types of behaviors and messages will maintain the status quo, and what will change it? The constant belittling and ridiculing of those who have poor opinions of us will only maintain the status quo, I believe. Instead, by engaging them with respect and civility, and by living by example as good, happy, and fulfilled atheists, we will probably make more headway in changing the public perception of atheists in a way that we would prefer. This is the accommodationist thesis, and rather than it being one of maintaining the status quo, I think it is most concerned with how to improve the status quo. I am willing to wager that nearly all atheists wish to generally have a better status in society. Where we seem to have a lot of disagreement is in how to achieve that better status. No matter what though, we’re in this together.
That said, I do not wish to confuse fellow atheists by having them think I am saying we should not be critical of religion. We have the legitimate right to express our worldview and to critique others. Even as a self-identified accommodationist, I just published a blog entry that was quite critical of evangelical Christianity. I was critical of religious ideas without being condescending, and without ridiculing those who possess those ideas. Christians who read my blog will likely disagree, but they will also likely appreciate that I offered my ideas with respect. Gnu atheists might be surprised how easily they can engage in a respectful dialogue with those of whom they totally disagree with. If we can contribute to making respectful disagreement the status quo, which is a component of pluralism, we might find that our status as atheists will improve.
These are just my 2 cents, feel free to disagree – but this is an issue we cannot run away from. And please stop vilifying atheists who engage in critique of some of their fellows’ tact. I can assure you that those who engage in this criticism are not ‘rats’ or ‘spies’ trying to dismantle the atheist movement from within. They are surely trying to develop the movement in a positive and progressive way, which is likely true for all of us, accommodationist and gnu atheist alike.
The actions of the gnu atheists have been phenomenally successful, and have already changed the status quo. Mention of Dawkins or Hitchens whenever religion is discussed in the media is extremely common. Atheism is now news, and more are coming out as atheist than ever before.
Why stop a successful strategy?
So how did atheists behave in decades and centuries past and what was the attitude towards them? It certainly sounds like you’re saying that the vocal atheists are making it worse, which sounds like it was better beforehand. Is that something you can back up?
Okay, so we have more public attention as atheists… But is it any more positive attention than it ever was? A primary success of The Four Horsemen and some other outspoken atheists is that they have given other atheists the courage to be public about their beliefs (or lack there-of). I am not convinced that their books and speeches have made theists’ perception of us any better. I’m also not convinced that their books and speeches have made converted many theists to atheism. Instead, I think they have succeeded mostly in rallying people who already embraced atheism or were leaning toward it.
Well Andrew, I could just say in turn, please stop vilifying atheists who dispute your advice and your version of how things got to be the way they are. That makes just as much sense as your telling me to stop vilifying atheists who engage in critique of some of their fellows’ tact. Did I vilify anyone in this post? No. So your request is just a bit of arbitrary rudeness – in fact it’s a classic bit of “when did you stop beating your wife”ism. What have “rats” and “spies” got to do with anything? Why did you put quotation marks on them? Nobody said anything about rats and spies. You seem to be doing a quite unattractive bit of well-poisoning, implying that I or we have said things I and we haven’t said.
Does that make me more impressed with the “why are you so uncivil?” camp? No, it doesn’t.
Atheists were less vocal then, and this allowed negative perceptions of them to dominate public discourse. Atheists need to be vocal, of course. I am not suggesting that being vocal is the problem, I am suggesting it is what we are vocal about, and most importantly how we deliver our message, that contributes to our problematic status in society.
From some people it certainly is, because some people became atheists as a result of reading one or more of those books.
But even if it’s not – since you just admitted that the attention has always been other than “positive,” you can’t very well also say that it’s other than positive because of the new atheists.
There’s also self-fulfilling prophecy going on here; there’s purposeful determined manipulation of public opinion. There are a lot of people running around shouting at the top of their lungs that the gnu atheists are rude and uncivil and eeeeeevil. They are busy manufacturing consent about the wickedness of atheism. It’s pretty gullible to blame new atheists for the public perception of them when so many people are working so hard to create that very perception.
You’re not “suggesting,” Andrew; you asserted it quite dogmatically.
You have this bureaucratic speech thing going; that probably makes you grab words like “suggesting” because you think they sound more formal, or something. It’s not working for you.
I included that bit based on idea that atheists who critique fellow atheists are not actually atheists and they are trying to score for the other team, so-to-speak. I could have touched on this idea more eloquently for sure, but the idea itself confuses me so I spoke about it in terms that seemed to make more sense of it for me. The quotes were inappropriate, but the terms rat and spies seemed to describe in a few words what some have accused accommodationists of being.
See this is one problem right here.
It’s the ridiculous assumption that we haven’t thought about it – that we need you to tell us to think about it. It’s the ridiculous assumption that we’ve never thought of that question before.
Here’s a news flash: we do think about it, we have been thinking about it, we have ideas on the subject. They’re different from yours. I’m not aware of any reason I should take your advice. It’s not as if you’re particularly brilliant at communication yourself!
@ 16 – well ok Andrew. That’s understandable. But does that tell you something? You’re not particularly good at communicating yourself! So why are you setting up as Mr Advice?
Well, how was it?
For the most part, our big guns have said that deconverting people is low on their agenda because it’s not a very realistic aim right now. They have spoken of empowering those without belief who did not dare own up to that fact in public. To the extent that they may be said to be preaching to the choir, they can also be said to have gotten part of that choir to admit to its own existence. I consider that an achievement.
Your main criticism in your last comment seems to be that the outspoken atheists have not made theists think better of us or deconverted many of them. The process of emancipating ourselves is not primarily directed at those who do not suffer from our problems. What we do, we do for ourselves and all who wish to be free of the effects of beliefs we consider false. We can surely not be said to have achieved much freedom as long as we are worrying about what others think of us. In a sense, this is all about not having to care about that and you’re telling us we’re making a mistake for not caring more. When we are actually equal, we will not have to worry about that anymore and it will make no more sense to pretend we ought to than it currently does to criticise theists for being insufficiently concerned about whether atheists are kindly inclined towards them. This has nothing to do with civility; it’s exclusively concerned with the issue of whether there is a reason that we must be more considerate of other groups than they must be of us.
[…] Ophelia Benson adds: Indeed; and more: atheism is first and foremost about the rejection of religious authority, in an existing context in which religious authority is not just not rejected, not even just welcomed and embraced, but made all-but-mandatory. If religious authority weren’t always being shoved at us, it might seem otiose to bother rejecting it, but that’s not the situation we’re in – not in the US and not entirely in other parts of the Anglophone world either, let alone more frankly theocratic states. The pope thinks he has every right to order women to bear children they don’t want to bear, and to tell hospitals not to save the lives of pregnant women if it takes an abortion to do that. […]
See, one giant hurdle you have is that PZ Myers, for instance, is particularly good at communicating. So is Jerry Coyne. So is Dawkins, so is Hitchens. So are lots of gnu atheists. So right off the bat…we have good reason not to believe you. Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney had the same problem, setting up as Mr Advices on how to communicate better – they did a startlingly bad job of it!
So you’re going to have a hard time persuading us just on that level, before we even get to the substance.
I tell you what. Why don’t you learn a little more before you try to give advice?
I do not think this is true. Hyperbole aside, atheists who critique the tact of other atheists are not making criticisms of atheism/atheists in general. Atheists critical of gnu atheists are just as likely as others to stand up and defend their atheism. What atheists are talking about “the wickedness of atheism”? Do any atheists truly believe, or say, that atheism is wicked? It is not atheism that some atheists are critiquing, it is the attitudes and behaviors of some other atheists! I am a committed advocate of atheism, I will defend it in public, and I make no apologies for being an atheist. It is merely how some other atheists go about expressing their views that I have an issue with. It is not their views, or their expression of them in general, that is the problem!
From the experience of past campaigns for equal rights for various groups (and public atheism is surely about equal rights – that others should not have an unfair advantage in having their views heard because they are religious), there is only one thing that matters: visibility. How the message is delivered doesn’t seem to matter, what does matter is that the message is delivered. Once a certain proportion of the public are visibly atheist, then changes will follow as they have for women’s rights and gay rights.
There is no way to moderate the atheist message, because it is of necessity very harsh – we are all going to die, and we are an orphan species, alone in the universe with no cosmic parent watching over us. That can be said with a sneer or a smile, but it will still be thought extreme and downright rude.
Visibility is the key.
Notice that I said reevaluate, not evaluate.
I didn’t say atheists, I said people. There’s a flood of atheist-bashing books. If you want to read one of the worst, try Chris Hedges’s I Don’t Believe in Atheists. Or you could sample John Haught or Alister McGrath. There’s a massive calumnious backlash against atheism.
Andrew, I did notice that, but the fact remains, you’re giving presumptuous advice that takes lack of thought for granted.
Okay Ophelia, I read it in the context of discussing differences among atheists, so I thought you were still referring to atheists, and accommodationists in particular. It seemed to reflect the sentiment you expressed in the original blog post when you said “Even some atheists are telling people that atheists are rude, mean, intolerant, bullies, dicks – you name it.”
Accidentally lost this comment when nearly done; the retry will be briefer. I’m bothered by what seems to be the implication that anti-atheism on the part of theists can somehow be blamed on how certain atheists express themselves. If they’re tolerant enough of other views, an injudicious comment from an atheist is not suddenly going to make such a theist have a complete about-face. And those who think atheism can only harm society will not be swayed by any amount of boot-licking on our part, short of our accepting whatever it is they believe in as our own creed.
The familiar ‘conservative’ tone trolling at work. Gnus are far more dynamic than you make out, Andrew. We can go from vicious angry contempt to helpful and friendly depending on context. Which basically makes accommodationism redundant.
What accommodationists continue to do is build up this falsehood that we’re the bad cops (children) and you’re the good cops (parents), as if we’re somehow working together while you berate us. Gnus can switch dynamically because we can, because we’re in touch with what works and what does not work in context and where appropriate.
You use the same parental tone with us, that our approach is too ‘uppity’ for the atheist cause, that we must all tone it down so that the children can understand. It’s apparently all our fault for all this negativity toward atheism, and thus we must be chided like spoilt brats for not conforming along with our master’s wishes.
After all that, you have the gall to say that I am being presumptuous? Others who are commenting on your blog are far more approachable despite our disagreements. You know, I have no good reason to keep responding to your presumptuous advice.
I am aware that I am making normative suggestions for how atheists approach the problem of their poor status in society, but that does mean I am being presumptuous. You are entitled to your opinions and normative suggestions. I am okay with the fact that many of us disagree. But why resort to judging my character and abilities? Have I done the same toward any of you?
Right, that’s what the post was about, but not the reply to you.
Look, this bit –
One, there is no constant belittling and ridiculing of people in pews. That’s just part of the myth about atheists. There is frequent belittling and ridiculing of the Vatican, the bishop of Phoenix, the pope, people who stone women to death, that kind of people. There is frequent belittling and ridiculing of baseless beliefs. There is sometimes a war of words with critics. But there is no constant belittling and ridiculing of believers.
Two, I don’t want to “engage” believers at all. You do that if you want to, but I don’t. I like to write; I don’t like to go out and “engage” with the “community.” Writing works differently from face to face interaction.
Three, that business of living by example is frankly…well really. It’s dreadfully superior. I wouldn’t dream of living by example! I would never set myself up that way – as some kind of pious moral exemplar. Yuck.
You’re too old for your age. At least, in writing, you are. I’m sure you’re different in real life! But your writing is dreadfully solemn and unctuous. Do try to get over it. Don’t be a Uriah Heep.
I think anti-atheism can in part be blamed on how some atheists express themselves. Do you find this illogical? It makes perfect sense to me that our actions have a role in how we’re perceived. I think you underestimate the influence of approaching others in a respectful way. It will not work for all those who have anti-atheist sentiments, but I am very confident that it works for some. And if some can be convinced that not all atheists are pricks, then they just might advocate on our behalf in their own religious/theistic circles. I do not think I’m being overly optimistic here.
We have no need to engage in boot-licking either. Being respectful is not boot-licking!
That will be a lot easier when the polls no longer have us as the most mistrusted group in the States, for example. And you can’t come and claim that those figures looked better before we opened our mouths. There’s a status quo that needs changing and that line above sounds horribly as if the only way to change it… is to accept it.
Andrew, you’re new! It’s also possible to see that you’re very young, because you link to your blog and there’s a picture of you there – one click and we can see how young you are. But even without that, you’re brand new. Yes, it is presumptuous for someone brand new to give a lot of solemn condscending advice to a lot of strangers. No it’s not as presumptuous for me to retort, because I’m not as new as you are.
It is a bit harsh, yes, but then you’re exasperating – which, again, is another reason to point out that you’re not very good at communication yet you’re giving advice on the subject! It’s quite funny in a way.
You could have said most of what you said in a more questioning tentative way. Just laying down the law…well that doesn’t work as well.
I am willing to wager that nearly all atheists are quite satisfied, individually, with their status in society. What many wish is that the next generation should be less subject to the oppression of belief than the current generation. Where this involves engaging the oppressed with respect and civility, I’m all for it. The difficulty arises in discerning where respect and civility entails abetting the oppressors.
I sometimes wonder how many accommodationists have actual experience being subject to faith.
Andrew…pay attention now. I don’t consider myself disrespectful. I write what I think. I sometimes use irony or mockery or both. I don’t consider that disrespectful, except of people with illegitimate power like the pope. I don’t “approach” people in any case – I write stuff (and sometimes give talks). I don’t think the public perception of atheism will improve if and only if I stop using irony or mockery. I don’t think I need your advice. I don’t think atheism needs your advice. I see no evidence so far that you’re particularly skilled at communication. In fact I think you’re pretty ham-fisted at it.
Well then good luck with changing the status quo. Instead you can just continue complaining about our lot in society while you do nothing to improve it – echoing your frustrations among others who are also doing nothing to improve it.
And that you do not want to live by example… well that is unfortunate and quite revealing. Many philosophers have not had very nice things to say about the idea of someone refusing to live by example. I’ll leave it at that.
I find it neglects historical context. I gather from all else you have written that you would dispute the idea that we have only become as accepted as we have because we muscled our way into it.
This is where you kind of lose me. There is no evidence out there that all atheists are pricks. It’s hard to think of an assertion with less to back it up than that one. Any theist with the slightest interest in what atheists and atheism are about will discover that immediately by reading books, blogs etc. In other words, what hope ought we to have of someone whose starting point is that all atheists are pricks?
Do you see, Andrew, that by writing in that tone, you actually seem to be trying to goad us into being pricks? How can we not reply that anyone who thinks all atheists are pricks must be utterly dense? If you care about tone as much as you claim, it’s got to be a two-way street. I’d be interested to know whether in any of your criticism of religion you have ever written the equivalent of that in the other direction, i.e. warning theists not to behave in such a way as to make the atheists think they’re all pricks.
You don’t have to “engage” with people to change the status quo. You don’t have to address everyone or try to please everyone – you can choose your audience.
And you don’t know that I’m not doing anything to improve our lot in society, so don’t assume you do. You’re jumping to some enormous conclusions here.
You’re also being very rude. It’s so typical – the passive-aggressive “be nicer” crowd is always actually deeply unpleasant about 1/8 of an inch below the surface. I take back the more friendly things I said above; you seem to be a nasty piece of work. That last paragraph was really ugly.
@ Steve Zara, #23 “Visibility is the key.”
It would be helpful if someone could explain the causal relationship between visibility and improved status in society. It is not an obvious connection to me, and it is easily conceivable that we could end up as highly-visible villains. There have been highly-visible villains before in history, and it doesn’t seem to ever have been a good situation to be in. More visibility is a good thing, but I think it matters what meanings are associated with that visibility.
God, textbook! An agent for the Party of Nice drops in to say “You’re all horrible and you’re ruining everything” and ends up implying that I’m something too foul to put into words. Talk about “living by example”!
How could anyone not be persuaded?
Er, wouldn’t we have to do something bad for that to happen?
Andrew, your mask is slipping.
I’m still puzzled about this. I can’t even conceive of who this is supposed to apply to, either on the accommodationist side or on the gnu side. Take Chris Mooney, for example. In his dealings with outspoken atheists he has few rivals (outside the likes of Ray Comfort) for the title of “King of Intellectual Dishonesty”, but I can’t imagine anyone in full command of their mental faculties would consider him a “spy”.
The only person I can imagine such words being applied to would be someone like S. E. Cupp, but she’s not a spy, she’s just a liar.
Gnu atheism is not some kind of secret society with special code words and assassinations carried out in the dead of night. We just talk about our ideas in public, and try to persuade others that what we’re saying is right. How is the concept of “spying” even remotely applicable in this context?
Perhaps “Uncle Tom” was the phrase you were looking for?
One way to appreciate that people with different ways of living or different beliefs are a normal part of society is when you find out that friends and/or relatives are part of such a different group. A sibling or child turns out to be gay, for example. Or a close friend says they are an atheist.
The two great enablers of acceptance are familiarity and tedium. Familiarity when increased visibility makes you realise that so many of those you know are atheist. Tedium when you encounter atheism so often than you no longer find it unusual or troubling. Much of the reaction to atheism is the shock of the new, in my view.
Be visible and try and be boring – that’s my approach!
Not a fan of accomodationist discussions but, Mr. Lovley how is what you’re doing any different then saying if ‘queers acted less queer gays would be accepted?’ Afterall don’t their actions have a role in how they’re treated?
Well, that does seem to be the syndrome. Andrew can lecture others about inelegant and rude communication, but he can’t seem to grasp how profoundly pompous he himself is in comment #8. He really thinks he’s being a swell guy, lecturing others on how they ought to behave.
Andrew, we’ve been through this before, and you don’t listen. You don’t learn. You’re talking to people with vastly more life experience – that’s a fact, not an insult. Many of the people here remember the civil rights movement. Many of us were working on gay rights decades ago. We know all about visibility, and all about people who wrung their hands about how awful/hateful/rude/mean/counterproductive we all were. Yep, there were people like you at every stage of the game, fussing about those of us who weren’t nice enough for them. Guess what? Things changed. For the better. You’re welcome.
You have no legitimate right to waltz in here and pontificate and lecture to people who are a whole lot older than you, and a whole lot less ignorant about recent history than you are. Nervey. You don’t have to remain ignorant, and I’m not calling you “stupid,” so don’t even try that derail. You can shut your judgmental shit off for long enough to actually read something about black and gay and feminist equal rights movements in the 20th century.
Wow, you totally weren’t joking about using irony as a literary device! First you presumptuously accuse me of being presumptuous, and now, after several rude remarks directed toward me, you now accuse me of being rude! Seriously, it is so ironic it is bridging on being flat-out comical!
—–
@ Stewart #38
I know, which makes it all the more frustrating that so many people believe that is the case! You lost me, Stewart, because I agree with you that it is irrational to believe that all atheists are pricks, but nonetheless the perception still exists out there and it needs to be dealt with. Maybe we just disagree with how to deal with it?
Hey, Josh, I’m gonna have to push back. The assertion that you’re too fucking young to understand was a barrier to the movements that you honor.
I will not defend Andrew’s naïvete, but I will defend his right to equal voice in these deliberations.
But Ken, I’m not asserting that Andrew is too young to understand. I’m asserting that he has a problem – ignorance – that has a whole lot to do with his youth. And yes, I do find it presumptuous that he lectures people with decades of actual experience in these issues without first bothering to find out more about them and how they worked.
You don’t have to be a certain age to understand things or speak out. I was 14 when I got involved in vocal gay rights activism. Kids today are doing amazing work on these fronts that makes me proud.
Even if that is all that has happened, it’s a great achievement. There has also been a world-wide debate started about the role of religion in societies, again, a great achievement.
Tact. Tactlessness? Tactics? Tack? I am not sure what word AL means when he speaks of the ‘tact’ of the gnu atheists, nor am I sure whether he is sure what he means. One obvious distinction that needs to be made is that between talking here on a blog that supports atheism and makes no bones about it, and where readers and commenters share, broadly, the same position, and talking in a more public capacity, as Jerry Coyne did recently to a group of Methodists, or as Richard Dawkins did when he publicly challenged some Muslim clerics to state what the penalty for apostasy is where Islam is concerned. Speaking for myself, I do not – on a personal level – pick quarrels with believers unless they first, as has happened, pick quarrels with me. That is normal civility, and is the practice, I think, of all gnu atheists; that is to be tactful. But a public discussion or debate, or the exploration of a position, is another matter, and being clear about one’s own position and asking for clarifications of one’s adversaries’ position is not to be tactless. It would be helpful, Andrew L, if you could provide examples of behaviour you disapprove of and suggest how the perpetrators of this behaviour might better have acted in that situation.
@51
Indeed, Andrew isn’t right or wrong merely because he’s young. Certainly not. Both youth and age can be a liability.
It’s just surprising how someone who pontificates about tactful communication can feel so comfortable lecturing people twice his age, even making broad statements about historical movements that, as Josh indicates, many of us lived through.
Please enlighten me: Did Blacks gain more civil rights through mockery and ridicule? Did they gain more civil rights by insisting on their superiority to white people? Did gay people gain more civil rights through mockery and ridicule? Did gay people gain civil rights by insisting on their superiority to heterosexuals? It is questions like these that I have that cause me to have concern for when atheists want to improve public perception of themselves while at the same time they engage in mockery, ridicule, and insist on their superiority to theists.
Besides, why cite civil rights movements as analogies to the problems atheists are facing? I’m sorry that I have to repeat myself, but from what I can see, atheists are not suffering a lack of civil rights. We’re simply suffering a pervasive and damning misperception of our character, and thus treated as if we have less dignity than others. It is not a legal matter like the ones faced by blacks and gays in the past and present. Therefore what has worked for the civil rights movements may not be appropriate for the atheist movement.
It is a straw-man to insist that accommodationist atheists are suggesting that we atheists be less visible, that we should compromise on our identity, or that we should not voice our concerns and honest beliefs. Who is suggesting that? Tell me, and I will most certainly argue with them on those notions! I think gnu atheists are mistaking criticism of their tact for criticism of them being atheist publicly.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick. Yes, mockery and ridicule – and a whole lot of yelling when the situation called for it – was part of the successful progress in both black civil rights and gay rights. Not all of it, but part of it. Changing the social landscape so that heretofore acceptable prejudice becomes unacceptable — and will earn you righteous, vocal condemnation — is a necessary component of change. So is diplomacy, legal negotiation, and as Steve Zara said, familiarity and tedium.
Put up Andrew: examples of the widespread mockery and ridicule. Examples of this alleged superiority complex you believe atheists have. I don’t know many atheists who think they’re superior to religious people per se. I know a lot of people (and I’m one of them) who think my view is correct and theirs is not. I think some religious views are actually damaging to society, and that a secular approach is, in fact, superior. I also think that the same thing about right-wing politics. Does that bother you too? I bet it doesn’t. But why? It’s the very same thing many atheists are doing, and that clearly exercises you.
Examples please.
It is questions like these that I have that cause me to have concern for when atheists want to improve public perception of themselves while at the same time they engage in mockery, ridicule, and insist on their superiority to theists.
Do atheists want to improve their public perception? I have yet to meet an atheist who is concerned about this.
Josh, I don’t know why you (and people of your ilk) keep harping on about examples. I mean, everybody knows Ray Bolger did it. How many more examples do you need?
Hamilton – that was good! You had me there for a minute, too – “people of your ilk” was particularly nice touch.
Points for the Ray Bolger reference.
Thanks, Josh. But couldn’t you be a sport and pretend to take the bait next time? Your awe-inspiring rants are legendary in these here parts.
Please explain to this uncultured gaijin in words of one syllable the reference to Ray Bolger (who was, I Know, in ‘The Wizard of Oz’).
Yes, Steve Zara, what mealy-mouthed cant is that line, ‘atheists want to improve public perception of themselves’. What atheists would like to see before anything else, and what they are striving for, is a great reduction in the influence of religion on society, a reduction that will in fact benefit everybody. People like Mooney, Jean What’s-her-name and others can scurry about if they wish, worrying about what others (religious others, that is) think of them, currying favour here and currying favour there, consulting, if they wish, those public-relations ‘experts’ before whom they genuflect, and condescending (for that is what it amounts to) to believers, but it is not a very honourable or honest thing to do, and neither is it very fruitful. Given the serious and dangerous attempts on the part of religious authorities to maintain, establish or re-establish authority, the approach advocated by the accommodationists is merely and foolishly complacent.
Andrew asks:
“It would be helpful if someone could explain the causal relationship between visibility and improved status in society. It is not an obvious connection to me…”
You might want to check out some literature on advertising. I’m sure you’ve heard the expression “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” You’ve also, no doubt, heard of brand recognition. And I’m certain you must be familiar with the Overton Window. How much thought have you given to these ideas as they relate to atheism?
@ Andrew Lovley:
Question: (posed by a gumptious philosopher I’ve recently encountered):
Answer: Yes! In fact, I am thinking it right now.
And to make matters quite clear to Andrew L, most atheists are not concerned at all with ‘improved status’ for atheists or ‘improved public perception’ of atheists, but with bringing about a society that is governed by secular principle and not religious prejudice. That ‘improved status’ or ‘improved public perception’ might be a by-product of this struggle in some societies (nobody except certain Americans give a damn about my being an atheist here in Japan) is no doubt a good but it is not what is first of all being striven for, and nor should it be. If it were, then perhaps the pusillanimous and complacent approach you advocate might be justified (though I do not think so); but given what is in fact at stake ( women’s lives, gay rights, the right to end one’s life, the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools, etc., etc.), there is no justification for adopting such an approach.
Yes, Jen Phillips, your ‘gumptious philosopher’ is well worth reading. A lovley discovery; but do you not find him a little shrill?
Andrew Lovley wrote,
I disagree. There may be more than one “accommodationist thesis,” but one of them, perhaps the dominant one, can be reduced to a plea, or an exasperated demand, that atheists sit down and shut up, and remain mostly invisible in the public square. I have no problem with being “civil”; civility does not cramp my style or prevent me from saying, forthrightly and directly, what I want to say and what I have a right to say.
The problem is that word “respect,” whether it is paired with “civility” or not. Simon Blackburn wrote brilliantly about “respect creep” in his essay “Religion and Respect”: Another citizen, or the members of a long-privileged majority, may first ask for “respect” in the form of mere live-and-let-live tolerance and an acknowledgement of an equal right to speak and to act without coercion. Once they have that, their requests are ratcheted a bit further so that “respect” is not just tolerance but fellow feeling, and eventually reverence and submission. General admonitions that I should be “respectful” ignore the distinction between practicing respect for other human beings and actually respecting them, and the distinction between respecting human beings’ rights and respecting ideas. Sometimes, critics of atheism (gnu and old) are just ignorant of these distinctions. Sometimes they deliberately and dishonestly ignore the distinctions.
@ Jen Phillips
Brilliant! Hoist by his own petard.
And who is this “we” you are referring to, Kemo Lovley?
Steve,
I hope you take it as a compliment that I find you much more successful at the former than at the latter.
Andrew,
I think we do disagree on how to deal with it, but before that, we also seem to disagree on the nature of that perception, why and by whom it is held and whether the “pricks” actually did anything to earn the epithet. I do not intend to go all Godwin now, but when I think deeply about this, I do suddenly hear a mental echo of something and it’s people like David Irving asking whether it’s really possible that there could be so much hatred of Jews for so many centuries without them having done anything to earn it.
We atheists (or at least gnus) do maintain that believers believe a lot of baseless stuff. That is one of our points. Surely, under those circumstances you can see that there could be a case made for them hating atheists without having any reasons that an atheist would agree were good ones. They have most of the power; we want our share. That is already a powerful incentive to want to paint us in very nasty colours, with or without any (other) “good” reason. If you disagree with that, you should really be extremely clear on what you think it is we are doing that causes us to be considered pricks. I have a strong suspicion that one of the reasons accomodationists are so weak on bringing specific examples of gnu atheist incivility is not only because there aren’t that many cases around worth taking seriously. Rather, hatred of atheists is not caused mainly by specific incidents. Hatred of atheists is caused mainly by one very general point: they exist. To us, that sounds like a lousy reason. To a genuine believer, who needs any other reasons?
What has become labelled “accomodationism” is, at its core, not egalitarian, although it claims to wish to mediate between two sides. The way it does this is to preach moderation, if not outright silence, to the side whose voice has only just begun to be heard in public, while (pointedly) refraining from levelling any similar criticism at the side which has had a virtual monopoly on the public arena for millennia. How less even-handed can one get?
@ Hamilton:
Always nice to be reminded of Ray Bolger. Thank you. Made my, er… middle of the night.
What a remarkable thread! It’s really amazing how one idiot manages to derail a whole conversation. I simply don’t get the tone nonsense. It would not matter what atheists said, the religious would still find them strident, rude and unhelpful. Religions like opposition to be quiet, respectful and obedient. Saying to a religious person that there is no basis for his beliefs is already to be rude and strident. And religious people will tell you so in rude and strident ways. They do it all the time. Read David Hart for example, or Alister McGrath — read practically any critic of atheism and you’ll find a boor trying and succeeding most of the time to get out. I don’t believe I have ever met so many contemptuous words as are used by religious opponents of atheism, and yet atheists are told again and again that they should make nice! It’s bizarre!
And even atheists have joined in the hunt! So we get the gnu/new atheism. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. It’s all very well to make a joke about the religious contempt of atheism by calling it “gnu”, but I think there is something quite genuinely new about atheism today — or, at least, we are newly picking up a thread that was there from the time of Voltaire. We are saying, as Ophelia says, that we simply will not respect religion, that there is nothing about religion that deserves our respect, and we want to break the back of religion’s authority in our culture, before it’s too late. And the Andrew Lovleys of this world can simply take it as said.
READ MY LIPS! We are not going to make nice to religion. Religion is one of the most destructive forces in the world today, because it is trying its damndest to turn back the clock, and its complaints about the new atheism are all about religion’s effort to reclaim the authority that it had lost. And all its ingratiating ways hides the iron fist in the silk glove. Religion already has too much power. It affects our laws; it limits our freedoms — and would limit them even more given half a chance; and it corrupts minds. Let’s not pretend that religion deserves respect. It does not. And the sooner the religious recognise that we are not going to make nice, the sooner the idiocies of religion will begin to fade away. Interestingly, in the last few centuries, Christianity learned to live with secular reality, and actually created some profoundly humanistic practices aimed at justice and compassion. But this is not characteristic of the religion. It just isn’t. These are the products of secularisation. But the soul of the religion remains autocratic and cruel. And there are religions even more cruel than Christianity. Time to put the pieces back into the box, and start playing another game.
Many, many people who have become atheists find it a relief to be free from commandments and the imposed purposes of theism. They no longer live lives following the narrow path of faith.
So, it seems a bit mean to insist that they follow new atheist commandments:
Thou shalt not slag off the gits who told you about Hell.
Be nice to bits of blessed bread or you will end up like PZ and that’s just not on.
No public signs of atheism, as it may shock the neighbours. Keep it to atheist forums and atheist bars.
Don’t be a dick. Just because.
Thou shalt lie. Tell them that science is fluffy and friendly. Don’t mention that it has a tendency to scratch the hymn-books and wee on the altar.
Don’t forget that the meek atheists shall inherit the Earth.
Well, one thing my old grey-haired mother told me when she was much younger and brunette, and we were both still believers, was that the meek never inherit anything. She was right. If atheists (or anyone) wants commandments to follow, I offer two:
1. Just be yourself.
2. Whatever the situation, see 1.
Key word: respect.
Several times above, Andrew talks about respecting believers (including variations like having respectful dialogue with them). But I don’t see him saying whether or not he thinks religion deserves respect. If he can make a “yes or no” statement on that question, we might have something to get our teeth into. Either answer could lead to interesting places we will never get to by limiting the respect question to the persons of believers in religion.
Stewart, that is, indeed, a key point.
How is respect defined? And who exactly deserves this respect?
What was so disrespectful of Jerry Coynes approach to the Chicago methodist book club?
And if that was not disrespectful then what is the basic difference between that behavior and his behavior in writing the articles for the New Republic and USA Today? Both of these have been cited as examples of the rudeness of gnus.
I think we deserve a few examples for Andrew of exactly where he draws the line.
Of course antipathy to atheism is deep set in society. I’m sure everyone recalls what John Locke said in 1689, ironically in his A Letter Concerning Toleration:
Atheists understand they are an underclass, even if a well-tolerated underclass today, in most parts of the world. This toleration, that Locke would not extend, has resulted from enlightened philosophy informed by science, not from religious institutions. So, in this light, claims from fellow atheists that reinforce this long standing antipathy to atheists are not welcome.
AL says:
…and berates gnus for this, but says on his own blog:
Well said! With this I agree, but I think it’s hard to see how a Christian would not find that belittling, with an element of ridicule. Jeremy Stangroom is off on a quest to document new/gnu gnastiness, and manages to dredge up a report of Dawkins describing a Christian as having a stupid face, while taking a swipe at Jerry Coyne. He misses the point, which is not to give examples of gnastiness; if there were none, then new/gnus would be automatons. The point is to demonstrate that new/gnus are uniquely nasty. One sound bite describing a believer (who may actually be stupid, in fact) as having a stupid face is not a constant ‘in your face’ assault on all religious believers as stupid. Dawkins even regrets the comment a little – how strident.
So theists and (tone) accommodationists have not established that vocal atheists are peculiarly nasty; they are surely subject to the same lapses as anyone else debating a contentious issue. Further, they have not established that mockery and ridicule are ineffective, in the right context. Frankly, where undue privilege is accorded an institution, mockery and ridicule would seem to be one of the best ways to redress the balance. And accommodationists’ own use of mockery and ridicule suggests they agree.
What an impressive crash-and-burn, with an interesting touch of self-refuting argument.
Mr. Lovley: Here are my pearls of wisdom for you feckless proles: you should consider how you address your audience. Ponder my profundity.
Everyone else: The way you’re addressing this audience makes you sound like a bumptious little twunt, maybe you should consider that.
Mr. Lovley: HOW DARE YOU! Bring my fainting couch, you’re all so thoughtless and uncivil.
If only we didn’t have to rinse and repeat another thousand times.
Well, one of way of viewing our task in this confrontation brought to our doorstep by an antagonist (hostile accomodationists in general, not Andrew specifically) we perceive as being deliberately slippery is that of pinning him/her/them down to statements that are not maddeningly ambiguous and vague (the attitude sometimes seems to be one of “you know what you’ve done,” which is simultaneously an insinuation that it’s too bad to mention, while also obviating the need to mention it).
So, yes, defining respect is important, but so, too, is defining “deserves.” Obviously, in a general sense, it can be understood to mean “ought to be getting,” but why and under what conditions? Does “meriting” something have to mean it has been earned? Is it conditional and in what sense is the “deserving” based on the nature or activities of whatever it is that “deserves?” If something deserves respect, certain roles have been assigned; others have the role of providing that respect. Does the recipient of the respect have any role, beyond receiving the respect?
Our role, in reality, seems to be that of questioners. Religion says something is so; we ask for evidence that it is. Accomodationists say the religious ought to be respected; we ask for a clear answer as to why that should be the case. I do agree with those who think religion itself is more our opponent than religious people are, but where precisely is the dividing line between a belief system we consider odious and corrosive and those who maintain, protect and seek to propagate that system? I think Dawkins’ “viruses of the mind” analogy is appropriate here; we do not have to hate or be uncivil to those with whom we disagree and we ought to be smart about how we fight false ideas. Giving up on our honesty to do so is something I cannot accept as smart, because our integrity is compromised by so doing and that in itself is very damaging to our cause, which is grounded in the question of what is and is not true.
I see Andrew is a fan of Nietzsche. Here is what Nietzsche had to say about Christianity:
Yep. Nietzsche was a gnu.
[…] at Butterflies and Wheels a discussion developed (while I slept, apparently) about atheism and politeness. If we want to make […]
A little additional clarification. Many, if not most, of us, are atheists because we have an evidence-based view of the world. In those cases, it is what has made us atheists and also what has made us perceive religion as an enemy. We often make the not-unreasonable assumption that that is generally true of other non-believers. So, when other non-believers come to us and say “no, religion may not be true, but it isn’t the enemy you think it is and you ought to avoid talking as if that were the case,” we continue to assume that they are being evidence-based. We listen, but before we simply change such an important attitude, we want to know exactly what the evidence is that they are right on this and we are wrong.
That’s where it all breaks down…
Egber said:
I’ve always considered him more of an accomodationist!
He seemed to admire those players in history who used religion as a means to an end (usually the control of the common people) without actually believing in it.
More to the point, what was so disrespectful of his writing Seeing and Believing? Expressing the opinion that religion is incompatible with science seems a sure way to declare yourself unreasonable, regardless how civil you are. To the question, “Are science and religion compatible?”, a simple <i>No</i> is off the table. And, no matter how many times you get people to agree that astronomy and astrology are incompatible, you cannot get them to change that rule. It’s the religious authority thing. You can suggest that anything is a delusion except that.
My goodness, that was fun.
Now I hope we are all Better People.
Ken Pidcock said:
We have to be careful about this conclusion since the verdict of unreasonableness comes from two directions that have quite different reasoning behind them.
First, there is the ‘polite’, ‘gnice’ or, dare I say it, ‘lovley’ atheists, who hate it when a gnu says something that will make a religious person offended. Not because they want to protect the feelings of the theist, but because they are afraid that the theist will think ALL atheists are so inclined to offend.
Second, there are the atheist accomodationist philosophers, like Massimo Pigliucci, who have quite a different argument.
As far as I can ascertain that argument goes something like this-
Religion is the name given to numerous belief systems, some of which do not claim supernatural intervention in the natural world (such as deism and pantheism) therefore the claim that “religion is incompatible with science” fails because there are some rare cases when particular religions may indeed be compatible (or at least not demonstrably incompatible). Furthermore there are cases of individuals who call themselves theists claiming a purely metaphorical reading of their religion – the Shelby Spong type of ‘Christian’. In that case ‘Christianity’ is compatible with science.
I would term this approach ‘the argument from pedantry’, in so much as it is technically true but very misleading (virtually 99% of religion as it is practiced and 99.9% of Christianity as it is practiced is incompatible with the scientific method of gaining knowledge and those percentages that ARE compatible would not be recognized as being religious or Christian by the remaining 99% plus).
Only in the vaguest way. It’s as if someone started from the belief in dragons but then concluded from biology that they really couldn’t fly and the fire-breathing was a bit problematic, but even so it’s probably worth still having some idea of dragons based on evolution, and after all, weren’t some of the dinosaurs a bit large, and Pterosaurs did fly, didn’t they? And, Tolkien did write the Hobbit, and he was a friend of C.S. Lewis and so if Gandalf said that dragons existed, he was either a liar or a fool or honest, and we don’t want to be unkind to Gandalf.
I hope that is vague enough. I can go on and on if necessary.
In the name of comradeship, I would like to point out that there’s only a one-word difference in our positions.
Gnu atheist: wants no religion in the public square
Accomodationist: wants no religion criticised in the public square.
Now if only we can get them to see that we can both be satisfied, as long as we do it in the order given above (reversing the order will get us nowhere).
Maybe we could end the argument from pedantry by saying that yes “religion” and science are compatible, but religion and science are not; we’re not talking about “religion”; can we move on now.
I find that we’re not the only people who are struck by Mr Lovley’s presumption.
http://thekeyofatheist.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/a-newer-atheism-just-what-we-need/
Jumps right out, doesn’t it.
Oh, that Andrew Lovley. I hadn’t made the connection. That January essay drove me up a wall. I remember thinking that, in my dictionary, conciliation is damned close to surrender.
Ha! Yup, that Andrew Lovley. Me too, about the wall, hence my insistence that he’s not an ideal person to give advice on how to communicate better. His style is intensely grating.
@89
The guy really does seem to be that unaware of his own pomposity. It’s nutty: He dispenses communications advice as if it were something he’s good at. It’s like Inspector Clouseau giving advice on how to solve a case without pratfalls.
Wow, 90 comments already. Not gonna read all that…
Anyway, one thing I really liked about Streitfeld’s post is that he pointed out that independent of whether Kazez’s argument is incorrect, it is offensive and she should not be surprised when people are offended by it. The fact that it is offensive doesn’t make it wrong — unfortunately, some very offensive things just happen to be true, and that’s part of life. But even if it were true that the general public is completely incapable of grasping these points and that therefore we should protect them from the truth by keeping silent about it — even if that were perfectly true and necessary, it would really piss some people off, myself included. Kazez doesn’t seem to understand this.
Her argument is wrong anyway, of course. But her failure to grasp just how damn infuriating her argument is, independent of its rightness or wrongness… well, that’s infuriating in and of itself.
It’s like Glenn Beck giving advice on how to be rational and reflective.
It’s like Fred Phelps giving advice on how to win converts.
It’s like Bernie Madoff giving advice on integrity.
Fun game!
I’m disappointed that I missed this exchange. I think it would be a little gratuitous to add to the pile of refutations of Lovley words, so instead I’ll pick at a few other rhetorical threads that could perhaps prompt an interesting discussion.
Egbert @29:
I may not be disagreeing with Egbert, but I think the “good cop/bad cop” model is a perfectly valid and useful one, and atheists (gnu or whatever) would do just fine to practice it. The problem with the equivalency Egbert references isn’t that model, but the notion that accommodationists are “good cops.” That’s nonsense.
The basic GC/BC metaphor posits two police officers trying to get information out of a suspect or a witness; that is to say, both cops share a common aim. So it’s not just that the good cop is, or presents him/herself as, a nicer person; it’s that (s)he offers the subject a way to give the cops what both of them want that might be more persuasive, or at least less troubling, to the subject than the bad cop’s solution (“talk or I’ll beat you up”—though note that this is only INSIDE the metaphor) is.
So, given the fact that Gnus and accommodationists very frequently have differing goals, it’s not clear how they can work as a good cop/bad cop pair at all. Within the metaphor, it certainly doesn’t appear to me that accommodationists in fact “want the witness to talk,” in the way we Gnus do, at all. A “good cop” who tells the witness “Don’t listen to my partner; he’s just a dick. You can get up and leave without telling us anything if you’d like” isn’t acting as any kind of cop.
Egbert @29 suggests that individual Gnus are capable of being good cops sometimes and bad cops other times, according to what we think the circumstances warrant. And this is obviously true, for just about all of us. (Pat Condell, I’m not so sure.)
But even if you want to go by some kind of broad, half-assed average-level-of-perceived-hostility measure, the ranks of public atheists include a very large number of people who (1) are strong advocates for Gnu-ish ideas, (2) nearly always express themselves in ways that many religious believers can and do find sympathetic, and yet (3) don’t bash (their fellow) Gnus. I’d name Russell Blackford, Julia Sweeney, Dale McGowan, and Daniel Dennett as nearly-always-good-cop Gnu-ish atheists. And then, of course, just about every prominent Gnu is considerably less of a uniformly bad cop than accommodationists would have us believe.
Anyway, the point is that I’m all for making use of the good/bad cop model, but there’s no reason why there can’t be Gnus on both sides of it when we do.
Then, Tim Harris @62 (responding to Steve Zara @45, who was responding to our lovley guest @8):
I can’t quarrel with the second sentence, but I guess I, for one, would like “to improve public perception of [our]selves.” I suspect (hope?) I’m not alone in this thread in that respect.
It’s just that (1) I have serious doubts that we can significantly improve that status as a first-order proposition—that is, without first significantly discrediting religious faith, authority, and privilege; and (2) I find it extremely doubtful that the tactics that accommodationists like Andrew suggest will improve our status at all. As numerous despised minorities before us have found, one does not win respect from an ignorant and privileged majority by acting like mewling kittens (sorry, Jerry). One wins respect by demanding it—loudly, clearly, and for a long time. We’ll improve public perception of atheists by doing what we’re doing.
If Kazez is right about some discussions not being suitable for the public square then surely discussions that cause offence are candidates for not being discussed.
Since Kazez’s suggestion that there are some subjects that are not suitable to be discussed can itself cause offence, and since any reasonable notion of what should not be discussed would include discussions that could cause offence, then surely Kazez should not have made her suggestion in the public square.
So the Bien Pensant atheists want the Gnus to put on a muzzle. Thanks for the advice.
I considered it carefully before electing to continue my provocation of both the religious orthodoxy and their accomodationist collaborators.
Yes. (What Rieux said.) Although on a second (or third) reading it occurs to me that Tim Harris may have been saying we don’t want to improve public perception of ourselves. We don’t want to go around beseeching people to like us. We want to improve public perception of atheists in general, without much caring about public perception of our own dear selves in particular.
That’s what I mean, anyway, even if it’s not what Tim meant. I have no ambitions to be seen as peculiarly sweet and lovable, and I think that’s kind of a creepy ambition. It’s too abject. It’s too what’s expected of women. That’s one reason Lovley’s language turns me off so decisively. I also don’t like the idea of obsessing over what They All think of Me. I don’t like self-obsession.
But atheists in general – that’s a different story. Atheists in general covers a lot of people, including people who are much less well situated to shrug off public dislike than I am. Also, if atheists in general are despised, then so is atheism, and that’s not the goal.
But yes – we won’t improve anything by crawling around begging to be loved.
Caring too much about being loved can result in Stephen Fry syndrome, in which you vanish off Twitter for a while simply because one commenter says your tweets are boring.
It’s also allowing others to set your agenda, which is generally a bad idea.
I think we help improve the public perception of atheists simply through visibility. The more atheists are visible then the more people will see friends, neighbours, lovers, children who are atheists and it will become routine. That’s what has worked well for other causes.
However, bland pioneers of a movement seem rarely successful, so I say keep up the Gnu approach.
I do wonder if some, just a bit, of the shouting about nastiness is just a bit due to envy? If you can’t join ’em, you try and beat ’em.
If anyone is in any doubt whatsoever of the need for atheists to remain silent no longer the latest shenanigans at teh Texas School Board should dispel their doubt. This is pure insulting in your face fundamentalist christianity at its most ignorant and obnoxious. It cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. Why is there never accommodation of atheists? I’m tired of this one-way street, it’s leading nowhere.
Ophelia:
Oh. Well, in that case I simply disagree. I happen to be totally fantastic, and I’d appreciate it if that were more widely recognized.
@Steve
You are half-way there.(Ill let you figure out which half)
Ah well in that case I do beg your pardon, Rieux.
Have you tried bus ads?
No, I was thinking of the approach advocated <a href=http://titanium.nobletdesign.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=13332>here</a>.
I find it particularly offensive that the co-author of “Does god hate women?” is accused of doing nothing to improve society and that a powerful piece of writing is apparently simply “echoing frustrations.”
Andrew, you’re a prick.
I will try to sum up my response to various points made above, in no particular order:The most recent example of public atheism that is condescending, and what I believe to be damaging to the public perception of atheists, is the American Atheists billboard for their upcoming national convention: http://www.atheists.org/upload/rightsmall.jpg .
Fewer atheists than I suspected are concerned with the public perception of atheism/atheists. I apologize for making an unfounded generalization here. The public perception of atheists is something that is important to me, because it involves how comfortable we can be with our identity in public. If someone wants to run for public office, they shouldn’t have to hide from the fact that they’re atheist. We shouldn’t be the most mistrusted segment of the population. We shouldn’t have to fear that our atheistic identity will compromise our professional relationships, among others.
If accommodationism is honestly and justifiably associated with the idea that atheists should keep quiet about being atheists and not have any public critiques of religion, then I suppose I do not want to be associated with accommodationism. I interpreted accommodationism to be about religious pluralism, which I am in support of, but I am not for atheists hiding their identity or opinions.
My comment that Ophelia was doing nothing for the movement was wrong, as Sinseeker pointed out. I was a prick for making that comment, and for that I apologize to you Ophelia.
As for being presumptuous – I honestly do not think I was acting in an arrogant way. When people within a movement make normative suggestions, I do not think that makes them automatically arrogant. Perhaps I have blinders on here, and if so then that would be quite embarassing, but I never assumed I knew more than any of you. I simply figured we have differing opinions on how we should conduct ourselves as atheists in public.
One more thing, no one here should be personally offended when I have referred to the conduct of some atheists. I was wrong to generalize that gnu atheists are part of the problem. I think that it is just a few among us, here and there and everywhere, that contribute to a negative perception of atheism/atheists. There are atheists who on campuses, billboards, and other public forums will call religious people idiots or imply that religious people are all simple-minded little babies, or assert that all religious people are crazy. It is people who say/do things like this that I find most concerning. I’m not concerned with atheists who are unapologetic about being atheists (good for them!) or are willing to criticize religious ideas (without resorting to petty name-calling and condescension).
Have you ever noticed how hypersensitive and PG Christians are? I would seriously be interested in meeting a thick skinned Christian, at least a thick skinned American Christian who actually listens. That is part of the problem: it’s not that we’re offensive, it’s that Christians are overly sensitive to anything that goes against their beliefs. Muslims, on the other hand, have no sensitivity whatsoever, since they care not for infidels.
[…] we should STFU about the palpable incompatibility between science and faith: Jason Streitfeld, Ophelia Benson, and Russell Blackford take issue with the notion that the science/faith conflict is too […]
Thanks Andrew. That’s a generous comment. In turn I apologize for treating you rather roughly.
The thing about blinders – really it’s just your writing style, I think. It’s hyper-formal, which makes an odd impression. Your comment just above is less formal, and (I think) it reads much better!
On the substance. Sure, there are some jerks. But that’s always the case. I think it’s better to deal with jerks on the spot rather than trying to generalize about them.
The thing is, that such identity is very hard if not impossible to manage. It’s not like non-atheists are regularly performing surveys to see what atheists are like. People generally form opinions based on very small samples consisting of the few atheists they know about. Then there are believers who trawl through any number of blogs and posts in order to find the one or two extreme views that they then claim are representative of atheism. I have seen that happen many times. The jerk-seekers find the jerks.
Perhaps if atheism was an organisation and could hire image consultants something would be possible, but that is not the situation, obviously.
So I’m afraid that atheist image management is going to be a waste of time.
Fact of life. Of course we are going to be mistrusted, and despised, because we are questioning so much that is simply taken for granted, and the mere fact of questioning it is very threatening and offensive to many people: it is not possible to question religion without making many people feel threatened, and without holding up its absurdity and cruelty (which, after all, is what we’re complaining about) to the harsh light of reality.
What you said ages ago (#13):
Yes, absolutely, and we must be vocal about it. It’s wrong. It does terrible harm.
<blockquote>A primary success of The Four Horsemen and some other outspoken atheists is that they have given other atheists the courage to be public about their beliefs (or lack there-of). I am not convinced that their books and speeches have made theists’ perception of us any better. </blockquote>
The former goal is a few million times more important to me than the latter.
Oh, please. That’s barely condescending at all, and only if you read it the wrong way.
I found the ultimate accommodationist atheists: preacher atheists! I found this link on Richard Dawkins’ website: http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2011/02/27/preachers-who-dont-believe-in-god/
What an amazing psychological phenomenon!
I don’t think it’s even a matter of a few bad apples fueling the negative opinions of gnus. I think the bad apples, to the extent they exist, are only used to rationalize preexisting opinions. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there are multitudes of religious folks who would have responded, if asked about atheists before the gnus became popular, ‘Atheists? Why I never gave them much thought. They’re just people, same as me I guess.’
But I think polling data show atheists have never enjoyed a high approval rating, or even a neutral one, regardless of the recent popularity of a few outspoken authors and organizations. Spending too much time worrying about what might be used as fodder for someone else’s rationalizations doesn’t strike me as the most productive use of time.
Grendel’s Dad said:
And if those bad apples don’t exist then they will be and have been simply made up and this touted as evidence of bad behavior. That was quite sufficient to convince the accomodationists so why wouldn’t it be enough to convince religious anti-atheists?
In other words rare examples of genuine bad behavior are inconsequential in the overall scheme of things since this is impossible to eliminate from the equation. Chris Mooney can become the atheist equivalent of Mother Teresa (well, the religious view of her rather than the reality!) and it still wouldn’t make a difference. As Mooney himself claims just one bad story about an atheist (true or false) and all that good work will be undone since those with preconceived notions of evil atheists will feel their fears confirmed.
The general badness of atheist apples doesn’t matter. It bears little relationship, if any, to the fruit-condition that will be reported by certain people. There are no surveys of atheists (not likely to be practical anyway) to ask how rotten or ripe they are.
What I have seen happen is this: people fishing for rotten fruit. They hang around forums prodding people to see if they can make a bruise. Then, when there is a reaction they gleefully reports how deeply unpleasant atheists are.
There could be 10,000 quiet, mild, reserved atheists (and there probably are, somewhere), but as soon as one says “Jesus is a bit of a stinker really” that is taken as rampant militancy. So I think it’s best not to care. It’s out of our control, even if we wanted it to be.
That’s something I find so damned silly about the whining of the tone-police: do they seriously expect that they can herd atheist cats? If not, what is the point? I think I know what the point might be, for some. It’s to show that they are kind and considerate of the feelings of the blessed believers. They get invited to all the best Vicar’s tea parties whereas we don’t. I’m sure that really helps the cause of reason, but I can’t figure out how.
Steve’s last paragraph there seems to be what it’s all about. Whether through fear, or for some other reason, what is important to them is not so much what we have the right to do and say, but what the theists think of us. That also matches what Andrew said:
… which had us protesting that that is pretty irrelevant to our aims.
Stewart – if I may add something.
Sometimes when people protest too much about others in a group, it isn’t so much a concern about other people see the group, but about how other people see them!
To rejoice in agreeing with the Great Majority. To enjoy the otherwise illicit thrill of joining the majority in heaping opprobrium on a despised minority. To proclaim themselves Decent and Nice and Civil and Morally Unrepugnant in contrast to the putative evil of the despised minority. What could be more fun?!
To enjoy the otherwise illicit thrill of joining the majority in heaping opprobrium on a despised minority.
I’m not sure. I think it’s fear of conflict. We are dragging them into battles they don’t want to fight, perhaps.
Steve’s previous two comments and Ophelia’s last comment strike me as very untrue. Particularly comments 118 and 119. I will speak just for myself here, but I suspect this is true for most atheists who are concerned about atheism’s status in society. My intentions are to advocate on atheism/atheists’ behalf, not for my own benefit but for the benefit of all of atheists. I absolutely do not want
I sincerely hope that in saying these things Ophelia that you’re intentionally being dishonest, because otherwise I think it is a complete misunderstanding of those of whom you disagree. Perhaps this is true for some people (I certainly hope not), but either way let us all recognize that the claim above is absolute speculation. I get the impression that you know this it is likely untrue, Ophelia, but you said it merely to discredit / vilify those you disagree with. How is it not vilification to accuse those you disagree with with collaborating with whom have been termed the ‘oppressors’? The sentiment you expressed with your comment is what inspired me to insist that pluralists & accommodationists aren’t ‘rats’ or ‘spies’, or what a better term would be ‘saboteurs’) in an earlier comment of mine.
So there are disagreements among atheists about our place in and relationship with society, and what we should do about these circumstances. But there is no need to accuse fellow atheists of purposely trying to maintain our poor status or vilifying fellow atheists for their own benefit and to receive praise from the religious majority.
In regardss to accommodationists being averse to conflict: this is probably true, in part. As for myself, I think some conflicts are worthwhile and some are not. I have encountered atheists who believe that we should work toward the eradication of religion, and this is a conflict that seems not only futile but also unnecessary. I have encountered atheists that want to assert their intellectual superiority to religious people, and this is also conducive to fueling a conflict that seems unnecessary and not beneficial for anyone. For those of us who wish to debate matters of public policy with the religious, this is totally a necessary conflict to be had. For those of us who wish to dispute misconceptions about atheism/atheists that religious people have, this is another necessary conflict. For those of us who want to level criticism of the ethos/attitude/beliefs contained in religion, this is another worthwhile conflict to engage in. All these necessary and worthwhile conflicts should be done with respect or else we discredit ourselves and lessen the influence of our arguments.
I’d like a lot of things. I’d like all Catholics to tell the Pope that he’s being a very silly boy, and could he please shut up and go on a nice long holiday somewhere. But life isn’t like that. It’s not like there is any way to get Catholics to do anything anyway, even within such an organised religion. (Apparently birth control sales are high close to the Vatican).
Movements go their own way. Atheism is not a political party with membership and a rulebook. It’s a popular movement, and it is as anarchic as such movements always are. There are people who want to be leaders of movements, and there are those who end up as leaders, and there are people of influence and people who fade into significance. Stuff like that just happens.
What I’m trying to say is that there is no point telling people to be nicer. It’s hopeless. People who are nice will be nice, and people who don’t want to be won’t be, and there are no rewards or sanctions which can be used to change behaviour, and that’s good because there should not be.
Discussions about tone are pointless (as I have learned in the past). The only discussions worth having are about facts. Personally, I’m a militant anti-accommodationist not because I like having a strident tone, but because of what I believe to be the facts. Present me with new facts, and that is more likely to get me to change my mind than telling me I’m being cruel to believers.
Just facts, please.
(Oh, and I do want to get rid of all religion. Let’s think big, I say)
Naah. I don’t go with that, sorry. I think what matters now is to be visible and to be truthful, and for as many people to do that as possible. Respect can come later, when religions have decided to be nice.
Why thank you, Andrew, how nice. This is you being the good kind of atheist, is it?
I wasn’t thinking of critics like you when I said that. I was thinking of other such critics, who have done some…disreputable things. I think they have bad intentions and bad reasons. I don’t just disagree with them, I think they do bad things.
I have no idea whether Ophelia or Steve have the right idea about what the point of accommodationism is. If Ophelia is right, it’s pretty horrible. I am actually curious, because I don’t really understand the mindset of someone who turns against those with whom there is a basic factual agreement solely because of questions of tone. When I read Andrew’s line quoted above, I would expect “all atheists” to mean all atheists, including those who think religion ought to vanish from the earth and see nothing wrong with mockery as a means of speeding it on its way. If atheists are the ones for whom one is advocating, doesn’t that mean the people whose common denominator is unbelief, not those whose common denominator is being polite, inoffensive and soft-spoken?
Well I don’t actually think what I said in #119 applies to all anti-gnus – I think it applies to the more poisonous anti-gnus, who are not few. (Again: Chris Hedges is a shining example. His book is quite astonishingly venomous.)
I think what you may be overlooking, Andrew, is that there are a lot of people who at least act like majoritarian bullies, and what you’re doing can’t help stoking that. There are lots of people pouring bile on gnu atheists every chance they get (look up Michael Ruse, or Andrew Brown, or Barney Zwartz, for a few more examples), so there just is an existing heated campaign against vocal atheists; this means that your advice to vocal atheists will (assuming people read it) re-enforce that very campaign.
Yes, you’d think someone who claims to advocate on behalf of atheists would show more—what do they call it?—tolerance for atheists and the various ways in which atheists express themselves.
Well, in truth, I don’t want Andrew “advocating” on my behalf, any more than he wants me advocating on his.
Atheists should absolutely advocate for each other. An issue with doing this successfully is that it makes no sense to insist that those who are being disrespectful ought to be respected. And this absolutely applies to the religious and nonreligious alike, one side of the divide shouldn’t be held to a different standard than the other(s)!
Ophelia: I apparently misunderstood who your comment in 119 was directed at.
Andrew, doesn’t that last point automatically translate into nobody having to show respect for anybody? Are you on our side, after all?
May I suggest you have a small problem of time travel. What you appear to be referring to is the situation in the late 2020s when the great revolution has happened and atheists and believers are all happy and the best of pals.
Right now we have senior clergy saying that atheists are less than human, and a pope insisting that we will result in the rise of the next Hitler.
It’s hard enough trying to be civilized without fellow atheists insisting that, gosh, we really should all be friends.
Steve:
I would add that such disrespect and denigration of atheists is routine on the part of our religious counterparts. It’s even routine among those who have a reputation for civility and tolerance. Look at the pope’s recent comments about nonbelievers to which Steve refers. Are those remarks respectful? Well here I would agree with Andrew: it makes no sense to insist that those who are being disrespectful ought to be respected.
I am curious, and by no means intend to make a point here, how did Martin Luther King Jr. suggest civil rights activists think of / speak to / interact with white people? I only ask because MLK Jr. was brought up earlier on in the thread, and he was a leader during a period of great strife between groups of people, particularly a leader among an oppressed minority.
I think a more relevant comparison is with Rosa Parks, who firmly insisted that she would break the conventions, ignore customs, and stayed in a bus seat labelled as for white people. She had no problem with seeing other people angry.
I don’t think we should get up out of our seats to keep believers from getting annoyed. If they want us to shift, we should firmly say no.
Well, there was (is) more than one kind of white people, wasn’t there? King did not tell his followers to show uniform respect to racist, hateful white people. (He did tell them to be uniformly nonviolent in their dealings with racist, hateful white people, but that there’s a big distinction.) Rather, he organized efforts to occupy their racist lunch counters, and to nonviolently block entrances to other racist establishments. These were actions that were quite “disrespectful,” not to mention objectively illegal. While King himself was a model of interpersonal civility, interpersonal civility was not his number-one goal. Ending legally-sanctioned racism was. I can remember the sixties (some parts more than others), and King was widely perceived by much of America as the most uncivil person who walked the earth.
Andrew, I can only suggest you read King’s letter for yourself. There is a reason it gets quoted in this debate with such frequency.
Missed the boat on this conversation, but anyway I thought it would be worthwhile to belatedly thank Andrew Lovely for at least being open enough to engage in the conversation, to follow the evidence, and to at least be willing to re-consider some of your prior ideas about gnus/accommodationists. (You were far far better at it than anyone else I know of who had self-described themselves as accommodationist.)
I checked out your blog and you do seem to be sincerely concerned with the overall atheist ‘movement’.
Hope to see you hone your ideas, always going with the evidence, and interact with you again in the future.
Thank you Wonderist, I really appreciate your comment, and I promise you I’ll forever work toward honing my ideas! I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to share ideas soon.