This is not a job for bomb makers
Another thought about “Why Do We Need New Atheists?” (subtle way of announcing a desire to get rid of us, that title). The post is actually a pretty rich study in scapegoating and other forms of disguised hostility, so despite its nastiness and wrongness, it repays a close look.
(The disguised part really interests me. I’ve said before, probably more than once, that one thing I really dislike is hostility or rivalry that tries to dress itself up as its own opposite. I really hate it when people are obviously brawling or competing but pretend that they’re just joking or “teasing” or being absent-minded. I especially hate it when women do that, because it fits a stereotype about us.
This may be one reason Gnus get so much stick. We mostly don’t do that “oh I’m just a sweet little thing” routine – so we leave people plenty of room to pretend shock-horror at our failure to dissemble.)
There is a fear among New Atheists that moderating and dissenting voices are trying to erase the polemic as an avenue of approach. But that’s a polemical overreaction. No one is suggesting that we burn New Atheist books or silence their authors. Those bells have been rung. We can’t un-ring them, nor should we. The Four Horsemen of New Atheism did their work well, but they cannot help us clean up the battlefields they created. That’s not their job. The clean-up, the strategizing, the community rebuilding, the future imagining, and the alliance-making — this is not a job for bomb makers.
On the one hand, no one is suggesting that we silence gnu atheist authors (and where would you get the authority to do that if you were suggesting that?), but on the other hand, this is not a job for bomb makers. In other words, actually yes, we do want you to be silent now, because it’s time to “clean up the battlefields” you created.
Only we didn’t create any battlefields. McLaren loves her some metaphors, and she lets them run away with her. We didn’t create any god damn battlefields, and there is nothing to clean up. What is she talking about? “The clean-up, the strategizing, the community rebuilding, the future imagining, and the alliance-making” – oh that – she’s talking about The Great Return to Conformity. She’s talking about resuming the status quo. She’s talking about restoring The Group to its former hegemony by rebuilding community and making alliances.
We know she’s doing that, because she’s saying we can’t do it. Thus we know she’s not talking about just ordinary life, because how could she possibly say we can’t help with that or that it’s not our job? She couldn’t – so she’s talking about a kind of community and alliance that of its nature excludes us. She’s doing her best, in an opaque way, to tell us we are too weird and extreme and abnormal to be part of the Community.
It’s sinister stuff, frankly. I don’t think she intended it to be, but I do think she has a sad lack of awareness about the resonances of her own rhetoric.
That’s my thought.
I dunno, I think we’re the only ones paying any attention to them, to be honest. They’ve adopted the Tea Party technique of tilting at windmills, enemies of their own design that really don’t exist anywhere. If they had to actually address the position of any individual, they’d be at a total loss because there really is little to argue about.
I’m wondering how many religious folk appreciate the careful, condescending protections of the accommodationists? “We’re sorry some people are so mean to you! Here’s your blanky and your stuffed wooby – sit back and we’ll shoo off that horrible monster under the bed.” It’s probably more than I suspect – their god doesn’t seem to be very capable of protecting them, after all.
For my part, I ignore the whining about the horrors of New Atheism, because I simply consider that to be someone else. None of the definitions apply to me. We should probably just start having fun with the accommodationists and agreeing with them. “You’re right! Those New Atheists suck! I hate them! Dawkins, on the other hand, makes some very cogent points…”
‘The clean-up, the strategizing, the community rebuilding, the future imagining, and the alliance-making…’ What I honestly fail to understand is why people like Stedman and Lovley think this sentimental, feel-good vapidity constitutes any kind of apprach to anything. What is this ‘clean-up’? What specific sorts of ‘strategizing’ are MacLaren and her pals offering or envisioning? What is this ‘community’ they want to rebuild? What specific ‘future imagining’ are they engaged in? What alliances are they building or planning? With whom are or might such alliances be? On what basis will these alliances be made? There is absolutely nothing in MacLaren’s piece apart from a thin sentimental stream of poisoned invective that addresses no realities at all. I still want to know exactly why Stedman thinks this worth printing on his blog.
An accute and penetrating analysis. Thanks.
When smart people speak at length and with great eloquence about a particular issue, and yet fail to make any sense at all, it is because they are speaking from emotion. And in the case of the Gnu-backlash, I suspect the emotion is fear.
I think a big part of this argument is that Gnu-bashers — at least in the USA — are terrified of the religious majority. They are surrounded by creeping irrationality infiltrating every aspect of life, and have no control. They are using every digit to plug up holes in the dike, and it isn’t enough. They are slowly drowning.
Then along come the Gnus who demand that we tear down the old dike and build a new one, and that seems like disaster. Like a bomb going off. The situation seems completely unmanageable.
This is why someone as mild-mannered and reasonable as Richard Dawkins is seen as a mad bomber simply for speaking directly and clearly. He’s destroying the ability of these people to cope with an insane world.
In short, the Gnu-bashers aren’t really worried about the Gnus — they live in terror of the religious majority, and what they might do next if provoked. Perhaps the best way to resolve this schism is to address that fear rather than their attacks on us.
That made precisely no sense whatsoever.
McLaren, I mean.
And, of course, it’s precisely wrong. The entire kerfuffle has been about the insistence by the 7 (or is it 8) Riders of the One-trick Pony that atheists should quiet down and stop insisting that … say … science be taught in science class. Lest it lead to religion being taught in science class (or something; to be honest I can’t whack through the weeds of Ruse’s sophistry enough to actually find a point.)
And what is so radical about that message? I dunno. But it is.
See comment #3 on the referring post “Why Do We Need New Atheists?”.
Anyone notice who wrote that comment? Yeah…Phil Plait. I really want to like this guy. I like his Blog overall. He is ruthless when it comes to anti-vaccination, but somehow has dark blinders on when it comes to this issue and anything relating to his DBAD stance. How he could endorse such a horrid post is really embarrassing for an otherwise sharp guy.
Of course Phil DBAD Plait endorses a dickish screed against the people who hurt the fee-fees of his good friend Chris Mooney.
I wonder…would he better understand the gnu position if we gnus all became “accommodationists” with respect to anti-vaxers? “Come on, Phil. Stop painting ALL anti-vaxers with the same brush. Anti-vaxers aren’t the problem—only fundamentalist anti-vaxers are. We can’t afford to alienate the non-fundamentalist anti-vaxers. We need them as allies. You anti anti-vaxers are so strident!”
Why I am about to be banned from that blog (Probably, I wouldn’t blame her.)
When we take away the character assassination, claims that we are ignorant (because we all know accomodationist gives you the psychic power of knowing what I, a person on a different continent have and have not read, and what groups I have or have not spoken to), and the “how rude”s, in other words the empty noise from the criticisms we get? Nine times out of ten there is nothing left.
In some ways that was one of the funniest commentaries on New Atheism I’ve ever read, but then I thought “The God Delusion” was largely humorous as well. It’s sort of agreeing that “there is a spectre haunting Europe” but arguing that, as a mere polemic “it’s not something you can build a movement upon”. I think somebody got carried away by her own rhetoric. How can you read “Your polemical despair … can make you seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the bright side of life” without hearing the happy crucifixion tune?
The point that privilege is a problem, whether religious, sexual or racial, shouldn’t be that hard to miss.
Isn’t it a little annoying that she left out the Gnu pedestrians, or pony riders or cyclists or whatever our hosts are calling themselves, and goes straight to slandering us commoners, er, commenters?
However, the Four (Dennett excluded) have put those ideas forward at the end of a fist….
Nope, they wrote books with a pen held in their gentle hands.
…a truly masterful polemic is melded with a careful overlay of logic, scholarship, and verbal skill.
Yup, that’s what they wrote.
…But it’s not something you should make a career of, because it’s exhausting (both to create, and eventually, to witness).
Nope. Truth is a thing of beauty: an honourable career choice.
..It’s also not something you can use in a relationship or a conversation, and it’s not something you can build a movement upon…
Yes it is. Otherwise you’re just building castles in the air. We know where those lead.
….A polemic has its place, but it’s not a tool of normal interaction, because its purpose is to dramatize an extreme position and silence all critics and all moderating voices.
Balderdash, tosh and piffle.
…..such that atheists who aren’t offended by religion, or who actively work to understand and communicate with religious people, are branded pejoratively as “accommodationists.
If you’re not offended by religion, you’re just not paying attention.
….If you challenge (or even question) New Atheist behavior, you are seen as stifling freedom of speech, disavowing the utility of the polemical, and protecting religions (and thereby supporting everything that is illogical and fraudulent in the world since the beginning of recorded history.
Yup, that’s what you’re doing.
…These books don’t just open doors; they can demolish them and make possible the escape of people who were (perhaps unknowingly) imprisoned behind those doors.
Yup, that’s what they’re doing.
…Polemics exist because they are necessary weapons in specific instances, especially when they’re aimed at ideologies or institutions that are hidebound and seemingly untouchable.
Yup.
…..Polemics may destroy old ideologies, but they can’t create a new and sustainable movement.
Man swimming off Blackpool beach…”It’s not so much swimming…more like going through the motions…other peoples.”
…No one is suggesting that we burn New Atheist books or silence their authors.
Be nice though, eh?
….The clean-up, the strategizing, the community rebuilding, the future imagining, and the alliance-making — this is not a job for bomb makers.
24 carrot gibberish.
…Moving to dialectics doesn’t erase the polemic; actually, dialectics require polemics, or there wouldn’t be anything to synthesize.
So, no problem then? Tally Ho! Epic fail. Total incomprehension. I don’t want synthesis with religion. I want it out the goddamned way.
Spot the odd one out:
Anti-vaccination
Reiki
Homeopathy
Moon hoax
Anti-science policies of political parties
Theistic Religion
Global climate change denial
Flat Earthers
Holocaust denialism
Polemical argumentation – essentially picking one side of the argument and taking that side over the other, seems to be fine for all of the above list apart from one. Indeed all of the list (apart from the flat earth one perhaps) are targets for one sided opposition by prominent accomodationists or their allies. Moderation seems to be out of the question for many subjects that skeptics approach (there is no meeting the anti vaccination crowd half way, no splitting the difference with the flat earthers).
And yet theistic religion is treated differently.
Or is it.
I think it entirely depends on the numerical and political strength of the particular theistic religion.
Scientology and creationism seem fair game for ridicule by accomodationists but catholicism is not?
Is catholicism that much more scientifially verified than the others? Do the facts on the ground make it more plausible and able to withstand scrutiny? Or is it something that simply should not be scrutinized – or more accurately should not be publicly scrutinized?
It appears to me that we are dealing with a simple case of appeasement.
Winston Churchill had an apt quote about this subject that fits the current situation rather well.
yes, apologists always wave with the flag of community, but the reality of their community is secretly distrust, they control each other and their are jealous and act like children. I know their communities, i live in one. If you don’t see their mumbo-jumbo everywhere you are suspected of disbelief and they tell the pastor. Yes, we know their community-lies.
Just Al,
I disagree that we’re the only ones paying attention. A lot of the gnu bashing has been published in HuffPo and other major media outlets with readership sometimes in the millions. If it was just a few random blog comments, I don’t think anyone here could be bothered with more than the occasional brief rejoinder.
Are we really going to listen to an ex-new age healer? The piece really is well written, that I do recognise, but it is sadly ironic and lacking in self-awareness, when a polemic is written against a group for writing polemics. It’s the same old stereotyping of gnus, the framing of gnus as only shrill, blah blah blah. There is no critical reasoning going on in the piece, this is prejudice and ignorance.
Yes, they really are playing culture war with us, hence the polemics and underlying hostility, the war language “I appreciate your from-the-trenches support”. We are the other to them, and so now they are the other to us.
The accommodationists still retain their religiosity, they’re cultural Christians, and hence their lack of awareness about the privileges and inequalities that still persist in their religious cultures. Yes, some of us grew out of the same cultures, but we’ve throwing off that culture now, we’re defining something new, a culture without religious values poisoning an underling liberalism and naturalism that was born in the enlightenment age.
There is an old strategy in war: divide and conquer. Hence, the accommodationists are not only obstructing the atheist movement, they’re actively damaging it.
Egbert
April 29, 2011 at 3:50 am
We would if she was bashing New Age. We can’t ignore her now just because she is bashing us. We should ignore her because she is bashing us without really saying anything we haven’t already heard and discounted a million times before.
Clod:
“If you’re not offended by religion, you’re just not paying attention.”
Put that on a T-shirt and I’ll buy it. You win the interwebs for the day.
Seems to me that it is all about “new” atheists (sorry I hate that “gnu” thing) simply taking too much attention away from a bunch of narcissistic irrationalists who used to have it all their own way but now can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas. That goes double for Ruse!!
Pace Egbert, the piece is surely not well-written: it is sentimental, dishonest and vacuous.
Off-topic, but Jen McCreight, Greta Christina, Hemant Mehta, and JT Eberhard (together) are taking on P.Z. Myers in a who-can-raise-the-most-donation-money-for-Camp-Quest contest. Predictably, P.Z. is currently crushing his competition, even in a 4-on-1 handicap match.
So I call on all B&Wers: hit Jen’s link (or Hemant’s or JT’s;* I don’t see a relevant post from Greta yet) and help Team GHJJ stay in the race. It’s no fun if the cephalopod wins in a walk, right? Cephalopods can’t walk!
(* I’m only posting the one link in the hopes that I’ll be able to avoid Ophelia’s spam filter.)
McLaren says:
Could anybody find a dictionary whose definition of “polemic” included any one of anger, rage, sadness, despair, fear, or gut-wrenching terror?
Me neither.
Yes I don’t think McLaren is much of an expert on literary genre.
I often wonder: what would happen if New Atheists just ignored this type of stuff and went on doing what they’re doing (or want to be doing)?
Beware of her who must augment the dictionary to bolster her argument.
Ah, you mean the approach the accommodation think we should use towards religion? Been there, done that, didn’t get much done.
accommodation –> accommodationists
(Must resist automatic deferral to contextual spell checker…)
I think about that too, and it’s an experiment worth trying. But it’s sooooooo hard to ignore being vilified and slagged off.
Oh I of course always keep that option firmly in mind. I’m well aware that I track the stuff. But I have reasons – it’s not that I’ve just never thought of it.
Michael De Dora said:
“I often wonder: what would happen if New Atheists just ignored this type of stuff and went on doing what they’re doing (or want to be doing)?”
Michael, one of the ways the gnus are having an impact in society at large is simply to keep the debate in the public arena.
– the debate being “is it allowable to ask for evidence that support religious claims”
The accomodationists action has the unintended consequence of keeping the debate going.
You could even say that they are helping us.
Absolutely; I think they are. Not least, they are demonstrating what a lot of unselfconscious hostility there really is to any but closeted atheism.
I know, I keeping trying to stay away from TFK, but as Al Pacino said, “Just when i thought I was out, they pull me back in.” It is entertaining to read the host and his commenters trying to justify the NCSE’s use of theological arguments to undermine creationism with something like “they work.” Which does seem in some ways to sum up the differences in approach.
Stephanie Zvan has a few nice posts going on about this at Almost Diamonds. I think this one addressing the topic of gatekeepers is on the mark
http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/04/taking-it-downhill.html
Don’t get me wrong, public debate is a very good thing. It is only by putting arguments forth for review and criticism that one can really learn (I should know, it happened to me). But these sorts of writings and whatnot just keep cropping up, and I wonder how much time might be wasted responding to them.
I often wonder: how much time and good-will would be saved by, you know, not attacking the New Atheists about things they never did or said in the first place? Odd that you never seem to ask that, seeing as how often it happens.
Oh,
There’s currently a competition going on to raise funds for Camp Quest.
Help beat PZ!
http://www.blaghag.com/2011/04/i-must-crush-pzfor-children.html