Watch those assumptions
Josh Rosenau has reservations.
As I’ve said before, it’s hardly surprising that making a group more visible is a better way to build public acceptance than being less visible, and I support efforts to increase atheism’s visibility. But New Atheism is hardly the only way for atheists – or nontheists more generally – to get the word out that they’re here and want to be taken seriously.
Yes it is…at least under the most usual and obvious definition of that much-used pejorative label “New Atheism.” The minimal definition of “New Atheism” is, surely, atheism that makes a point of increasing atheism’s visibility. “New Atheism” means getting the word out that atheists are here and want to be taken seriously. So how could it not be the only way to do exactly that? It’s like saying being a bus driver is not the only way to drive a bus. You could work up exceptions, but it would be a bit precious and otiose.
No it’s pretty clear that what Rosenau is doing here is simply assuming that “New Atheism” means “atheism that is rude and aggressive and strident and mean.” That is one assumption too many.
I still think the essential element of the “new” atheist agenda is an explicit anti-theistic message. That is, we hold that theism is a big problem which needs to be criticized publicly, without apology or mincing words. If we can do that in sweet tones, great. If not, let the chips fall. But make that criticism we must do and will, so get used to it.
I’m going to disagree with you Bruce, and see what happens! I don’t think that theism is the problem, or if it is, it’s only a part of a much, much bigger problem. The real problem is the belief of the vast majority of our species that traditional views about what is real and what is true should be taken seriously, combined with a tendency to believe that expertise is democratic, that anyone can have an opinion on difficult subjects that should be respected.
That strategy may have worked when dealing with which roots to dig up, or how to hunt mammoths, but it’s utterly useless when dealing with morality on a scale of millions and science on a scale of billions and trillions.
Theism is based on the idea that traditional opinions on cosmology, ontology, epistemology and moral philosophy should be taken seriously. In reality it’s as much nonsense as homeopathy. But theism is taken far more seriously because whereas homeopathy is used to help treat the common cold, theism is supposed to be a cure for death.
But it’s all the same thing, all the same flawed thinking. The problem is an inappropriate belief in expertise and sources of knowledge.
Is there really a we? Even so, I’d say that Gnu’s generally hold that religion should not be privileged and exempt from criticism. That isn’t necessarily the same as a mandate to criticize religion.
I don’t think gnus need to be anti-theistic so much as un-abashedly pro-science when science and religion conflict.
Yet more “Yur Not Doin It Rite” drivel. He must be addressing people who give a shit about his opinion.
Over at tfk, Josh wrote…
Yeah, well. We’re all pretty much nauseated over here…
I love the way he manages to get from a study concerned solely with the prevalance of atheists, which had nothing to do with strategy, to his own hypothetical study on a completely different topic, i.e. the effectiveness of atheist slogans, just show he can show us, once again, that we’re not helping.
I think it’s amusing that the only reason I know Rosenhoffmannblause exist is because of the critiques of them seen here and elsewhere — mainly WEIT, but also Pharyngula, Choice in Dying (one of the best writers), et al.
I don’t give them the traffic. And though I’ve on occasion trundled over to various theist/apologist sites to see what the fuss is all about — with these guys, I don’t need to.
It’s a one-trick pony, being shared by seven not-too-interesting riders.
Heck, William Lame Craig is more interesting. At least he’s willing to defend his beliefs and not condemn someone merely for their tone.
But visibility as non believers was never part of an accomodationists priority as far as I can see.
BTW: I don’t know what the current “accepted” definition of a Gnutheist is, but my take on it is:
1. Willingness to use straightforward language in asserting the honest conclusion that there is no such thing as a god.
2. Unwillingness to kowtow to religion or religious authority, which includes rightful protest and righteous indignation against the undeserved power and privilege currently afforded religion in the halls of power.
I’m not sure “science” has anything to do with it. Oh sure, science is one way to arrive at the fundamental conclusion inherent in atheism (no god, not even yours). But it’s not the only way — it wasn’t mine, as I’ve said many times before. My conclusion may be buttressed by scientific findings; but that’s not necessarily the sine qua non of nonbelief.
Josh may be having the biggest accommodationist sulk in history! It may last years, who knows.
But see, the prejudice against other atheists is now so highly visible among highly privileged and sinister figures like the Pope, Lord Rees, Lord Patten, and so on, all of which persist with this highly stereotypical and false image of mainstream atheism.
And so may I congratulate all those atheist accommodationists for the damage you’ve done.
What Kevin said @ #6.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with Steve Zara (whom I usually strongly agree with) about roots and mammoths. In hunter/gatherer society hunting expertise is hugely important, and is not regarded as equally avaiable to every individual; as is the knowledge about where to find roots, etc, which often the women possess and pass on. Here’s Thomas Huxley in one of his ‘Lay Sermons’: ‘Every time a savage tracks his game he employs a minuteness of observation, and an accuracy of inductive and deductive reasoning which, applied to other matters, would assure some reputation as a man of science… The intellectual labour of a “good hunter or warrior” considerably exceeds that of an ordinary Englishman.’ Don’t knock the ancestors! I found the quotation in the the zoologist R. Dale Guthrie’s ‘The Nature of Paleolithic Art’, which is in many ways an excellent and thought-provoking book, although I found the end, on religion, disappointing, since it dissolved into a sort of easy optimism and didn’t really, to my mind, address the issues it was purporting to.
purporting to address
Fair enough. That makes the tendency of people to believe that they are experts even more mysterious!
I didn’t mean to knock ancestors! I’m desperately interested in anything to do with truly ancient cultures. Our species has been on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years, and Neanderthals seemed to have culture too. I’d love to know what the view of life and the world was of a Neanderthal tribesman, working away to improve a stone tool. There is so much about the history of human thought that will surely be forever beyond our reach.
I think Ophelia is under-defining Gnu Atheism; it seems to me that Gnus qua Gnus are committed to a somewhat more direct challenge to religious ideas—an open defiance of religious privilege, though not necessarily in so many words—than is someone who just desires to promote atheist visibility and nothing more. So I don’t think Rosenau is actually contradicting himself here, quite.
However, I can’t see how Josh has any credibility claiming that he supports any actual attempt to make atheism more visible. When has he or any other accommodationist ever actually done anything to promote atheist visibility, or (perhaps more to the point) defended an atheist individual or group when that individual or group’s visibly atheist actions caused her, him, or them to be attacked?
It seems to me all to come back to the question Jerry Coyne and Jason Rosenhouse posed what seems like ages ago, after Coyne came under accommodationist fire for criticizing Ken Miller and Francis Collins in print: what would they have us do? There are a sizeable number of us who think that religion is on balance a pernicious thing; that it is fundamentally incompatible with science; that “liberal” forms of religion are both far less influential than conservative forms and far from blameless themselves; that religion is protected by the ludicrous but annoyingly widely held notion that challenges to religious beliefs constitute attacks on religious believers and are therefore inherently unethical; and so on. We’ve arrived at these conclusions based on what we think is sound reasoning and an accurate survey of the evidence. What would Rosenau and company have us do with them? Evidently letting anyone know about them is unacceptable, as Mooney’s attack on Coyne and Rosenau’s evaluation of the FFRF billboards (“in some cases [those] could be taken as insulting or trivializing religious people (not merely religion)”) make clear. So—what, then?
It’s hard to take Rosenau seriously as a supporter of “atheist visibility” when his reactions to visible atheism invariably consist of attempts to cut atheists off at the knees.
For Steve Zara: I’d recommend Guthrie’s book above (apart from the ending) and Jonathan Kingdon’s excellent ‘Self-made Man and his Undoing’, which looks at the use of technology by humans from the very earliest times and shows how the invention of technology and new techniques is from the beginning one of the things that defines the human animal, so that there is not the often assumed chasm between the scientific present and a benighted past.
Rieux – you’re right, I did. I’ve thought better of it.
It could be that Rosenau meant New Atheism=saying that no actually science and religion are not compatible in any non-superficial sense as opposed to New Atheism=rude mean aggressive shrill rudeness. Or maybe he just meant New Atheism=The Enemy. At any rate, he meant it’s doin it rong.
I think Rosenau (from my limited knowledge of the man) would argue he did say what he wanted atheist to do; something along the lines of stop feeding into anti religious sentiment or something.
Besides being terribly vague it also isn’t any form of strategy. It’s like those politicians who say we’ll win the war in Afghanistan by winning the hearts and minds of the natives.
Ok.
How?
Ophelia: Right. And all in all it’s a pretty facepalm-ous post, in that Rosenau just decides that any evidence at all confirms everything he already thought anyway:
Where exactly does the cited study say anything that suggests any problem with an FFRF billboard, or with “more combative” advocacy in general? Doesn’t advertising that communicates the existence of a “Freedom From Religion Foundation” necessarily constitute “making [atheists] more visible”? What exactly is the basis for Rosenau’s declaration that that can’t “increase trust in the broader population”?
The study in question unequivocally found that increased visibility of atheists improves the societal image of atheists. Chris Mooney, of all people, recognizes that that lends credence to the basic Gnu strategy. But Rosenau sticks to “nuh-uh; I still think visibility is bad if it ‘could be taken as insulting or trivializing religious people'” (as if every single effort at atheist visibility could not “be taken… as if it has not been taken, that way!).
Rosenau’s notion that Gnus r rong seems to weather contrary evidence comically well. It’s the Not-Helping Of The Gaps.
The Not Helping of the Gaps. Mmmph.
Julian:
I don’t think I’m, in the end, disagreeing with you, but I’d point out that that’s not a suggestion of what atheists are “to do”; it’s a suggestion of what we aren’t to do.
“Don’t do X” is even weaker than “win hearts and minds”: the latter is only (albeit very) vague, while the former isn’t a thing to do at all.
Thanks Tim – that book is now on my Amazon Wish List.
This whole accommodation with religion business – it seems almost entirely to centre around science teaching and creationism. It’s an important matter, but it’s almost as if faith groups had planned to divert activism onto just that subject. I’m very naive and uninformed about all this politics. What about groups to promote teaching of philosophy and ethics in schools, for example?
Rieux #18
The problem is that the study he’s talking about in your quote is a hypothetical study he’s made up on assessing whether ‘nice’ billboards work better than ‘nasty’ billboards. He’s not referring to the original study that the post is supposedly about. He then ‘guesses’ that this hypothetical study would agree with his view that our approach is wrong.
And there are references throughout his post which imply ‘mean nasty’ gnus, rather than simply ‘we think they’re incompatible’ gnus.
For the interested Mr Rosenau has responded (more or less) on his blog. Quick look over, it looks like he’s explaining to gnus what gnus believe.
Stephen: Yes, I see that. The “Based on this study” phrase at the beginning of the Rosenau passage I quoted is just absurd. The study in question doesn’t say, or imply, anything of the kind.
Rosenau obviously thinks that there’s a relevant difference between “nice” and “nasty” billboards that would manifest itself in different levels of “increase[d] trust [of atheists] in the broader population.” But that notion happens to have no empirical support; certainly the study in question doesn’t provide any.
And several things remain less than obvious: first, that there is any atheist “visibility” initiative that the general public would find “nice”; second, that there is any such initiative that accommodationists in particular wouldn’t bash and bait; and third, that any real-life atheist visibility initiative has actually been legitimately “nasty.” Rosenau’s reference to “nasty” things—specifically, to FFRF “ads which do not emphasize the presence of atheists and other non-theists in the community and which in some cases could be taken as insulting or trivializing religious people (not merely religion)”—is just embarrassingly loaded with religious privilege. The ludicrous sensitivities of religious believers to slights against their ideas are very obviously not accurate reflections of the actual offensiveness of those slights.
In my opinion gnu atheism is simply a part of the larger scientific skepticism movement. I don’t see a substantial difference in how gnus approach matters than how, for instance, those who advocate science based medicine deal with their subject. The common feature of the movement (and this applies to medicine, claims of the paranormal, aliens and religion) is the reluctance to accept a claim when it has not been substantiated with evidence.
In terms of religion this obviously applies to the evolution/creationism question but also to matters such as laws that discriminate against homosexuals or that seek to deny contraception or family planning based on religious teachings. It similarly applies to the question of whether there is evidence to support many of the currently accepted ‘norms’ of current society (for instance the accepted view that clerics are experts on morality.)
I think comparing gnu atheism with scientific skepticism and in particular science based medicine is useful because it also illustrates the problem that we face from our opposition.
In science based medicine the requirement for evidence to support treatments means that homeopathy is found to be ineffective (it’s water!) On the other hand many (non skeptical but not outright woo-merchant) physicians think that they are useful ‘drugs’ for some patients for the simple reason that they will induce a placebo effect. I think this is particularly analagous to the view that accomodationists have towards ‘liberal religions’. They think they are fundamentally harmless (if you will excuse the pun) but have some nice side effects (community building, charity etc).
OK, so both homeopathy and liberal religions can have some good points. Why oppose them?
In terms of science based medicine the reason for the opposition to homeopathy is that they often have a result of making people avoid real medicines that can cure their real diseases. There are homeopathic medicines available for things like malarial prevention and cancer treatment – life threatening conditions that should only be tackled with scientifically verified medicines. The downside of losing a placebo effect if we avoid homeopathic treatment is countered by the fact that proper medicine will give us the best chance of a recovery.
Similarly with religion, is the benefit of the community building and charity work worth the cost in terms of discrimination against certain members of society (homosexuals, women etc) and the shackling of the minds of children with threats of eternal torture? And what about the enabling of more radical religions fanatics by ruling out the questioning of the factual basis of religious scriptures?
Finally, take advice on atheist outreach from Josh Rosenau? Ha! That’s like asking Ian Paisley or Jack Chick for some advice on how to carry out Catholic outreach.
One issue that I think is being overlooked is the extent to which getting theists to respond to us is itself a good atheist recruitment strategy, precisely because it exposes how weak their arguments are and how undeserved their claim to privilege is. As long as theist opinion leaders are allowed to keep their mouths shut and look wise, people will attribute profound wisdom to them: it’s when they open their mouths and attempt to pontificate that our increasingly well-educated population can hear and see that there is something very wrong. Even if the only thing that the Gnus were to accomplish was getting the Emperor out of the palace and on to the balcony where his nakedness could be seen, that would be a considerable achievement in itself.
Sigmund
April 26, 2011 at 1:21 am
Well said
Sigmund,
Do you not think it is also political? I think modern scepticism is no different to critical thinking, and we’re using our critical thinking to make political and social criticisms. In fact, this signifies very much about what is gnu about gnu atheism, a change in focus from the metaphysical or epistemological to the ethical and political. However our tools are still based on reason.
Believers and accommodationists and their conservative sensibilities don’t like this change. They want us to go back to purely metaphysical or epistemological concerns. Their politics and ethics remains conservative and hierarchical.
I think this change is absolutely essential, as a simple extension to the enlightenment project, which seems to be increasingly under threat.
I also think a mistake that some accommodationists are falling into, is a prescriptive parental tone of ‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds’ while the gnus are seeking a critical tone of argument and contrariness. The latter is essential to bring reason into the public realm, while the former does nothing to enlighten people or bring about social change.
Egbert, that is not an easy question to answer. In ‘normal’ political terms there is not a simple divide between left and right with gnus on one side and goodies on the other. I think it is relatively easy to find accomodationists who may share more of one’s personal political beliefs than some fellow gnus. I guess the difference is mostly in whether you think the public at large can ‘handle the truth’ and accomodationists feel that religion is too personal for the public and as such should not be publicly criticised. The other point is, as I mentioned previously, the question of putting a value on the positive effects of religion (community, charity etc) and whether these outweigh the negative effects. I guess this could be seen as a political (with a small ‘p’) question. I have seen this point argued from both a left wing (helping the poor) and a right wing perspective (religious charities supporting the needy means less requirement for government poverty relief, thus helping to keep taxes lower).
@Rieux, Speaking for myself, I would prefer the sort of plain community building that comes with “You are not alone” as opposed to the more confrontational message that comes from the FFRF. That said, considering how people got so upset and offended about the former, you might as well do the latter.
The other difference is that I don’t think that I’m right, let alone know that I’m right. So I’d NEVER criticize people for doing differently. I actually think that my preference for plain community building is probably a flaw and not a strength, tied into personal neurosis.
Fair enough, Karmakin. It’s hard to be too perturbed about your first sentence in light of your second, third, and fourth.
I, actually, think the series of “You KNOW” billboards from American Atheists is sort of dumb. (The FFRF ads I like better.) But whatever; it takes all kinds, and shifting the Overton Window is shifting the Overton Window. If the opportunity arose, I’d be happy to play “good cop” to that AA “bad” one.
I doubt the preference you mention is a matter of neurosis. It seems to me that there’s rarely anything wrong with shying away from confrontation as a matter of personal style or predilection; in many contexts, that’s my tendency as well. It takes a whole lot more than that common kind of reluctance to reach the level of gnu-baiting that Rosenau et al. are infamous for.
Yes. This is how the internet has Changed Everything. Theists can no longer just say stuff, without getting pushback saying “how do you know that?” or “you just made all that up.” Since what they say is always weak and thus vulnerable to that kind of pushback, they are very frustrated and pissed off, and will remain so.
The American Atheists and the FFRF were around before the gnu movement. I don’t think it is accurate to conflate their tactics with those of the gnus or people associated with the gnus. In terms of gnu tactics I am thinking specifically of Ariane Sherine’s atheist bus campaign that started off on the Richard Dawkins site and spread to many places around the world. The buses generally carried non-dogmatic messages but caused much debate and protest – and as a result got a lot more publicity than originally expected. I tend to find the American Atheist and FFRF billboards somewhat ill considered. It’s not just that they are confrontational, it’s that they sometimes come across as humorless and show a lack of thought or imagination.
I’m pretty sure the positive stuff is entirely irrelevant to religion. Good people will do good stuff regardless of what culture they’ve been brought up in.
What religion does is claim ownership of something it has no legitimacy to, our natural human instinct to care. Religion does nothing positive, because it does not possess the capacity for empathy nor the capacity for moral judgement. It does, however, do plenty of negatives, because it is about authority and control, it prevents people from using their judgement or sets itself as an authority to persecute and impoverish.
What I mean by political and ethical is that we’re dealing with society and people, and how they behave and interact. And so that is naturally political and ethical. Religion has pushed us outside this domain and claimed ownership of it itself, but, as I’ve stated above, it has no legitimacy to the public domain any more than it is has legitimacy in the metaphysical or epistemological domain.
I think the view that the public ought not to be told the truth, for their own good is not a rational view, it’s a prescriptive and moral (or immoral) view to me. Reason and therefore critical thinking always attempts to expose truths and lies, and that can only be in the public’s best interest.
Egbert
I would like to see where atheist accommodationists state that that is part of their strategy. Especially people such as Chris Mooney, Josh Rosenau, the NCSE, and other proponents of science as it is mutually incompatible to free inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge, the foundation of science.
Granted, when they’re busy telling Gnus to shut-up it is implicit.
giilt
Although my answer was really in context of answering what sigmund wrote above, you were right with your disclaimer that by basically seeking to suppress and self-censor criticism, they are implicitly suppressing truths (with a small t).
It is simply not true that religion and science are compatible. It is also not true that religion and liberal democratic (or secular) values are compatible. The NOMA attitude is simply a fiction with no basis in truth, and it’s challenged not only by new atheists but also believers themselves.
The accommodationist strategy is the strategy of appeasement and failure, shooting down your fellow atheists with friendly fire in the process.
Gillt said
The impression I get it that while most of them are within the scientific skeptics camp when it comes to things like global warming, homeopathy and anti-vaccination, they suddenly switch to Hume-ian skepticism when the subject of liberal religion is mentioned (“but how can we really ‘know’ anything – aren’t you just being arrogant by saying there is no evidence for God?”). Whatever way you look at it it’s clear that religion is being treated as a special case that should not be treated the same way that other claims are.
The big problem, as I see it is that we are not stating a definite truth about religion (that there is definitely no God) but that we are simply stating a probability. The probability that God (as defined by most religions) exists is equal to the evidence provided – which happens to be similar to the evidence provided by many other claims of supernatural beings in mythology. The Santa, sky fairy, leprechaun comparisons are exactly on point here- The reason that these are the most cutting for theists is for the simple reason that to discount them they are forced to become skeptics themselves and ask “where is the evidence”. They will rarely do so since they realize that the question will be bounced back at their own claims and instead retreat into whines of offended sensitivities.
@Egbert
Welton C. Gaddy and Barry Lynn would be surprised to hear that.
Yes that’s putting it too strongly. On the other hand I think it’s fair to say that religion is in tension with some liberal democratic/secular values.
P.S. Have fun with the debate, Michael!
@Rieux,
But he isn’t arguing against visible atheism across the board, right? He’s just saying that not all publicity is good publicity:
Oh, that was last night. It went pretty well. I got a much better understanding of Chris and his work. We have minor differences but I think broadly speaking we’re on the same page. I think you’d find the same thing if you had a chance to talk with him in person (don’t fear, he does not have Jedi mind tricks).
Oh last night – I sometimes forget to look at Facebook time stamps.
I might find that, but I would still dislike the way he puts some things. I don’t think he does it out of malice, but I think he should be more aware of the possible fallout.
I’ve gathered over the years that most “accomodationists” (for the record, I still hate this word) don’t actually think science and religion are generally compatible, but just have different political interests. I see no problem with this so long as, in support of their political goals, they don’t lie (i.e., claim science and religion are different domains) or heap criticism on their teammates (i.e., New Atheists). I don’t think we all need to be on board with New Atheism to advance the secular, scientific outlook.
As for Rosenau – he actually does think atheists should hide their light under a bushel, he just doesn’t want to come right out and say that. Any time a ray of light creeps out from under that bushel, though, Rosenau is on hand to exclaim over it.
Yes. Trouble is, they do! The ones who don’t aren’t the problem.
Michael, sorry but looks like Chris’s Jedi mind tricks have worked on you.
:-)
He said that he’s been thinking deeply about how he communicates his message because of how many people have misunderstood or misread what he’s meant to say. Blogging is tough, and I remember going through a similar period — and I’ve met him — so I’m willing to give some leeway.
I don’t know much about Rosenau so I can’t really say more.
Ah that’s interesting. Good on him.
It’s impossible to know what Rosenau thinks but he has gradually placed himself at such odds with his imagined enemies in the gnu atheist camp that he seems to have developed a sort of reflex response to expressions of public atheism. Any sign of lack of deference towards ‘correct’ religion (non creationist faiths) is viewed as just another example of the disgraceful nature of the gnu atheist.
I have been in conversation with a certain “accommodationist” recently, and looking at associated websites. My impression is that they can be exceedingly naive when it comes to the message that they want to send. For example, “working with” someone does not require having their religious views visible on your site, and that is not a neutral position regarding religion. I honestly think that some accommodationists truly believe that accommodation itself is neutrality! I can hardly believe I had to point out that having a quote from the Pope on a site is not exactly encouraging support from atheists.
Michael @ 41, I think Ophelia and Sigmund have answered your question well. Anyway I concur: though it’s true that Rosenau claims in that post to be in favor of certain limited efforts at increasing atheist visibility, it’s very hard to take those claims as credible. There have been numerous controversies over atheist-visibility initiatives of all different kinds, and I’ve never seen Rosenau defend any of them, ever. It seems overly convenient that he endorses some of them (a notably vaguely defined category) now.
Moreover, Rosenau’s attempts to draw a distinction between the visibility efforts he approves of (or the ones that he arbitrarily “guesses” will work) versus the ones he doesn’t are simply laughable:
The notion that any public attempt to increase atheist visibility could possibly avoid “be[ing] taken as insulting or trivializing religious people (not merely religion)” is simply absurdly ignorant.
Rosenau clearly hasn’t been paying attention to the public reactions to the most placid forms of atheist outreach, which is why I posted (@24 here) the letter from Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers to their governor. That episode involved an IAF bus ad with the horridly nasty message, “Don’t Believe in God? You are not alone.” The transit authority initially accepted and posted the ads—but then reversed itself and took them down after (they said) receiving numerous complaints; asked for comment, Democratic Governor Chet Culver weighed in as well:
Weeks later, threatened with an ACLU lawsuit, DART backed down and allowed the signs, though there was a later short-term flare-up when one bus driver refused to drive a vehicle with the ad posted on it.
Anyway—a quick search of scienceblogs.com shows Ed Brayton, Greg Laden, and the King Cephalopod taking notice of the Iowa controversies, but nothing from “Thoughts From Kansas.” …Though a commenter named Ray Ingles did make the following point, during an exchange with the infamous Anthony McCarthy, on a “TFK” thread in October 2009:
Nothing from Rosenau himself, though.
So it’s a bit difficult to take seriously Rosenau’s claims that he’s in favor of atheist visibility, in that (1) as far as I can tell he’s never actually defended any visibility effort that came under fire, and (2) his pretense that only aggressive and overtly anti-religious tactics are prone to “be[ing] taken as insulting or trivializing religious people (not merely religion)” is ludicrous and ignorant—as Ray Ingles pointed out on Rosenau’s own blog.
If and when Rosenau actually does something to defend some attempt to increase atheist visibility, and/or if and when he ever notices that religious folks’ notions that they have been insulted or trivialized all too often have little-to-no connection to the reality of the expression in question, maybe his claims to supporting out-and-proudness might carry some weight. Until then, it sure looks like he’s a supporter of pro-atheist efforts only when they’re hypothetical.
Michael DeDora:most “accomodationists” don’t actually think science and religion are generally compatible, but just have different political interests. I see no problem with this so long as,in support of their political goals, they don’t lie (i.e., claim science and religion are different domains)
Mooney
#53 – great comment, Rieux.
The reaction to the bus ad really gets up my nose. It says – yes you damn well are alone so shut your stinking minority mouth.
I caught a glimpse of some kind of “educational” movie from 1950 on the PBS station last night, clearly something about attitudes to gays in the past – a sonorous male voice saying “Look how Jimmy delicately adjusts his clothes and smoothes his hair.” We watch Jimmy doing that for about 20 seconds. “He’s obviously not a real boy.”
What????
Not “he obviously doesn’t act like a real boy” – not “he certainly doesn’t look like a real boy” – just the flat factual announcement.
I jumped about a foot. I can still hardly believe I heard it.
I think Michael has put things well.
I perceive PZ and Harris in particular, among Gnu “leaders,” as often practicing confrontation for confrontation’s sake. As Ecclesiastes notes, there’s a a time and season for everything, including for confrontation. I’m willing to be confrontational, or support others in that, when necessary. But, not as part of “visibility” efforts. There are ways to be more visible without being confrontational.
In general, I think Josh explains well what NCSE’s mission is, and how it interacts with individual believers, etc., and why.
Also, as far as depth of thinking, I question the depth of thinking of some Gnu leaders, too. Harris? A piece of work. The End of Faith was bad enough. IMmoral Landscape? It’s pretty clear his Islamophobia is influenced NOT just by atheism but also by neocon politics. How’s that for “visibility”? Dennett? His claims that evolution is algorithmic, while not central to Gnu Atheism, are totally untested … and unfalsifiable. He’s exactly the “greedy reductionist” he claims to decry. PZ sometimes claims religion is not falsifiable, then claims to have disproved God’s existence. Stenger makes similar claims.
That said, do I support everything a Ruse or Berlinblau has recently said? Absolutely not.
The idea that gnus are hierarchical, with a top down system of gnu leaders from which devotees worship and follow every word is a false one. Also the idea that we are absolutely never accommodatiing or nice to believers is also a false one.
For example, Ophelia wrote recently a critical review of Harris’s The Moral Landscape, while several years ago a critical and scathing review of the The End of Faith was also featured on this website.
I honestly think those who criticise gnu atheism (whatever it is) really are being overly simplistic and fail all over to grasp the fact that they still full under the dazzle of religious privilege.
The interesting thing about the study that Mooney mentioned and Rosenau referenced is that the perception of atheists is improved the more numerous they are. It suggests that most people don’t find atheists threatening, just weird. If that’s the case, the more advertising the better, and the “Good without God” message may not be necessary (and it’s not a good bumper sticker if you treat driving as performance). Mindless upbeat messages might be best: “Freethinkers have more fun” or “Godless and guilt-free”.
Olivia @ 55: I just finished watching the program about the Stonewall riots. I don’t remember hearing about them when they were happening, most likely because in Berkeley in 1969 we had other thing on our minds. In fact, I first became aware of them in an article in The New Republic published back when it could still have been considered a Democratic-leaning publication, even though Andrew Sullivan was the editor. He wrote the first piece I’d ever read advocating gay marriage, and though my first reaction was on the order of “why would anyone want to get married?” I finished the article convinced. For that I’ll eternally give him credit, even though he advocated the invasion of Iraq; I even give him credit for recanting on that issue. He’s as superficial as the average pundit, but he did once get one big thing right.
In the program they showed a map of the police chasing the rioters through the Village. That took me back to the People’s Park campaign, Berkeley, ’69. I don’t really remember everywhere we went during one quick march. I remember being teargassed by a helicopter on campus, being surrounded by the National Guard downtown, and, a couple of years later in San Francisco, being charged by police on horseback. I worry that students no longer get as much extracurricular enrichment.
To some people “New Atheism” just means everything they disagree about when it comes to atheism. It’s something I notice all too often, both in theists and accomodationists.
Historically, confrontation has been very useful.
How successful would mainstream reformers been without Queer Nation, or MalcomX, or the Panthers? I am old enough to remember those time (yes, even Malcom) and how ‘shocked, shocked, I tell you’ that many supposedly ‘good hearted’ people were by these ‘outrageous behaviors’. But previously, many, many years of being polite had gotten people nowhere.
There comes a time when someone has to kick over the kettle.