Cognitive stuff from a cognitive person. If you've got any requests, drop me an email. If it takes me a while to get to it, drop me another one.
This is the way it always works. I quit the nouveau atheist blogs cold turkey, and their nonsense starts popping up elsewhere so that I can't escape it. That's how I learned that some of them are now comparing their movement to the suffragists. The comparison seems to have been first made by Larry Moron Moran in a comment at yet another blog (see, they're everywhere!), and was subsequently endorsed by PZ Myers, who writes in a comment:
When we compare atheists to feminists, the labor movement, gays, or civil rights, we are not saying these are identical; in this case, it is to a narrower similarity, that these are movements to change a social attitude, and the question is whether past movements have accomplished this with deference to the existing situation, and whether "rudeness" played a role in breaking down barriers.
It's difficult, at this point, to say anything other than, "Are you kidding me?" Watching white, middle-class, mostly ex-Protestant males (the dominant new atheist demographic) compare themselves to feminists, labor movements, gay and civil rights activists, or the members of any other persecuted group fighting for their social, political, and economic lives is just plain surreal. Or worse, as Trinifar notes, it's just plain manipulative. It does, however, reinforce my armchair psychoanalysis of the new atheists: members of a privileged class who decided to create an identity simply to justify their own persecution complexes.
Despite my incredulity, I will try for a moment to take PZ's comment seriously, in order to determine whether there's some justification for the comparison. It is true that the new atheist movement is about social change, but is the sort of social change the movement advocates analogous to the social change fought for by the group's PZ mentions? Those movements were about creating a society in which marginalized and persecuted groups could participate on an equal footing. New atheists, despite their eagerness to believe that they are somehow marginalized or persecuted, aren't fighting for social change aimed at inclusion. Their movement is aimed, rather, at a more ambitious form of social change: the complete abolition of religion (if you don't believe me, read the comments in the posts above, or those at some of my previous posts on religion and science). For this reason, a different comparison is more appropriate. As Tinifar puts it:
This neo-atheist goal falls into the same class as the Christian Theocracy movement's goal for a Christian planet (which, we should note, is not something many Christians want to support). It's a ridiculously far-reaching, Quixotic quest.
This is why, perhaps unwisely, some of us have been known to call the new atheists "fundamentalist atheists." Their goal, methods, and their either-or world views are often indistinguishable from those of religious fundamentalists. But even if that label is unfair, their eagerness to compare themselves with suffragists in an attempt to justify their hostility, their utter contempt for pretty much everyone on the planet, and their broad feelings of superiority, is nothing more than dishonest propaganda.
UPDATE: Alright already! You've managed to make me feel bad about deleting Larry Moran's comment (though you haven't made me feel bad about calling him a moron -- I'll never feel bad about stating the truth). I've undeleted it, and it's back where it originally was. Or at least it should be. Wait, let me look. OK, it's there. I won't delete any further comments by Larry, either, but my position that he's a dishonest ass with a reading comprehension problem stands, and I won't be reading any of his comments, so don't look for any responses to them from me.
UPDATE: Since we're now approaching 100 comments, which means most people won't read the early comments, and since people keep repeating the same misunderstandings (misunderstandings I suspect are encouraged by some of the blogs they're coming from), let me reiterate what I'm trying to say but didn't say clearly enough in the body of the post.
'
First, I think it's pretty clear that Moran, Myers, and others who've run with their analogy are trying to compare themselves to suffragettes and other groups (gay rights, civil rights, labor movements, etc.). It's a nice and ironic act of framing. But while they've chosen the groups to which they compare themselves quite purposively, in order to paint their own cause in a better light, the explicit substance of their comparison is pretty simple,. It starts with the recognition that the suffragettes were successful by being rude, in a variety of ways. The next step is to note that both the suffragettes and the "new atheists" (who are really just "old atheists") are after social change in a broad sense. Since they both have the same abstract goal, the success of rudeness for the suffragettes justifies the use of rudeness (and disrespect -- was that a suffragette method?) by the "new atheists." Some people seem to think I've missed this argument entirely, so I thought I'd spell it out for you.
Now here's what's wrong with this comparison: while similar in the very abstract, at no other level of analysis are the "new atheist" and suffragette causes even remotely similar. As i said in the post, the suffragettes were fighting to be included in society as equals. The "new atheists" are, according to their own words! fighting to rid the world of religion. Those are two radically different types of social change. One is fighting for inclusion in a society basically as it is before that inclusion (with that one obvious differences and any ancillary differences it might entail), while the other is fighting to exclude a very broad range of ideas from society. My argument was and is that this radical difference makes it impossible to justify the use of suffragette methods for the cause of the "new atheists" simply by pointing out that it was effective for the suffragettes.
To show how bad the comparison is, let's assume for a moment that we really can just say that both the suffragettes and new atheists wanted social change, no matter how different the social change the two groups wanted are, and that this abstract similarity justifies the new atheists' use of methods that were successful for the suffragettes. All we need for comparison and justification, in this case, are two things: the goal of social change (any kind), and a method that has achieved some success. The new atheists will then be justified in using that methodology. At this point, all sorts of analogies suggest themselves. In addition to the suffragettes, gay rights movements, and 19th century anti-slavery and abolitionist movements, there's also Stalinism, Nazism, and racist movements in the American south in the late 19th century. All effective at creating and sustaining social change using violence, imprisonment, and other methods of suppressing dissent. And since effectiveness in achieving social change is the sole basis for justifying a method, new atheist should feel entirely justified in using those groups' methods as well.
Obviously they shouldn't, and wouldn't. This is because effectiveness isn't the only measure of the validity of a method for achieving social change. The "new atheists" aren't aiming for the complete suppression of dissent (oh wait, they want to eradicate religion, so yes they are, but we can ignore that for a moment), so violence, while it could be effective, is not a justified method. We could of course argue that the suppression of dissent is itself not justified, and that therefore no method is justified simply because it can achieve this goal, but that would mean dealing with the details of the type of social change desired, and Myers et al. would have you believe that's not important for the comparison. So that counter to my extreme examples won't work. Unless they are willing to admit that the details matter,in which case, the analogy between the new atheists and suffragettes ceases to justify their use of suffragette methodologies, too, because the detail of their goals are so different. Unless, that is, Myers et al. really are trying to compare the two groups' goals in the details, despite their protestations to the contrary.
In short, they can't have it both ways: either the analogy is about the details, in which case it fails miserably (as the original post points out), or it's dangerously abstract, in which case any method is justified simply by it having been successful at some point in history.
Comments
simultaneous trivialization (of suffragists) & aggrandizement (of themselves).
Posted by: razib | April 22, 2007 5:28 PM
whats so wrong about getting rid of religion? Fewer fanatic suicide bombers, beheadings, religious wars... Christian Islamic Jewish it does not matter. Religion causes more violent death than anything else. Religion of peace my ass. I am bombarded with "well meaning" prayer and other forms of social manipulation every day. If you decline to partisipate you are in the very least looked at funny at worst targeted for gossip or even worse evangalized. Offensive you bet, and just try to complain about it. that makes it worse as you are now not part of the social club going to heaven.
Posted by: charlie | April 22, 2007 7:29 PM
Posted by: Matt Platte | April 22, 2007 7:33 PM
When I was in 5th grade some kids used to deliberately misspell my name in order to make me angry. It didn't work for ten year olds and it won't work for you either.
Why not read my posting [Suffragettes] to see why this analogy came up? Turns out it was because some of your friends kept telling us that militancy never works. Here's the exact sentence I was responding to.
The more militant approaches can be enchanting for a moment, but eventually easily dismissed precisely because of that militance, feeding the conflict frame
Do you agree with that sentence? Do you think the women's suffrage movement is relevant to that issue?
Posted by: Larry Moran | April 22, 2007 7:39 PM
I am just curious as to how atheists should respond when we are told to "sit down and shut up" because we don't really matter? Should we just sit down and shut up? Or should we stand up and defend ourselves?
Do you consider Dawkins a "meanie" atheist?
No, the affronts to our civil rights are nowhere near as egregious as those of the suffragettes, American blacks, gays, etc, but they are there nonetheless. And as much as casual atheists would like to believe that the Christians will live and let live as long as atheists are quiet, it really doesn't work that way in real life.
Meanie atheists are pushing back in self-defense, and they are certainly not out standing on street corners making nuisances of themselves. If there is a militance, it is a militance of words.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | April 22, 2007 8:13 PM
The dialectic as I see it...
PZ: We're not claiming to be suffragists, but these historical cases may be relevant to the question of whether "rudeness" can advance one's cause.
Chris: You're no suffragist!
Me: *confused*
Posted by: Richard | April 22, 2007 8:26 PM
That's why I don't do it when you parrot the vile "Neville Chamberlain atheist" spin. Just pointing out how bad that historical analogy is is enough for me.
Posted by: Orac | April 22, 2007 9:32 PM
Posted by: TheChristianCynic | April 22, 2007 10:20 PM
First, my apologies to anyone who's responded to Larry's comment. I deleted it, because I don't want him dirtying up my blog.
Next, Matt, I have nothing but contempt or the nouveau atheists (I use that phrase to convey their tackiness, in case that wasn't apparent). I have been saying as much for about 6 months now, and will continue to do so. I won't apologize for it, either. They deserve nothing but contempt. And it should be noted that contempt for a relatively small, privileged group does not entail contempt for anyone else (I do have contempt for other groups, of course, but most people on the planet I'm OK with) or a broad sense of superiority. Do I feel superior to them? Anyone who's read a few books would. Do I feel superior to everyone else? Certainly not.
Mike, atheists should respond by pointing out how insane that kind of talk is. They should note that saying a group is not really American, or doesn't matter, sounds more and more like, say, Nazi antisemitic rhetoric when it's used by people in power (and that includes people in the media, who are, obviously, in positions of power). Of course, one doesn't have to call all religious people stupid, and advocate for the eradication of religion (which, I should add, also sounds a lot like Nazi rhetoric) to do so. I have nothing against being mean by itself. I have something against being mean, stupid, and totalitarian (little "t").
Richard, my point is that, by and large, they aren't even being "rude" in the same way. Instead, what they're trying to do is force their narrow world view on the entire rest of the world (go read Moran and others' talk of ridding the world of superstition, by which they mean all religious beliefs, on their blogs), through aggression and violence. Granted, it's rhetorical aggression and violence, but it's still aggression and violence. And perhaps worst of all, it is rhetoric with no obligation to facts or truth. Perhaps a better name for the nouveau atheists would be "evangelical" or "proselytizer" atheists.
Posted by: Chris | April 22, 2007 10:42 PM
Hi Chris,
As an evangelical proselytizer, I do regret that comparing people to me is the worst insult one can come up with. ;-)
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | April 22, 2007 11:58 PM
I find it interesting that the "New Atheists" tend to view religious moderates as giving cover to "religious fanatics" but they view moderate atheists such as yourself as "appeasers" who also give cover to the religious. I also wonder when religious fundamentalists are going to start using the "Overton Window" argument.
Posted by: Macht | April 22, 2007 11:59 PM
Chris, interestingly while you'd think I'd be in agreement with you here I have to disagree ultimately. What bothers me ends up being, I suspect, the idea that what counts is the power of the person making an assertion. This reminds me too much of the idea that when an African-American says the same thing a white Protestant does it might be wrong for the white Protestant but not for the African-American simply because the white Protestant has power. I really hate that kind of relativizing of discourse.
Now of course we can't neglect power. Clearly, for instance, if a person in power says you're stupid it has a different effect than if your co-worker does. But if the rhetorical tricks the so-called "nouveau atheists" use are bad, surely it is because of the rhetoric and not simply because they, as a class, happen to come from a privileged class.
Put an other way, while I often object to silly rhetoric of atheist critics of religion, it is on logical grounds and not on grounds of power.
Posted by: Clark Goble | April 23, 2007 12:45 AM
Clark, if I understand you correctly, I think we're probably in agreement. I don't think the fact that the positivist atheist are, by and large, white middle class males affects the validity of their message. I don't even think it affects the validity of their methods. I do, however, think it affects the attempt to justify those methods by comparing themselves and/or their task to that of the suffragists or any other activist group fighting against injustice. Their task is quite different, and so the measures of the validity of their methods will be different as well.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 12:54 AM
And I thought that I was critical of the New Atheists, and it seemed to me that I was being fairly tough on them. I lack the passion I suppose, or I'm just a pathological reconciliationist.
My characterization of New Atheism
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/conflict_sells_use_it.php#comment-411127
Some representative quotes by New Atheists
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/04/we_aim_to_misbehave.php#comment-410867
Posted by: Colugo | April 23, 2007 1:56 AM
Chris, I'm worried that you might have misinterpreted them. Here are two possible interpretations of Moran's/PZ's invocation of the suffragist comparison:
1) It's an attempt at virtue-by-association, to beef up the perceived justice of their cause "by comparing themselves and/or their task to that of the suffragists or any other activist group fighting against injustice."
2) They're merely interested in the empirical/historical question whether "aggressive" tactics can be instrumentally useful for a social movement.
You've attacked them on the basis of reading #1. But PZ's quoted comment reads like an attempt to clarify that he merely means #2, and Moran's comment (before you deleted it) was even more explicit about this.
Posted by: Richard | April 23, 2007 3:45 AM
While I'll admit that the suffragist analogy does seem like a bit of a stretch, keep in mind that there are still technically laws on the books in several states that make religious belief a requirement for holding public office. And while I don't honestly believe that any such law would hold up if, say, an atheistic mayor were to come forward and subsequently be impeached for that reason, the fact that the laws are still on the books does mean that there is still legal progress to be made.
I think the analogy with the gay movement is more apt. I'll freely admit that it's less of a problem for atheists, given that I've never heard of anyone being beaten to death in recent years for being irreligious, but still, as an open atheist I still feel as though there's tremendous social pressure to keep my 'deviant' religious views to myself. I think that the vast majority of atheists can truly sympathize with the gay community in what it's like to be in the closet, afraid to tell friends and family that you're different.
I also want to mention that I strongly take issue with your portrayal of "New Atheists" as a bunch of white, middle class ex-Protestants with a persecution complex. Only one of those labels applies to me personally (that being the "white"), and while the most prominent New Atheists are certainly going to be middle class if not flat out wealthy (which will be true of the most prominent of any group), the rest of us who aren't privileged or looking for something to whine about appreciate Dawkins and company pushing the envelope and making atheism more mainstream and acceptable. The more the extreme atheistic views are expressed in the media, the more the general atheistic views are acceptable. You don't have to agree that religion is evil or that all Christians are stupid to recognize that Dawkins and Myers and all the others like them are doing a tremendous service to all atheists, Neville Chamberlain type included.
Posted by: Jon | April 23, 2007 4:19 AM
I also want to mention, for the record, that "Neville Chamberlain type" was not meant insultingly. I myself would probably be lumped into this category by Dawkins, Myers, et al. if they saw me on a daily basis.
Posted by: Jon | April 23, 2007 4:23 AM
Jon, I don't mean to imply that all nouveau atheists are white, middle class males, but it's pretty clear that the bulk of them are (if you could be classified as a Chamberlain, you aren't in the group I would call new atheists).
Richard, I do understand that they're trying to justify the use of a particular tone in promoting their message, but I think there's a position between your 1.) and 2.), and that's the position I've argued against. Position 1.5 is: both the new atheist and previous civil rights movements have had abstractly similar causes, namely social change, and the effectiveness of aggressive rhetoric and action in the previous movements therefore justifies the use of such methods by new atheists. My argument is that the success of those methods in previous movements doesn't justify their use by new atheists, because the conditions in which they were previously used were radically different from the conditions in which new atheists use them. The suffragists, for example, didn't hold back because if they did hold back, they wouldn't have achieved equality. If the new atheists don't hold back, they'll still have pretty much the same rights and freedoms as everyone else (in fact, with the exception of not being elected president or senator, I'm not sure there are any they currently lack), and they could still, if they were effective communicators, enhance public perception of atheists and atheism. They couldn't, however, abolish religion (they won't anyway, but without rhetorical violence, it is even less possible). Because the goals are different, the validity of the methods they use can't be judged by the same criteria: their effectiveness.
To further demonstrate this point, the new atheists could justify any methodology just by pointing out that it was effective in the past. The new atheists would be justified in imprisoning or killing anyone who disagrees with them, because it worked well for the Soviet Union in the 1930s. Stalin's tactics worked well in suppressing dissent and thereby creating social change (in the form of a populous scared shitless to criticize its government), so new atheists can use it too. We could compare new atheists to Nazis, slaveholders in the American south, the Spanish Inquisition (or the Catholic church in pretty much any century prior to the 16th), and so on and so forth. If we make the comparison so abstract -- the desire for social change -- then any previously successful comparison can be justified by historical comparison.
Of course, it's unlikely many new atheists would advocate such methods, largely because the type of social change they want is different, even if one could argue that it's more similar to Stalin's than the suffragists' (the abolition of religion sounds a lot like the stifling of dissent). In other words, the details of the message and goals of the movement matter in determining whether a particular method for conveying and accomplishing them is a valid one.
I'm aware that one could argue that Stalin's methods are never valid, but again, if the argument is simply that they are effective, therefore they are valid, that counter doesn't work. In short, if your #2 is the case, then the new atheists are making a very, very dangerous argument. Then again, I've long said that the new atheists are pragmatists in rationalist clothing, so maybe they are making that dangerous argument.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 4:48 AM
The framing debate was all about what's effective! In your eagerness to prove that new atheists are bad, you've just equated Nisbet and Mooney with Stalin. Or maybe Zhdanov :)
Posted by: windy | April 23, 2007 5:46 AM
Windy, if the only reason for using framing is that it's effective, then perhaps, though I don't think Nisbet and Mooney were in the business of making historical analogies.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 7:35 AM
^Jon
Normally I would keep my opinions to myself, but your remarks are either wilfully naive or intentionally misrepresenting.
To be quite clear, GLBT and atheists have nothing in common in terms of analogy, social, legal or political (etc) issues. You could make a more convincing argument by aligning atheists with urban bicycle lobbyists.
Just to reinforce what the vast disparity of of legal rights that render GLBT people as 2nd class citizens in America (and other countries), I suggest you have a read of this post from (en)Gender
Do you still want to compare atheism with the GLBT movement?
Posted by: frances | April 23, 2007 7:53 AM
At the risk of lowering the level of rhetoric here to something nearer high school melodrama: That, my friend, was a wicked burn.
Posted by: John B | April 23, 2007 8:15 AM
Windy, if the only reason for using framing is that it's effective, then perhaps,
??? Clearly that was the main reason given in the Science article. Obviously Nisbet and Mooney focus much more on effectiveness than PZ.
Neither does effectiveness seem to be the only reason used to defend assertiveness in the present discussion, it seems that intellectual honesty is seen as at least as important.
...though I don't think Nisbet and Mooney were in the business of making historical analogies.
??? Tactics only become dangerous when you start making historical analogies?
Posted by: windy | April 23, 2007 11:18 AM
You have got to be kidding me -- deleting posts and middle school name-calling? Did this blog suddenly turn into Uncommon Descent?
Posted by: Davis | April 23, 2007 11:53 AM
"First, my apologies to anyone who's responded to Larry's comment. I deleted it, because I don't want him dirtying up my blog."
I remember him commenting on the mispelling of his namme, which Orac has preserved above, but I don't remember him saying anything too ridiculous. Or has it gotten to the point where you think his mere presence is dirty, which even I would find a bit extreme, though I think he has an unfortunate tendency to be intellectually sloppy when it comes to atheism.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | April 23, 2007 12:57 PM
Chris: " . . . sounds a lot like the stifling of dissent."
Chris: "First, my apologies to anyone who's responded to Larry's comment. I deleted it, because I don't want him dirtying up my blog."
Posted by: Dan S. | April 23, 2007 1:28 PM
Chris:
You are uncomfortable with PZ justifying purely rhetorical aggression based in part on the effectiveness of broken windows, judo moves, as well as rhetorical aggression on the part of suffragists. But then you compare PZ's justifying rhetorical aggression with a hypothetical justification of Stalin's deliberate campaigns of induced famine, forced labor, mass murder, and purges. When commenters at PZ's place accused you of this ahistorical hypocrisy, I initially ignored it because I was sure it just more irresponsible exaggeration. But no, you insist on living up to it.
Posted by: llewelly | April 23, 2007 1:34 PM
First, Dan, don't be silly. Obviously the majority of the commenters have dissented, and I haven't deleted them. I deleted Larry's comment because, while Larry might be a nice guy in person, online he's a lying, reading-challenged asshole who will never get a direct link from my blog, nor a voice on it. If he wants to say something about any of my posts, he can do so on his own blog.
Anyone else can feel free to say whatever the hell they want, even if they think I'm a lying, reading-challenged asshole.
llewelly, I don't actually read Pharyngula anymore (see the beginning of this post), so you'll have to forgive me for not having read his commenters (I only linked to his blog 'cause it was linked elsewhere). However, I'm not sure how I'm being ahistorical. Historically, the similarities between the suffragist position and the new atheist position were, pretty much, one in number: they both were in the business of social change. So, if we're going to make that comparison, why can't we make any other comparison involving the goal of social change? Unless, that is, PZ is trying to say that there's similarity over and above the goal of social change between the suffragists and the new atheists, in which case, all of the differences I note are relevant.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 1:53 PM
So you don't think criticizing someone and then not allowing them to reply to that criticism is a trifle unfair?
Posted by: bend | April 23, 2007 2:18 PM
Bend, he's allowed to respond. He's got his own blog, and he's a frequent commenter at Pharyngula, where these issues are also being discussed.
Ordinarily, of course, I would agree with you. I've never deleted a non-spam comment before, and with the exception of anything Larry decides to write here, probably never will again. That's because I believe blogs are places for discussion, and I think everyone should be able to participate, even if they strongly disagree with me. In fact, as I've said in the past, I prefer disagreement, because it is what makes good discussion, it provides opportunities for me to learn (it's hard to learn from people who agree with you 100%), and it occasionally even causes me to change my mind. However, over and over again, Larry has shown himself incapable of honest discussion, or interpretation in good faith (and in case you think I'm not interpreting him in good faith, I gave him multiple opportunities, on this blog and his own), and for that reason I've arrived at the belief that he has nothing to offer any discussion. If you disagree, that's fine, and you can say why you disagree here (again, I won't delete your comment just because you disagree). However, that's my position, and until Larry decides that being a curmudgeon and willingly misinterpreting and misrepresenting people are not the same thing, it will remain so.
And to cut off potential snarky replies: if you think that I have willingly misinterpreted or misrepresented the new atheist position on the new atheist-suffragist analogy, please read through these comments. I have gone to great lengths to defend my interpretation. You may disagree with it, but I think I've given sufficient evidence that I'm arguing in good faith.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 2:31 PM
Their goal, methods, and their either-or world views are often indistinguishable from those of religious fundamentalists.
Let's see...I don't recall myself or Dawkins or Harris or PZ or anyone either blowing people up with bombs, crashing airplanes into skyscrapers, mowing them down with machine guns, or just plain lecturing them that they deserve an eternity of horrible torture in a lake of fire simply because they don't believe as we do.
...their utter contempt for pretty much everyone on the planet, and their broad feelings of superiority, is nothing more than dishonest propaganda.
I call this a by-product of something called "conviction," which clearly makes you uncomfortable when opinions are expressed that differ from your own. Perhaps what you cannot handle from the "neo-atheists" is that we like to argue with passion and conviction (which you oddly claim is "dishonest"), and your response is pure Bill O'Reilly: "Shut up, shut up, shut up!"
Here's an idea, Chris: when theists prove God exists, all us meanie atheists will go away. Until then, I see no reason to remain silent and suppress my own freedom of speech simply because I make intellectual cowards uncomfortable and embarrassed.
Posted by: Martin Wagner | April 23, 2007 4:52 PM
"you haven't made me feel bad about calling him a moron -- I'll never feel bad about stating the truth"
No. Don't make the same mistake as the so-called "New Atheists": If you can't say something nice, say something accurate. Moran is not a moron. With regards to his attempts to advocate for rationalism, I can and have said that he does the equivalent of f*cking for chastity. That is an unflattering description, but it sizes him up well. Calling him a moron, however, is morally no different than calling religious people morons.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | April 23, 2007 5:28 PM
I don't think he's a moron because he's a rationalist or a new atheist. I think their position is pretty stupid, but I think some of them are quite smart. Hell, I think PZ and Dawkins are smart guys. I think Larry's a moron because he's repeatedly displayed that fact on his blog and elsewhere.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 6:41 PM
But even if that label is unfair, their eagerness to compare themselves with suffragists in an attempt to justify their hostility, their utter contempt for pretty much everyone on the planet, and their broad feelings of superiority, is nothing more than dishonest propaganda.
So, how do you justify your hostility, contempt, and broad feelings of superiority? I mean obviously, it can't be for a social cause, since you're arguing against a group that doesn't even rise to the level of a social cause.
Posted by: Kent Kauffman | April 23, 2007 6:43 PM
Kent, my hostility comes primarily from being associated with them by label, from watching them misuse and abuse science and philosophy, and from the fact that I think they actually hurt atheism in general.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 6:46 PM
I think that a fair comment Chris. Look at how the actions of fundamentalist Christians hurt other Christians in the eyes of less devout or non-believers. Every time I hear of some ridiculous display of bigotry by these folks I roll my eyes and think, "thanks. That sure made things easier for us believers who aren't zealots." Zealotry of any stripe is ultimately counter-productive.
Posted by: Clark | April 23, 2007 8:03 PM
Posted by: ERV | April 23, 2007 8:34 PM
Wow Chris, you're getting pummeled. Now I feel bad for my comment, however tongue-in-cheek it was. Thanks for reminding the more religious among us that there are atheists out there who are decent reasonable people who don't necessarily want to take my kids away to social services to protect them from indoctrination.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | April 23, 2007 9:53 PM
Clark, exactly. The analogies between "new atheists" and fundamentalist Christians are pretty much endless.
ERV, sorry to hear that.
Wonders, this ain't nothing. You should check out some of the previous discussions of religion here. In those, I really get pounded. On a couple I think there were more than 100 comments, with almost every single one critical of my position. It's enough to make a sane person stop talking about this stuff. A sane person.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 10:14 PM
Chris, you're engaging in hyperbole - violence? Actually, your responses here appear hysterical (as in hysteria). I resent your use of the word violence very much. You're a cognitive psychologist? What's going on with you here? You're too off base. Way too off.
Posted by: Observer | April 23, 2007 11:15 PM
Once again, Chris at Muddling Memory throws a hissy fit and stomps his feet around. Quite the Little Lord Ponchartrain impression you got going on there.
Seriously, dude. This 'New Atheists' thing is kind of like a marker for cloying pomposity and overbearing deference to the frame of religion. Yeah, the f-word, yo.
By all means, think we're big meanies, or whatever. The 'meanies', the 'New Atheists', those of us who know that unbridled deference(i.e, your kneeling, bowing, scraping, toadying) to religion cannot work, short or long term.
Posted by: Stogoe | April 23, 2007 11:23 PM
Wonders Said:
I assume this is in reference to Richard Dawkins, but I believe you are setting up a straw man here. If I'm not mistaken, Dawkins' position is that parents should absolutely be able to teach their children their religious beliefs (or whatever other beliefs they like), but that the State should not be allowed to classify children below a certain age as being of a particular religion.
His reasoning as I understand it is that children don't have the intellectual or emotional maturity to "choose" what religion they are any more than they have the maturity to choose a spouse or a political party. We don't mark children down in the school rolls as "Republicans" or "Democrats", nor should we (according to Dawkins) mark them as "Catholic" or "Reformed Baptists" or what have you. Having the state force a child into a category like that is what Dawkins is against, not "take[ing] ... kids away to social services to protect them from indoctrination."
I have to be honest, Chris, this is the first post I've read by you, and it's very disappointing. Deleting comments, calling people names (however deserved), churlishly refusing to read opposing viewpoints, and mischaracterizing the positions of others, that's not what I've come to expect from ScienceBlogs.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | April 23, 2007 11:23 PM
Wonders, see? They're back. It's a law of physics that as the number of comments you get goes up, their quality and intelligence goes down. With a link from Pharyngula, this thread should be at the bottom of an abyss by this time tomorrow.
Posted by: Chris | April 23, 2007 11:40 PM
"Watching white, middle-class, mostly ex-Protestant males (the dominant new atheist demographic)"
You sure about that? I may be white but I'm hardly middle-class or ex-Protestant and I don't think I'm the only working-class atheist out there...
Posted by: Amy | April 23, 2007 11:45 PM
It might be helpful if all sides (New Atheists, reconciliationist atheists, theistic evolutionists, even IDists) could reach some consensus on two things regarding New Atheism:
1) What are the defining characteristics of New Atheism? Of special interest are those characteristics that distinguish New Atheism from atheism in general and mainstream atheist rights advocacy.
I do not believe that tactics, public relations, the "framing" debate etc are central to understanding New Atheism. In fact, while these issues have gotten a lot of attention, I think they are peripheral.
I suggest that the most important features are:
a) The scientific goal of making atheism and, more broadly, metaphysical naturalism (in addition to methodological naturalism) foundational components - core tenets - of science, as opposed to merely philosophical or aesthetic preferences that lie outside of science.
b) The social goal of ending faith (through peaceful, legal advocacy of course); they perceive the heightening of an ideological "war" (a hyperbolic and unfortunately too-common metaphor) between faith/irrationalism and reason/civilization that can only be resolved by one side triumphing.
Some who share both the scientific and social goals of New Atheism may advocate very different tactics than Harris et al. Perhaps that is enough to put them outside of the New Atheist movement. I am not so sure about that, however.
2) Who are the New Atheists? The most important figures: Michel Onfray, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, Richard Dawkins. Reconciliationist nonbelievers who provide a contrasting approach include Scott Atran and E.O. Wilson.
Posted by: Colugo | April 23, 2007 11:46 PM
I hasten to add that of course methodological naturalism is uncontroversial and universally accepted - except for the ID camp, who are way out on the fringe in any case.
Posted by: Colugo | April 23, 2007 11:48 PM
Hey Chris, I too am probably a chamberlain atheist. Though I love Dawkins, Harris et al for having the balls to write thier books. It's probably been said innumerable times before, but isn't terming of these guys as atheist fundamentalist just wrong? I mean, unless Dawkin's is lying his arse off, he really would accept the validity of religion or existence of god if there were evidence to support them. I don't think a christian fundamentalist or devout muslim, when presented with evidence of the sillyness of their beliefs would do the same. They would probably still have us living in serfdom, fearing demons if it weren't for people who broke the mold....Just a thought.
P.S. I have a cog-psy prac due in a week, could you do it for me? Just muckin' about. Cheers.
Posted by: Brian | April 23, 2007 11:49 PM
I have to say, Chris, although PZ's and Larry's rants about atheism get on my nerves too at times, I think it's a huge mistake to start calling Larry a moron and banning him from commenting. It's petty, and you don't really give a good reason for it, as far as I can tell. True, it's your blog, and you can do whatever you want to do, but reading the comments here and the blogospheric reaction has led me to think that you've really shot yourself in the foot here.
I say this as someone who, as you may know, finds Larry's enthusiastic parroting of the whole vile "Neville Chamberlain atheist" or evolutionist epithet to be such offensively stupid and bad history that I find it hard to believe that such an otherwise intelligent scientist thinks its a good "spin" to use for his arguments--and has repeatedly said so about his use of the term. (Indeed, I find his use of the term to be virtually indistinguishable from the way that neocons in the leadup to the Iraq War used the "Neville Chamberlain" epithet against those who had the temerity to oppose the war.) Even with that as by background, I think you look quite childish going on and on about how you're banning Larry--and only Larry, not anyone else who criticizes you!--from commenting here.
But, hey, once again, it is your blog, and if you want to make yourself look petty and foolish on it, that is, of course, your prerogative.
Posted by: Orac | April 23, 2007 11:57 PM
Brian -
As long as we define our terms correctly (which no one does when it comes to the word fundamentalist), I think the parallels are striking.
Dawkins says that he would accept the validity of religion or existence of God, if there were evidence. But, having heard him speak, I'm just convinced that this is disingenuous - a statement for rhetorical effect. No argument is too bad to beat religion with - his continuing use of the ridiculous "who designed the designer" trope when there are a host of actually reasonable arguments for atheism demonstrates this quite clearly.
As far as comparison to fundamentalism - well - you need to compare apples to apples. I think it works, but rather than talk about what a fundamentalist would do in the face of "evidence" against God, try to imagine what a fundamentalist would respond to evidence that the Bible has no problem with (and in fact celebrates) the moderate consumption of alcohol. The so-called authority structure is rejected to sure up the party line. It's the same with Dawkins.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | April 23, 2007 11:58 PM
Hmmm.
Debbie Schlussel on CNN: "Atheists should shut up."
Atheists: "Sorry, no."
Popular Conclusion: Atheists are shrill.
*
George Herbert Walker Bush: "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."
Atheists: Say what?!? What about the establishment clause? What about Article 11 of the treaty with Tripoli?
Thomas Jefferson: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."
Article VI, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States: [N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Popular Conclusion: Atheists are untrustworthy and unelectable.
*
Theists: Atheists are amoral. Look at Hitler!
Atheist: Uh... but Hitler was Catholic.
Thomas Jefferson: "If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God."
Popular Conclusion: Atheists lack a moral compass, believe people are nothing more than animals, and are therefore discompassionate (or worse) towards their fellow man.
*
Debbie Schlussel on CNN: "Atheists should shut up."
Mixingmemory: "Okay."
Popular Conclusion: Atheists are easily silenced, and those who are not are strident radicals who damage their cause.
And what is this "cause?" It is, of course, nothing more than self-aggrandizement and pathological self-persecution. At least, that's what the cognitive psychologists and their sychophants say.
*
So... you think most atheists DO? That makes you part of the problem, Wonders, and I say that with no rancor. Try something for me, and for yourself: Take your statement and run it through a series of noun replacements. That is, replace "atheists" with some other word, like liberals, conservatives, Jews, gays, Ukrainians, Baptists, or Yankee fans -- and see how the altered statemtent makes you feel.
Richard got it right, in the sixth comment on this thread.
Chris, I have four words of advice for you:
Type less.
Think more.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 24, 2007 12:07 AM
Kseniya:
I think you are missing what makes New Atheism distinct. It is not just about visibility, persuasion, Stonewall/Suffragette-esqu loud n' proud activism. What makes New Atheism different are goals that go beyond mainstream atheism, as I discussed above.
Stogoe simply ignores the fact that there are differences between New Atheism and other freethought/atheist movements and groups - differences recognized by New Atheists themselves - and prefers to conflate New Atheism with generic atheism.
Posted by: Colugo | April 24, 2007 12:19 AM
Kseniya,
No rancor? Then what is that giant monster heading towards me with the giant claws? Good thing I have the force...I mean, a bone and a rock.
But surely you, as an atheist, taking your cues only from clear impassioned reason, can see that in fact I never said what you said that I said. But then...perhaps you have the wrong answer to the great question! Tell me - do you eat on tables instead of your perfectly good tummy?
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | April 24, 2007 12:21 AM
Hey Chris, let's defy physics, shall we?
I'm a Christian theist, and you, it would seem are an atheist. So, just for fun - what do you find to be the most difficult argument against atheism or for Christianity to refute? And I'll in turn say what I think is the most difficult argument against Christianity or for atheism for me to refute.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | April 24, 2007 12:29 AM
Reminds me of all of those quotes I've seen along the lines of how feminists weren't fighting for social change aimed at inclusion, but were instead trying to destroy the concept of family or any other convient vaguely defined word. Hillariously misguided in retrospect, but the dominant position in their time.
I, for one, want only neutrality of religion in government. To the extent that your beliefs have no effect on me, I really don't care what they are. I doubt you'd find many (actually, any) people advocating for the abolition of religion by fiat.
Posted by: Miko | April 24, 2007 12:38 AM
Allowing, for the moment, the possibility that the comparison of (New) atheism and the suffrage movement is off base, the oft repeated equivocation of strong atheism and the evangelical movement seems like a far less useful, or honest, comparison, and I sure see it a whole lot.
You're comparing a conservative, fundamentalist, biblical literalist movement that has done everything it can to force the social and political infrastructure in this country to fit its mold. To legislate it's own morality across the land, and exclude anyone who does not convert.
And this is equivocal to encouraging atheists to strongly advocate for their views, and not pander to the kind of thinking that makes the evangelical movement seem mainstream? Having an expectation that others will eventually hew to your point of view, given education and challenges to their cultural upbringing, is the same as stridently calling for the law of the land to enforce your way of life?
I'd like someone to explain to me how that's not a bunch of highly insulting bullshit. If there was any reason for someone to call a person a Chamberlain Atheist, that would certainly be a good start. When Dawkins' next book calls for the outlaw of prayer in the home, this line of reasoning will be right on target, until then, it's bollocks.
Posted by: Fox1 | April 24, 2007 12:41 AM
You do think Dawkins is pulling a switfy. That's cool. I've never heard him speak in person and currently take him on his word 'cause he's seems logical. But, if I have evidence to the contrary, I'll stop taking him on his word. Probably naive of me.
"try to imagine what a fundamentalist would respond to evidence that the Bible has no problem with (and in fact celebrates) the moderate consumption of alcohol."
Doesn't the bible celebrate the consumption of alchohol? I mean it's a major part of the last supper, and at least in the catholic tradition it's part of the whole transubstantiation thing. Or did I miss something? I'm not being cute, I just didn't follow your logic (I'm Australian, it's probably from over exposure to sun and beer) ;-)
Posted by: Brian | April 24, 2007 12:42 AM
Fox1,
What about when Dawkins signs a petition to outlaw religious teaching of Children?
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | April 24, 2007 12:44 AM
I withdraw my four words of advice, which were needlessly disrespectful. Please accept my apology.
But Richard got it right. Chris didn't. That's all.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 24, 2007 12:53 AM
Miko: "I, for one, want only neutrality of religion in government. To the extent that your beliefs have no effect on me, I really don't care what they are."
In that case, you are clearly not a New Atheist.
Have you read Sam Harris? Or Dawkins on the looming war between faith and reason? Or Michel Onfray? You're just an atheist pursuing a traditional secular social and civil agenda - one which I wholly agree with.
This is a frustrating aspect of these debates: there is no shared understanding of the issue at hand. Some - Miko, Kseniya, Stogoe - insist that New Atheists, or Churchillians, or Dawkinsians, or whatever they want to call themselves are simply advocates for atheist rights, or share the same social goals with all other freethinkers but their rhetoric is just less diplomatic.
No, that's not it at all. That's not what these debates are about. If that were the case, there would far be less argument within the freethought community about Dawkins et al..
It does nothing to further the discussion for its advocates to make New Atheism into a slippery moving target - making stirring declarations of fighting a war against faith and scientifically falsifying God one moment, then indignantly insisting that it's just about atheist rights the next. Be proud of your views, whatever they are. Own up to them. Don't insist that you're simply about atheist visibility and secularism in the public sphere if your goals are much grander.
Posted by: Colugo | April 24, 2007 12:55 AM
Wonders for Oyarsa: "What about when Dawkins signs a petition to outlaw religious teaching of Children?"
He said that he misinterpreted the petition and withdrew his signature. Your question, whether its misleading nature is deliberate on your part or not, does not enhance the collective understanding of the real issues at hand.
Posted by: Colugo | April 24, 2007 12:59 AM
Brian -
It does indeed. But try telling that to a fundamentalist...
I'm actually using the term fundamentalist in a technical and not pejorative sense. You see, around the turn of the (19th-20th) century in America, there were a group of Christians who were alarmed at the growth of a religious "liberalism" which seemed to throw away all the historic Christian teachings. Everything remotely supernatural had to go - and be left with a vague ethic. In reaction to this, they wrote a document called The Fundamentals - outlining what they saw as non-negociables. People who stood by these principles called themselves fundamentalists.
The big cause that the fundamentalists rallied around, was, ironically enough, prohibition. Which is a funny little historic anecdote - the fundamentalist movement and the women's suffrage movement were very much allies on this. Women wanted to outlaw drinking and to get men back in church. Anyway, they actually succeeded in getting an amendment to the U.S. constitution, which was later repealed.
The movement, however, despite its willingness to champion political causes, really is rather isolationist. Fundamentalists have a tendency to separate themselves from the wicked world and keep pure. They are rather anti-intellectual - as the academy is associated with the very theological liberalism they were founded against. They'd seen how these ivory-tower elites use their golden tongues to melt away everything they've always stood for. And so now it's the Bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
There are actually relatively few fundamentalists in the U.S. today. The larger part of American Christians are Evangelicals - a movement that distinguished itself from fundamentalism by its desire to engage contemporary culture (both popular and intellectual) rather than wall itself off from it. Fundamentalists often consider Evangelicals compromisers, while Evangelicals think fundamentalists are hung up on a great many things that aren't exactly fundamental.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | April 24, 2007 1:01 AM
Chris,
I am an atheist, but I am not sure about the nouveau part since I have happily done with out religious beliefs for the last 40 of my 53 years. I will plead guilty to the white male, middle-class, ex-protestant charges (all character states I had no control over, except that maybe I could have sucked more at schoolwork and fallen into a lower socio-economic group or perhaps risen to become president).
However, I have no vulva nor well-developed breasts, I don't even own a long black dress, and my beard is noticeably thicker than that of most suffragettes. Even the most rabid of my fellow atheists, blinded as they are by rage against rampant irrationality, have never mistaken me for a suffragette. You seem to be the only one.
The analogy was meant to highlight effective tactics by reviewing previous successes by inherently righteous, but initially unpopular movements.
Your mischaracterization of the suffragette argument uses same discredited (and disreputable) tactics that creationists use when they intertpret an analogy literally and ad absurdum.
You attempt to deny atheists the right to speak out and vociferously defend our position simply because we will not suffer any major prejudice or loss of p