It’s been simultaneously amusing and horrifying to read through the comments on my post about the misguided atheist holiday display in Illinois. This is still the Internet after all, and “reading comprehension” is not a highly valued skill, even among subsamples self-selected for their logic and reasoning abilities.
In brief: thinking that atheists shouldn’t be needlessly obnoxious doesn’t make me a “faithiest” or an “accommodationist” or someone without the courage of my convictions. Those would be hard charges to support against someone who wrote this or this or this or this. I just think it’s possible to have convictions without being a jerk about them. “I disagree with you” and “You are a contemptible idiot” are not logically equivalent.
Phil just pointed to a good post by Steve Cumo about precisely the same issue, with “atheism” replaced by “skepticism.” A lot of skeptics/atheists are truly excited and passionate about their worldviews, and that’s unquestionably a good thing. But it can turn into a bad thing if we allow that passion to manifest itself as contempt for everyone who disagrees with us. (For certain worthy targets, sure.) There’s certainly a place for telling jokes, or calling a crackpot a crackpot; being too afraid of stepping on people’s toes is just as bad as stomping on feet for the sheer joy of it. But there’s also a place for letting things slide, living to dispute another day.
We atheists/skeptics have a huge advantage when it comes to reasonable, evidence-based argumentation: we’re right. (Provisionally, with appropriate humble caveats about those aspects of the natural world we don’t yet understand.) We don’t need to stoop to insults to win debates; reality is on our side. And there are many people out there who are willing to listen to logic and evidence, when presented reasonably and in good faith. We should always presume that people who disagree with us are amenable to reasonable discussion, until proven otherwise. (Cf. the Grid of Disputation. See also Dr. Free-Ride.)
That’s very different than “accommodationism,” which holds that science and religion aren’t really in conflict. The problem with accommodationism isn’t that its adherents aren’t sufficiently macho or strident; it’s that they’re wrong. And when respected organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Science Education, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science go on record as claiming that science and religion are completely compatible, as if they were speaking for scientists, that’s unconscionable and should be stopped. They don’t have to go on at great length about how a scientific worldview undermines religious belief, even if it’s true; they can just choose not to say anything at all about religion. That’s not their job.
It’s also wrong to fetishize politeness for its own sake. Some people manage to forfeit the right to be taken seriously or treated politely. But that shouldn’t be the default position. And being polite doesn’t make you more likely to be correct, or vice-versa. And — to keep piling on the caveats — being “polite” doesn’t mean “keeping quiet,” at least as a general principle. We all know people who will resort to a cowardly tactic of claiming to be “offended” when you say something perfectly reasonable with which they happen to disagree. There’s no reason to give into that; but the solution is not to valorize obnoxiousness for its own sake.
The irony is that the pro-obnoxious crowd (obnoxionists?) is ultimately making the same mistake as the accommodationist crowd. Namely: blurring the lines between the truth of a claim and the manner in which the claim is presented. Accommodationists slide from “we can work together, in a spirit of mutual respect, with religious people on issues about which we agree” to “we should pretend that science and religion are compatible.” But obnoxionists tend to slide from “we disagree with those people” to “we should treat those people with contempt.” Neither move is really logically supportable.
A lot of the pro-obnoxiousness sentiment stems from a feeling that atheism is a disrespected minority viewpoint in our culture, and I have some sympathy with that. Atheists should never be ashamed of their beliefs, or afraid to support them vigorously. And — let’s be honest — there’s a certain amount of pleasure to be found in being part of a group where everyone sits around congratulating each other on their superior intellect and reasoning abilities, while deriding their opponents with terms like “superstition” and “brain damage” and “child abuse.” But these are temptations to be avoided, not badges of honor.
Within the self-reinforcing culture of vocal non-believers, it’s gotten to the point where saying that someone is “nice” has become an insult. Let me hereby stake out a brave, contrarian position: in favor of being nice. I think that folks in the reality-based community should be the paragons of reasonableness and even niceness, while not yielding an inch on the correctness of their views. We should be the good guys. We are in possession of some incredible truths about this amazing universe in which we live, and we should be promoting positive messages about the liberating aspects of a life in which human beings are responsible for creating justice and beauty, rather than having them handed to us by supernatural overseers. Remarkably, I think it’s possible to be positive and nice (when appropriate) and say true things at the same time. But maybe that’s just my crazy utopian streak.
A continuation of my comment above:
Sean wrote: “We should always presume that people who disagree with us are amenable to reasonable discussion, until proven otherwise.”
It has been proven otherwise. To admit that your reason for believing a proposition is _faith_ is to admit that you know you’re deceiving yourself. How else could an educated, 21st century adult believe in religious nonsense?
Farhat,
Your comment doesn’t really correspond to what I or Sean wrote.
I completely agree. While we may not find certain ideas worthy of respect, most people are worthy of being treated with respect. I find that the best time and place for that manner of bluntness is online articles, such as this one recently from Sam Harris: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/18/the_god_fraud
@ #44 Peter Beattie:
Restraint is not the same as respect, and the promotion of an idea need not entail expressing contempt for its competitors.
It does seem odd to complain, as Sean did, that “[t]here is a place to argue for one’s worldview” in the context of public holiday displays. However, I have to ask, is impugning religion an argument in favor of atheism?
I tend to think atheists often have a lot more going for us than our ability to render harsh critiques of religion, though you wouldn’t know it to hear (or read) some of us. Which, I guess, is really what these posts are all about.
I think it helps if you read the whole quote: “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” [Emphasis added, obviously]
Whether such a statement could be said to be true or not, generalizing about an entire demographic and calling them implacable zombies doesn’t seem like a very good way to promote one’s own position as worth listening to by someone who doesn’t already agree. Maybe they’re banking on the principle that controversy sells, but it seems more like gratuitous thumping to me.
#41 Rob Knop:
“Being religious” is not the same as “religion.” All that the success of religious scientists shows is that human beings can live with a certain level of cognitive dissonance; this does nothing to support accommodationist views about the compatibility of science with the actual, substantial claims that religions make.
#47 joel rice:
“Now you can be thrown out of a school just for bringing a bible.”
I highly doubt that this has actually occurred. In the public high school I attended not too long ago, we studied the Bible as literature in Freshman English, and a Bible study group met during lunch like any other club. If anyone has ever been “thrown out of a school just for bringing in a bible,” there’s no doubt that that’s a violation of the Constitution, and single, isolated incidents like that still aren’t the norm. Also, many (though not all) of the Founding Fathers _were_ deists. Those claiming America is a “Christian nation” are the ones rewriting history.
I agree with Janus. The idea that religious people would be nice and respect you back if you are nice and respectful to them is a mistaken one.
Farhat — I am religions. I respect Sean. I do not respect PZ Myers. I do not have enough data, but based on what I’ve seen so far, I’m not sure I’m likely to respect either your or Janus.
Just a data point against your dogmatic assertion.
» J.C. Samuelson:
However, I have to ask, is impugning religion an argument in favor of atheism?
In spite of your strawish wording—nobody said the signs had that particular function—I would actually say, Yes, it can be. Some ideas are so ridiculous and so entrenched that can be legitimate, effective, and perhaps even necessary to ridicule or impugn them, as applicable. I think Voltaire’s and Jefferson’s arguments are still valid in that regard.
I think it helps if you read the whole quote: “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” [Emphasis added, obviously]
No it does not help, which is why I left it out, obviously. How would that turn the sentence into “You are a contemptible idiot”? That was pretty much the starting point of Sean’s piece, and I cannot see any logical path from the actual sign that would get you there.
That an in-your-face, take-no-prisoners approach will get on some people’s tits at least some of the time is beyond doubt and beyond argument. (It isn’t much of argument either, though.) But the need for different strategies is certainly also beyond doubt. Which leaves the only possible bone of contention as the particular venue in question. And Sean hasn’t given an actual argument why the atheist sign was out of place there, when apparently the nativity displays were not. (They surely get on some people’s tits at least some of the time.) I don’t doubt that there could be an argument, but nobody should be convinced just because Sean (or anyone) says so.
Well written Mr. Carroll.
#34 Rick’s question about atheists now has me pondering about other groups of non-believers, for example:
People who don’t believe in global warming; what do they believe?
People who don’t believe in leprechauns; what do they believe?
People who don’t believe in using their blinker when making a turn; what do they believe?
People on the subway who obviously don’t believe in bathing; what do they believe?
Being “nice” sure makes you feel good. Feel better now, everyone?
While evolution is trying to be taught in science class?
While people try to murder cartoonists?
While people try to prevent embryonic stem cell research?
While people think it’s better to die from AIDS than use a condom?
etc.
etc.
etc.
I beg to differ. I’m into reality and human freedom. And I will say so.
Is that so offensive? I guess it is in Ireland now with their blasphemy law.
Now you can go to jail for offending irrationality! Better be polite!
Why be polite to someone whose views are speed bumps on the road to human progress and happiness? Look where all this politeness has gotten us – nowhere. Except maybe the gradual erosion of the basic tenets of the Enlightenment.
Amen, Greg. Someone mentioned Stephen J Gould’s essay “Non-overlapping Magisteria”
What craven sophistry! Liberal guilt straining not to offend, but very offensive.
Sure, most religious folks are basically deluded, but harmless—except when it comes to
indoctrinating their children. But why should stories that were deemed useful in controlling
folks over 2000 years ago—basically semitic tribes, continue to be believed and followed when
we should know better and there actually are explanations that did not exist then?
I do think that your viewpoint is accomodationist, Sean. We atheists need to hang together, or else hang separately. The US is almost as much a theocracy as Iran. From the perspective of a Canadian, it is really hard to believe this arrested development.
#58 Ray – when it involves tax money, and people politicize it, and ram it down your throat
then it matters. Re global warming – What does Lomborg believe ? Read his book. What does
Freeman Dyson believe – watch his youtube video. I’ve seen some refer to Dyson as an idiot
but maybe they ought to read his Advanced Quantum Mechanics.
Frankly, there are lots of idiotic ideas that disappear without getting the underwear in a
knot.
#60 Gordon – the whole point of religion is to ‘indoctrinate’ children so they don’t grow up
to be obnoxious. Do you think children are enlightenment oriented rationalists ? If you
leave a window open they will throw their sibling out the window. It takes some pretty
scary stories to get the attention. Look at all the failed social experiments and you will
see why it is a matter of what works – imperfect though it may be. Theocracy my foot.
The kids I remember were throwing spitballs while they were supposedly being indoctrinated. The picture you paint has nothing to do with the reality. And there are
as many loonies in Canada as down here – viz your idiotic hate speech laws, and political
correctness run amok.
Nix Says:
To criticize anyone for opposing Atheism, especially in the realm where there can never be strong evidence in either direction, is arrogant.
What would count as strong evidence? Do you need an A priori proof? Does the argument from evil count? Moreover just because there are limits to how certain we can be about things doesn’t mean that we are justified in believing it.
For what its worth I don’t think most people really believe in god. They just sincerely believe they believe in god. That way they can signal to all their religious friends that they are one of the good guys while limiting the extent of their nutty beliefs. That’s why they don’t celebrate the death of their loved ones. It’s also why they always accuse atheists of being arrogant. They already know there’s no god, but how can they maintain their belief that they believe with all these atheists reminding them that their god doesn’t exist. Its like pointing out to someone that their wife isn’t the most beautiful women in the world. They already know that, but they value the self-deception.
For what its worth I think that while it might or might not be great if all atheist messages could make people feel warm and fuzzy, in the real world atheists are going to step on some toes. Yeah some atheists can be jerks about it, I am sometimes, but so what? People shouldn’t continue to feel pressured to say there is a god, when they know full well that there isn’t one.
Children are indoctrinated with religion so they wont be obnoxious??? Are you kidding?
And you accuse me of not dealing with Reality….
Actually there are not as many “loonies” in Canada as in the USA. The US has cornered the
market on born-again evangelicals. Other than a small Alberta contingent ( which, unfortunately includes our PM) there are proportionately very few born again, or any
other variety of religious loonies.
I am actually very tolerant of Deists. Most of your founding fathers were varieties of Deists or
atheists. It is the Theists who are particularly ignorant and irritating. (The ball players crossing themselves so God gives them a hit…)
Gordon – i am repeating what Sister Mary said on the first day of sunday school – so we
don’t grow up to be animals. It is not guesswork on my part.
No – most of our founders were not deists – they were rather conventional in
their views at that time. There are plenty of books on it and plenty of web resources
for anyone who bothers to look.
No they weren’t–Jefferson and John Adams had very agnostic letters to each other. At most,
they were deists. Yes, there are plenty of web resources on it , for anyone who cares to look. You cannot just say they weren’t and that books say so—that is either deceptive or pig ignorant.(Dont know where that saying comes from–pigs are smarter than a lot of religious folk.)
And, in case you didn’t know, sshhhh, we are animals.
joel, do you even know what a Deist is? Someone with a belief in a God, but not a personal God
who answers prayers. Find a reference that shows FFs believing in a personal God.
BTW, I find it personally offensive that biblical literalists actually believe that God gave
Man dominion over the animals. Also— the religious belief that somehow Man is `special`
and different from other animals. That belief has led to the erroneous belief in those religious folks who allow for belief in evolution, to believe in the discredited `Great Chain of Being` that
we are the supreme culmination of evolution.
Peter:
Of course not, and I was not implying that the sign has the function of impugning religion. Clearly it has more content than that. However, the sign includes the derogatory statement as a part of its content, so the question remains relevant, in my opinion.
In any case, you had asked “Why shouldn’t you argue for atheism at that particular place,” so I wondered back whether an attack against religion (part of the sign content) is itself really an argument for atheism.
It’s not that I disagree with the statement as much as I’ve grown tired of negative arguments.
The question isn’t whether it’s legitimate to impugn bad ideas (of course it is – or can be – though I’d still consider context), but whether it’s effective or necessary to engage in negative generalizations about people.
No need to be literal, is there? Implying that a religious person must be “hard hearted” (uncaring, implacable, ruthless) with an “enslaved mind” (thoughtless, zombie-like) because that’s what religion in general produces shouldn’t be taken as an insult from a religious person’s pespective? And moreover, what do you think someone who doesn’t have a theological axe to grind would make of it?
You have a point, of course. And I can’t speak for the author. For myself, it’s not that the atheist sign was out-of-place (it wasn’t, in my mind) but that a portion of its content seems needlessly provocative.
Most of the message on the sign is great. Why spoil it with filler insults? Besides, I don’t define my worldview by the problems associated with one I oppose.
J.C., thanks for the response. We seem to have been at somewhat cross purposes. I’ll try to clarify some of the issues you raised.
On the “argue for atheism” point, I’d probably have to refer to the working definition of ‘atheist’ as ‘someone who hasn’t seen any convincing reason to believe in a divine being’. In that sense to argue for atheism would include to point to the fact that there are no good reasons for belief and a couple of positively striking ones against it.
whether it’s effective or necessary to engage in negative generalizations about people
The sign, however, was about religion, not religious people. It said, “Religion … hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” It’s about the idea, not the people who hold it. And it’s not an undue generalization, either. ‘Smoking causes cancer’ is a perfectly valid statement, even though smoking doesn’t cause cancer in every single smoker—that much is understood. Looking at it from that angle, I think there can’t be much doubt that religion has the properties the sign ascribes to it.
because “that’s what religion in general produces” isn’t exactly neutral, is it?
Of course it isn’t, but what’s your point here? Even a mild joke wouldn’t have been neutral, and you wouldn’t have argued against that, would you? In any case, why would you demand neutrality? Because of the venue? Because it was Christmas? Would you have demanded such neutrality towards an astrological display?
And in any case, Sean specifically said that the sign amounted to saying, “You are a contemptible idiot”. First, as I’ve said, the sign was about the idea, not the people; second, it describes factual aspects and consequences of religion, it does not express contempt. People might read it that way, but that’s a different thing. If you think the consequences are comtemptible, that’s fine, but that’s certainly not the fault of the person pointing them out.
And as to “needlessly provocative”: who decides? For what goal? Mind you, I agree that it could be. I’d just like to see some actual arguments. If, for example, you could state a worthy goal and come up with a slogan that you can argue to be more effective for that goal, great, then we’re all ears. 🙂
But making factual, if uncomfortable, statements in public isn’t being a jerk. Pissing in a holy water font is being a jerk.
Gordon – good grief. I don’t see other critters building the LHC. Something ‘special’ is going
on. I did not say that I believe Genesis – only that those who do have the same right to their
views as anyone else. Most people do not keep up with science. The more specialized
civilization becomes the less likely anyone even has the time to keep current.
Even the wiki page on Founders lists religious affiliation. M Novak has an intereting
quote from Jefferson. How about Sanderson’s “Biography of the Signers to the Declaration
of Independence” – see John Witherspoon, for example. Wanna know why we don’t have a
king down here ? The most popular slogan during the Revolution was “No King but Jesus”.
You are cherry picking. ‘… it’s what they know that ain’t so.” Will Rogers.
Do ya think William of Occam was a Deist ?
Referring to a past when religion was the norm and ignorance was rampant doesnt wash.
Whatever those folks really were, they were risking careers and lives if they denied God.
Also, you are cherry picking. Read any of the great three books, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris—-they quote letters of the FF to each other—-you can hardly credit political public
views. Look at the US. In Europe, it doesnt matter in a politician if he-she is an atheist or not.
In the US, you would never even be nominated if you were one. Most likely, you would be burned at the stake. Both Jefferson and Adams made very direct atheistic-deistic statements.
I suspect that their use of the word `God` was similar to Einstein`s—–ie certainly not theistic, which Einstein later explicitly stated, saying he was misunderstood.
You prove that the USA is a theocracy, at least, in thought. Obama and Clinton and all the
pretenders had to make continual reference to how religious they were, just in case they
might be mistaken for someone intelligent.
In case you get the impression that I am sniping at Democrats, the Republicans were
orders of magnitude worse. I guess I just thought that goes without saying.
If Tom Paine wasn’t burned at the stake then your hypothesis fails.
I have read Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris – again, I am not impressed.
Nobody is fooled by Obama or Clinton.
I see that you are into believing things. I prefer skepticism.
Here is some Thomas Paine:
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
— Thomas Paine, (1737-1809), The Age of Reason, pt. 1, “The Author’s Profession of Faith” (1794), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations
Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system.
— Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.
— Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
There is scarcely any part of science, or anything in nature, which those imposters and blasphemers of science, called priests, as well Christians as Jews, have not, at some time or other, perverted, or sought to pervert to the purpose of superstition and falsehood.
— Thomas Paine, as quoted by Joseph Lewis in Inspiration and Wisdom from the Writings of Thomas Paine (which contains no pagination or source citations)
john adams:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm
Ben Franklin:
[1706-1790] American public official, writer, scientist, and printer who played a major part in the American Revolution.
“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1758
“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”
“He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.” Franklin’s Autobiography
“In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the want of it.”
�Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle�s Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist.�
“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”
etc etc
Peter:
Thanks for the response. Yes, it does seem we were arguing at cross purposes. I also got a chuckle out of your response because you must’ve seen my response within 10 minutes of my posting it, because your quotes are prior to a couple minor, clarifying changes I made.
Just good timing, I’m sure. 🙂
As far as slogans, I like the atheist bus campaign slogan, for example. You know, the “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and go enjoy your life” or something very close to that slogan. There are other positive expressions that aren’t exactly “slogans” (or even slogan-ish) too, but at the moment I’m pressed.
And this thread has about run its course for me. I got to spout off, now I can go read my Kindle.
I MIGHT be willing to give the Bald Astronomer more BOD if he didn’t do things like make his claim that James Randi’s famous denial of AGW didn’t actually make Randi an AGW denialist. Of course, the BA was still being paid by Randi at the time (which may or may not have been causative, the BA himself probably doesn’t really know but I’m sure he has an opinion).