Good old interfaith atheism
Chris Stedman is (understandably) tired of my questions about his faithy status updates at Facebook, so I’d better stop asking them there. There is such a thing as being a pain in the ass, after all.
I’ll make a couple of remarks here, instead. If I’m going to be a pain in the ass I should be it here rather than on someone else’s updates.
The update in question was to say he’s joining the board of directors of something called World Faith. I found it, and it’s what you would expect from the name – it’s an interfaith thingy. It may be very benevolent and all, but it’s an interfaith thingy. It’s pro-faith. It valorizes faith. It thinks faith is a good thing – such a good thing that it’s the way to organize one’s commitments and projects and activities. It makes faith central. It doesn’t problematize “faith.”
The way I see it, joining its board of directors is an endorsement of “faith” as such. I think it’s incoherent to claim otherwise. The name is what it is; it means what it means; it’s no good pretending it means its own opposite. If you join the board of directors of a body called World Socialism, you’re endorsing and undertaking to work for socialism. The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for World Libertarianism, World Scientology, World Trekkies, World Wiccans.
Chris thinks I’m wrong and obstinate and uncomprehending to keep thinking this no matter how often he explains it to me – but I think he’s wrong to go on thinking he can define “interfaith” and “world faith” in some special way so that they mean their own opposites anywhere outside his own head.
He’s got a speaking tour starting up in a few days. I’m sorry to say this but it looks to me like just another “I’m the good, pro-faith kind of atheist, not like those bad anti-faith atheists” speaking tour. It looks to me as if Chris, with the Harvard humanist “chaplaincy” in the background, is again making a big point of ostracizing gnu atheists in order to replace them with some weird entity that is pro-faith chaplain-endowed churchy Humanism that doesn’t believe in god but nevertheless loves goddy people much more than it loves atheism.
Check out the poster. Faith faith religion faith chaplain faith religious faith dialogue. It’s sponsored by the Interfaith Council and…the Secular Student Alliance. Go figure.
Not to drag this back into the previous topic or anything, but Chris lists Meadville Lombard Theological Seminary (the Chicago UU seminary, located a few blocks from Jerry Coyne’s office, that expelled Matthew Gatheringwater) on his resume; and the poster you linked to states that Chris’s book is going to be published by Beacon Press, the Unitarian Universalist Association’s publishing arm.
I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that UUism is easy to find wherever an allegedly “positive and productive dialogue between faith communities and the nonreligious” is being promoted.
You forgot “faith faith faith faith faith faith faith.”
That poster is treacly. Yep, it’s the same old routine. Look at me, I’m nice and friendly. Don’t worry, I won’t make you uncomfortable like those other atheists. Why, look how much of a intellectual hipster I am – I reclaimed the Gnasty epithet “faitheist” and now wear it as a badge of pride! See, I agree those nasty other atheists just don’t know how to dialogue. I’m your friend.
And also I’m really edgy with my ear barrels and tattoos. I’m young. And fresh.
Sometimes you folks risk becoming parodies of yourselves. It makes me chuckle ;)
Aw, you’re sweet to say so, James. Glad we could brighten your day:)
I know, James; isn’t it sad? We’re so weird and marginal and abnormal and extreme, while you guys are so wholesome and normal and mainstream and Good.
It’s the great “faith” makeover! It’s really not unwarranted belief — no, it’s really about meaning and “remythologizing” the world.
It reminds me of the sermon (from your former interim minister) that you published, Rieux, on James Fowler’s stages of faith. I am very familiar with Fowler and have studied his work quite a bit. These interfaith dialogues seem to be all about getting all of us to “transcend” the stage 3/stage 4 conflicts and overcome the RIGID dichotomies of the rational-based world, plunging us headlong into the amazing world of mysterious dialectics and “living in the tensions instead of trying to resolve them” (one of the favorite expressions of my liberal friends and colleagues). In the culture of equal validity, it pays to be the nice chaplain who is not too critical of religious faith: let’s give faith a makeover and pretend it doesn’t actually make epistemic claims, but only provides fuzzy feelings, positive values, and mysterious and profound meanings.
Atheists who need churches and faith. Hmm yeah, okay.
I of course said nothing of the sort, nor do I believe anything of the sort. I think the seemingly reflexive response to the word “faith” is an intriguing trait for someone who values reason, and I reserve the right to point that out.
My faitheist bingo card is filling up fast:
1. Reflexive response – CHECK
2. Denying making the implicit characterization of faith “objecters” as weird and unreflective – CHECK
3. Snotty opening remark and feigned surprise at the reaction – CHECK
Gosh, you Humanists are soooo nice!
“Reflexive”?
How about serious? Unwilling to ignore the elephant in the room for purposes of political expediency? Refusing to be silenced by the overwhelming privilege that religion and faith are granted in our society? (Privilege that you are helping enforce, James….)
When did you plan on noticing anything wrong with “faith” at all?
I can’t say I know Chris’s work well, but does he ever bother to point out any problems with faith?
Has he been informed that the Templeton Foundation has already awarded this years prize?
As an aside, am I alone in thinking that humanist chaplain is an oxymoron?
Postreligionist, your comment #6 gave me ugly flashbacks. The several weeks I spent reading up on Fowler’s pseudoscientific “theory of faith development,” so that I could figure out what the hell “Rev. Smith” was spewing, were not the most fun ones of my life.
Sorry to give you flashbacks. I appreciated reading some of your posts that you linked to. Fowler’s work is adored in the liberal religion community in general (not just for UU’s) — no wonder, because he elevates “postmodern” spirituality to the pinnacle of spiritual progress (very colonial of him :-) ).
Heh! Apparently Ophelia has not spent the James-Croft-approved amount of time thinking about why she dislikes faith. For shame!
Yes, and she has to be very careful, because if she spends too much time thinking about it, then she would be that horrible creature, the “professional atheist.”
Yeah, we’re all just acting on knee-jerk reflexes around here, unlike the oh-so-reflective James Croft. We don’t have any reasoned objections to valorizing and promoting faith at all, just a visceral reaction: I didn’t actually spend any time writing and editing this 4000+word essay, for example — I just sneezed the whole thing out! (I’m pretty sure Ophelia posted it to B&W in her sleep.)
We’ve gone around on this before a little bit, so it’s no surprise that I’m not quite in agreement, at least when I dust off my old Grassroots Coalition Politics standpoint. I certainly think that “World Faith” is a lousy name for an organization that supposedly encourages participation from atheists and agnostics, and that mission statement also could use some serious tuning-up. But the thing here, I think, is to see whether Chris succumbs to the pleasures of tokenism or whether he really holds these folks accountable for treating atheists and agnostics with the sort of equality of respect that they claim to hold. (Which would include, I think, a recognition on the part of WF that many or most of us do not see ourselves in a faith tradition. An intellectual tradition, maybe. But I digress.)
If he can manage to hold WF’s feet to the fire for his fellow atheists, day in and day out, he’ll have my respect. But I can’t say I’m terribly optimistic about it. Working against unexamined privilege every damn day is exhausting, and tokenism is very tempting.
As an atheist, I’m not personally enthusiastic about jumping into an interfaith project, for a number of reasons. But it does seem to me that it’s best for atheists if we are at least missed from projects aimed at getting along across religious divides. (I would not want to our absence to encourage any more casually anti-atheistic happy-talk along the lines of, “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you believe in something!” and I think it would.) Now, at this point it’s a rare theist who is going to look around and say spontaneously, “Golly, where are the atheists? How odd that they’re not here! We oughta give them a call!” If we want to be missed, we should hold out the possibility that we might be includable.
It really is quite something to see how the slightest disagreement stirs up the hornet’s nest here. I respect greatly a lot of the work Ophelia does, and I think she is a fantastic voice when it comes to challenging religious privilege and the dangers of faith. I happen to also think that there are many ways to skin a cat, and that having both Chris and Ophelia doing what they do is a boon to our movement.
That we are so quick to pounce on each other due to disagreements over ‘doctrine’, and that some are so willing to make all sorts of false assumptions about those who disagree with them on relatively minor points, is a great weakness in our movement and only serves to stultify our efforts to affect real change.
Except the promotion of faith is not a minor point.
Faith is an expression of belief in what one does not know to be true. Believe me, I tried for many years to understand how that could be a good thing and what I could do to support it. But it is not a good thing. Rational people who think that they ought to sustain faith beat themselves up psychologically over their inability to do so, and young people who find they have no choice but to let go of the effort, for integrity’s sake, are expected to feel themselves alienated from their faithful peers and, perhaps, to be suffering a character flaw.
No, not a good thing.
Faith is wishful thinking, and almost certain to disappoint.
The Sam Harris talk at U of C was brought together by their Office of Spiritual Life. Go figure.
I find it funny how often people come here, be insulting, then complain about the reaction they get to the “slightest disagreement”. It reflects a certain lack of self-awareness, I think.
I was thinking about that project a few minutes ago. It’s a good project, but it seems to me it’s decidedly not one for atheists, because we don’t create religious divides in the first place. We don’t know from the inside which differences really matter, which ones can be bracketed or ignored, etc – we don’t have a feel for what it’s all about. We also don’t have a responsibility for it. We could be better used on clean water projects…
That’s not really the point, I know, but I’m not sure what I think about the actual point. I’m ambivalent.
It’s hard to convey tone online, but I had hoped the smiley face would convey that my initial remark was more one of wry affectionate amusement than superior offensive attack. For a site so impressively committed to bracing critical dialogue many here are very quick to take offense!
But let be. My point is that there might be something valuable to what Chris is doing, there might not, and there might be something dangerous about it, but it will take an analysis of this particular situation to find out. Simply dismissing the idea because the word “faith” is associated with it is insufficient.
Hey — Chris the “interfaith atheist” here. To be totally blunt, I’m not all that interested in getting into a back-and-forth here; as Ophelia rightly noted, I’m preparing for a speaking tour, and also dealing with a lot of follow-up after last weekend’s American Humanist Association conference.
That said, I’d like to highlight just one important distinction (though there is much else I could respond to).
Ophelia says:
This doesn’t accurately reflect my perspective. I wouldn’t say I’m interested in promoting faith as “THE” way to organize one’s commitments; rather, it is clear to me that that is already so for an overwhelming percentage of the public. The majority of folks already do organize their commitments in relation to their religious identity. So, if that is so (and it is — check out Robert Putnam’s recent book, American Grace, for evidence of this), why not harness that to promote causes that we can all get behind? Why not encourage religious people to be pluralisticly minded, rather than exclusivistic? To me, this seems not only obvious, but fundamentally important.
I feel like my perspective should be clear from my writing and activism; I’ve never said anything that might suggest that I am interested in pushing “faith” on people or privileging it as superior, or that I am anything but an atheist (depsite Ophelia’s preposterous claims on my facebook page that I am in fact religious… which, as I said, was the issue today. I’ve no problem with you commenting on my page, Ophelia, but I’d rather you not try to tell me that I am something I’ve clearly stated time and time again that I am not).
But based on the number of postulations (i.e. the numerous times “it looks to me” appears in this post; the uncited “Chris thinks;” etc.) present in your posts on my work, Ophelia, it seems that it really doesn’t matter what I say; you’re inclined to go on imagining whatever you please about me and my work. So what’s the point in humoring this any further?
I doubt I’ll say much else, as it is clear that the many of the commenters here aren’t doing due diligence by actually reading my work, but are instead jumping on some kind of “atheist purity test” bandwagon. (Though I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the commenters here who appear to be giving me the benefit of the doubt.)
As a final thought: there’s really no need for personal critique re: my tattoos and piercings, etc. — when you have to resort to a personal attack, it’s clear to me that there’s little to be gained by actually engaging your concerns. Comments like those are ugly and unflattering, and do little to demonstrate any semblance of rationality or objectivity. Just my two cents.
What’s the url for your inspirational video, James? Give everybody a squint at that and they’ll view you with a friendlier eye. Given the video, I know you’re not of the “marginalize the vocal atheists” party – but I don’t know that about Chris. I think some of the things he does, and the way he presents them, do precisely that. Maybe he doesn’t intend them to, but I think they do.
The status quo is religious privilege. We want to change that status quo. Chris seems to be buying right into it, and valorizing it.
Indeed, Stedman endorses the positions of World Faith by his actions. What are those positions? Here is one, from their website:
“…World Faith recognizes agnosticism, atheism, humanism, and spiritualism as faith traditions…”
As a native English speaker, let alone an atheist, I strongly reject this attempt to put atheism and faith on the same traditional plane. I am in fact offended by it. It looks to me like yet another attempt to hijack common English usage to support a theo-political position.
Hey, Chris, I love your tatoos and piercings. They’re anti-sanctimonious, if you know what I mean.
I didn’t say you were religious on your FB page – I asked if you were. I said
It is confusing. Joining the board of directors of “World Faith” doesn’t sound like an atheist thing to do.
I did look on your blog to see if you said something about it (so I wasn’t totally neglecting due diligence) but I didn’t find anything helpful.
I think I get that your intentions are benign, but I don’t think you get that implications have power. You look like the faith-cuddling wing of atheism, and that appearance does have implications. I could explain, but I realize you’re short on time.
He was talking about evolutionary biology, but it applies to every area where debate and criticism are considered good things.
The Mission Statement says the goal is “to counter religious extremism and strife by demonstrating how faith can inform work for unity and peace, rather than hate, war, and division.” I don’t think faith can undo the damage faith causes. For that you have to go outside faith, and stop attacking atheists without faith as though they were the problem. There is no reason to think that religious strife is caused by the presence of atheists against faith. There is every reason to think that faith itself is the problem.
Uh, James, the line “Sometimes you folks risk becoming parodies of yourselves. It makes me chuckle ;)” is very poorly written if you seriously didn’t intend to communicate a “superior offensive attack.”
The “you folks,” the “parodies of yourselves,” and the chuckling to yourself (which also lends a fairly clear implicit meaning to that smiley, which thus didn’t leaven anything) all give the impression that you were insulting-and-running. “Chuckling” at allies? I have a hard time understanding how you expected that comment to be taken as anything other than a personal shot.
Your “quick to take offense” pretense is itself aggravating, in light of the poor job you did making your intentions clear. We took offense because your first comment gave every sign of being offensive. (The “reflexive response” crack didn’t help, either.)
The response you’ve received is a consequence of what you wrote. You might want to consider taking some responsibility for that.
James again –
But that’s what I’m doing. I’m attempting to analyse this particular situation. That’s what the post is about. I didn’t “dismiss” anything – I don’t have the power to do that, for a start – I said what I think is wrong with an atheist becoming a director of something called “World Faith.”
Hey! HTML italics don’t work! Damn you, richtextboxes.
Ophelia, then Chris:
Ophelia didn’t say that was your perspective; she said it was “its” perspective, World Faith‘s perspective. How can you promote and join the board of an organization and then complain when a critic points out problems with that organization’s perspective? If your disagreement with World Faith is important enough to you that you feel the need to clarify that disagreement, what in the world are you doing joining and promoting World Faith?
“The majority of folks” in the United States also hate atheists. Can you understand why atheists might favor trying to change such a condition (either one) rather than pretend it’s inevitable and unchangeable?
Organizations that overtly promote “faith” strengthen faith’s claim as something we should all “organize our commitments” around. Gnu-bashers strengthen atheophobia. Isn’t it in atheists’ best interests to oppose both trends?
Um, you’ve just announced that you’re joining the board of directors of an organization called World Faith, whose Mission Statement (hat tip Ernie @30) provides that its goal is “to counter religious extremism and strife by demonstrating how faith can inform work for unity and peace, rather than hate, war, and division.” Chris, that is privileging faith as superior.
I haven’t read your work. There’s nothing “impure” about promoting faith; it just happens to be directly contrary to atheists’ interests. Doesn’t it?
I’m here because I’d like to think I “get it.” As an atheist, I get where you’re coming from, and as a fellow Minnesotan – I also totally get where Chris is coming from… on more levels than one. Minnesota is big on interfaith dialogue. I understand that by putting atheism in the faith list, World Faith shows its naivety. Token atheist or not, I have a great deal of admiration for what Chris does – and what he does challenges me as an atheist on many levels. I am a former evangelical fundamentalist… who grew up surrounded by the much more interfaith friendly Minnesota Lutherans. Ultimately, the proximity and experience of progressive and interfaith Christians helped me leave entirely.
For many Christians, interfaith is a HUGE step forward whether we atheists want to admit it or not. I also, as an EMPATHETIC atheist, organize a Former Fundamentalist (Twin Cities/Minnesota) support group. Some of us have left the faith entirely, like me – but have so much love, and even respect for some of what we left behind that most atheist groups are anything but helpful or even healthy. Others of us are on a diverse continuum of leaving evangelical fundamentalist Christianity behind – moving toward a much more progressive Christianity that though still based in faith, is much more respectable and healthy than where we came from.
Chris’ work recognizes the continuum – and while yes – I DO understand the atheist frustration with the use of the word/idea of faith – I also understand that balance is difficult, and even an uncomfortable and continual practice – and from what I’ve seen following Chris’ work – he works hard at practicing balance. He may do more, or as much, within World Faith to help Christians on the verge of leaving faith – to leave – than all the my-way-or-the-highway atheists who don’t quite understand how much extensive deprogramming and support is needed to leave Christianity behind… And so – as an atheist/exBeliever – I wish him all the best.
Some scientist — I forget who — said that, if he had won the Templeton prize, he would immediately have used it to form an anti-Templeton organization dedicated to promoting the view that no, science and religion are NOT compatible. In that spirit, then, I think it would be interesting if, early on, one of Stedman’s first acts is to suggest a name change for the World Faith group. If it’s “okay” to secularize faith, then it should be just fine to change the name to World Hope or World Fellowship. Make it clear that they’re not going to discriminate on the basis of religion.
If they ignore him or vote it down, he should bring it up again. And again, And again. Always smiling, always patient, always throwing around a shitload of high-minded rhetoric about unity and life philosophy and it’s all about loooove, isn’t it, so let’s all get together and change that teeny weeny little word.
Then maybe he can see if the word really doesn’t matter or mean what it has always meant — or if it really, really does.
If by “associated” you mean the word is in the name of the organization then, yes, “associated.” But of course, it’s not just that, it’s the mission statement too which has already been quoted above.
Aha! I was trying to think of a name that would include the atheist and religious alike. I like it. But I suspect that that little word that doesn’t matter (or that we shouldn’t really care about) WILL matter.
As a veteran of several interfaith organizations in my past religious life, I will agree that there is some utility in people committed to particular social or political positions coming together to work together for a common cause. However, the problem is that the agenda of interfaith organizations is to make sure “faith” is causally separated from (fill in your violent, exclusivist, or dishonest religious expression here). Most interfaith efforts constitute a ideological political project to validate and protect the symbolic virtue of faith itself, which, as Sam Harris and others point out, does not allow for full-on criticism of religious extremism by moderate and liberal believers of various religious identities. As I commented on the UU post as well, the unspoken and unacknowledged dogma of interfaith organizations continues to be (what Paul Boghossian calls) the epistemic “doctrine of equal validity.” As we all witness on a continuous basis in the interactions here, any critique or challenge of the position of equal validity is always portrayed by accommodationists as a “purity test” by “fundamentalists” within the ranks. Participation in most (maybe there are exceptions, but I haven’t seen many) interfaith organizations means tacit approval of the equal validity position on knowledge – the only “unforgivable sin” is the sin of not respecting all beliefs as equally valid regardless of the lack of evidence that might support them. Maybe this is not World Faith’s mission, but it seems to be a big part of it based on mission statements, etc.
It isn’t that dialogue shouldn’t happen — it isn’t that cooperation on social or political projects shouldn’t happen — it’s that faith should be challenged (and not reinforced) as the dominant paradigm through which to view ethics and life in American society and beyond. As much as I hated Ronald Reagan’s quote on government as a problem, I will turn it around here to describe faith: “Faith is not part of the problem, faith is the problem.”
Um, Xtine:
Oh, c’mon now. I’m a Minnesotan as well; I was even raised in a liberal Lutheran church. As a fellow member of that tribe, it seems to me that claiming some kind of special understanding of Chris’s perspective because of our residence is more than a little silly. (Perhaps you’ve heard of a Minnesotan, also raised in liberal Lutheranism, named P.Z. Myers?)
This is a welcome observation:
Thanks for noticing those concerns.
I have a hard time understanding how World Faith is going to help people “leave faith,” and I don’t understand where the “my-way-or-the-highway” characterization comes from. Is it somehow freakish, incomprehensible, or self-evidently unreasonable for atheists to think that promoting faith is, in and of itself, a bad thing?
I don’t know of any Gnu Atheist who has any objection to helping people leave fundamentalism. It just remains more than a little unclear, to me at least, why strengthening the power of faith (and thus religion) in American society is a justifiable (or even pragmatically plausible) means to that end.
I simply want to point out here that the discussion occurring here in the comments now is much more nuanced and informed than the initial post. That’s an experience I’ve had here before, and makes me glad I posted.
I can see what you’re getting at from a pragmatic perspective. But you ask “Why not?” there, rhetorically, a couple of times, and what I think Ophelia is getting at, broadly, is the answer to that Why Not. Because faith is, to varying degrees, a bad thing. That’s why not. That’s not the nuanced answer. It doesn’t cover all the vagaries and nuts and bolts, but that is at the heart of the matter. I’ve often wondered in recent months if the accomodationist label could be applied to other parts of the theist/atheist discussion, not just science v religion, and I reckon I could make a case. (Modern morality vs religion, if you try and shoehorn religious doctrine into a discussion of morality, as an atheist, you are enabling a lot of harmful presumptions and accomadating incompatible ideas, for instance.) If Chris is making an effort to accomodate faith into the solution to social problems, then the solution runs into problems when the ideas not based in reality (faith) bump up against reality.
I’ll admit to not being too familiar with Chris’s work, but he certainly doesn’t seem an unreasonable chap, certainly in this response, but I do think he is missing the obvious elephant in the room, as rieux points out.
On the long list of things people could be doing, I don’t know that I want to be too up in arms about this particular thing, I can think of far worse and harmful initiatives, but there just <i>is</i> a problem with enabling faith as an atheist.
Labelling it an “atheist purity test” is belittling the important point being made.
What James said after his initial post is interesting also.
As g Felis points out, it’s not being simply dismissed. There may be something valuable to what Chris is doing, but I think it’s more likely to be counterproductive, if we agree in the long term that faith is a poor reason to believe things and act on them. It seems almost a little defeatist to me. All these people are faithful now, and that won’t change, so let me harness that to do other things. But surely it can be changed, and surely we shouldn’t be afraid to say we want to change it?
I am reminded of http://www.investigatingatheism.info/simonblackburnreligion.html Blackburn’s Respect essay again. (Thanks to whoever it was at Choice in Dying who posted this months ago!)
Chris:
That was cheap of me, and I’m sorry I said it.
On the substance: I have significant problems with the whole concept of “interfaith,” and very mixed feelings. Mostly negative, but I’m not certain there isn’t something productive that can be done with it. While you don’t bear the responsibility of the Entire Universe of Irritations Experienced by Atheists, it helps to understand how beleaguered a lot of us feel. We’re not only socially marginalized on the mainstream, but we’re constantly fending off mischaracterizations, insults, tut-tutting (a whole heaping sanctimonious bunch of tut-tutting from Humanists, which really chafes), and “friendly fire,” if you will. It’s easy to have a hair trigger reaction.
Smug isn’t helping. Commenters here (obviously myself prominently included) aren’t perfect, but do admit your opening salvo wasn’t exactly ingratiating.
Well sure. I’m just an uninformed nuance-free shouter; my role is to trigger a more nuanced and informed discussion.
My opinion (I happen to think that it’s correct) is pretty simple.
The problem is the privilege. I think most atheists/seculars/whatever agree with this. The problem I have with these groups, is that their actions reinforce said privilege. By labeling themselves as “faith”, or “religious”, or whatever, when they do good things..and I really have no doubt that they want to do good things!…when they do good things they put money in the United Bank of Privilege. Money which is withdrawn by not-well meaning people to do bad things like hate gays and control women and promote the “noble poor” and all those other mean nasty things that religions do in our society.
Gnu atheists, among others, work very hard to empty that Bank of Privilege. And yet people don’t like it when we try to. At the end of the day, religious individuals LIKE “glory”, generally that’s what drives Western religion. And it’s the need for glory which drives them to carry the water for the bad people. But the privilege in the end is simply too important to them to change.
Damn, the posts are flying this morning. I could have just QFT’d a couple.
David M.:
Oh, I think it’s obvious that it can.
I’ve seen some Gnu-ish folks (including some big names, I think; was Jerry Coyne one of them?) describe accommodationism as something that’s all about the science-and-religion question. That seems way too narrow to me; I think it’s clear that the same figures, the Mooneys, Rosenaus, and Ruses (et many alia), oppose Gnu-ish approaches to lots of things that aren’t particularly about science.
The accommodationist/Gnu conflict seems to me to be just a local version of the common phenomenon, in social movements, of a conciliatory faction fighting with a separatist one. The same thing has cropped up in political history countless times—including in the abolitionist movement, the feminist movement, Civil Rights, labor rights, GLBT rights, you name it. Does it make more sense to accommodate the privileged in-group’s sensibilities and try to work for slow change within the (unjust) system, or should the out-group defy and openly criticize those sensibilities and demand significant change sooner rather than later? Every movement fights those issues out.
Exactly.
I’ve just finished writing a column about exactly that. Just sent it off, about 2 minutes ago.
Do not tease us like that! Where/when may we expect to read it?
QFT, QFT, QFT. Many people (including me) have pointed this out until we’re blue in the face. It doesn’t seem such a difficult concept to understand, but boy, do a lot of people have a hard time getting it. Well, actually, they usually just fail to acknowledge it, or more outrageously, scold one for “claiming the mantle of civil rights” or LGBT oppression “inappropriately.”
I find it especially frustrating when I get this response from gay men. As an outspoken gay rights and AIDS-funding activist starting at 14, I well remember the fights between groups such as ACT-UP and the “quietly, diplomatically” contingent. I’m willing to concede the mix of loudmouths and diplomats may well have made more progress than one approach alone. It chaps my ass not to get the same acknowledgment from the (mainly, though not exclusively) current diplomat corps too young to remember a time when there was no such thing as a Gay/Straight Alliance in a high school. Yeah kid, things used to be harder. Mouthy people helped set the stage for what you can do today.
I’ll tell you when/if it hasn’t been rejected!
Well quite, and I think these lads are too young even to remember the pre-gnu days, at least with any clarity (unless they were a lot more attentive than I was as a teenager, which is certainly possible).
Hey, wow! Karmakin:
Hooray!
Okay, never mind the UU stuff and whatever else I’ve been blathering about for the past few days. Those are interesting and all, but the main points I think need to be made by open atheists much more often are about religious privilege—cousin to male privilege, straight privilege, white privilege, class privilege, ableist privilege, etc.—and how it impacts just about everything that happens among atheists as well as between us and the believing majority.
Since we now have some folks on the thread (e.g., Postreligionist @38) asserting that faith is the problem and others (e.g., Karmakin) saying it’s privilege, I think there’s a reconciliation available. (Actually I suspect the disagreement is only superficial, but anyway.)
To my mind, the problem is basically threefold: religious faith, religious authority, and religious privilege. Each supports or protects the others—faith and authority circularly underlie one another (e.g., “The Bible is true because it’s the word of God because it says it is”), they both support the notion that religious ideas and people deserve a superior status to other ideas and people (privilege!), and privilege insulates faith and authority, not to mention itself, from criticism.
Atheists all over the ’Net do a perfectly good job pointing out the damage that religious faith and authority do. (And they should obviously keep doing that.) Attention to religious privilege-as-such is considerably harder to find—but on this blog, over the past handful of days, I I’ve seen people other than me (!) mention it by name several times. Terrific!
Um Rieux:
It’s not silly – my point being that to be surrounded by “liberal Lutherans” such as yourself – who were more likely to be much more friendly toward interfaith dialogue than any church I ever attended (though I did attend a heathen ELCA college) – suggests that Chris “gets” the tradition. My churches demonized interfaith dialogue among main-line protestants and Catholics, et al. I’m suggesting that Chris might already understand the demonization of interfaith dialogue, and the sometimes positive tradition of it as demonstrated so well by “liberal Lutherans” of Minnesota – and helped set the stage for Chris’ attempt to approach it from a more mature point of view. And yes – I’m very aware of fellow Minnesotan PZMeyers – and also very aware of many fellow Minnesota atheists who have very little time for him.
As someone who would not be an atheist if not for in part my exposure to liberal Christianity – I exited out of the progressive Christianity door – I can assure you – the dialogue, the interfaith mingling, HELPS! A lot! This is also something I often hear from others who have left. The “my-way-or-the-highway” is something we ex-fundies are very sensitive to – and one of the biggest criticisms I’ve heard of atheism in general. The very arguments we hear against interfaith dialogue that includes an atheist, echo the arguments we heard against liberal Christians who rubbed elbows with non-Christians.
That is not to say I, as an atheist, don’t get very frustrated with how liberal Christians make assumptions about faith – but I also understand that more often than I like, atheism can also be viewed as a license to demean and oversimplify those who do have faith. Like Sastra mentioned – I hope Chris is able to help change the perception of atheists – and also change the semantics surrounding faith. Him being there will challenge people of faith – and may help soften the blow of those leaving the faith.
I spend a lot of time studying, and criticizing, things like Obama’s expansion of Faith-Based Initiatives. I would like to see the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships go away – entirely… ( bit.ly/ekPurl ) but I also know that we are so far away from that happening that Chris is not hurting atheism – and if anything will expose more people to other ways of existing. This conversation kind of reminds me of the debates evangelical Christians would have – Should a Christian ever go into a bar and have a beer and within the conversation with friends/strangers show how wonderful God is?? Some of the best born-again stories are from exSinners who were brought into the faith by believers who weren’t afraid to rub elbows with sinners. Hate to say it – but Chris might be Exactly what WorldFaith needs.
Rieux – yes. Amusingly enough, whenever I see people talking about religious privilege I go “aha, yes that’s it, must remember to focus on that!” Then forget all about it until next time.
Which is odd because it’s the very thing that pisses me off!
Without the privilege there’s no authority, and without the authority there’s no problem with the faith itself. At least that’s my opinion. That said, the Western religions we generally deal with have a desire for privilege and authority “baked” into them, and there’s very little if no desire to unbake them.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a bit of different through about this, as I’m not sure it’s even religion that’s the problem here. It seems to me to be a natural result of monotheism. (That is, belief in a singular, interventionist deity) And there’s absolutely no desire among liberal/progressive religious folks to dump monotheism (although they’re probably much further away from traditional monotheism as they’d care to admit)
Rieux-
Excellent points. Faith, authority, and privilege is a good framing of the overall picture. My point in focusing on the faith aspect is that both epistemic issues (faith) and non-epistemic issues (power and privilege) matter. I get frustrated with the postmodern/postcolonial inclination to ONLY focus on power and privilege issues.
Xtine, I sympathize with your dilemma. We might lose opportunities to reach receptive ears if we don’t participate in groups with a faith orientation. So OK, we go. But what then? Can we be honest and say we think faith is bad and destructive or do we hem and haw and say that our lack of faith isn’t against faith, it’s another kind of…..you know. Participation on those terms is at least problematic in my view. I suppose what I’d really like to see is atheist participation by a better class of accomodationists, who don’t think New Atheists are a big problem. I’m kidding, sort of.
You don’t like the “my way or the highway” that you associate with atheists. I disagree that this is a problem in itself. The problem is when extremely implausible views are held with absolute certainty. Atheists, in contrast, proportion their degree of confidence to what the evidence will bear. Of course human nature being what it is, we occasionally are more certain than we should be. Still I think we have it about right most of the time. Anyway, since everyone thinks they’re right the real point of difference is the grounds for deciding.
Religion as such isn’t privileged in the United States; Judaism is marginalized and Islam is barely tolerated. Christianity is definitely privileged. While there may be a general attitude of respect for any sort of belief, it’s by no means universal.
There is definitely a presumption that religious faith is a good thing, that spirituality or belief in a higher power makes one a better person, which implies that atheists are abnormal, defective and deviant (or, which is actually the case, preternaturally wise and kind).
Participating in interfaith outreach does get us a seat at the table, increasing our visibility and making us seem less alien and more acceptable. Knowing that we’re here and happy may well make it easier for doubting believers to let go of their faith. Moreover, any sort of interfaith dialogue inherently undermines the epistemological foundations of the various faiths to the extent that what is common is considered most important, which might not be such a bad thing; a vague deism would be an improvement for most.
The price of interfaith participation is conceding that the other participants have something of value to offer, which we can’t honestly do. The benefit, apart from recognizing that we exist, is the possibility that they’ll concede that we have a point, which, whatever they may have learned in seminary, they can’t admit in public. Still, if we’re grateful that Obama mentions us in speeches (which he must, if only in memory of his mother), doing this sort of thing occasionally might conceivably do more good than harm.
@Josh “do admit your opening salvo wasn’t exactly ingratiating.” If my opening was read as a superior and condescending remark, as it seems to have been, it certainly doesn’t help things. Further, it’s set up my future posts to be read in a more negative tone than I intended. I should be more careful when I post.
I think this discussion has gone in a very useful direction. The question on the table now is how effectively to dismantle religious privilege, and there seem to be two answers: first, what is being called an “accommodationist” view, which can be seen as potentially beneficial in its ability to interface with those of religious faith and to raise the profile of nonreligious individuals in the eyes of the faithful, but might reinforce religious privilege by further promoting the idea that faith is a reasonable ground for knowledge and action. Second, a different view, promoted by the “new” atheists, which says that robust criticism “from the outside” is more what’s needed, and that attempts to collaborate or dialogue with the privileged group are a form of, essentially, appeasement to those in power.
Rieux puts this well, asking:
I have a few thoughts on this depiction of the issue, which I don’t think is quite accurate (but is useful nonetheless). First, it is not necessarily t\he case that the two strategies are mutually exclusive. They could potentially reinforce each other. Every successful social movement I’ve studied has actually used both strategies, some people pushing from the outside, others working from within. This was certainly true, for example, in the gay rights movement.
But more importantly, this distinction obscures the crucial fact that a single individual can work in both these ways at once. Think of Harvey Milk. He was certainly uncompromising in his desire to achieve gay liberation NOW. He was frustrated by those gay individuals who worked behind the scenes and lobbied for incremental change. He wanted straight privilege to go. But, and this is crucial, he was not above building coalitions when it could aid that cause, even with groups which traditionally reinforced straight privilege. His work with trade union is a classic example. They were profoundly anti-gay and therefore part of the oppressive system he gave his life to dismantle, but nonetheless he saw an opportunity for persuasion. He saw a chance to build an alliance with people who used to be his enemies, and he took it.
To do so, he had to go to union meetings, and speak with people who could be relied upon to despise him. He had to swallow his pride and try to convert people to his cause. And then he had to work beside them (his former enemies), doing something for them so they could do something for him. These people became allies – one of the most important components in the historic and current movement.
Was Milk an “accommodationist” because he worked with some of those who sought to reinforce the privilege he wanted to destroy? Or was he “gnu”, because he never compromised his ultimate goal? I think, and have thought for a long time, that the distinction is not the most useful one. The most important question for our movement should be “will this improve things for atheists and Humanists, or not?” In my judgment, Chris is working to build useful coalitions with people who will help us dismantle the privilege we all crave to destroy. He’s trying to find allies. I think that is very wise. It also doesn’t, I think, undercut anything Ophelia or others here seek to do.
That was a long and rambling post – apologies. I just feel strongly on this issue :).
Which inter-homophobia initiatives did he materially and reputationally support?
And also, in what way is homophobia part of the core material cause or raison d’etre of trade unionism? Trade unions can evolve socially to abandon homophobia without this affecting their collective bargaining ability (etc.), and indeed doing so can improve their social legitimacy and their core commitment to social justice. Faiths cannot evolve to abandon faith without ceasing to be faiths.
The comparison therefore does not survive analysis of the actual relationship between the in and out groups in each scenario.
I appreciate that it may be worthwhile to avail oneself of a platform for promoting a positive view of atheism to the faithful. But doing so by lending one’s name and effort to an organization that will overwhelmingly promote an anti-atheistic viewpoint and use any atheistic support to legitimise the promotion of that anti-atheistic viewpoint is not a good idea in my opinion.
Reflexive defense of the losses of compromise would also be reflexive…
James, many of us gnus have no problem, in principle, with the idea that there should be some degree of interface with religious moderates – even in the setting of some sort of interfaith-like group (although we’d prefer they would change the name to something more inclusive for the non religious). Having a good-cop/bad-cop approach is appropriate in theory but the practice, thus far, is problematic.
I think we can agree that the philosophical outlook of accomodationist/interfaith atheists is far more similar to that of the gnus than that of the faithful. If by some miracle the gnus came to power in the US then the outlook for the religious would not be similar to that of a Stalinist USSR setting but rather of a Scandinavian democracy. In other words the gnus pose little threat to any religious person who doesnt expect the government to abide by his or her scripture. Yet why do we see accomodationists supporting claims that there are atheist fundamentalists that are equivalent to the worst religious fundamentalists? I can’t count how many times I’ve seen that point made, either by an accomodationist or by a ‘moderate’ religious type and every time I see it I ask myself, ‘can they really mean that? Do they really think gnus (who are always the ones defined as ‘fundamentalist atheists’) are equivalent to the Taliban. Is calling Michael Ruse a “clueless gobshite” equivalent to beheading Daniel Pearl on camera with a blunt knife? Do they really think that?
Woah, lots of comments already, no time to read them! Anyway, I think I part ways with you a bit here Ophelia, though I definitely see where you are coming from. There is a certain phoniness to ecumenicism, particularly if any of the religions believe in rewards or punishments specifically related to what you believe (if you are convinced I am going to burn in hell eternally, excuse me if I find your friendly overtures to be a bit disingenuous). Even religions that aren’t so rigid, the epistemological bankruptcy of revealed truth makes ecumenicism a philosophically questionable endeavor at best.
And I agree that interfaith events do specifically and unavoidably promote faith, in a way. But right now I think they also promote faith in a way that is avoidable, i.e. including a lot of atheist bashing and “Hurrah for our shared belief,” etc.
With the world as it stands in 2011, I think we are better off having a seat at the table to express the views and concerns of our community, rather than turning tail over (admittedly quite sound) principled objections.
This.
Very interesting comments at ≈59-66. This is a great thread!
James @61, I certainly don’t mind the comment length. And I think you’re correct that the conciliation/separation issue isn’t as stark a contrast as my paragraph @47 sort of implies; there are indeed sometimes ways to split the difference. I think dirigible @63 and 64 is absolutely right in his/her response to you, though: I suspect a large proportion of gnus have no problem with working with and even compromising with religious people—as long as the things we’re compromising are compromisable. As I think this thread shows, the utility and acceptability of faith (as an epistemological method or a social-organizational one) is very clearly not such a thing, as far as a whole lot of us are concerned. Dirigible’s analogy between faith and homophobia seems to me very well put. And Harvey Milk sure looks like a Gnu Queer to me. (Dirigible needs to comment more often.)
Sigmund @65:
I said something like that a little while ago here; the current crop of accommodationists (I can’t tell whether Chris Stedman belongs in that group or not) aren’t very useful as “good cops” because it’s not at all clear that they have the same goals as gnus do. It seems to me that the gnu faction is fundamentally interested in weakening and/or discrediting religious faith, authority, and privilege—but it appears, for reasons such as the ones Sigmund mentions, that accommodationists have entirely different ends in mind. A “good cop/bad cop” collaboration between accommodationists and gnus is impossible in the face of that disconnect.
So I think Ernie @59 is exactly right: we need “atheist participation by a better class of accomodationists,” ones whose general manner is conciliatory toward religious believers but whose ideals don’t just accept religious hegemony uncritically. If there are deals to be struck and alliances to be built that don’t dishonor out-and-proud atheists’ interests, let’s see them: I think the vast majority of gnus are willing to listen, as long as we aren’t being expected to give up the store. Religious faith, authority, and privilege seem to me non-negotiable. Plenty of other things aren’t.
No need to apologize, James – excellent and helpful comment. (I love Harvey Milk. I was living in SF when he was elected as a supe. I saw him in the Chinese New Year’s parade a few months later. I happened to be listening to the radio [in Seattle by that time] when Dianne Feinstein made that horrible announcement – I remember where I was standing…)
But I’m not saying a word against talking to people, meeting with people, discussing with people. There’s a difference between all of that and joining a board of directors. Harvey Milk didn’t join any board of directors of Homophobes of America did he? Or World Heterosexuality? Or Straights Rule OK?
James Croft:
Yes, absolutely. This is the sort of thing gnus frequently say, often givig the gay rights and civil rights movements as examples, but which many accommodationists don’t seem to get.
Many accommodationists don’t seem to understand what sets us off, and what we’re actually objecting to. It’s generally not that accommodationists want to work with religious people, or that they don’t bash religion every chance they get, but that they curry favor with the religious by talking smack about how awful we gnus are.
I suspect Ophelia would be a lot more willing to give Chris Stedman, Andrew Lovley et al., the benefit of the doubt that what they’re doing is good, if they weren’t so prone to saying that what we’re doing is bad.
We see the use of a variety of approaches—we understand good cop/bad cop and especially Overton Windows—but they don’t seem to, and don’t seem to clear on the idea of pursuing their strategy without actively undermining ours.
It’d be easier to believe we’re both right, and that our strategies are compatible in the big picture, if they weren’t so fond of telling us we’re Doing it Wrong, and accusing us of political naivety and worse-than-uselessness, while seeming to be utterly naive about movement dynamics and Overton Windows themselves.
After reading (most of) the comments, I thought that maybe it all boils down to the name. My impression is that “Interfaith” usually intends to include no faith, and so why not have an atheist on the board? But granted, the name “World Faith” sounds problematic. Maybe if they were called “World Cosmic Philosophies” that would not be at odds with his no faith position. But as several commenters pointed out, the mission statement says the organization wants to “demonstrate how faith can inform work for unity and peace”. The only non-contradictory position for him (I think) then would be to have no faith but to believe that faith should be encouraged for the good that it does.
Religious FAP? Hmm, yes, I think that sums it up very well!
I’ve been reading this discussion, and trying to consider where my views lay in this. When it comes to working with the religious, I see no reason why we can’t work together on mutual goals. For example, relief efforts in Japan or Haiti, assistance for the homeless, medical research, etc. I just recently began a position in which I will be assisting developmentally disabled adults to have a measure of independence, and opportunities to socialize and have some dignity. Though I have not asked, I highly suspect that at least some of my co-workers are religious. Should I not choose to work with them towards the common goal of helping to better the lives of disadvantaged minorities, simply because they may be in part motivated by faith? Certainly not!
Openly working with faith-based groups towards common social goods is something I would happily endorse, and would suggest that we should do this more often. If our goal is to refute misconceptions about atheists and humanists, that would go a long way toward such efforts. It would also aid in reducing religious authority, as people would begin to see that the traditional “moral authority” is not necessary for people to do good. I suspect that this would lead to reducing religious privilege, since much of that privilege seems derived from the authority that people give it in their own lives. The more religious authority and privilege is reduced, the better the chances of reducing faith as well.
However, I would also argue that we need to continue attacking faith directly. All our good works won’t do much to reduce religious influence if people fail to see the point we’re making. I do see faith as a delusion. I tried to think of a way to be nicer with that statement, but decided that bluntness may be best in this case. Faith encourages a denial of reality. Faith says “Ignore the evidence if it doesn’t agree with what faith tells you.” That’s delusion. Faith can and has led many to do good (my grandfather is a pastor, a good man, and one I hold in my heart as an inspiration), but we all know and agree that it has led to horrible evils. We Need To Keep Making Those Points. We need to keep pointing out, sometimes calmly, sometimes stridently, but over and over, that to base lives on delusion, to base policy on delusion, will only lead to suffering.
I’m not sure: does this make me Gnu? Or accommodationist? I report, you decide.
I’m a Gnu Atheist and a Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, and I can assure you that Gnu Atheists are a valued part of our community. With our undergraduate groups, for example, we alternate between topics in Gnu Atheism and “The New Humanism” every week.
And ask any Prof. at HDS (I didn’t make too many friends there), I’m no accommodationist.
i must say, it’s SO great to hear a bunch of middle-class white people talk about this topic, a unique standpoint and some really nuanced positions here. ophelia, for example, just really brings back the 1.5 wave of epistemological fascism within the women’s movement in a way that just isn’t seen anymore. it’s like positivism on speed or scientism on crack (must’ve missed the numerous feminist critiques of the production of knowledge, or just skimmed or something). kudos. it’s like identity politics for the religious, and that’s really important if you’re trying to separate the athiest wheat from the chaff. although everyone–even within this thread–seems to agree that the original piece of writing, and the broader epistemological and philosophical framework it draws from, is pretty much ‘intellectual’ chaff; in quotations for a reason–as i’m sure you noticed. GREAT!
/sarcasm
/thread
–from an athiest who is just getting acquainted with how clueless and privileged (totally without acknowledging it) many of the people who are working from a ‘gnu’ (how edgy!) athiest paradigm are.
also, don’t refer me to your ‘book’ (huh? never heard of that publisher before) on post-modernism. it’s cute! positivists trying to be cheeky about different paradigms of knowledge production. but its novelty and credibility really sort of ends there.
[…] to justice and compassion" by participating in interfaith projects as often as possible. Ophelia Benson and Jen McCreight were unimpressed, pointing out that there's something paradoxical in a […]
The difference between new and old atheists is that old atheists know atheism isn’t a political project.
Anti-atheism is a political project, so in that sense atheism has to be a political project.
[…] sure I’ve been talking about it all along. Many of us talked about it for instance in “Good old interfaith atheism” in April […]