Your mission, should you choose to accept it
“New” atheism is often accused of proselytizing, but I don’t think that’s right.
It’s not really proselytizing. We don’t have the explicit goal of turning everyone atheist. We don’t even really have the implicit goal of doing that. We know it’s vanishingly unlikely, and not necessarily desirable (most of us know that – maybe all of us do – it probably depends on exactly what is meant). Our goals are short of that – speaking broadly.
The most basic is probably to humble the claims somewhat – to chip away at the public assumption that there is nothing dubious about theism – that it’s perfectly reasonable to talk about God as one would talk about Gordon Brown or Sarah Palin. It is to remind everyone that belief is not necessarily the default option – that there are reasons not to believe – that the reasons not to believe are better than the reasons to believe – that it is better to restrict belief to claims that can be tested and investigated and that any claims that are officially beyond the competence of science are thereby rendered at least less reliable.
So, related to that and stemming from it, another goal is to push back against all this incessant public goddy talk and “faith”-mongering. It is, frankly, to discredit public goddy talk – to make it more obvious that it is not likely to be true – in an effort to reduce it. It is an effort to get all this god stuff out of our faces.
Now that perhaps does look like proselytizing in the sense meant. But I don’t care. We’ve had years of this nonsense, and we’re tired of it. We’re not raiding churches – but we’re arguing with the Washington Post and the BBC and the Guardian and National Prayer Day. Should we stop doing that because it may be true that on average religion makes people happy? No.
Another, overlapping goal is to make more space for atheists – to de-delegitimize atheism – to de-other it – to point out there are lots of us and we have the better case so stop trying to bully us. It is also to point out and rebuke the lies people tell about us – unblushing brazen hardened lies.
The very presence and energy of the lies is a sign that this goal, at the very least, is hard to gainsay. Atheism is neither criminal nor immoral, yet it is steadily and noisily demonized. That points to something poisonous about theism. We do get to resist – we do get to call out the lies – we do get to defend ourselves.
“We do get to resist – we do get to call out the lies – we do get to defend ourselves.”
I would say we do get to do <i>more</i> than that.
We get to show how secularism via democracy is the best way to run our lives and counties <i>for everyone</i> in the long run.
We also get to show how logic, reason, common sense, critical thought, deliberative discourse and the scientific process is the best model for progress in all human endeavors instead of woo and fairy tales.
Well, if we are trying to persuade people that we are right and the religious are just plain wrong it is difficult to argue that we are not proselytising: we are certainly trying to persuade people that we are right, which could be called converting (changing people’s minds, i.e.)… Of course, if any atheists are looking for disciples that’s another bag of jelly beans, but to the extent that we want to “make more space for atheists” we definitely have to persuade at least some people that we are right, even if the rest only end up thinking “well, live and let live” or “well, there may be something in it, I suppose”.
Glad you say you don’t care. It’s good to stick to one’s guns, and pointless getting worked up about just another piece of propaganda. There’ll be lots more of that, and of course — you are right — it can’t just be ignored; but surely sticking to the main goal is the chief thing. You have written many excellent things to show how religion destroys people. We can’t stop moaning about it now that we have got so far that we can moan and not be fined, imprisoned or tortured to death, whatever spiteful label the fraudulent purveyors of falsehood and fatuosity think of next.
This is definitely a step up from Oliver Kamm!
Trying to persuade people we are right by having a voice in the public square is one thing, but isn’t real proselytising another? The atheist bus ads and billboards, which are a very recent phenomenon, are not, I think, so much out to convert believers as to embolden the nons to stand up and be counted. Even they are different from their religious counterparts, not containing an invitation to drop in to worship, nor threats if one doesn’t or promises of eternal life if one does. And where, outside of at least one good comedy clip I once saw, do atheists engage in real proselytising by ringing people’s doorbells or thrusting literature at them in the streets? We are, in just about every conceivable sense, so much milder than those who love smearing us as militants and fundamentalists.
Yes, exactly Ophelia! This is very similar to what I say to those who criticise my atheist activism. It’s about sowing seeds of doubt, or humility, about theism, and normalising atheism. To have riddance of religion as an end-goal would be just another delusion.
And according to a study discussed in a recent issue of Free Inquiry, while “it may be true that on average religion makes people happy,” it also may be true that it is not religion per se, but certainty of belief. Atheists certain in their atheism are just as happy as certain theists, but uncertain atheists and uncertain theists are similarly unhappy. Which might mean sowing seeds of doubt IS making people unhappy, but I seriously doubt atheist activism has much of an effect on certain theists. It just means (hopefully) that theism gets less legitimacy and deference in the public arena.
What you wrote, Ophelia, a thousand times. Particularly:
and
The accommodationist set has a particularly had time understanding that this is a goal that many of us share. In fact, I think some of them actually don’t understand that this goal exists (how they can not get it, I don’t know, because folks keep telling them). One of the most frequent criticisms of the NAs is “You won’t convince anyone to abandon their religion with these tactics,” to which I would reply, “Why do you believe that’s what I’m trying to do?” (Also, it simply isn’t true that no one wakes up from their metaphysical reverie if confronted with candid talk. Some certainly do. Others don’t).
What I want – and what I think some around here probably want – is to change the social perception of religion and atheism. I want it to become as shocking and not-to-be-uttered-in-public to say “I can’t understand atheists; they have no morals,” as it is to say “He’s done surprisingly well at business for a negro.” I want theists, pundits, politicians, and casual fellow travelers to have to face social disapproval for voicing absurd claims and denigrating rational thinking. I do want goddy people to be socially uncomfortable, to squirm, when they start talking about what god wants for them, or me, or you.
This is happening when it comes to gays. Sure, you can still get away with homophobia in some parts, but it’s rapidly become off-limits in civilized company. It will only get more so.
Changing social norms is just as – often more – powerful as the law or the courts. What’s more, people who haven’t really examined their “faith,” but who parade it around or give succor to it in public speech really will start questioning it when it’s no longer considered normal to state ridiculous things and insult non-believers. The accommodationists don’t understand this; they utterly overlook the power of social norms to change (at least) what people are willing to blithely profess to believe. And a lot if is just professing, a demonstration of one’s social bona fides, not an expression of robust belief.
I’d like fewer and fewer people to believe nonsense, but I’m definitely willing to settle for nonsense speech being mocked and marginalized.
Quite. There’s an absurd imbalance now, where it’s considered normal to talk about God as if God were as familiar as the bus driver, and abnormal to resist that. If it’s going to be anything it should be the other way around. As far as I can see, the only way to make that happen is to make it happen.
I would submit that it is <i>not</i> true that on average religion makes people happy. Many, perhaps most, believers struggle with the fact that there is no evidence for what they have been taught, and have internalized, that they should believe. In an <A HREF=”http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/god-talk-part-2/” REL=”nofollow”>essay</A> meant to confront atheism, Stanley Fish noted that , “The religions I know are about nothing but doubt and dissent, and the struggles of faith, the dark night of the soul, feelings of unworthiness, serial backsliding, the abyss of despair.” Does that sound like happiness to you?
Atheists perform a true, compassionate, service in reporting to all of those experiencing crises of faith that there is really no reason for their suffering.
Kenneth, whom do you believe says or does that?
Yikes. . I’m wondering if I misread you, Kenneth. Your last sentence, “Atheists perform a true, compassionate, service in reporting to all of those experiencing crises of faith that there is really no reason for their suffering.,” seemed like sarcasm, but now looking back at your post (which I glanced at too quickly), I think I was wrong. Apologies!
Sheesh – use the formatting tools at the top of the box, people! Don’t type in html yourself because then you get it wrong and it shows up and looks stupid. We want this elegant new place to look its best!
I’m always a bit defensive about the claim that atheist’s are “proselytizing,” because it seems to me that the use of that word implies not only that atheism is a “faith” built on propaganda, but that there’s something deeply wrong and rude about trying to change people’s minds about their religion. Oh, you can try to change people’s minds about science theories or politics or the environment or movies — but religion is different. In religion, everyone is on “gool.” They should be safe from hearing anyone tell them that they’re wrong, because all beliefs have a free pass. And that attitude bothers me.
Years ago I helped staff an atheism booth at — of all places — the Wisconsin State Fair. That was … an experience. I remember that I often partnered with a fellow atheist, a former fundamentalist who had studied for the ministry at a Bible college, and dropped out when the dissonance got too much for him. He was bright as hell, and a master of debate. But, when angry Christians would approach the booth complaining that we had no right to be at a public place like a State Fair, he would answer them the same way. He’d reassure them that this booth was not for them — we’re not trying to take away anyone’s faith. It was only for other atheists, who wanted to read literature and brochures from The Council for Secular Humanism or FFRF or whatever. We’re not out to convert anyone. We’re not trying to change anyone’s mind. This, he assured me, was what they needed to hear. He knew, because he’d been one.
I finally had enough. After another one of his reassuring “we’re not trying to take away anyone’s faith” I said “Well, actually, no. I am. I think your religion is wrong, there is no God, and that you’d be better off if you threw it all out. And, if you’re interested, I’ll tell you why.” The response was a bit surprising: the guy grinned, and we started up an interesting conversation.
For crying out loud, what was this? If we were the Democrats, would we shooing away all the angry Republicans, telling them in soothing tones that we weren’t out to convince anyone of anything, that we were just here for people who were already Democrats? If we were advocating anything else — recycling or vitamins or Save the Whales or lower our taxes — would we insist that we only want to reach people who were already on our side? Would there be this inherent assumption that we better damn well not be trying to change anyone’s mind! That would be horrible!
Since when did rational argument, become “proselytising?” I don’t get upset with religious people for trying to tell me I’m wrong. I can respect that — especially when compared to people who smugly avoid any confrontation or argument, and then whisper to each other how incomprehensible atheism is. The part I don’t like, is the part where they’re wrong.
And I really don’t care for the special rules.
Silly me.
Nice tools!!
Short tutorial on the formatting tool:
1. The site appears not to accept manually typed html in the body of comments.
2. To do a blockquote, click the quotation mark icon. To end the block quote and return to normal indentation, click the icon again.
3. To insert a link, highlight the text you want hotlinked, then click the little unbroken chain thingy. A window pops up. Paste in your http://. Click “insert.”
Yup those Bob. Thanks for your co-operation. Enjoy your flight. We will be encountering a little turbulence over Topeka. We look forward to seeing you again.
:- )
Sastra – well said!
The special rules thing is one item on the To Be Proselytized Against list I have nailed to the wall near my desk.
Sastra wrote:
Yes, exactly, that’s what people think. You’ve put your finger on an important problem – the act of trying to argue someone into or out of a religious position has become conflated and defined as synonymous with the boorish actions of fundamentalist bible thumpers. I suspect that, since the hardcore evangelizers have alienated nearly everyone (even liberal theists) with their rude harangues, people have slipped into defining “proselytization” (or, in less charged terms) “persuasive argumentation” as “rude, obnoxious behavior.”
They are not the same thing. It’s a serious mistake to make perfectly legitimate attempts at persuasion off-limits by equating them with the worst examples. This slippage is everywhere, but most people don’t realize the error they make. When people say “I hate folks who prosyletize,” I think they’re not really saying, “I hate people who try to change my mind” (although some might be). What they’re actually trying to say is, “I hate ignorant, loud-mouthed religionists who get up in my face or knock on my door in the morning.”
But we need to bring that distinction back. I bitterly resent the fact that even reasonable people have agreed to put ordinary discursive persuasion in the “naughty” category just because it’s religion. It’s a wrong-headed concession to the fundamentalists.
Ugh. I’ve been making an extraordinary number of typos lately – how embarrassing. Sorry ’bout that.
In regard to Ophelia’s comments about making more of a public space for atheism, I’d add another (IMO) important point: assertive atheism enables us to make a play for the “low-hanging fruit” – the people who are religious only because they didn’t realize it was possible to not be religious. I think there’s a fairly substantial group of people who are nominally religious but never really bought into it all, and if they’re made aware that atheism is a positive and acceptable alternative, they’ll happily join us.
As I see it, that’s the point of those “You can be good without God” billboards and bus ads. No one thinks that some hard-core fundy, if he sees one of those go by, is going to slap his forehead and say, “Of course! There is no god. It all makes sense now!” But I think there are a lot of people who’ve become religious just by following the path of least resistance, and who, if they see an ad like that, will be intrigued and will want to learn more about us.
Josh Slocum said:
Something struck me about this when I read it framed in these terms. I was reminded – and long-time readers will be unsurprised by the following – of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In Chapter 1, Mill eloquently expresses his concern that popular opinion is a more pervasive and powerful limit on liberty than the power of the state:
The current state of affairs in the overwhelming majority of the world is that the tyranny of prevailing opinion and feeling (backed by the power of the state in no small part of the world) is decidedly against the very existence of atheists, let alone the free public expression of atheistic opinions and arguments. I think it’s important to be very clear that the goal is to change that particular state of affairs, to fight the social other-ing of atheism: The goal of affirmative, outspoken atheism is NOT to impose a new tyranny where religious believers are maligned, mischaracterized and muzzled at every turn – although anyone exposed to the the constant cries of “Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!” that some American Christians (and other believers, but especially American Christians) spew out whenever their absolute sociocultural hegemony is in the slightest way questioned or challenged might be misled to think that is our goal. Rather, the goal is simply to shift the sociocultural discourse away from the current state of affairs, where not only are atheists maligned, mischaracterized and muzzled whenever and wherever they have the temerity to publicly express and declare themselves, but where those who do the maligning, mischaracterizing and muzzling are seen as Defenders of the Right and the Good, by themselves and others. They are not. They are enemies of liberty, enemies of reason, and all around oppressive wankers.
I thought this point warranted clarification because, reading Josh’s eloquent statement about social norms, I immediately saw the potential for it to be twisted, misread, and otherwise abused by… well, by the sort of twits who use the phrase “PC police” in an attempt to score points in an argument. (Sorry, chum, but use of that phrase is ALWAYS an own goal.) Changing social norms about acceptable speech and behavior is not necessarily about limiting freedom. Rather, when the extant social norms support and extol the unjust imposition of controls and limitations on the speech and behavior of some minority for the benefit of and by the will of the majority, changing those norms increases liberty: As OB has been saying in different ways lately, someone’s freedom of religion does not mean they are free to impose their will on others in the name of their religious beliefs – and, more generally, no one’s freedom includes the freedom to impose their will on others.
And on a related note, these reflections have led me to understand something which I had trouble wrapping my head around before: The atheist concern trolls who perpetually criticize the tone of outspoken atheists no longer puzzle me. Self-imposition of oppressive norms by members of the oppressed minority always manifest under conditions of widespread and pervasive social tyranny. Blending in and laying low is a deeply rooted survival instinct, and when a group is forced into a socioculturally subordinate role, its members always police their own: “Keep your head down! Don’t draw any fire, because I don’t want to risk being collateral damage!” At its roots, it’s all about fear: In some, it goes beyond fear into outright cowardice. In its most extreme form, cowardice combines with cunning and leads to forthright and willing collaboration with the oppressors – which is how self-declared non-believers become Templeton Fellows.
The reference to non-believing Templeton Fellows made me think (I admit it’s a stretch) of Stockholm Syndrome. They try not to show it openly, but much of their talk makes one realise how much fear is involved. One could probably find plenty of (at least superficially) analagous situations in which the oppressed or disenfranchised were split about whether open resistance was actually counterproductive. How many times have we heard the line about needing the “moderate” believers on our side and therefore (god forbid?) doing anything that might unnecessarily antagonise them? How much of one’s self and integrity ought one to sacrifice to such a noble cause? Not alienating the less violent members of the majority has, for some, become a principle to trump all other principles, especially any to do with calling it as one sees it. And (I’ve said it before, but it needs saying frequently) let’s please not forget that those on the other side who get the label of “moderate” are not expected to keep mum about their beliefs, unlike with us. Along the lines of “the only good [fill in hated “other”]is a dead [fill in hated “other”],” society has bought into the idea that the only moderate atheist is a silent atheist.
Just wanted to add, in more direct reference to what Josh wrote and the Mill quote it prompted, there are a great many things that are not illegal that society won’t tolerate, quite apart from the religion issue, and the socialisation people have had in their upbringing has much more power than one is perhaps able to keep in mind at all times. A relatively innocuous example might be that if someone compulsively picks their nose in public the whole time and complains of exclusion from high profile society affairs, we might smirk and wonder whether nobody ever bothered informing that person about what is and is not acceptable public behaviour (or whether some mental limitation has prevented them from learning this).
What I think we need to bear in mind (without in any way justifying it or backing down with regard to our rights) is that for many of those socialised religiously, to speak at all in a public forum about not (even) believing in the existence of a god is a far worse breach of basic decency than anything else we might think of as anti-social behaviour. That’s what we’re up against and have to fight to change. The difference is that much of our response to anti-social behaviour is rooted in the yuk factor, that is to say, very deeply rooted. With religion, the sudden realisation that it doesn’t really all add up can cause belief suddenly to snap, which does happen, but all too rarely. And that is why our efforts must first go towards freeing our own from their silence. Even a slow growth in out-of-the-closet atheists might one day bring about the critical mass required to take away religion’s status as the default of the majority.
Just so.
And I would add just one thing to the passage from Mill and the thoughts that flow from it, which is that his thinking on the subject was much influenced by Tocqueville, who was hip to the enormous pressure of public opinion in the US in the 1830s. The first volume of Democracy in America was published in 1835. This problem goes way way back.
(I’ve added this thought before, but I figure it always bears repeating. Tocqueville had the thing pegged.)
G Felis – very well put. I was aware of the double-edged nature of changing prevailing social norms, but I didn’t mention it (I probably should have). No, I certainly don’t want to replace the current attitude with the same level of viciousness, just pointed in the other direction. I’m thinking, rather, of a set of social norms that make people feel silly, embarrassed, and definitely not in the default position if they choose to spout religious nonsense. I’d like to see a world in which these pronouncement carry no weight, don’t give anyone social respectability, and provoke eyerolling at cocktail parties instead of nodding-head agreement or simpering “I respect your faith” affirmations.
You remind me of an embarrassing gap in my reading – I need to get a copy of On Liberty. It’s something I should have done a long time ago.
Read Tocqueville on majority opinion, too!
Maybe I should do a book group thingy here. I used to run a book group – “Fun With Dead White Guys.”
That would be splendid. Intellectual self-improvement at a favorite watering hole. What’s not to like? Thanks for the Tocqueville recommendation.