Barbara Bradley Hagerty, writing for NPR, has an article entitled “A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists.” (h/t Tom D.) The article describes a debate among atheists about how best to engage with believers. It describes peaceful, polite coexistence as the more traditional view as opposed to a newer, more confrontational approach.
What struck me is that it seems reminiscent of a debate that took place (or is still taking place) in pretty much any other minority group movement you care to name. Martin Luther King versus Malcom X are the examples that leap to my mind first. But, gays and feminists have had this debate as well. Do you go along to get along or do you get in their faces and try to shatter their prejudices?
I’m definitely no student of such movements, but from my perspective it seems that the more peaceful approach worked better in terms of black rights while a more aggressive approach has worked better for gay rights. As for atheism, I don’t know how closely it parallels some of these other movements. One huge difference is that there is nothing innate about religious belief or lack thereof. By and large, it seems to reflect what is stuck in your head at a young age (note, for example, the very large number of people who adhere to the same religion as their parents.) But, certainly there is nothing immutable about that belief. I was raised as a Presbyterian, for example.
I think atheists need to be open and unapologetic about their lack of belief, but they don’t need to be jerks about it; at least to people who are being respectful to them. Being open about it is necessary for the mainstreaming effect this has. Others who aren’t religious should be able to see that, even if they’re in the minority, they are not isolated.
The article mentioned Christopher Hitchens saying, “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.” In my mind, that approach makes him kind of like the Ann Coulter of atheism. It will make him money and earn him a certain hardcore following, but ultimately, it will probably be counterproductive as it leads to people digging in and refusing to communicate very well. On the other hand, responding with contempt when contempt is being dished out is probably necessary at times. But, in my mind, disrespect is only appropriate when directed at the disrespectful. Where you have a person of faith treating you as an equal with whom there is an honest difference of opinion, I don’t think there is any upside to behaving rudely.
Mr. Hitchens is most likely just staking out his NPD (Narcisscist Personality Disorder) territory. In effect, I claim my beliefs to be the correct belief, and I will bully anybody into submission who has the temerity to disagree. I agree that it is comparable to the Coulter way.
This is purely anecdotal, but my perception is that the peaceful approach has been the real mover for the gay and feminist movements as well. Despite the prominence of the “in your face” crowd, the real difference is made by individual relationships. I know my own opinion on the issues surrounding homosexuality (and atheism) have never been much influenced by the more virulent crowd, but I have been severely affected by personal relationships with homosexuals and atheists who are willing to engage in normal conversation about our differences.
I wish you could edit these things. By the word normal what I really mean is patient, civil conversation, which is not meant to establish who is right and who is wrong, but rather to establish a better understanding of the other person’s perspective. “Normal” is certainly an unfortunate word choice in attempting to describe that sort of conversation.
There is probably some good game theory that could be developed around optimal minority group movement tactics. My first gut-reaction-guess would be that the optimal strategy has a lot to do with the percentage of the population that is a member of the minority group.
Ann Coulter of atheism = Richard Dawkins
I respectfully disagree with your view on God, Doug. However, that falls in the domain of “I think your idea is stupid, but I don’t think you are stupid”.
Dawkins is just an asshole in his behavior, so really don’t care to listen what he is talking about.
Also, I completely agree with your statement:
Thinking on this topic over lunch, I’d pin this approach as the most important for the advancement of many movements. It wasn’t protests and other things of that nature that moved homosexuality into the sphere of social acceptance. It was the fact that people started being open and honest about it.
With that in mind, indulge me while I make an ambitious generalization: most persecution and conflict between groups happens when people lose sight of the fact that the group is made up of individual people — real human people, with real emotions and thoughts and backgrounds and strengths and flaws and all the other things that make us human.
For instance, it is my opinion that homosexuality was given a major boost in social acceptance by shows like “The Real World” which featured individuals who were homosexual, and put their humanity on full display. For someone intimate with the show, it was no longer about “gays” or “bisexuals”, it was about “Norman”, who is bisexual (for the record, I had to Google that reference — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Korpi).
We can see examples of this everywhere; empathy is the grand mediator.
But we are still often tempted to forget the individuals and criticize the group. Thus, we say things when we talk about “liberals” and “conservatives” or “atheists” and “Christians” that we wouldn’t think of saying about “Doug” and “Eric” directly.
Think about it…racist, sexist, religious persecution, even aggressive war (nationalist persecution). These things happen because in the course of escalation, some number of people fail to think about the individuals that make up the group “gays” or “atheists” or “Jews” or “women” or […] and the persecuted start to lose their humanity in the minds of the persecutors. And I should add, that this goes both ways, and is certainly not limited in scope to minority issues. Minorities (like Dawkins, for example) can incite the same type of hatred toward a majority collective group “Christians” (or really more broadly “religious people”) as much as the opposite is true (I’ll grant, however, that the majority group tends to have more potential for getting away with it).
I think I’ve mentioned before that my homophobia basically evaporated when I was actually introduced to a person I knew to be gay. (Turns out, I knew many others, but they weren’t open about it.) It’s definitely easier to demonize an abstraction than an actual person.
I disagree with the comparison of Dawkins to Coulter. Dawkins argues his points, and quite well. He also, prior to talking so much about atheism, wrote excellent, well-reasoned books about evolution. He reasons and explains, though sometimes caustically and definitely without the “kid gloves” that are apparently considered appropriate and necessary when discussing ancient beliefs grounded in faith. Coulter, on the other hand, reasons very little and mostly just screeches.
If you skip Dawkins, you’re missing some good arguments against religion. Which may be the point.
The article is a few parts wrong… they’re in the ballpark, but not quite on the field. There is a schism among atheists, but it’s not really a matter of approach, it’s one of intent. Some atheists are concerned only about how religion overlaps or affects their personal freedoms. They’re content to live and let live on the subject of other people’s religious beliefs as long as those beliefs don’t interfere with their own lives.
Others, like Hitchens and to a lesser extent Dawkins, think that all religion is destructive to humanity as a whole, and that people who hold religious beliefs need to be reprogrammed to eliminate them.
It seems to me that’s quite a different schism than the one that appears in other minority groups, many of which stem from innate, immutable human characteristics like race, gender or sexual orientation.
But it is rather like other religious conversions like the Crusades, isn’t it?
Two kinds of atheists –
1) Those who feel they can prove there is no God, and
2) Those who take it on faith…
Q: What does a dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac do?
A: Lie awake at night, wondering if there is a dog…
Good observation, Steph. That is a distinction I never thought about making until you made it.
T,
Other than his attitude, Dawkins main point that I can’t reconcile is that on the absence of proof, atheism wins.
You can’t prove God exists, and you can’t prove he does not exist. There is plenty of debate in the middle explaining why you feel one way or another, and I welcome those debates.
However, Dawkins puts up his own goalpost, and says “If you can’t prove God exists, he doesn’t exist, I win.”
That’s a pretty narrow view. That’s fine if he wants to put his head in the sand in that way, but he shouldn’t say that I’m a hate monger if I teach my kids about my faith.
Dawkins gets into the argument because religionists insist that evolution is insufficient to explain the complexity of life on Earth. He, in response, rather elegantly and convincingly argues how it can.
Religionists’ answer is merely “God did it.”
Parker’s classification of atheists is clearly his own. Though I don’t believe in a god, I feel no more need to prove his/her/its non-existence than I need to disprove the existence of leprechauns.
One of Dawkins’ arguments, if I recall right, is that if you think life on Earth is too complex to explain without invoking a creator (it isn’t), then why would you believe that an even more complex thing (a creator) could just pop into being, or not need to be created at all? One of the retorts I’ve heard was that God isn’t a thing with parts at all, but a spirit. Well, ok then. That’s a pretty rigorous rebuttal. Usually the whole thing rests on He just Is.
Religion/God doesn’t so much suffer from a lack of proof, as it suffers from an absence of evidence at all.
I don’t know much about this particular debate, but I know a straw man when I see it. The opinions, even among creationists (i.e. forgetting non-creationist religions), are much more complex and diverse than this caricature. For one, it assumes a dichotomous relationship between God and the natural, as if the laws of physics are, for the Christian, operating outside of rather than within the realm of God (as even the term supernatural seems to imply).
By the way T, I’m not trying to rebut you, just that particular popular argument. I agree with your points, except for the last one. But in that regard, I’ll admit that the evidence that does exist is too subjective and anecdotal to be offered up as ‘proof’.
I don’t think it’s a straw man in the context of an argument suggesting that you need God to explain the presence of complex life forms. (In fact I know it’s not a straw man, since I’ve seen this argument advanced in this context. That’s not to say it’s the only argument, but it’s one that is made.) Even assuming life is too complicated to have been created through the natural processes we understand, bringing God into the equation raises more questions than it solves because it requires explanation of how God came into existence. (And, if it’s a complex god, do you need another god to have created that one?)
Dawkins’ answer is merely “Evolution did it”…with enough hand-waving to make any miracle-wielding creationist proud.
Evolution does not, at present, provide anything close to a full “explanation” for the development of life as we see it today. The Evolution narrative is somewhat compelling (for most people, until they think about for awhile). But in any case, it is a narrative in a scientific skin.
Not at all. It’s a description of a process that can explain how life forms attain complexity. But the process itself is observable, has been observed, and continues to be observed.
Of course, there will be a narrative, because we can’t build a time machine and take all the skeptics on a journey to see each step in real time. But a surprising number of pieces are there to be seen. In the fossil record are various stages of development for such creatures as horses, and humans for that matter. In bodies of present day whales we see evidence of their ancestors’ lives as land dwellers. None of the above is predicted by a creation story where species were individually crafted rather than evolving. That’s why there’s been, for many, a retreat from strict creationism to intelligent design or other creation-lite explanations. Meanwhile, Darwinian evolution hasn’t had to be rethought to any meaningful degree as more observations have come in.
Eric– I’ll presume you’ve read “The Blind Watchmaker”. If not, I do recommend it. I don’t recall the hand waving. Certainly not to anything near the degree that it would take to conjure up in one’s mind a spirit going about its business creating things.
“God did it” does not necessarily imply “hand-waving”. That’s all I was trying to say. The hand-waving caricature (what I called the straw man) ignores the diversity of interpretations and philosophies surrounding the nature and methods of God.
For instance, if God does exist, his nature is very likely to be bigger and more profound than we are able to comprehend. One example — creation implies a beginning; a beginning implies a time line; a time line implies a time dimension. Is it beyond the realm of possibility to imagine time contained within another dimension just as a line is contained within a plane and a plane within space and space within time? This possibility is discussed among atheist scientists, so why is a being outside the time dimension so hard to conjure up? And that’s before we even get to the realm of the humanly incomprehensible.
I’m not proposing that I know the nature of God (I don’t), merely pointing out that sometimes those who want to refute His existence have a tendency to put Him in a box — set up the straw man by attempting to define the indefinite, then refute the proposed definition. That said, you all are entitled to your conclusions, whether you believe in spontaneous evolution or 7-day creationism or anything in between. For myself, I am increasingly agnostic and yet more and more convinced on the existence of God (if that makes any sense) and nothing said here is likely to change that. I plan to read Dawkins, but he’s not very high on my priority list.
Sanity check — this article was originally about how we choose to relate to those we disagree with. I’d say by the comments there is a genuine attempt at civility but obvious tension. However, there don’t seem to be any personal attacks, only the sharing of ideas and the “open and honest” disagreement. That is refreshing. I’ll take appeals to logic (even if the logic on either side is flawed) and reading suggestions over the hurling of pejoratives any day.
The older I get, the less I care about the origin of the universe, or solving the questions of existence. I know, for instance, that I’ll never comprehend the origin. It’s like numbers to me. In the same way that you can conjure the largest number possible, I can name that same number and say, “plus one”, I cannot fathom the definition of the beginning of time. If God created the universe, what created God, etc. How much better would my life be if I could answer the question anyhow?
Also, how is it that creationists and evolutionists cannot come to agree with one another in that perhaps God (however anyone cares to define) created the universe, and from there, it evolves?
Since we can’t get our minds around these things despite the efforts of our entire human existence, I’ll be content if my oldest son goes to college.
“The article mentioned Christopher Hitchens saying, ‘I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right.’ In my mind, that approach makes him kind of like the Ann Coulter of atheism.”
I said almost exactly the same thing earlier today. Hitchens does seem to be taking a page from her book. Or, vice versa.
I think many on both sides can get to this point, agree that it’s possible there was a “first mover” kind of god, shrug their shoulders, and go back to arguing about football. But, on the creationist side of the equation, this is a significant problem for those who want to claim the Bible is the infallible Word of God. And, on the evolutionist side, labeling the first cause “god” seems to be giving into a cultural prejudice that gives cover to those who want to claim that the world is 6,000 years old.
In any case, I too find that these questions burn less strongly as I age. I think Dostoyevsky mentions something in the Brothers Karamazov about how the Big Questions are matters of passion for young men and more mundane concerns take over as you age.
T, it’s (far) more narrative than explanation. The basic story is reasonable enough, I suppose, to take on faith. But the narrative has little or nothing that is compelling on evolution through reproductive and other vital organs.
There are a range of possible creation narratives– biblically and merged with attempts to align with the scientific data. In this case, we’re talking about “strict” Evolution– a la Dawkins and other atheists– where Evolution must explain all. The Christian sits on the sideline and allows that evolution could accomplish much or some. The “strict” Evolutionist has a far tougher job– and ironically, must rely on narrative.
I have “The Blind Watchmaker”, but have not read it. The friends with whom I’ve debated this issue have never claimed that it advances the “explanation” very far. But I’ll move it up my reading pile. While we’re recommending books, I’d throw out Dembski’s “The Design Revolution”. Very few people– opponents or proponents– understand what ID is and is not.
To Mike: Many creationists and evolutionists can agree to a significant extent. The exceptions: young-earth creationists and Evolutionists/Atheists like Dawkins. Each of these has a narrow view of the world which does not allow compromise in this arena. It’s interesting that the former is quickly labeled a fundamentalist. But an objective definition pins the same moniker on the latter as well.
I don’t have a tough time reaching intellectual common ground with folks who believe in a sort of abstract watchmaker God — wound up the universe, and let it go. It’s a much bigger leap for me to go from there to an actively involved God who speaks from bushes, cares if we eat shellfish or make graven images, and has an eternal plan that can be modified in response to our prayers.
You’re in “good company”, there: most self-identifying Christians are deists, for all intents/purposes. But intellectually, why?
A Creator God who occasionally speaks from a bush, who cared if the Jews ate shellfish back in the day, and who doesn’t want to be “put in a box”? Why not? Sounds quite reasonable!
As to the efficacy of prayer, that’s a tougher conundrum!
As for why it’s easier intellectually, I think it’s maybe an Occam’s Razor approach. You can observe that all the stuff is there. And, you can observe that the physical properties of the universe seem to work in predictable ways. It’s tough to conceive of how all the stuff got here. So, for now, maybe you admit you don’t know and let God fill in the gap. There aren’t that many moving parts involved with this vision of God.
But, for a specifically Christian view of God (or specifically Muslim, Jewish, or any other religion), there are more chances for that view to be contradicted by new information as we learn more about the universe. And, because such views typically rely on texts created by humans, there is reason to be skeptical of the source material. (Even more reason to be skeptical when you observe that religion has proven profitable in one way or another to various subsets of its proponents.)
Got it. Interestingly, the last paragraph (although reasonable) does not speak to the bush, shellfish, and box concerns you mentioned earlier.
To your last parenthetical comment: if it were not profitable in a broad sense (i.e., beneficial), then people wouldn’t do it (by definition). But I know what you mean– and the existence of explicit profits, all things equal, may reasonably undermine your faith in the faith of some others. That said, of course, belief is often quite unprofitable in the sense that you intend. That should counter or even trump your concern on the other side of the coin, so to speak, yes?
When I was typing “profit,” the broader sense actually occurred to me – people obviously get value from their faith. But, as you recognized, I meant it in the more pernicious sense of priests, prophets, and kings shaping doctrine to give themselves power on earth.
And what about those who, decidedly, do not profit?
Sorry for another anecdote,but I always think if I can’t think of an example in my own history that throws light on philosophical presentation such as God vs atheism,then I don’t have my finger on the right page.
In Paris they have outdoor public political rallies on the streets and there were a series of them along the Seine with music ,food, and speakers and lots of person -to person chat.I really enjoyed kibitzing with a certain group andI we became very talkative with a certain few.These were really fun people’.I gradually realized that I was in a communist party rally.These rallies meld one in another and since I didnt know any of the candidates names,and there were banners everywhere.Had I known that to begin with who this group was, I probably would have stayed clear.Of course in France the communists are just another political party;nothing special.But we americans have a different culture and our own way to judge.
Thats when it first became clear that most of our judgments are pre-judgments and apt to mislead, and we judge according to how we are taught,and we see through a filtered glass,but think it’s clear.
Especially working with someone first is a good way to know a person.People can work together that may be very different politically or religiously. Just do the work at hand,and try to explain what’s happening during the process,and have some idea of what the goal is and how it will affect people.Granted some people are(nearly) impossible to work with,but not because of pre-judgments.
Our own political process has broken down into parochialism,so we tend to take sides with whomever seems to be closest to our views,and that only encourages division,and we spend so much time on just defining our enemies,and preventing more than accomplishing.And Im not saying the French are any different, by the way.
I have no idea in what way this is useful to a discussion of atheism, but having done a fair amount of study on the civil rights movement, I can say with certainty that both approaches (confrontation and conciliation) were useful. Most commentators will agree that what drove Kennedy and Johnson to respond with federal legislation was fear that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s peaceful followers might be recruited (a la communism-style) into the more militant Black Panther/Black Power wing if Dr. King’s methods proved fruitless.
Sort of a good cop, bad cop thing.
Doug, I did not intend for my question to be rhetorical: What do you think about those who, decidedly, do not profit from religion in general or Christianity in particular? Do those fully or more than offset the other?
I’m not sure I understand the question.
My skepticism about details of the particular religions is not primarily based on whether its proponents are cynical about their belief. So, if it turned out — which I assume it does — that there are fewer cynical believers, in it for worldly profit, than honest believers, it would not change my thinking on the matter a great deal. So, in that sense there wouldn’t be an “offset.”
In a narrower context, which way the scales tip would probably depend for me on the composition of those on the “in it for profit or worldly power” side versus those who are not. If the “profit/power” side is made up mainly of the creators of doctrine and the leaders of ministries while the “nonprofit” side is made up mainly of followers, I would say that great numbers of nonprofit would not offset small numbers of profit.
My sense is that, for the nonprofit side, the details of belief aren’t really that important. The religion could be devoted to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus or Ra or long dead ancestors, and, if they truly believed, they would get the same sense of community, inner peace, order and all the other non-monetary, non-power related benefits that religion seems to carry for people. I say this mainly because there have been a lot of different religions across the world and over time. The fact of the religion seems to be the important part; not the details of who or what the adherents are worshiping.
Doug, your last paragraph underlines why I find the “in your face” attitude about religion annoying.
Some atheists are on a mission to convert believers to atheism, claiming it will solve problems like 9/11, etc. Part of the way to get to this is to claim that teaching your children about your faith is “child abuse” (a quote from Mr. Dawkins)
If my faith in Jesus is 100% wrong, I still benefit from it daily. An atheist shouldn’t care about my belief, and he shouldn’t get on my case about it.
Honestly, that is one of the reasons my faith is so strong. I see the personal benefits from it even if I step away and ask “What if everything I believe in is false, and I’m talking to no one when I pray?”
Now, that doesn’t mean that either of us need to keep our faith or lack of faith private. An atheist can tell me his reasons for thinking there is no God, and I am free to share with people why I feel God does exist, and why they would benefit from my faith.
You said that it was “even more reason to be skeptical”, so I was assuming that it was important enough to mention…
Sorry this got so complicated. The point: Some people materially profit from religion and that is a reasonable cause for cynicism. But some people are materially harmed because of their religious beliefs– and that is presumably, cause for respect and faith in their faith. My guess is that the latter will trump the former for the objective observer.
My take is that there is no such things as a ‘christian point of view’ That kind of characterization should put us on guard against someone’s specific agenda for everyone.. In my view,religion is always parochial,even within the same denomination. Every classroom has an atmosphere and every congregation creates an atmosphere…Its not an issue of right or wrong as it’s an issue of emphasis vs de-emphasis. Government always has to be secular, at least Constitutional government must be.My definition of ‘secular’ is negotiation to pass laws by whoever is appropriately elected by the people with established parliamentary procedures being respected.Secular is not really the exact opposite of religious; its all mixed…both religious and secular people can negotiate as well as men and women,etc..Ive often been called a’ liberal catholic’, usually in derision. So Im both religious and secular.Everyone else is free to define himself.
I read something interesting a while back that I thought was an interesting point, and Jason’s comment reminded me of it. Don’t be deterred by the title (or the source, if you recognize the name); the post just happened to be written by a Christian on Darwin’s birthday.
http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/and-god-created-darwin/