…and this is a 
“Polarizing” is a dirty word, so atheists should surrender
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: June 29, 2007 10:00 AM, by PZ Myers
At last, I get it. I understand what "framing" is. It's pandering to the status quo, the petty conventions, and the bigotry of the majority. It means don't rock the boat, don't be different, don't stand up for your beliefs. It means CONFORM. You will get other people to support you if you just abandon your principles and adopt theirs. That's the clear message I get from Matt Nisbet now.
Forget it. If this is "framing," it's useless—it's a tool for opposing change.
The first thing that Nisbet and DJ Grothe do is pummel a straw man for a bit. Atheism is not a civil rights issue, they say, it's a public image problem, and therefore these "New Atheists" are all wrong. They are incorrect. It's both a civil rights issue and a public image problem (with the latter by far the most important aspect), and the assertive campaigns by atheists — this is more a matter of new tactics rather than any kind of new atheism — are exactly what is right.
The commenters there have done a fine job of handing Nisbet and Grothe their asses on this one, with links to lots of instances of the problem of atheism as a civil rights issue. There are unconstitutional laws on the books in several states that in principle preclude atheists for running for any office; that is a civil rights issue. We have schools that try to make our kids take a loyalty oath which includes acknowledging a nonexistent god; that is a civil rights issue. We have government support of ridiculous "faith-based" charities that exclude secular institutions; that is a civil rights issue. We have widespread bigotry against atheists that is encouraged by authorities — try living in the rural midwest if you think there aren't such situations going on all the time.
Grothe's article is particularly annoying in this regard. He's resting his argument on the fact that atheists haven't suffered comparable harm to minorities and women, and yes, we already know this. We aren't being lynched or imprisoned in our own homes, we're just being metaphorically kicked in the shins every day. The fact that injustices are small does not change the fact that they are injustices, nor does the fact that there are greater crimes being committed mean that the littler ones should be ignored. Grothe's litany of greater problems is nothing but a demand for passivity from atheists.
However, far from being the paramount focus of modern atheism, atheists have treated civil rights violations simply on a case-by-case basis. It's there, all right, but we don't have a simple, sweeping case of legal discrimination that has to be dealt with; we aren't denied the right to vote, we aren't told to sit at the back of the bus, there aren't many laws that overtly discriminate against non-believers, and the main legal issue we have to deal with are pervasive attempts (some successful) to get the government to endorse religious belief. We know all this; nobody has complained that atheists are oppressed anywhere near as badly as minorities or women. No one is demanding legal redress in the form of something analogous to the Civil Rights Act or universal suffrage. So really, Nisbet's argument begins with a lie, a false claim that we are making a big deal out of one view of the issue … which greatly simplifies his job of dismissing it.
One of the common claims that has been amplified by the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign is that "atheism is a civil rights issue."
That is complete bullshit. Neither of those two writers are making any kind of argument about civil rights. In the entirety of The God Delusion, Dawkins mentions civil rights precisely once, in the context of fundamentalist Christians who insist that discriminating against homosexuals is their civil right. Here it is.
The Reverend Rick Scarborough, supporting the wave of similar Christian lawsuits brought to establish religion as a legal justification for discrimination against homosexuals and other groups, has named it the civil rights struggle of the twenty-first century: 'Christians are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian.'
Seriously, that's it. I searched the whole book for discussions of law and legal arguments, and they simply aren't there — it is not a book that takes a position on atheism as a civil right or argues that we need to modify our laws or fight for the right to disbelieve in the courts. Nisbet begins his whole argument with a gross misrepresentation. Dawkins' book is entirely about raising consciousness, about providing a useful rational framework for arguing against theism, and motivating atheists to stand up and be counted — to make themselves known and to be proud of their ideas and heritage. And this makes Nisbet's and Grothe's suggestion particularly ironic and clueless.
Yet is atheism really a civil rights issue? The answer is a resounding "No." In a column at Free Inquiry magazine, DJ Grothe, vice president for public outreach at the Center for Inquiry, lays out the case against atheism as a civil rights issue, and argues as I do, that atheists don't face a civil rights battle but rather a public image problem. (To Grothe's argument, I would add that this image problem is only made worse by the Dawkins/Hitchens PR campaign.)
We have a "public image problem," Sherlock? Good grief. Has this guy even read Dawkins and Hitchens? Their books are not legal or political guides for a civil rights movement — they are manifestos for an atheist world view. They lay out in simple arguments and good prose the atheist position — they stake out what our image is to ourselves, and help to clarify the atheist identity. They have written books that simply and plainly say "we are godless, and this is what we think," and the hapless Nisbet has essentially replied, "Well, yeah, and that's your whole problem right there, and you're making it worse by making your ideas public." With friends like these…
Atheists benefit from the fact that our difference is entirely in our brains, so as long as we silence ourselves, we can 'pass'—it means that any civil rights problems we experience are going to be sporadic rather than unavoidable and pervasive. This is to our advantage, but it also has the unfortunate side effect that many who claim to be our friends think the best way for atheists to get what they want is to continue to be silent, and also lets them blame the atheists themselves for any problems, because they never would have occurred if only Dawkins would shut up and if those darned atheists would just stop expressing themselves. They completely miss the point that hiding our identity is not a viable solution, hasn't worked at all, and has led to a country overrun with pious sideshow freaks who want to wage a holy war against Islam and think good science is teaching kids that the earth is 6000 years old.
Our particularly idiotic friends go further and tell us to stop fighting battles we aren't fighting in the first place, and smugly inform us that we need to wage a public relations campaign, instead … without noticing that that is exactly what we are doing. The problem they actually have is that we are, in these last few years, running a successful public relations campaign that doesn't compromise our principles and that is being well-received — we are being up-front and bold about our ideas, and making it clear that we are here to stay, and that we plan to grow. Perhaps Nisbet's problem is personal: we're doing PR without "framing" atheism as a meek and innocuous idea that is obligingly compatible with pretending that politicians relying on god's input into their decision-making is a good plan. In fact, let's just throw this whole "framing" idea out — we've got this radical idea that just telling the truth about what we believe might be a good strategy.
The funniest part of their complaints is when they start whining that the "New Atheists" are "polarizing" — which is shorthand for making the religious unhappy. Talk about missing the point — yes, we are. We want to make the Pat Robertsons of the world very, very angry, and we want to make it clear that we are opposing their lunacy every step of the way, and we want to make the religious moderates ashamed of their meekness and apathy. The alternative to polarizing is to surrender and just let the one side have their way, as they have since Reagan. Since the gutless Christian moderates have allowed the religious right to walk all over them, I think it's about time the "New Atheists" rose up and provided some opposition. We're proud to be polarizing when the other side is such a catastrophic collection of stupid ideas; we are not hurt or remorseful when we are accused of being militantly against religious idiocy, and that we are trying to gather more to our cause. It's a point of honor, actually, so I'm deeply unimpressed with people so out of touch that they don't even recognize that basic issue. The lack of polarization has been a disaster for this country.
Nisbet has convinced me. He has framed his ideas so well that I am now confident that framing is nothing but pandering to the status quo, and of absolutely no use when your goal is change. It's a tool I can safely ignore.
Jason beat me to the punch, but we say pretty much the same things.
Comments
There's a reason so many people get their undies in a knot when the plight of atheists is compared to past civil rights problems:
It's not only true, it's a damn effective rhetorical strategy.
If people object to an argument, it might not be because they're concerned about your cause and think you've made a poor choice. It might be because they want to convince you to abandon a winning strategy.
Posted by: Caledonian | June 29, 2007 10:07 AM
Not so much Neville Chamberlain as Philippe Petain or Vidkun Quisling.
Posted by: paulh | June 29, 2007 10:13 AM
This seems familiar.
"Nobody's keeping blacks out of major-league baseball, they just haven't found anyone good enough yet."
And....
"I've got no problem with anybody being gay. I just don't think they should parade it about."
Et cetera.
PZ, even though I'm sympathetic with the 'framing' argument, even though I'm not an atheist, I have to say Nisbet is wrong, wrong, wrong. Atheism is a civil rights issue, else why would this exist?
The rest of your argument seems similarly cogent, as does Caledonian's comment. Speaking of which, old Scot, your glory awaits you.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | June 29, 2007 10:32 AM
After reading your post, and viewing comments from a variety of readers, I feel like my own comment on Nisbet's post didn't go far enough. Thanks for being more bold than I was willing to be.
Posted by: Brian Thompson | June 29, 2007 10:43 AM
One thing strikes me about all this, and that is atheists tend to be pretty active in supporting the civil rights of others.
I do not see atheists calling for religious people to not be given jobs, or sacked from jobs they have, just because those people happen to hold views on religion that are not shared by atheists. On the contrary, I see atheists saying that no one should be discriminated against because of their religious views, or lack thereof. Of course if someone holding strong religious views insists on allowing those views affect how they do their job (such as trying to teach that the earth is only a few thousand years old) then the situation is different, but it is important to note that the objection then made to their employment is not based upon the person's religion but upon how they do their job.
Likewise it tends not be atheists who say that someone's skin colour, or gender, or sexuality should be criteria used in assessing suitability for employment.
Nisbett et al seem to accept that being denied employment based on your sex, skin colour or sexuality is not only wrong but also a violation of a person's civil rights. Why they refuse to accept that a person's religious views should not also be considered a civil right is not something they seem to have explained very well.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 10:44 AM
*sigh* i'm so disappointed in DJ Grothe. I was listening to the Point Of Inquiry podcast on the way to work today.
One of the things that i've thought was missing from the books by Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens was that they DIDN'T touch on the civil rights arguments are much as i'd liked.
Posted by: Brian W. | June 29, 2007 10:45 AM
I think Nisbet's post and subsequent comments are just an excuse to juxtapose the word "atheist" with the phrase "sophomoric attacks" as many times as possible.
see, that's "framing."
Posted by: CCP | June 29, 2007 10:46 AM
Framing is very useful - but twisting it to conformity makes it useless. You've got a job to do, framing will help you do it. It's there to take advantage of natural susceptibilities; it's there to take advantage of the large common ground that conformity provides. It's not there to actually BE conformist, in the end, and anyone that says otherwise has not been in the people business very long.
That said, one of the most common results I see is people pretending conformity and playing the good son while they rape the system (any government, any corporation).
Posted by: Patness | June 29, 2007 10:48 AM
Well said. Posts like this make me thankful that we have people like you writing online. It is invigorating. It makes me think of times when people had to rely on subversive midnight pamphlets to find someone writing about what they believed in. How exciting it must have been to get something like that and be able to point to it: yes, this is what I believe.
I've thought this way about dozens of your posts, Prof. Myers, and I know other people do too. Thanks (again) for your work.
Posted by: redstripe | June 29, 2007 10:56 AM
Patness,
With regards framing being useful, in as much that if you are trying to get a message across it it sensible to look at your target audience and pitch your message accordingly, then it does make sense. However that much is also nothing new, common sense and I suspect fully understand by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. The problems come about because Nisbett, Brayton et al do not seem to understand that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris were not targeting fundamentalist or moderate theists, they were talking to atheists, telling us it is time to stand up and be counted. The fact that such calls to arms have attracted such attention is no doubt especially galling to those appeasers who's actions seem to have achieved so little date Ok, they have won a few court cases but they do not seem to have make any inroads into the attitudes that meant their had to be such court cases in the first place.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 11:00 AM
A little while ago, I wrote,
As I mentioned over at Jason Rosenhouse's place, people should think back to the early days of the "framing" kerfluffle, when Coturnix divided the problem into short-term and long-term strategies. "Framing," he said, could be useful in the short term, while bulking up the critical thinking standards and scientific literacy of the citizen body was necessary in the long term. OK?
Now, the thing is, issues of civil liberty are inherently long-term problems. We're talking about securing rights not just for ourselves but for our posterity. Everyone who hopes for a secular America with a well-mended wall between Church and State talks in timescales of generations. So, I can't help but conclude that concerns of "framing" have at most secondary importance.
Also, I personally did not reject all the gods and goddesses as born of human dreaming and then turn around to dose myself with homeopathic medicines and finger my spirit crystals. Atheism is a consequence of marrying skepticism with wonder, of learning to love truth more than preconceptions; it is not the only consequence, although it appears to be a socially significant one.
(I'll take it as an empirically demonstrated fact that some people, possessed of a certain honesty and moral character, can hold on to parts of their religious beliefs which they deem significant whilst accepting and even enjoying the truths uncovered by science. Why organizations can't do this as well as individuals is another question, as is what tomorrow's discoveries might do to such structures of belief. It's important to remember, I believe, that not all such "moderates" take the same approach. I have a great deal more respect for the Hatfields and Chu-Carrolls of this world, however many there are, than I do for the Collinses, who typically apply the same arguments to human moral behavior that Michael Behe does to the bacterial flagellum. All these are questions which require more data to clarify, not just philosophical musings, and right now, they're all questions for another day.)
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 11:00 AM
WTF is a "School of Communications" anyways? And why would anybody want to go there?
Don't all those vapid faux journos we see on T.V. have "communications" degrees?
Fwaming means never having to say you're pissed off, fed up, and not going to take it anymore!
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 29, 2007 11:02 AM
Nisbit kind of has a point. We need Atheist Pride parades! And holidays of our own! Also tons of t-shirts, jewelry, and knickknacks. And weekly meeting places, with bands, lightshows, and inspiring speeches, just like the theists! And summer Atheist Camp for the kids!
Defending atheism with logic alone makes it easy for the theists to conclude that we are all somewhat mean-spirited and dull. After all, reasoning is hard and requires reading and and thinking and sitting arguing and stuff--where's the fun in that? Creating a circus atmosphere around atheism may be undignified, but then, what kind of asshat would try to deny a clown his civil right to gambol about?
Posted by: mojojojo | June 29, 2007 11:06 AM
Sort of ironic that the anti-polarization Nisbet refers to atheists as being on a "PR campaign", as being "sophomoric", and calls the atheists NetRoots an "echochamber" where we are engaged in a "feeding frenzy".
Fuck you forever, Nisbet. You're a prick. Go play woith Mike S. Adams. That's where you belong.
He's just vaulted to the top of my shit list.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 29, 2007 11:10 AM
Could it be that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Stenger, PZ Myers, et al. are providing framing already? Atheism framed as smart, new, New York Times Bestseller List, clever, impassioned, articulate, engaged, blogspheric, and very very 21st century, babe.
Posted by: cm | June 29, 2007 11:11 AM
"Since the gutless Christian moderates have allowed the religious right to walk all over them, I think it's about time the "New Atheists" rose up and provided some opposition."
I agree -- and that's true not only for the issue of atheism, but for everything else as well.
The problem is not that liberals have offended the extremist religious right too much, the problem is that we have not offended them enough.
Look at what happens when people actually stand up against their nonsense, as in the case of John and Elizabeth Edwards telling Ann Coulter to take a long hike -- over a cliff.
I suppose they could have framed the whole thing differently, and said something like "Ann, we respect your bigotry. Some of our long lost relatives may even have been bigots [the familiarity frame] and we still love them (whoever they were) [the lovey-dovey frame] , so let's just agree to disagree [the congeniality frame], shall we?"
Posted by: Jimmy | June 29, 2007 11:12 AM
I think one of the most important points you make is that atheists aren't recognizable upon simple inspection. If atheists (and only atheists) had blue hair, I think we would see _many_ more cases of discrimination and "atheist bashing" might become a phenomenon common enough to deserve the name.
Posted by: AB | June 29, 2007 11:13 AM
I am reproducing my response to Nisbet here, since he has been known to censor his blog:
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 29, 2007 11:13 AM
"I've got no problem with anybody being gay. I just don't think they should parade it about."
Exactly! He would undoubtedly favor a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for atheists.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 29, 2007 11:15 AM
CalGeorge,
I always thought that communication in academic circles was something to be done as part of being academic rather than something to be studied in its own right. If you want to study how various groups engage in communication then I would have thought you should be doing sociology.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 11:15 AM
No, no. Framing atheism as smart and bold isn't framing -- it's only framing if we do it the way Nisbet wants us to, and that requires lying on our tummies and stifling our tears in our pillow and being very, very quiet while the good Padre has his way with us. Silence and obedience is the frame we're supposed to be in.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2007 11:16 AM
The issue is whether to frame or not; it's a debate over whether to use a confrontational frame or a conformational one. Hitchens, Dawkins, et.al. are indeed framing the debate, a frame of reason v. idiocy. Grothe finds this particular frame objectionable and confrontational.
Lakoff and others often advocate choosing frames that conform to desirable ideas of the majority, but framing does not have to mean conforming to the status quo, although many would say that to improve chances of success one should do this. That framing faith as "idiocy" is a marketing mistake--one should not antagonize those one wishes to convince.
This argument for non-confrontation is not necessarily correct.There have been thousands of successful marketing and ad campaigns based on the idea that only losers don't use the advertised product. The religious right certainly continually frames arguments in confrontational terms, especially among themselves--us v. the evil sinners. Such framing can be highly effective. In the case of atheism as reason v. idiocy, this confrontational framing can be especially effective as the people you are seeking to convince, the nominal theists, are not going to be especially offended, at least not once you gotten their attention with the initial shock and they start thinking about it. You're never going to convince the hard-core faithful, so don't worry about offending them.
Posted by: Dave W | June 29, 2007 11:20 AM
paulh:
It's interesting to ponder what the term "Philippe Pétain atheist" would imply. Pétain was the "savior of Verdun," a hero when France fought the Germans in World War One. Then along came part two, and Pétain became a collaborator and Vichy France's chief of state.
I am not fond of the Churchill and Chamberlain label-tossing, partly because they're disgustingly over-the-top and partly because, as Orac has pointed out, one can make a good case that Chamberlain's gotten a bad rap. (If speakers of British English use "Chamberlain" in a generic sense, as synonymous with "appeaser" without regard to historical niceties, then it's not so big a deal — or at least understandable for Dawkins to use the phrase — but I have no confirmation of such a dialect-related claim.) Still, if Chris Mooney backs Nisbet on this, then it'll be difficult not to look back at The Republican War on Science and sadly whisper, "Encore après Pétain. . . ."
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 11:30 AM
Caledonian: Right. But the thing is, Atheists are not allowed to frame, apparently.
In any event, Framing is against Atheistic "beliefs." It may cause us to deny our rationality. That would just make us like any other group of delusional yahoos.
Posted by: Greg Laden | June 29, 2007 11:34 AM
DaveW,
I have often found the claims that Dawkins is a problem because he antagonises moderate religious people to be a laughable. If Dawkins was quite as polarising as his critics claim why would moderates be willing to engage with him ? How come Anglican clergy will appear alongside him on discussion panels ? How come he was able to sign a letter to The Times calling for the government to ensure creationism/ID was not taught in state-funded schools in the UK and for his co-signatories to be leading figures in the major religions in the UK ? I doubt any of those agree with Dawkins on religion but I suspect they would not deny his arguments are worth of addressing. I also suspect that on issues about how people should be treated there would be far more agreement than between the moderates and their fundamentalist co-believers.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 11:37 AM
"manifestos for an atheist world view. "
The problem I have here is the difference between "an" atheist worldview and the "the" atheist worldview. Theists commonly, almost instinctively, see Dawkins and Hitchens and others as propounding the latter, which fucks up all my work in promoting the idea that the former is the proper understanding of things, since us not believing in god is not something that makes me have all the same opinions as Richard Dawkins. We both don't live in Ulster either: that doesn't mean we meet for tea every afternoon.
Posted by: plunge | June 29, 2007 11:44 AM
In terms of civil rights, to me:
School prayer is oppression.
God on bills and coins is oppression.
Swearing oaths on a Bible is oppression.
Daily prayer in Congress is oppression.
Civil rights is about achieving equality. Injecting god into government through prayer, swearing on Bibles in our justice system, putting "in god we trust" onto the primary symbol of our capitalist system, these are fundamental insults to a lot of atheists. They help to paint America as a Christian nation, make atheists seem un-American to many, and help to make it nearly impossible for atheists to achieve high political office.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 29, 2007 11:47 AM
Can I have some jam with that milquetoast?
Posted by: Scholar | June 29, 2007 11:47 AM
Matthew C. Nisbet is using Barna Group data. I used it in this post on my blog and a reader found this distortion in the data:
Posted by: Norman Doering | June 29, 2007 12:00 PM
This time, I'm with PZ. Matt's latest post has shown that it's not really about framing science at all. It's bigger than that: he seems to want atheists to hold their peace in all kinds of contexts, for fear that people will find atheism itself upsetting. It won't happen; and that's a good thing.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | June 29, 2007 12:00 PM
I can't remember hearing this previously.
As I recall, mostly it's been "framed" as an evidence issue. Nisbet failed this one spectacularly by that standard.
Nisbet:
Attacks on sophomoric and polarizing religion are turned into attacks upon the religious themselves, in this bozo's clumsy hands. OK, so maybe some of the latter happens as well, but again if Nisbet cared about evidence he'd note that it isn't frequent, and the examples he gave in that context do not support his otherwise unevidenced claims.
Classic Nisbet garbage.
Glen D
http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 29, 2007 12:06 PM
My previous post formatted wrongly, with a faux quote and a real quote appearing under the name "Nisbet". To be sure, it should be obvious that "What's this that came out of my ass? Why, it's the truth," is not from Nisbet in so many words (implied by his disregard for truth and evidence, however), while this:
is from his own hand.
Anyhow, I didn't want to leave anything lying around that he could attack over a simple mistake.
Glen D
http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 29, 2007 12:10 PM
Glen Davidson:
I've noticed that many of the writers who don't go to Myersian extremes in criticizing religion itself are damn willing and eager to critizize specific religious groups and individuals who do stupid things because of their religious beliefs. To me, the latter sounds hostile indeed.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 12:19 PM
A tactic of the religious right is to attack their opponent's strength and claim it is a weakness. The PR campaign of atheists is going great, so they claim it isn't going well. Dawkins is an excellent advocate, so they claim he's harming the atheist cause. Since their supporters don't access opposing opinions, they don't know any different. These kind of articles are for their followers consumption.
Posted by: nal | June 29, 2007 12:21 PM
I like to frame the atheism vs. religion issue as one of, "Don't bug the atheists, or PZ Myers will come in the night, and gather you up in his innumerable, razor-suckered tentacles..."
Yeah, yeah, I know. But they're ALREADY delusional, so I might as well have a little fun with them.
Posted by: mjfgates | June 29, 2007 12:39 PM
For myself, that sounds like attacking people for saying and doing stupid things. Whether that is nice, polite, even-handed, or whatever, may be an issue. What does not seem to me to be a legitimate issue is that anyone who is religious ought to get a pass for saying and doing specific stupid things, when the non-religious do not receive the same pass for stupidity from these individuals (assuming, of course, that they don't. I have attacked idiocy by secularists on this forum and been told to save it for the religious, which does seem rather prejudiced. Stupid is stupid, and it's all bad).
The point really ought to be that neither religion nor irreligion causes anyone to be safe from criticism for stupidity. I should think that we'd be hostile to stupidity, not pulling our punches at the line of "religion".
Glen D
http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 29, 2007 12:39 PM
I don't think 'the atheist cause' is one that Nisbet is particularly concerned with, rather its the cause of science in the USA, two totally different points.
Posted by: MartinC | June 29, 2007 12:40 PM
Blake Stacey said;
"I've noticed that many of the writers who don't go to Myersian extremes in criticizing religion itself are damn willing and eager to critizize specific religious groups and individuals who do stupid things because of their religious beliefs. To me, the latter sounds hostile indeed."
Quite right. I am sure that a particular blogger here at ScienceBlogs comes to mind for both us here. He is highly critical of Dawkins, accusing him of polarising opinion and driving away moderate theists. The same blogger is highly vocal in condemming anti-gay bigotry from religious groups, including the Catholic church. At the same time he will hold up Catholics as an example of how you can religious and still accept evolution. He often cites Ken Miller in this regard. I have no idea what Miller's personal views on homosexuality are but there is no doubt that he belongs to a church that is active in trying to deny gays human and civil rights.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 12:41 PM
I think there is somewhat of a problem with the whole enterprise, thought I'm not certain it could be construed as a problem with framing, per se.
The problem with focusing on religion and offering only "atheism" and "secularism" as alternatives is that people can point to, say, communism and declare, "hey, that's secularism, right? That's a secular ideology, right? Maoism was an atheistic ideology, right?" and they would, barring some uncommon usages of secularism and atheism that I haven't come across, be correct.
A better, more inclusive, more incisive, and more damaging message is to expound on the virtues of reason and skepticism, which is anathema to a great many things beyond religion. Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have all touched on this, so it's not as thought it's an entirely blind spot for them, but they still cast all of their arguments as being explicitly anti-religious. The books, The God Delusion, An End of Faith, God is not Great, they can't shake religion as being the motivator, and they lock themselves into GOD=BAD/NO GOD=GOOD, which can be brushed aside with a casual bodycount of secular inhumanities of the 20th century, whether legitimately invited or not. There are just as many immature, ill-conceived, and illogical means to come to the conclusion that there isn't a god as there is to come to the conclusion that there is.
Religion is bad, yes. But it's bad because it's a symptom of a problem that leads to innumerable other problems as well, and to frame the debate as exclusively religion and non-religion binds the hands of the person who really should be tackling the larger problem.
Posted by: Loren Michael | June 29, 2007 12:46 PM
So I guess, where framing is concerned, I feel that the frame is just too small right now. It's in the right place, but there's so much more it could and should be covering.
Posted by: Loren Michael | June 29, 2007 12:50 PM
More importantly, it's a tool for opposing positive change. Like Nisbet.
(Cheap shot, but c'mon, you were thinking it too...)
More later.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 29, 2007 12:50 PM
Yiou are right, nal.
When people say "You guys are just shooting yourslef in the foot with your approach" it usually means they are worried that "You guys are having an effect".
Why does Matt Nisbet even care what atheists do and say?
The fact that he feels inclined to so frequently address them would seem to indicate that he feels somehow threatened by them -- that they are somehow "ruining things for the rest of us".
Posted by: Jimmy | June 29, 2007 1:05 PM
PZ: Atheists certainly should not surrender, and should never cease being uncompromising on the issues. Rather than surrender, we should work to more effectively win over the culture. But I think that we can only do do so by promoting alternatives to the religious and supernatural worldviews that so plague society, rather than only attacking religion. I think Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and others would agree. Dawkins et. al. do a magnificent job of rallying atheists, and in pronouncing far and wide that it is perfectly sensible to be an atheist. But to win over the culture, more is needed than merely to attack religion and "faith-heads," making it seem like just a pitched battle between the smart atheists and the dumb religionists. (I think that Hitchens does this beautifully in the end of God is Not Great, calling for a "New Enlightenment.")
I should admit that I am just as much an angry atheist as I hunch you are. But speaking strategically, we should also just admit that our moral indignation, our anger, is not on par with those who marched on Washington in 1963 to end public school segregation, and for legal protection against police brutality, and to make it illegal to racially discriminate in public and private hiring, and the like. Our indignation is not about how oppressed we are in society, but about how wrong we think society is to believe destructive nonsense. Even so, many atheist activists have put the beleaguered atheists' plight on par with sexual or racial minorities. The same goes for many Christian activists who are these days talking about Christians themselves being the last oppressed minority in America. Both are wrong. Being popular is not a civil right. It is our job to make atheism and secularism more popular, and wrapping ourselves as a "movement" in the cloak of being an oppressed minority whose civil rights are under attack won't do that trick.
As we concluded that first piece on this topic in Free Inquiry:
"We [as atheists] do have to stand up and fight. However, we are fighting not for our civil rights, but for our intellectual integrity and moral dignity. Incredible analogies with the plight of the truly repressed will further neither cause."
Posted by: D.J. Grothe | June 29, 2007 1:08 PM
http://www.atheistalliance.org/conventions/2007/index.php
Speakers:
* Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary Biologist/Author
* Daniel Dennett - Philosopher
* Sam Harris - Author
* Christopher Hitchens - Author
* Julia Sweeney - Actress/Writer/Monologist
* Eugenie Scott - National Center for Science Education
* Matthew Chapman - Author, Charles Darwin's great-great-grandson
* Edward Tabash - Lawyer and Atheist/Secular Humanist
* Pastor Deacon Fred - Landover Baptist Church
* Shannon Cherry - owner of Cherry Communications
* Lori Lipman Brown - freethought's first Washington lobbyist and Executive Director of the Secular Coalition of America
* Rick Wingrove - The Assertive Atheist, Capitol Hill Representative for American Atheists
* Mike Estes - Atheist Coalition of San Diego, civil rights expert
* Dale McGowan - Author
* August Brunsman - Secular Student Alliance
* Neil Polzin - Secular Student Alliance
* Janice Rael - Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia
* Dave Silverman - American Atheists
http://www.richarddawkins.net/index.php
Posted by: Scholar | June 29, 2007 1:14 PM
Of course. But now your job is to find atheists who claim that they suffer as much as blacks under slavery or women before suffrage, or even as much as either of those groups now. It's just not a case we're making, and it's not a case that you'll find in either Dawkins' or Hitchens' books.
It does not help to demonize atheists for things they haven't done.
Posted by: PZ Myers | June 29, 2007 1:16 PM
D.J Grothe,
I am not aware of these atheist activists who put discrimination against atheists on a par with the discrimination faced by blacks, gays etc. PZ explicitly states that he does not see the discrimination as being at that level.
However posters here, and elsewhere, have provided evidence of discrimination against atheists. Of course atheists are not the only group who face discrimination based on their religious views. Since Sept 11th many Muslims in both the US and Europe have faced discrimination because of their religion. I do not find discriminating against a Muslim anymore acceptble that discriminating against an atheist, and I doubt you do, or PZ, or Dawkins, or any of the other atheists who have been so vocal of late. What we need to ask is this: Is discriminating against someone based on their religious views acceptable ? And to me the answer is an emphatic NO.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 1:20 PM
"Even so, many atheist activists have put the beleaguered atheists' plight on par with sexual or racial minorities."
Like who? I've certainly heard people mention the similarities between our cause and theirs, but i don't know that anyone is actually saying they're totally equal.
Posted by: Brian W. | June 29, 2007 1:26 PM
I agree that Nisbet's statement is ridiculous. However...
PZ's anti-framing statements are just more framing. Specifically they are framing about framing. My understanding of the term, admittedly imperfect, is not that it necessarily 'dumbs down' or 'appeases' but that it places something in a context that is meaningful to the audience. For example, I recently heard Al Gore's statements about global warming as a moral issue praised as a masterful piece of framing.
To me those statements just seemed self evident. They seem relatively unimportant in decision making relative to scientific data. But for a huge proportion of the audience that is the hook that is going to make them care. If they care they might learn more about it. If they don't care they never will.
Posted by: KevinD | June 29, 2007 1:27 PM
"We need Atheist Pride parades!"
Let's pool our resources and build a museum which tells the story of creation from the atheist's standpoint. The Smithsonian just doesn't seem to do be doing the trick.
Posted by: Scholar | June 29, 2007 1:29 PM
I would have thought that Atheism was primarily a REALITY issue. With half a country in the twilight zone it is about time a few people spoke up and preferably got a few poeple to pay attention. Admirably done with out present team.
As a Civil right issue did anyone look at these videos:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2829599695690924108
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4191917977194347234
According to Edward Tabash a current member of the supreme court told him the constitutional protection about religion does not necessarily hold for those without any religion. Scary thought.
Posted by: Sailor | June 29, 2007 1:29 PM
You hit the nail squarely on the head there Mr. Myers - this is the same thing they used to tell us homos: stay in the closet and be quiet and no one will beat you up which is about the same thing they told non-whites: be happy with seperate but (un)equal and don't rock the boat.
Sorry, it didn't work then and it won't work now.
I just had a deja-vu feeling since I've been through this twice now and and atheism will be the third. I guess I could be a woman, and then I could add suffrage to that list and have this be the 4th.
After a while the trends become really clear and the 'don't rock the boat' people of today just blur with the same folks of the past who spouted the same arguments and had no problem exploiting and repressing us then. The historical outcome will be the same as Ghandi observed it to be: "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
Posted by: beergoggles | June 29, 2007 1:33 PM
Glen Davidson (#36):
Well said. I could probably have been more clear.
Matt Penfold (#38):
Also well said!
Loren Michael (#39):
I'm glad you've raised this point. (Compare my comment #11.) In my judgment, DDH&H have done a pretty good job forcing the issue into discussion; what needs to happen next is not a retreat, but rather a broadening of emphasis.
You know, given how much Chopra sounds like Egnor, a book which does for neuroscience what Victor Stenger's Failed Hypothesis does for physics and cosmology might be a good idea.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 1:33 PM
The biggest misunderstanding most people have about the 'new atheists' is that they assume that we must be clamoring for attention so that we can promote ourselves with the same vigor and fanaticism that drives the 'subservient deluded'; that our goal is merely to undermine one belief with another, perpetuating slave mentality.
Rational thought is so suspect and undermined in this country that it's not surprising that many people simply don't get that we have been forced to stand up and state firmly, "enough is enough." The disease of mythologitus has forced us to. We've been backed into a corner by the bible thumper's push to take over the country, by their attempts to pollute science with religion, and legislate the mandatory worshipping of that asshole god that the ancient Hebrews believed in.
When we see the 'religious right' pushing us ever closer into their goddamned, coveted Armageddon, we have no choice but to express our views and compete to be heard as we try to promote (and explain) rational thought and behavior. This is no time for rational people to be silent and conforming, or to put on a martyr complex and whine about civil rights. It's not an exaggeration to say that our future is at stake; this country has the technology to blow up the world, and we have all seen what happens when technology falls into the hands of religious fanatics.
Posted by: RamblinDude | June 29, 2007 1:35 PM
At last, I get it. I understand what "framing" is. It's pandering to the status quo, the petty conventions, and the bigotry of the majority. It means don't rock the boat, don't be different, don't stand up for your beliefs. It means CONFORM. You will get other people to support you if you just abandon your principles and adopt theirs.
Well, in this rant you've shown you understand rightwing-style "framing". Maybe you should consider not being dishonest like rightwingers. Just a thought.
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 29, 2007 1:51 PM
An embarrassing excerpt from a hypothetical history book written 100 years from now:
Posted by: Jordan | June 29, 2007 1:59 PM
What does it all have to do with framing? Matt is not a one-note blogger, like none of us are. Just because Matt mostly writes about his expertise in using language - framing - does not mean he has to be mum on other topics he is interested in, e.g., atheism. He is right on framing and he is, IMHO, half wrong on atheism. His latest post hangs on the definition of civil in 'civil rights'. After all ML King and Malcolm X faught over tactics in exactly the same way. Remember who (and which tactic) won the day? Both: the good cop, bad cop strategy is what was successful then and will be successful for atheism as well.
Posted by: coturnix | June 29, 2007 2:05 PM
"Well, in this rant you've shown you understand rightwing-style "framing". Maybe you should consider not being dishonest like rightwingers. Just a thought."
Well, we are allowed to rant, BECAUSE, AS RABID ATHEISTS, we are not worried about the BS that you are!
(and what about the poor right-wingers, even you are willing to throw them under the bus?)
Posted by: Scholar | June 29, 2007 2:19 PM
"...a book which does for neuroscience what Victor Stenger's Failed Hypothesis does for physics and cosmology might be a good idea."
Yes.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | June 29, 2007 2:25 PM
You raise a good question - why *do* atheists (like myself) publicly complain about mistreatment, when all we have to do is be quiet and endure it? Why do we dare to compare it to racial or gender discrimination, when it is so easy for us to blend in where others cannot?
I think I have part of the answer. And it's pretty simple. We are law-abiding folk. We know that we *can* blend in. We know that there is no difference between us and the believers. And yet, if we make our true thoughts public, we are vilified and discriminated against. I care about racial prejudice, but I'm white. That is to say, atheist discrimination affects me *personally.* And that's the difference. We understand other minorities' civil rights issues, but the atheistic ones are our own, and they wound us directly.
The majority (believers) either sympathize with, or pay lip service to, racial and gender harmony. Why won't they sympathize with us? Ask your Christian friend how they would feel if the pledge was "Under Horus" instead of "Under God." Or heck, ask your Jewish friend if he would prefer "Under Jesus" to "Under God." Until we can at least push the zeitgeist into recognizing theocratic discrimination as a bad thing in the same way other forms are recognized, we cannot be silent, and we must persevere.
Thanks for the great post, PZ.
Posted by: Greg | June 29, 2007 2:44 PM
Perhaps Nisbet and Grothe live in an environment more conducive to being publicly atheistic than I do. I see it as a civil rights issue if I lose my job because I don't participate in the office bible study. I see it as a civil rights issue if I cannot put a Darwin fish or even a 'coexist' bumper sticker on my car without risking vandalism. I see it as a civil rights issue if an American president contends, as George Bush, Sr. did, that atheists should not be considered citizens. No it's not the same as the struggles experienced by blacks and women, who could not hide their status as such. It is more like the struggle of homosexuals, still ongoing I might add, where there is no necessary obvious outward sign. Yes we can adopt our own 'Don't ask, Don't tell' policy, but many of us don't see that as working as well as it has in the military (where it hasn't really).
Posted by: Ray S | June 29, 2007 3:45 PM
Ray,
Not only does it seem the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy does not work, evidence from here in the UK shows that allowing gays to openly serve does not bring about a collapse in military discipline. It is one the things to Blair's credit that shortly after he became PM the restriction on gays serving was removed.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 29, 2007 3:50 PM
Coturnix (#56):
Remember, MLK was also upset about the behavior of "moderates." Read Letter from Birmingham Jail:
Furthermore, the "good cop, bad cop" model would work much better if the "good cop" were not trying to kick the "bad cop" into silence. See, there's a point here which I'm not sure people are getting, because I haven't received much feedback about it: it's a bad oversimplification to assume that there is only one kind of "moderate". (Comment #11, above.) Some kinds will be better suited to playing the "good cop" role than others.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | June 29, 2007 3:56 PM
I want to ask something. Even thou