The dominant image of atheism: Blogger PZ Myers wearing a scarlet letter "A" for atheism T-shirt.
Atheists have a major image problem. There's a reason that when people ask me what I believe I have to say with a smile: "I'm an atheist...but a friendly atheist." For sure, atheists for a long time have been unfairly stereotyped in the mainstream media and in popular culture. But we also have a lot of lousy self-proclaimed spokespeople who do damage to our public image. They're usually angry, grumpy, uncharismatic male loners with a passion for attacking and ridiculing religious believers. Any fellow atheist who disagrees with their Don Imus rhetoric, they label as appeasers.
These "new atheists" are the dark under belly of atheism. In books, blogs, and public statements, they sell us ideological porn, sophomoric rants that feed our dark sides and reinforce our own unfair stereotypes about the "other," i.e. the religious.
Yet all of this does far more harm than good. The addictive nature of their rhetoric radicalizes us and leads us to an ever more closed off conversation about how we are superior and everyone else is delusional.
In the process, we miss out on working together with religious communities around shared common values and problems. And when their self-promoting atheist punditry is picked up by either the mainstream press or the religious media, we as a community of atheists incur deep self-inflicted wounds, with news coverage feeding the stereotype that we are a bunch of intolerant and arrogant eccentrics.
Consider this recent article at the National Catholic Register. Titled "The Face of the New Atheism," it profiles PZ Myers and his rants against the Eucharist and the Catholic community. Notice the key words emphasized. The dominant image of atheism portrayed in the article is one of "hate," "contempt," "dogmatism," "a junior high level understanding of religion," "irate," "incredulous," "bigoted"...the list goes on.
Is this how we really want Catholics to view us? Do we really want a group of moderately religious Americans--who polls show otherwise prize science and reason, and who stand for many of the same values that we hold dear--to think of us through the prism of PZ Myers?
The image of atheism doesn't have to be this way. As I have argued before, if you want to improve the image of atheists you have to step away from being just another shrill voice in the argument culture and focus on building a diverse, inter-connected community, of standing for something, rather than just against something!
The points of emphasis for the rest of the public should be on "strong community member and leaders," "teachers," "listeners," "working with others on common problems," "tolerant," "engaged," "open-minded," "pragmatic," "improving society," "cares about people and social issues..."
Consider the example of this National Public Radio story that ran yesterday. It profiles CFI's Camp Inquiry, a "brain spa" as one camp counselor puts it. The story focuses on a community of open-minded, tolerant teenagers coming together to do all the normal things kids do at camp, but also to discuss philosophy, science, and religion. Rather than attacks and ridicule, the camp kids are focused on learning, reflection, and dialogue. Atheists are not "the other" in the form of an eccentric, angry old man, but rather community members like any other American.
This is the "new atheism" that we should promote, not an image of attacks and intolerance.
The other image of atheism: From the NPR segment, DJ Grothe leads a discussion with kids attending Camp Inquiry.
Life Science
Politics
Comments
For discussion an analogy, was it the friendly gays who didn't make waves who got society to change or the scary queers who started riots and got in people's faces?
Posted by: FutureMD | August 8, 2008 12:56 PM
I have recently decide to stop self-identifying as an atheist at all. As mentioned, I don't want to stand "against" religion, I want to stand FOR something. Why allow theism to be in how I self-identify at all?
I label myself a skeptic instead. In my mind that is a label that says I stand for reason and evidence. It transcends religion and creates a tremendous common ground with many otherwise religious people. It can often pull a conversation right out of the "higher authority" and "bible-based" murk onto a much higher plane.
When people ask me if I believe in God, I either tell them to mind their own business (if I think they're looking for an argument) or that I only believe in what I can prove scientifically (if I feel they are sincere in wanting to know me). If they say "how can you not believe in God" I will usually reply with "the same way I can't believe in ..." and mention something they will obviously consider claptrap. It can be very effective to show people that your view of God is the same as your view of conspiracy theorists or moon hoaxers or alien abduction-ers or whatever. They find a middle ground and it changes the conversation and their view of you very much.
I arrived here after decades of being exactly what you just described: "superior and everyone else is delusional." It was a dead-end, and left me lonely and embittered. Instead, I now stand fast in my beliefs, labeling myself without succumbing to the labels of others, and still interacting very nicely with many religious people.
It's a much better place.
Posted by: Corey | August 8, 2008 1:03 PM
If atheists are radicalized its because the culture at large has made them this way. How do you expect a sane person locked in an insane asylum to act? Why should we show deference and respect (as in your camp example) to those that show us none? PZ is a perfect example because the religious showed their true colors by demonizing him at every opporunity. Did you even read the article about PZ that you posted? No mention over the controversy or context that prompted his so called sacreligous actions. Nope he's just the angry atheist that hates crackers. You're holding religion's hands as they lead us right back into the dark ages.
Posted by: FutureMD | August 8, 2008 1:04 PM
Matthew said:
Consider this recent article at the National Catholic Register. Titled "The Face of the New Atheism," it profiles PZ Myers and his rants against the Eucharist and the Catholic community. Notice the key words emphasized. The dominant image of atheism portrayed in the article is one of "hate," "contempt," "dogmatism," "a junior high level understanding of religion," "irate," "incredulous," "bigoted"...the list goes on.
Quote from the article you cited:
Myers is, as Bill Donohue of the Catholic League described him to me, “the face of the new atheism: irrational, dogmatic and hate-filled.”
If you are quoting the words of Bill Donohue to criticize P. Z. Myers, you are indeed revealing what he thinks, but you are not citing anything about American Catholics in general. He speaks for a small minority viewpoint. In fact, looking at Donohue's history, it is clear he is far more hate-filled than PZ. If PZ is being unfairly portrayed in the article you cite, it may be problem for American atheists, but it is not a problem that PZ can solve by stifling himself, or changing his beliefs about what to say when he speaks out.
Posted by: DaleP | August 8, 2008 1:31 PM
Please define "ideological porn", and tell me where I can get some.
Also please tell me just what kind of atheist is likely to get a warm 'n' fuzzy portrayal in the National Catholic Register, or even to want one.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 8, 2008 1:35 PM
I, for one, welcome our New Atheist overlords.
Posted by: Matt Platte | August 8, 2008 1:45 PM
Feh. That article would have been slanted whether or not PZ trimmed his beard beforehand. I'm glad there are more accomodating atheists like yourself. I'm just as glad we have those who are not willing to varnish the truth.
Posted by: ogghead | August 8, 2008 2:04 PM
There's a place for both approaches to the issue. Grothe's work has value and Myers's also has a place. I listen to Grothe's podcast every week and I enjoy Pharyngula. I'm am a tad tired of your tisk-tisking. Let 'em all go at it.
Posted by: Richard | August 8, 2008 2:15 PM
Well, you seem to think you know the answer to this question . . . what is it?
Jeez, buck up. Trying to dress up atheists as historical victims along the lines of gays or blacks is just pathetic.
@Nisbet: I think it's pretty hopeless to write on this topic around here--PZ's core audience is a bunch of adolescents and suspended adolescents, deeply Oedipal types who love atheism primarily because they think it upsets someone--they think it's some kind of rebellion. The confrontation is an essential part of the ballgame for them. They and the rabid fundies are counterparts--the atheists while constantly crowing about their intellectual superiority, are nearly all intellectual mediocrities who don't read well and can rarely make anything but the grossest kind of distinction. The rabid dogs on both sides deserve each other, really. It's just too bad they aren't fighting each other physically: both those herds can use some culling.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 8, 2008 2:59 PM
I think part of the problem is that your focus isn't exactly what defines atheists as a group. How many theists are actively opposed to "strong community member and leaders," "teachers," "listeners," "working with others on common problems," "tolerant," "engaged," "open-minded," "pragmatic," "improving society," "cares about people and social issues..." and so on?
Posted by: Dan Miller | August 8, 2008 3:21 PM
Well, I think you just blew your chances of being one of PZ's guest bloggers when he goes on vacation.
Seriously though, I agree that the atheist image is way too...assholey...these days. Contrary to what some seem to think, suggesting that atheists try to be understanding and polite is not the same thing as saying "be a doormat & never express your views." I can't deny that the over-the-top jerks have their uses, but the bulk of us should aspire to being thoughtful, pleasant intellectuals rather than pissy, opinionated blowhards who happen to be pretty smart.
Posted by: Jason | August 8, 2008 4:46 PM
"Jeez, buck up. Trying to dress up atheists as historical victims along the lines of gays or blacks is just pathetic."
I don't think atheists have personally received as much ill-treatment as either of those groups and for one reason only: they are much more difficult to identify. Atheism as an ideology is about as reviled as anything can be to the American public.
And to answer your question, it was the crowds chanting "we're here, we're queer" who forced society to change, not the nice people who hoped it would.
Posted by: FutureMD | August 8, 2008 4:51 PM
Does the National Catholic Register typically come out with favorable stories about atheists and atheism --- just not this time, not for this atheist, because he's one of the bad, mean, nasty kinds of atheists with the wrong communications strategy? If they were to do a story on DJ Grothe and/or Camp Inquiry, it would be all glowing praise, bunnies and sunshine? In such a case, the NCR would be expected to skip over the atheism and focus on areas of common ground?
Posted by: Dale | August 8, 2008 5:08 PM
Atheists have always had an image problem. Non-theists, or "the Godless" have closeted themselves out of fear for their jobs and even their lives. Hatred of Atheists is currently mainstream as shown by George HW Bush's statement on the godless. The lessons learned by Blacks and Gays should not be lost on Atheists. Being nice does not get you acceptance. Only a fool ignores history.
Posted by: Jim1138 | August 8, 2008 5:46 PM
I'll grant that sometimes PZ can come across as a bit of an ass. On most occasions when he does I find myself thinking, "I'm glad somebody had the guts to speak up." I think multiple approaches are needed when dealing with a diverse public, and sometimes being uncompromising is the best way to go.
Posted by: Observer | August 8, 2008 7:22 PM
Oran, amazing how you can read minds. Please start giving lessons, I want to go on the psychic circuit. Really, I'm trying to make people angry? You have no idea what I am about or how I behave in debate with live humans (or even trolls, for that matter). /eyeroll
Matt, nice job of framing, yourself. Was that the only available pic of PZ? You set up your own article as clearly biased, and if the text words aren't enough, here's a thousand ugly ones at once, first thing*.
I think there is great value in being nice and friendly, or civilized human beings. That will not tie back to atheism. The True Believers will view "good behavior" as in spite of my atheism, so it's exceptional. And I don't think I've met any atheist who is nasty and assholy in person, they're more like, oh, other humans. I agree with those who say change is not driven by well behaved people. Look at all the complaints from christers, all the time. Can't say the name cheeses in City Council meeting opening prayer** = persecution. Hell, they dominate every aspect of our (US) society, and they whine about persecution. So how will your nice behavior even be observed? Go around doing good deeds, while wearing a big ole atheist scarlet "A"? Be kind, then always interject "I'm a friendly atheist"? Unfortunately,I have to live in this darned real world, where christers imagine they're persecuted in America and atheists shouldn't be citizens.
I don't think any amount of openly atheistic kindness will make a difference in religious depictions of atheists. The religious will frame us as the enemy, because we are the enemy. We represent a total independence from the mommy church and sky daddy, and any spreading of that message hits them in the bottom line. That counts.
* Not that I'm commenting on PZ's appearance
**which shouldn't even be happening
Posted by: True Bob | August 8, 2008 7:44 PM
Is this how we really want Catholics to view us?
I think we should want them to view us as people who don't believe in what they believe, and who aren't prepared to let them bully others into doing so.
Plenty of christians (catholics included) have this nonsensical idea that atheists are just christians in denial; unenlightened, or unwilling to accept the 'truth' of the reality of god. As long as we're just just a quiet bunch of obsequious forelock-tuggers who defer to the religious they'll continue to delude themselves with that.
What PZ has done is something that, apart from anything else, show that there are people who really don't believe in god and aren't afraid to stand up and say so - and that's important. Certainly more important than kowtowing to a lunatic fringe of catholicism.
To work on 'shared common values and problems' we first have to ensure that we're going to be listened to. If we're just going to back down every time they throw their weight around when are they going to take us seriously?
Posted by: Wowbagger | August 8, 2008 7:44 PM
Anyone who thinks that the National Catholic Register or professional Catholic Bill Donohue are going to have a warm spot in their hearts for any atheist is 20 beads short of a rosary. Sorry, Matthew, but there are some atheists who are not going to play doormat because being nasty to the poor, prosecuted, downtrodden Catholics and other theists hurts their feelings.
Your concern is noted. You may be as friendly an atheist as your heart desires. Some of us want to be a little more active in displaying our atheism.
Posted by: JoJo | August 8, 2008 7:45 PM
shorter oran: If they'd just capitulate and shut up, everyone would like them. Why am I the only one smart enough to see that?
Posted by: garth | August 8, 2008 7:47 PM
First, the prism is not PZ but what's said about PZ from an antagonistic party.
Second, it depends on who "we" represents - atheists in general or atheists who share your opinion.
For me, yes. Bring the cognitive dissonance on, I say.
Posted by: John Morales | August 8, 2008 7:49 PM
Nisbett, all they are doing are writing stuff. Shouldn't people be able to express their opinions? Not only that, shouldn't all ideas be criticized, including religion itself. The ones who got offended accomplished a self fulfilling prophecy by just going along with the bandwagon. In my mind, they have this persecution complex in which they want to be offended. To them, any criticism is offensive. This is my take on it.
Posted by: IBY | August 8, 2008 7:51 PM
I will believe that Catholics prize reason when they stop advocating faith. I am not first and foremost an atheist. If some god makes its appearance tomorrow, in any of a variety of fashions that many fiction writers have described, then I would believe in it in the same way I now believe it existed in the same way I believe the moon exists. That would not reconcile me to those who believe on the basis of faith. My atheism is first and foremost a rejection of faith, as the primary form of human rejection of reason. Perhaps we should be call afideists, rather than atheists. But yes, I want Catholics to see us precisely as those who call a spade a spade, and point out the obvious, that faith is opposed to reason.
Posted by: Russell | August 8, 2008 9:45 PM
You sir, are the problem.
The 'new' atheists are what atheists were all along - those of us who do not feel the need to bow and scrape in the area of religion when people express opinions that are downright crazy/wrong/evil.
Ironically, we atheists probably have more in common with some of the religious in that we actually do accept that there is such as a thing as being right and being wrong - and are happy to frame our responses accordingly rather than adopting this "respect everyone's beliefs" rubbish.
True Bob says "I don't think any amount of openly atheistic kindness will make a difference in religious depictions of atheists."
Hear Hear. These people despise atheists utterly and will *never* reciprocate your respect. The only thing that they will accept is your submission and accpetance of their beliefs as correct. Your tolerance of them is misplaced and it's time you wised up the nature of the cultural conflict that is taking place.
Posted by: Ian Lowe | August 8, 2008 9:46 PM
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 8, 2008 9:50 PM
I've been brow-beaten and fed a fairy tale by christians and catholics for most of my life. Finally, as a senior I am glad to my find some one like PZ, who is not afraid to say, "The Emperor has no clothes." Religious groups need to have their feathers ruffled. They have certainly intruded into my space for more than enough years. I'm an atheist, and I'm proud.
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | August 8, 2008 10:06 PM
@Oran Kelley:
Wow, way to advance your agenda through proper "framing". In one stroke, you paint the majority of Pharyngula readers as something they're not, and licking Nisbet's ass by essentially saying, "Yeah, we're the good guys. We're not the same as those kids over there!" What a brilliant display of your "framing" abilities!
You don't go to Pharyngula often, do you? Do you even bother to read the comments there? The overwhelming majority of commenters there are more than capable of writing complete sentences by which they express their opinions on a certain topic. Moreover, most of them also seem quite able to apply reason to their arguments and opinions. They are also quite capable of differentiating between the rabid fundies (who crawl out from under their rocks whenever something like Crackergate comes up) and the honestly curious believers who wish to learn more about atheism and atheists. Apparently it is not the Pharyngula readers/commenters who are incapable of "anything but the grossest kind of distinction."
@Nisbet
If an atheist blogger were to put up an article equating all Catholics/Catholicism to Hitler, the Inquisition, or some other despicable person/institute which happened to be Catholic, you would be shouting your mouth off about how the atheist blogger is "ruining the image of atheism", and you would be right. But if it's the National Catholic Register posting a dishonest, biased, and clearly misinformed portrayal of atheism, which more or less equates all atheists with PZ Myers, it's somehow PZ Myers's fault?!?
I have read many of your writings on this "atheism image" topic, and the only message I'm getting is, "No, no, no, everything everyone else is doing is wrong, wrong, wrong!", without even a hint as to what you think is right. Frankly, your critics appear to be better communicators and framers than yourself. Perhaps it's time you stop embarrassing yourself any further by posting your unreasonable tirades against PZ Myers and the "New Atheists".
Posted by: FO | August 8, 2008 10:10 PM
I don't have any problem being around religious people, as my family on both sides is full of them. But they also hold other beliefs that I regard as odd: That ghosts exist, that there is something to astrology, and that Saddam spirited away his WMD to Syria and was involved in 9/11.
Should I politely avoid discussing any of these matters, or shall I challenge them with reason, rationality and evidence?
PZ Myers is hardly "irrational" or "hate-filled" from what I've read. He would just like some evidence, and like most atheists, this one included, he has seen none of it in his lifetime. Nor have I.
Posted by: Slaughter | August 8, 2008 11:33 PM
It's a bit disingenuous to claim PZ represents some significant sect of atheism.
Obviously, you haven't spent much time in alt.atheism, as it's contained every kind of "non-believer" you could possibly imagine for the last 20 years. Yes, I know because I've spent time there.
I applaud the idea that groups should focus on their similarities rather than their differences. But I think you've been sniffing the glue a bit too much by trying to paint Crackergate as indicative of anything more than Debate On Teh Internets
Posted by: Whateverman | August 8, 2008 11:39 PM
Mr. Nisbet,
Your argument seems to be poorly conceived and frankly, based upon some pretty questionable premises.
The central issue seems to be how atheism can position itself for more respect within the public discourse. Unfortunately your examples don't carry this argument very well especially since they focus more on disparate reactions from entirely different quarters to particular examples of atheism rather than illustrating how any disparity in the approaches to atheism themselves evoke those reactions.
Fact is, I mostly have no problem with PZ and I find all the hand wringing over his clearly stated opinions to be puzzling. He certainly, like many bloggers, does go over the top from time to time although not nearly as much as his critics seem to believe. But whatever. If you want to argue that PZ should be more politic than hey... good luck. It seems silly to me but its your time and effort.
Now I don't really know much about what goes on in the camp you describe. If the camp promotes open mindedness or community than that is wonderful. If it somehow influences the public perception of atheism positively than I am sure PZ and all the so-called new atheists would happily get behind it. I have never seen PZ or anyone else suggest that atheists should shun some sort of positive community advocacy.
But at bottom, atheism is a belief that will always clash with the Bill Donohue's of the world. Atheists believe that it really is just a cracker and at some point the kids in that camp are going to have to address that issue or one very much like it. When they do, the Catholic Register will also not be writing very nice things about them, camp or no camp. Maybe I am wrong about that but I highly doubt it and you certainly don't provide any evidence to the contrary in this post.
As an aside, I think you should keep in mind that Bill Donohue, who you quote as some sort of evidence of how PZ is publicly perceived, is a complete nut. He goes into fits of apoplectic outrage every month of the year over perceived slights to his belief system. I have seen the man on tv drunkenly threatening to physically assault an artist who did a sculpture of Jesus in chocolate. I think if you spend about 3 minutes looking, you will probably find plenty of Catholics who think of Donohue as an absolute embarrassment.
Posted by: brent | August 8, 2008 11:51 PM
Expressing one's opinion that others shouldn't express (or hold) certain opinions does not imply support for actually preventing others from doing so. Why do so many seemingly sentient organisms need this basic concept explained to them?
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 9, 2008 12:39 AM
Hmm...both PZ and Dawkins have been very explicit that they are not spokespersons in any formal sense. Both PZ and Dawkins have hugely successful public careers with substantial audiences (PZ has perhaps the most popular science blog on the planet, and Dawkins has regularly had best-sellers, and is in high demand as a speaker). And both PZ and Dawkins are married (the latter to an actress and former Dr. Who "companion"), and both have children.
So I don't get where you can describe these two as "self-proclaimed spokespeople" who are "uncharismatic" and "loners". That's a clumsy attempt at a frame, and is simply false.
Posted by: Tulse | August 9, 2008 12:44 AM
This is also the dominant image many people have of religion. Having lived twenty years in the buckle of the bible belt I'd have to say it's pretty accurate. Far more so than as a description of atheists, who, in my experience tend to be more tolerant, understanding, open-minded and forgiving. And usually just plain smarter.
Posted by: Equisetum | August 9, 2008 1:46 AM
You have to be kidding me. You think catholics are tolerate and mainstream? I might believe that if droves of them came out publicly to denounce the ones of their flock who send death threats over crackers. It didn't happen and it won't.
For the moron who thinks Atheists have not been treated as badly as gays and blacks. (or whatever stupidity it was you spouted) I have many, many personal stories to tell you that might change your mind. My children and I have been run off the road, have had guns pulled on us, have been ridiculed and insulted on countless occasions, have actually been denied service by certain institutions, and I have even been physically assaulted because we are Atheists. How did people know we were Atheists? Because I had the audacity to advertise the Atheist group I ran by placing magnetic stickers on my truck. I am a 5'ft 3" 110 lb female who has had grown men attack me for my lack of belief in their fairy tales. Am I fed up? You bet I am.
Start wearing a shirt that says "Proud Atheist" or something similar, you will quickly change your mind and come to realize that Atheists are treated with contempt and we are commonly abused. Those that aren't are in the closet or are lucky enough to live in a place where they are accepted. (Tell me where that is and I will frikkin' move there)
We are tired of living in the closet. Some are angry and look as though they are picking a fight but they are not, they are just tired of taking the abuse. I respect men like PZ who will stand up and take the heat (and the death threats). Things will not change until we make them change.
Posted by: RayvenAlandria | August 9, 2008 2:00 AM
I'm all for being polite and friendly towards everyone (theistic or not), unless they threaten myself or others with harm. And that's where I think you've missed the point, Nisbet. PZ was acting in response to the incident at Central Florida University, where a student was accosted for taking a communion wafer back to his seat to show to his friend who was curious about Catholocism. He then left the service with the wafer. http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html
Subsequently, there were calls for him to be expelled, and even death threats. In such a situation, you surely don't expect us to sit back, smile and be friendly, do you?
Posted by: cactusren | August 9, 2008 2:23 AM
Whether you stand up and yell "I am an ATHIEST!" or just just peek out and say "I don't believe" what does it matter? As long as you are willing to state your beliefs, who else can condemn you? Whether you find it comforting or abrasive, that is your point of view. I for one, don't care. "I yam what I yam." Popeye.
Posted by: nervouswreck | August 9, 2008 2:41 AM
"standing for something, rather than just against something"
Believers don't stand for anything (real). When they bring their bizarre speculation into public decision making, their irrational argumentation must be refuted or we will suffer the consequences.
The nature of the problem is that believers postulate the existence of entities beyond the common realm of the verifiable experience we all share. When believers try to influence public decisions with these imaginary entities, there is we *can* pretend to not hear them an continue with our rational approach. But it would silly not to actively engage the superstition, and expose it for what they is. Feigning "respect" for religion and other delusions is would give the delusions unnecessary weight in the decision making process.
And I agree that atheism is not a good description of what most atheists are for and against. Most atheists are not only against theism, or even supernaturalisms, but against flimsy and wishful argumentation in general. Theism is just one of the illusions we must counteract. We shouldn't dignify that particular delusion by labeling us as against *it* specifically. Rationalism or something similar would describe our attitude better.
Posted by: eduxrox | August 9, 2008 3:42 AM
PZ is honest, he spews what atheists really think, and makes it clear why no atheist is fit for political office.
More power to him!
Posted by: Stauffenberg | August 9, 2008 5:07 AM
Matt, I guess the next thing we need to do is to get the atheist Pope to issue an edict excommunicating all those unfriendly atheists who let us down.
Oh wait...
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | August 9, 2008 5:22 AM
I'm sorry but that's just feeble. It sounds as if you're apologising for your lack of religious belief. Why? Call yourself and atheist and leave it at that.
Angry and grumpy I can understand. That's a product of reacting to religion invading public policy, polluting young minds and then claiming special dispensation from any form of criticism. As for being uncharismatic loners, who exactly are you referring to? We must be thinking of different people.
Umm... what exactly did you expect? I will give that article credit for allowing PZ to articulate his position, and I believe he did so directly and honestly. We can't be held responsible for how other perceive us; our only duty is to tell what we believe to be the truth and back that up with evidence and reasoned arguments. The problem, as numerous others have already pointed out, is that we're dealing with people who take offence the moment any criticism is levelled at their beliefs, however "respectfully" and politely such criticism is presented.
How about attacks on intolerance? Would they be acceptable? The problem we face is that the most vocal members of any group tend to be those who hold the most extreme views. In the case of the loudly religious and self-righteous, they are unfortunately gaining far too much control over public policy and debate. For the sceptic/pro-science viewpoint to be heard, we need people who are prepared the make their points with equal volume, but unlike their ideological opponents, to do so backed up with the full force of evidence and critical thought.
Finally, I thought deliberately choosing a picture of PZ looking like he'd just rolled out of bed and juxtaposing it against DJ Grothe looking dapper to be rather cheap and unnecessary.
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | August 9, 2008 5:29 AM
Moderates never change anything. They sit quietly and hope that no one ask them anything, specially their opinions or even ask them to make a judgment.
Moderate christians, muslims, atheist and others are not moderate in the sense they would not be excessive but in a sense they want to have the prestige, protection and power of the group without the efforts which the more radical groups are willing to put into their beliefs.
If one merely sits in the sideline and looks, one forfeits the right to be considered part of the team. You may complain but unless you act, your complaints are merely rethorics.
Posted by: jagannath | August 9, 2008 5:46 AM
Matt, you're way off base and the message is getting old - as has been said by many others so far. For myself, I just wonder if anyone else noticed how utterly bored those teenage girls appear to be. I present science in front of crowds of a wide variety of sizes and a wide variety of backgrounds, ages, etc - if the best photo I could find of me doing my stuff had an audience looking that 'rivetted', I'd have given up by now.
I like DJ, I listen to his podcast every week, I usually agree with him - but calm and quiet can't change society, no matter how good it is at building on the changes achieved by the loud and proud.
And can we cut the 'Don Imus' references? You're starting to look like a Don Imus Framer...
Posted by: Lee Harrison | August 9, 2008 5:55 AM
Matt:
By quoting what Jeff Gardner and Bill Donohue have said in this hatchet-job with approval - as a reasonable reaction to PZ's challenging of many Catholics' view that death threats are an appropriate reaction for the offence of taking the host back to one's pew - you are framing them as the voice of reason. Was that your intent?
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 9, 2008 6:17 AM
I doubt that our so-called spokespeople got themselves into that position by being uncharismatic loners. Loners rarely seek the limelight, and the uncharismatic rarely get it.
And atheism isn't about hate or community or any of that bullcrap � all it's about is not believing in any goddesses or gods.
Posted by: brtkrbzhnv | August 9, 2008 6:25 AM
@Matt:
...or, to put it another way, why are you framing this as "even his fellow atheists think that Myers's actions were beyond the pale", rather than "while I believe that Myers's actions were over the top, his underlying point is sound - the Catholic church should be condemning the threats to Webster Cook's life and future career (and to PZ's), and Bill Donohue who has encouraged those threats".
What has made you choose the frame that puts atheists, even if only by association with Myers, in the dock? Why not the frame that puts the Catholic "terrorists" there?
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 9, 2008 6:40 AM
There are many faces of atheism (from angry cracker-desecrating monsters to moderate friendly skeptics), but you'll never see friendly atheist in any Catholic magazine. They just need to feel persecuted and hunted, there will never be a positive image of atheists among believers - that would lead to end of religion and the shepherds know it.
Posted by: infidel.michael | August 9, 2008 7:37 AM
The guys responsible for the National Catholic Register must be very good at framing. They had PZ on their radio show before they wrote that and far from "miss[ing] out on working together with religious communities around shared common values and problems", they seemed to get along just fine.
At the end they thanked PZ and father Loya said they and PZ were fellow travellers, searching for honesty, asking questions etc., and PZ was a gift because he gave them a chance to look at themselves and so on.
Posted by: steve_h | August 9, 2008 7:41 AM
Whoa...for the "picture of atheism" you choose a very poor photo of me looking dopey and laughing and holding a teddy bear, and you use that to justify the stereotype of angry, cranky, hateful atheists?
It would have been more justifiable to use it in an article ranting about how atheists are not pretty and have bad hair.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 9, 2008 7:46 AM
When trying to make comparisons between atheists and gays, bear in mind that even if it was the "out there" gays who made more difference (something I have not seen proof of), those gays were demanding to be recognized for what they were... but they were **not** also, by and large, saying "and those of you who are straight are deluded, stupid, ignorant fools mired in the dark ages. Only people who are gay are right."
That's where the comparison between the asshole wing of the atheist movement and the "out there" wing of the gay rights movement breaks down.
By all means, be out there and talk about atheism, and demand that atheists should get as much respect as anybody else. But do it like Sean Carroll or Matthew Nisbet-- engage people in discussion, don't engage them in self-aggrandizing childish insults the way PZ does. As a coworker of mine said, it's important to know the difference between being a skeptic and being a dick about religion.
Posted by: Rob Knop | August 9, 2008 8:04 AM
The same sort of comments were made about feminists in the 1960s/70s but with hindsight it is clear that without the stridency the case would never have come to the attention of the average male chauvinist pig or his wife, nor would most of the anti-discrimination laws have been passed. Atheism is at a similar stage, we need those who shout loudly at the front in order to clear the way for the less pugilistic amongst us. You might also consider that by not being prepared to express our opinions in public that we are giving the religious dictators free rein to continue their ways and to claim authority over all of us.
Posted by: kate corwyn | August 9, 2008 8:27 AM
Nisbet,
Flatly put, you're wrong. I'm with Dawkins and PZ on this front : we MUST shout and protest and ridicule. Otherwise indifference rolls over us and we get ignored.
Posted by: Paul Hands | August 9, 2008 8:40 AM
Yes, I agree, by having an opinion different from the masses I am the problem and should be reeducated, NOT!
Seriously, if PZ was some monk or priest, would anyone make an issue of the beard? No, he would be some spiritual savant. That's framing for you!
Posted by: iRobot | August 9, 2008 9:09 AM
Those who make positive impacts in their communities, without hiding who they are, and without bashing those who think differently, are the real movement heroes, and the ones who change most hearts and minds. I see it in my church: the presence of several gay couples who are active and involved has caused other members to rethink their prejudices as well as their theologies. I did not grow up with a negative impression of atheists because I have family members who are atheists and who do not feel the need to put down those of us who are not. I think it's a stretch to say that insulting and offending people provides cognitive dissonance: what it does, in my observation, is simply to alienate people and shut down the dialogue.
If you want to cause real cognitive dissonance, I think the answer is to act in positive ways and still be open about who you are. It's hard for people to dismiss someone who has worked with them to create something good. It causes people to rethink their prejudices about certain groups, when, say, someone who is known to be a Christian gets out there and supports gay rights, or someone who is known to be an atheist volunteers at the soup kitchen. If someone is friendly and their life seems to cause cognitive dissonance for those around them, the next step for some is to ask that interesting, approachable person more about it, and after that people start to rethink their ideas about what Christians or gays or atheists are really like. Cognitive dissonance is productive when it can pair up with curiosity and a real exchange of ideas. otoh I've noticed that anger and insults just shut people down, without changing prejudices.
Posted by: Anna K. | August 9, 2008 11:14 AM
Matt,
That picture of PZ is hysterical! I think he's got a pretty bad internet connection in the Galapagos, but when he comes back maybe he'll have a chance to see it.
Here is my view of your comments.
Posted by: greg laden | August 9, 2008 1:16 PM
There is room for multiple approaches in making atheism more palatable to the public. There is no need for somebody to try to form a centralized strategy. However, you are being naive if you think the image problem for atheism is one of "framing." Atheism clashes with cultural values, much as homosexuality and many aspects of liberalism do. The only way to change this is multiple exposure and winning the battle of ideas. Framing does little good.
Posted by: Justin | August 9, 2008 6:03 PM
I think PZ look great in this picture. But I can't be objective, since I took that picture (last year at SciFoo).
Posted by: Coturnix | August 9, 2008 7:13 PM
Rob Knop,
I can only assume that you have never actually observed or read an accurate account of an "out there" gay protest. Gay protests routinely involve highly critical commentary and imagery regarding opponents of gay rights and gay equality. The slogan Hate is not a family value is especially popular. Gay protesters frequently accuse people who oppose gay rights and who claim that gay sex and gay marriage are immoral of bigotry and prejudice. Most often, religious bigotry. And for the most part, I think these accusations are correct, and that expressing them in clear, strong, direct language is entirely justified.
To address your specific charges: I don't think that religious people in general are stupid. I do believe that they are in general deluded, and often ignorant and foolish. Religious belief is especially foolish when held by people of high intelligence and learning, who really ought to know better.
And I'm not going to stop expressing these beliefs just because people like you don't want to hear them.
Posted by: Jason | August 9, 2008 8:18 PM
I agree with your preferred image for non-theists... but I think it's important to consider whether the religious establishment, Catholic or otherwise, will often have an incentive to choose to promulgate the image of atheists as being angry and destructive and hateful. They will probably choose to focus on Dawkins and Meyers and their ilk, regardless of whether there are other atheist archetypes to choose from.
Posted by: Zane Selvans | August 9, 2008 8:33 PM
I'm not a militant atheist, and I do respect religion because it teaches and inspires people to be good. I do criticize religion, but I don't demonize it, as militant atheists do. Using my reason (that's what we all stand for, isn't it?), I try to understand it. I think there should be a diversity of voices in the atheist/naturalist community, as well as in the scientific and skeptical communities. PZ, Dawkins, and Hitchens will say what they like, and that's okay with me. Let's hear other voices, too, like Nikka Lalli, yourself, John Alan Paulos, Philip Kitcher, Eugenie Scott, and others. As Nikka Lalli said, "Atheists don't speak with just one voice." Let's all speak up!
Posted by: Richard Rasmussen | August 9, 2008 9:35 PM
Rob, (on the off hand chance this ever gets through Matt's filter), I think you're stretching the analogy farther than any of us intend. We want the right to be outspoken about our beliefs without being ridiculed about being obnoxious. If you can point to a successful atheism movement changing the face of the USA that I'm missing, please fill me in.
Posted by: rmp | August 9, 2008 10:52 PM
Lee Harrison said:
Actually, I hadn't, but after taking a closer look, yup, it's pretty striking! (But it's not necessarily a representative characterization of their overall camp experience, or even of that discussion.)On the issue of moderate vs. aggressive gays, I'm not sure how one would go about disentangling all the different causes of the improvement in their social position, but I would venture to suggest that over the last few decades there have been hundreds of thousands of private conversations along the lines of":
"Say, I heard Frank was gay."
"No kidding, I never would have thought! I have to say, he sure is a good _______ (writer, manager, electrician, congressional aide, teacher, athlete, musician, etc.)"
This effect is particularly pronounced when the person is famous -- Liberace, Rock Hudson, a high-ranking military person who IIRC made the cover of Time back in the 70's, to name a few.
The way people from a detested minority live their lives and interact with the larger community has a huge influence on shifting perceptions, and "logical, rational and moral" arguments may matter less than intellectually-oriented types pretend.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | August 10, 2008 1:59 AM
@Rob Knop:
It is quite obvious that the "out there" group (by which I mean those who are vocal) were much more responsible for the change in social and legal attitudes toward gay people. By being vocal, these people showed that they exist, that they're not ashamed of what they are, and that their sexual preference has no bearing whatsoever on their moral values -- which dispels many of the most common accusations leveled against gays. It also breeds familiarity (like those living in a war zone may become used to corpses -- not a good analogy, but I hope you get the point), and familiarity reduces fear and shock. Silent, non-vocal gays may have influenced their local communities, but it was ultimately the vocal gays who enabled a society-wide change in attitudes toward them.
Perhaps, but those who opposed the gay movement were mostly straight people, the majority of which were ignorant fools mired in dark-age beliefs and superstitions. Moreover, it is also dishonest of you to imply that, by and large, atheists do say things similar to what you wrote. Even when some atheists do retaliate, it's almost always because of provocation from "the other side of the fence": ignorant fools mired in dark-age superstitions and beliefs.
Frankly, you're comparing apples and oranges here. First off, there is no "atheist movement". Unlike the gay rights movement, there is no unified "atheist front" which seeks to change social perception of atheism. This is not surprising. Second, being gay or straight is a matter of choosing a certain sexual orientation -- it involves a positive determination of identity. On the contrary, atheism is a negative -- if you don't believe in any god, you're automatically an atheist. If you want to compare "a lack of religious belief", then you should do so with "a lack of sexual preference".
PZ may come across as an asshole to you, but tarring everyone with his brush speaks more about yourself than about him. I suggest you think twice before doing so again.
Posted by: FO | August 10, 2008 12:12 PM
Rob, I think an abolitionist/slavery comparison fits better.
The problem isn't just that religious people are intolerant, it's that *religion* is intolerant. If they were all vaguely spiritual Unitarians, or the equivalent, then whatever, but they aren't. A lot of them of them are crazy and believe stupid, dangerous nonsense.
Posted by: jabr | August 10, 2008 12:31 PM
Whoa...for the "picture of atheism" you choose a very poor photo of me looking dopey and laughing and holding a teddy bear, and you use that to justify the stereotype of angry, cranky, hateful atheists?
I think that it clearly illustrates his point that "Atheists have a major image problem"... and it's mostly you... ;)
Posted by: island | August 10, 2008 1:56 PM
PZ's latest antics have accomplished nothing other than to further alienate a group of people who typically support all of the same positions on science and politics that scientists *generally* support.
How does that help anything?
Posted by: island | August 10, 2008 2:10 PM
FO, I stopped reading at, "being gay or straight is a matter of choosing a certain sexual orientation."
Posted by: Brandon | August 11, 2008 1:12 AM
Some here might be interested in a recent blog post that I (former atheist and physicist) made about my exchanges with commenters on an atheist blog, which I think is relevant to this topic. It's called "Conversations in the Clubhouse of Truly Smart People." It was a follow-on to another I made, reflecting on my years as an atheist and why it had taken me so long to change my mind. I'm not sure I'd hold the exchanges up as exemplary, but they remained relatively civil. That may be because I wasn't out to convert anyone, but just to raise the possibility that they might be in a mind-set that would not admit evidence for God at all.
Posted by: onscrn | August 11, 2008 11:56 AM
@Brandon:
Well, that was pretty far into my post... =P OK, I think I get your point. I didn't mean for it to come out that way. Of course our sexual orientation is not just a "matter of choice" -- that's what the bigots would have us believe. I was trying to say that being gay or straight is a form of positive identification (I AM straight/gay), while atheism is a form of negative identification (I AM NOT a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/.../Theist).
Gah. That's what happens when you try to post just before taking a nap.
Posted by: FO | August 13, 2008 1:57 AM
The "new atheists" have done enormous damage to atheism's image in the public eye (yes, there is one, whether we like it or not). Outside of the cult-like circle jerks that take place routinely on PZ's blog and Dawkins's site, the "new atheism" is generally seen for what it is (at least among my left-leaning friends): commercialized philosophy-to-go, generated by a small handful of belligerent ideologues, and consumed uncritically by neophytes, bigots, and pseudo-skeptics.
But I'm an optimist. Give it a few more years. "New atheism" like all superficial trends will become passé.
Posted by: W | August 13, 2008 2:27 PM
So you find the worst image you could of Myers and then the most 'respectable' image of some other atheist.
Nisbet, you're a loathsome little man.
Posted by: DavidONE | September 30, 2008 1:09 PM
Oh,this is an interesting blog.
NOT
It would indeed appear so.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 4, 2009 11:34 AM