Sadly, it’s not that simple
A guest post by Peter Beattie
Alom Shaha, of Why Science is Important fame, has a new piece in the Guardian, arguing that “angry atheists” are too quick to hurt the feelings of believers by implying they are stupid and should be more aware that they are capable of holding irrational beliefs too. Empathy, and how we say things, may be more important than what we say.
Superficially, it would be very hard to disagree with all this, and in fact none of the usual suspects in the “‘angry atheist’ brigade“–and I won’t even go there, nor into the tired “fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticism” bit–to my knowledge ever have disagreed with it. Of course no one advocates calling people stupid, hurting their feelings, or being oblivious to one’s own fallibility. It’s just not as simple as Alom paints it.
First, the implication of stupidity. Two things: calling an idea stupid does not equal calling a person stupid; and even with the assertion that ‘Person A is stupid’, in most cases there is the clear implication that Person A is stupid for doing/saying/believing a specific thing, quite analogously to the Forrest Gump principle of ‘stupid is as stupid does’. All of us violate that principle at least once a day, but we still recognise that this doesn’t define us as a person.
Second, the hurt feelings. Again, two things: some people will be offended, no matter how mildly the opposition to their ideas is worded; and of course nobody offends gratuitously, but it may serve a purpose if it is complemented by an explanation, i.e. an opportunity for an audience, and an invitation to them, to raise their intellectual game, in Richard Dawkins’s phrase. Say about PZ Myers, for example, what you will, but he always builds that bridge and extends that hand.
Third, the fallibility. A fair look at the most high-profile outspoken atheists will show you that one of the things that defines them (in this role) is their honest questioning: in his documentaries, Richard Dawkins tries to be understanding to a fault; Jerry Coyne’s discussions of other people’s arguments are as fair-minded and scrupulous as they come; Dan Dennett has taken the ‘principle of charity’ to new heights; and PZ, too, is open to have his mind changed—but only, and of course only, with good reason.
What this issue boils down to, I think, is that we’re looking at the problem the wrong side up. Granting people the right to be offended because they had their feelings hurt by an attack on their ideas opens the door to all manner of infringements upon free speech. If we actually want to raise our (and other people’s) intellectual game—and in a progressive society, how can we not want that?—we will have to show, educate people about, and advocate a different approach towards contentious issues. PZ just now put it best when he said that such issues would simply go away “if a few people learned to shrug their shoulders and react rationally instead”.
So let’s try and be teachers about this instead of potential self-censors. And by all means, make the message as nice as you can while keeping it effective. But also keep this in mind: “Good experiences aren’t necessarily pleasant.”
Yeah, there’s the thing. What is appropriate when people you like claim to be upset for no good reason when, in fact, the circumstances demand it? This is going to happen repeatedly. It’s called denial. You can be complicit in it or not.
The bar is pretty unclear, what may upset you may not upset me (or vice versa). It drives me nuts that some folks want us to self censor because we “might make someone feel bad”.
Perhaps the phrase “angry atheists” should be revised for a start as a way to look at the “us” versus “them” frame anew. Because I’m downright scared when confronted with a certain kind of ignorance and irrationality. How about “scared atheists”? It’s a tag phrase that might even garner some sympathy. =)
There have been a spate of these “don’t be a dick” articles or talks lately. None of them seem to come up with anything useful other than pointing out the blindingly obvious (don’t call someone a bad name if you are trying to change their mind). As is usual there are little in the way of example offered. The current article apparently stems from something the author said that offended his religious friend. What he actually said, however, is not mentioned in the article (one might think that this might be a useful bit of information, wouldn’t you?). Indeed the only item of insult he comes up with in the whole piece is Dawkins’ use of the word “deluded” – which is defined in the dictionary as : to mislead the mind or judgment of : deceive, trickNot exactly the most offensive or even inaccurate phrases, one might think.As is pointed out to the author in the first comment, it is almost impossible to know what someone else would find offensive in a conversation. OK, some things, like a direct insult, are obvious, yet others, such as saying someone is ignorant of a point of science (when they are self-admittedly uneducated on the matter), are simply statements of fact. As Dawkins, for instance says, we are all ignorant of some things. Indeed he is frequently accused of being ignorant of various points of theology or biblical criticism. In many places simply revealing oneself as atheist is seen as offensive since it forces into the open the question of choosing to believe or not (and many people are offended that non-belief is even an option).Rather than laugh at the “don’t be a dick”-ers, I, however, would like to suggest a simple proposal that may help resolve the matter. What I propose is the application of the golden rule to our public arguments. I have no problem with someone telling me I am wrong or ignorant of something or other. I don’t even have a problem with the usual accusations of atheist being immoral (I have plenty of evidence to confound that lie!). I don’t use direct insults (well rarely and only when it has been well and truly earned) but I reserve the right to criticize and even ridicule ideas. Whats more I fully support the right of religious individuals to behave in exactly the same way towards me, if they think my ideas are wrong.
Sigmund – quite – and in fact Shaha gives us some indication that in fact he didn’t say anything obviously “offensive”:
That passage is full of hints that in fact his friend chose to be “incredibly upset” by the fact that he said skeptical things about religion and that he chose to submit to her emotional blackmail. He was apparently talking in an impersonal way about religion – not about his friend – and she chose to take umbrage at that.
In other words she apparently resorted to the usual kind of censorship-by-taboo: how dare you say skeptical things about religion when I Am a Believer? Well fuck that. Most of us are already pretty inhibited about that when it comes to personal relations, which means that there is already a lot of censorship-by-taboo that protects religion in a way that no other set of ideas is protected. Shaha’s friend doesn’t seem to realize that she and her beliefs get a huge amount of automatic deference already, and that it’s really pretty entitled and bratty to pitch fits demanding even more.
Mind you, maybe that’s not what it was like. Maybe Shaha really was obnoxious in some way. But if so, he did a damn bad job of saying exactly how.
Say about PZ Myers, for example, what you will, but he always builds that bridge and extends that hand.
…and this is the key difference between PZ and Pastor Dickhead Who’s Had Way More Than His 15 Minutes of Fame; between PZ’s cracker-desecration and the latter’s Quran-burning. There may be contexts in which burning a book is an appropriate piece of theatre, but this, and him, ain’t it.
(Hoping I didn’t just derail the thread ;-) ).
So some people get upset when religion is questioned, criticised or ridiculed? Tough shit.
Thomas Jefferson : Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticism
Let’s not even mention flying airplanes into buildings.
Fanatical atheists don’t advocate stoning or dismemberment as legal punishments.
Fanatical atheists don’t burn witches, or holy books, or non-atheists.
Fanatical atheists don’t rape children en mass or protect those who do.
Fanatical atheists don’t raise money to spend in other states to restrict the rights of others.
I could go on all day.
Oh well see he just said fanatical atheism can be as ugly – not that it can be as bloodthirsty or genocidal or muderous or sadistic or oppressive. He probably just meant it likes to wear purple shirts with orange trousers or something.
This is a key issue when it comes to criticism of ideas…
I’ve often seen (mainly in blog comments admittedly) the excuse, “It’s not you we’re calling stupid, it’s your ideas!” as if ideas float around free in some perpetual hypothetical state unconnected with the brains (and brain owners) that think them.
Shaha recognises the need to clarify that whilst the person who is responsible for thinking the idea is inevitably stained in some way when one voices the judgement that the idea is ‘stupid’ it’s entirely unreasonable for the person to claim to be unjustly wounded because one is calling him stupid per se.
So maybe a case could be made that in the interests of productive conversation, one might be well advised to exercise some sensitivity and avoid saying that an idea is stupid. One should simply make the case that the idea is at fault and present your reasoning.
The trouble is – as Ophilia points out – that proponents of such ideas choose to take offence as a means of defending their position. One is not allowed to present an argument, however considerately, because if you end up making a person feel stupid for holding such ideas, that’s a no no!
It’s like Ruse claiming that presenting scientific data in direct opposition to religious beliefs is unconstitutional because doing so is tantamount to promoting atheism because some people may become atheists as a result.
Ultimately what the “don’t-be-a-dickers” consistently do is criticise vocal atheists for the consequences of their criticism and in doing so imply that there’s something wrong with the way the argument is presented without actually suggesting alternatives other than STFU!
Jolo, good point about the the bar—especially if we grant the offended person to set its level. As I say, it opens up all kinds of opportunities to try and censor free speech. What’s more, why don’t we talk about the fact that ‘being offended’ is not a get-out-of-discussion-free card? There may be legitimate offense, so by all means let’s discuss it and not try to pre-emptively marginalize speech, the only thing about which we know for certain is that some people will not like it. But surely, that alone must never be grounds for censorship, self or otherwise.
Rossana, another good point. It’s interesting to see that the ‘don’t be a dick’ contributions are always assuming to know just what the “angry atheists” are implying and what their goals are. Oh, and that they’re angry. A question constantly put to the accommodationists is, ‘How do you know your approach works better?’ Neither have any answers been forthcoming nor do you routinely see people say, ‘I wonder what arguments Dawkins and PZ have for the effectiveness of their approach?’
And re the (conspicuous, I must say) lack of detail both in the offending words and the reasons that offense was taken to them, I’m as much at a loss for words as Sigmund and Ophelia. Is that just trying not to re-offend? I mean, surely anybody should be able to see that that kind of information matters—especially if you’re trying to convince somebody else of the wrongness of their ways. It’s a bit reminiscent of Chris Mooney lecturing on communication—or maybe foxen and henhice.
.
Would you care to include an argument for why it is not unreasonable, other than that Alom recognises it as a fact?
Two things here. Yes, everybody knows that people will take this kind of offense—but, again, nobody implicated in this debate offends just for the heck of it. Those who take offense should not only learn to at least acknowledge the distinction between an attack on an idea and that on a person but also to live with the fact that sometimes we say stupid things and that it might be of value to be told so in no uncertain terms. Let’s try and learn that taking offense is usually the least productive response possible.
I do beg your pardon, Peter – I mistakenly read Shaha as the author of the post, rather than yourself.
I quite agree with you, of course.
Oh, okay, no worries. :)
Two words: Glenn Beck, In case people haven’t noticed, he seems to be convincing a LOT of people.
Now, I’m not saying anybody should emulate Glenn Beck, dear god no. But I don’t see how people can be aware of the rise of the Teabaggers and their I’ll and then seriously proclaim that people won’t listen to your message if you aren’t nice enough in your presentation. Seriously ?!?!?!
It occurs to me that believers aren’t shedding crocodile tears who are offended by things religious folks say about atheists, intentionally or otherwise.
How many times has everyone been told they can’t possibly be moral without God? Does anyone else find that offensive? I kind of do.
But I keep hearing it. I don’t throw a frickin’ temper tantrum about it (well, there was that once), I just shrug it off. People are offensive. Grow up and deal with it, theists.
I think the “don’t be a dickers” are being dicks. I could list my reasons for this opinion, but that would be redundant. There are plenty of examples right here in these comments.
I would point out, however, that the major voices in the Gnu Atheist movement are definitely not dicks. Where I see atheists making the sort of comments objected to by the DBAD crowd is in the comment sections on atheist blogs, usually directed at Christian trolls who sign on to call us names and tell us how stupid our ideas are.