…and this is a 
Speaking out is the new zealotry
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: August 11, 2007 1:39 PM, by PZ Myers
Richard Dawkins has a new television series, The Enemies of Reason, that will be broadcast in the UK. I have not heard if it will make it to the US; if it's anything like our experience with his last program, Root of all evil?, it will be buried in post-midnight showings on scattered PBS stations, with little information on when or where in any of the channel listings. The premise of discussing this new show is how Gordon Lynch begins a recent column, but then, somehow, it turns into a wild-eyed accusation in mannered language that this modern atheism stuff is a cult-like phenomenon, just like those crazy evangelical Christians.
What is arguably more interesting about Dawkins's TV work is the sense in which his public advocacy of atheism is coming to look more and more like media-savvy forms of contemporary religion, particularly evangelicalism. One of the reasons evangelicalism has flourished in contemporary society is precisely the way in which it has used publishing, consumer products, educational resources, film, television and new media as resources by which its adherents can develop particular kinds of religious experiences, identities and social networks. Evangelicalism has proven more successful in surviving the secularising trends of the contemporary world than other branches of Christianity because it has been able to develop into a religious subculture in which likeminded individuals and groups support each other and sustain their particular vision of the world.
I think it's quite right that richarddawkins.net and Dawkins' TV work represents an effort to use the media to share information about a social and intellectual movement, and it's also true that evangelical Christianity has also taken advantage of it. It's also pretty much standard nowadays: if you want to build recognition and an identity, you use multimedia and you have a web presence. Somebody who notes this and starts drawing parallels in content and tactics because two groups are using similar, ubiquitous, common communications techniques is, well, clueless.
The Dawkins web site has a forum, a big discussion board with many members. I would like to draw Mr Lynch's attention to a ranking of fora on the web. Top of the list is an anime roleplaying community; further down you'll find a French medical help forum, a board dedicated to Volkswagen cars, discussion groups about Chinese mobile phones, porn, and yes, Christian forums. If you scroll way down, you'll finally find an atheist board, sandwiched between a forum for guitarists and one for adult webmasters.
Lynch compares Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, to Rick Warren's The Purpose-Driven Life. Dawkins has sold somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 million copies, while Warren has sold almost 25 million. But the important thing is … they both have published books. The DaVinci Code has sold about 40 million copies, to put those in perspective.
And of course, Dawkins has made a few television programs. Evangelical Christians have whole television networks: TBN, CBN, Pax, Cross TV, CTN, Sky Angel, TCT Ministries, etc., etc., etc. There are also networks dedicated to news, to old movies, to cartoons, to comedy, to science fiction. These are all just the same, of course.
I think you can all see the sneaky and ultimately dishonest game Lynch is playing: compare the things atheists do to those that evangelical Christians so you can say "Gotcha! You atheists are just another loony religious cult!" I'm surprised he didn't mention that both atheists and Christians use their voices in a process called "talking" to communicate among members of their local cells. As it is, though, we're still going to have to face the fact that Volkswagens, the French health care system, cheap pulp novels, and Fox News are all also cults. Basically, Lynch is looking aghast at the standard media techniques used for selling soap and health club memberships and using that to link disparate ideas under the category of "evangelical."
Oh, but wait! There's one more element that has to be added to this equation. If you're going to damn atheists by comparing them to evangelical Christians, you have to toss in some token rationalization for why these "evangelical" atheists are bad while honest, upfront, dominant evangelical Christians are good. The simple switch is to claim that atheists are driven by hatred, while Christians are moderates who believe in unity and love. Lynch does not disappoint.
To those of us who identify with liberal and progressive cultural movements, whether religious or humanist, there are potentially worrying trends here. The intensity with which new atheist identities are being forged through a hatred of imagined religious others is matched by the hatred felt by some conservative religious groups towards those they perceive as godless.
In the same way that global conflict emerged when American neoconservatives and radical Islamists found in each other the perfect enemy, so future conflict between militant atheists and religious conservatives may have the rest of us ducking in the crossfire. In this sense, while Dawkins's intentions are doubtless well meant, the rise of the atheist movement he symbolises could do more than the alternative spiritualities he disparages to threaten the fragile cohesion of our societies.
I have to bring your attention to one subtle dig in there: atheists have hatred of "imagined religious others". Didn't I just tell you that the apologists will always minimize the existence of religious insanity? It's only imagined.
Not also how we're going to label Islam, Dominionists, Fundamentalists, Christian Separatists, hardline Zionists, and all the other flavors of fanatical religion: "alternative spiritualities". Why, those "alternative spiritualities" promote the cohesion of our societies, as we can see in the Middle East and all along the India/Pakistan border, for instance — those regions would explode into violence if religion disappeared. Imagine that those atheists who foment that kind of hatred would disappear…peace and unity would reign.
Ah, if only these whiny apologists for religion would spend more time (heck, any time) criticizing the evangelical/fundamentalist religious movements to which they compare us than in deploring the great harm the imaginary fundamentalist atheists are doing. Especially when the only "harm" they manage to document is that atheists are mobilizing to make their message heard using modern media.
Forget Lynch. Read Charlie Brooker's review instead.
Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots. Superstitious idiots. They're everywhere - reading horoscopes, buying homeopathic remedies, consulting psychics, babbling about "chakras" and "healing energies", praying to imaginary gods, and rejecting science in favour of soft-headed bunkum. But instead of slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, we encourage them. We've got to respect their beliefs, apparently.
Well I don't. "Spirituality" is what cretins have in place of imagination. If you've ever described yourself as "quite spiritual", do civilisation a favour and punch yourself in the throat until you're incapable of speaking aloud ever again. Why should your outmoded codswallop be treated with anything other than the contemptuous mockery it deserves?
Actually, I hope Mr Lynch has read it. I think it was intended for him.
Comments
Brooker's review made me laugh out loud - he is a great writer. Maybe I'll start leaving smocks and turnips on the doorsteps of neighborhood fundies...
Posted by: Dallas Reader | August 11, 2007 1:50 PM
Beautiful baby!
Posted by: John Danley | August 11, 2007 1:51 PM
So, all people who pray are undifferentially idiots and cretins deserving of contemptuous mockery? And that isn't "imagined religious others"?
Posted by: John Pieret | August 11, 2007 2:09 PM
Lynch reminds me of a 2-year-old who, observing a cow for the first time, points and says "Doggie!"
Apparently, huge differences escape him. If the two things under study are in ANY way similar, they must be the same.
Atheists = evangelicals. Yeah, right.
The next time someone tells me unbelief is a religion, I want a tax-free house to live in. A big one, with a steeple and loud bells, and a large hall where I can preach my message. Maybe a few statues of Dawkins and Darwin that, once a year on Easter Sunday, weep real tears.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 11, 2007 2:09 PM
Atheists go to the toilet
evangelists go to the toilet
therefore atheism equals evangelism.
Sounds like a shitty argument to me
Posted by: sailor | August 11, 2007 2:13 PM
The Guardian, like Salon and probably every other news-site likes to run continual pro-religion/atheist opinion pieces. It never fails to generate 100's of comments and lots of page-clicks.
I'm not sure that we're not just playing into their little game by joining in. We're in no danger of running out of these pieces anytime soon.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | August 11, 2007 2:18 PM
"So, all people who pray are undifferentially idiots and cretins deserving of contemptuous mockery?"
Nope. All people who pray are engaging in an undifferentially idiotic activity and said activity is deserving of contemptuous mockery. If people take it personally, that's not my problem.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 2:38 PM
What does two plus two equal? Let's take the "twos" from the tenets of this kind of discourse:
First "two": "Religion should be respected and never mocked or questioned. That is hateful."
Second "two": "Atheism is a religion."
So, two plus two equals... er... Well, anything but four, it seems.
Posted by: Andrés | August 11, 2007 2:42 PM
You've really touched a nerve PZ. I used to just let it pass when (intelligent) friends opined, "Well, atheism is just another religion." Or worse, to me, "Well, SCIENCE is just another religion." I don't let the comments pass now--I'm always like, "Oh, do tell!" Which inevitably trips them up. And annoys them. But makes the bastards at least think.
Though I worry what with this and slamming urban legends, I'm probably becoming the World's Most Annoying Friend. Ah well. I guess I can blame a crazy science professor in Minnesota now, hahaha....
Posted by: tikistitch | August 11, 2007 2:45 PM
Mobilizing and making the message of atheism heard in the media isn't the harm he's referring to. Remember, it's assumed (presumably on "faith") that more wide-spread atheism will lead to direct physical harm.
Posted by: Maronan | August 11, 2007 2:57 PM
Unfortunately there are people who really seem to want to encourage the idea that atheism is a religion. The other day some friends were telling me about some guys that dress up just like mormons and go door to door telling people about Darwin. While i do find that sorta funny i just kept thinking "great, more excuses to compare us to some religious group".
Posted by: Brian W. | August 11, 2007 3:00 PM
Tyler:
Quite separate and apart from the truth of that claim, that defense of Brooker's screed doesn't fly unless you disassociate yourself from the claim that the people who pray are all idiots and cretins, not just people who are engaged in idiotic activity. The problem Lynch was pointing to (although I thought he overstated it -- perhaps not as much as I would have liked) is that this is in group/out group formation that bears little relationship to the parties who are shoved into those groups.
So, why should it be any problem when the religious people do the same thing to atheists? ... other than that they greatly outnumber atheists, that is?
Posted by: John Pieret | August 11, 2007 3:08 PM
The first quote could be read as a compliment: "the atheist minority is getting media-savvy in spreading their message. Kudos." Until you get to the false equivalency part.
Posted by: jack* | August 11, 2007 3:11 PM
"Quite separate and apart from the truth of that claim, that defense of Brooker's screed doesn't fly unless you disassociate yourself from the claim that the people who pray are all idiots and cretins, not just people who are engaged in idiotic activity."
I don't feel particularly compelled to defend Brooker's claims in his review. I was only stating my own opinion on the matter. For the record, I think his claim is way overblown and a bit naive. Stupid things aren't only done by slavering idiots, they are often done by smart, intelligent and educated people. Minimizing that fact only distracts from the severity of the situation regarding religion and New Age woo-woo.
"So, why should it be any problem when the religious people do the same thing to atheists? ... other than that they greatly outnumber atheists, that is?"
Because when religious people do the same thing to atheists they are making a claim that is either demonstrably false (atheists can't be moral) or completely unevidenced (atheists really just hate god(s). The problem is that prayer doesn't work, or at least is not any more likely to work than rain dances or healing with crystals.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 3:16 PM
oh yeah, fundies and atheists both eat and shit, too. Let's not forget these important similiarities.
Posted by: writerdd | August 11, 2007 3:23 PM
Brooker's piece is, of course, humour.
Posted by: MartinM | August 11, 2007 3:26 PM
What does two plus two equal? Let's take a couple of "twos" from this kind of discourse.
First "two": "All religions deserve respect and shouldn't be questioned or mocked, as this is hateful."
Second "two": "Atheism is a religion."
So, two plus two equals... er... Anything but four, it seems.
(My comments keep getting lost. If this one appears more than once, I apologize.)
Posted by: Andrés | August 11, 2007 3:32 PM
Tyler:
Which is, as I think you agree, no more demonstrably false than Brooker's claim (and PZ's endorsement of it) about the religious all being idiots. Which was the point I think Lynch was trying to make. There is a tendency to adopt extreme positions in response to perceived threats -- the more extreme the threat, the more extreme the response. But if atheists want to claim the high ground of reason and intelligence, that all the more reason they should resist the temptation.
Posted by: John Pieret | August 11, 2007 3:33 PM
Society is falling apart and i'ts our fault!
One more person trying to squash atheism just as it begins to make headway in the culture.
Booooo!
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 11, 2007 3:34 PM
Thank God (pun intended) for YouTube! Without it, most of us would never be able to see shows like this. Hopefully networks in the US will wake up to the fact that there is a market for these type of shows.
Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com
Posted by: Richard | August 11, 2007 3:49 PM
That is awesome. I like this guy.
Posted by: Andyo | August 11, 2007 3:54 PM
Is it worth considering that quotes of someone instructing people who use language you don't like to maim themselves contributes to people thinking that hardcore atheists are problematic somehow?
I've described myself as "spiritual but opposed to organized religion" and things like that. If anyone thinks that means I deserve self-inflicted mayhem, my reaction is to think that that person is an opinionated prick, whether they're an evangelical christian or a sarcastic atheist biologist.
The fact that I'm reluctant to even post this lest I get flamed is, perhaps, indicative of why there are some reasonable moderate potential allies who think the PZ/Dawkins/Harris fan clubs act just as much like a high-school clique as the evangelicals do...
I don't particularly want to start a flamewar or defend why I've described myself as "spiritual", nor do I actually give an expletive if Charlie Brooker wants me to beat on myself. My only point in this is that a "yer either with us or agin us" attitude tends to rally the close-minded at the expense of alienating the sympathetic.
Posted by: Mark (Monty) Montague | August 11, 2007 3:57 PM
The critical part of the Brooker review that everyone seems to be missing is this one:
I don't know who Yaffle from Bagpuss is, but it sure seems like Brooker is not being particularly deferential to Dawkins. The fact that the new series has less vitriol and takes a more measured tone seems to have been completely lost on Lynch, who like many religious people probably reacts to any level of skepticism as hateful personal attacks.
I would love to see a show that puts religion on the same footing as astrology or aura reading.
Posted by: jack* | August 11, 2007 4:11 PM
Dr. David Carlin (no relation to George, I presume) of the Community College of Rhode Island published an article this summer on the importance of fighting the rising tide of atheism by raising the level of Catholic education. He was particularly concerned that Dawkins and others had penned bestsellers critical of religious faith. That's unfair, you see. Atheists aren't supposed to attack religion because it's impolite! (How's that for an argument?) It's okay, however, for believers to attack atheism. That, you see, is traditional, so it's all right.
Frankly, I'm all in favor of raising education levels. I don't think the results will be what Carlin is hoping for. On the other hand, perhaps what he really means is raising the level of indoctrination in Catholic schools. That's not the same, is it? [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | August 11, 2007 4:20 PM
I think the the take-home here is that atheism has become a subculture. This is pretty clear to anyone who reads Pharyngula very often.
This hasn't much to do with the media used, but rather the fact that atheism has become a cherished identity for some folks, with its own heroes, catch-phrases, rituals yada yada yada. The media is the necessary media through which all this travels, but its the other stuff that really matters.
And--please, everyone, the world does not need another "atheism is not a religion" post--the subculture bears some similarities to Christian believers (and other more philosophically-oriented) subcultures. I think any fair-minded sociologist would look at this site or Dawkins's and observe a community that is driven by issues of identity--who am I? who are the good guys? who is the enemy? who is a concern troll? how do we expose and discredit the heretics?--not one driven by, say, a love of ideas.
This happens in all kinds of online communities--music sites, political sites, what have you. But it's rather more a shame to see it happen on sites that could be having a greater effect on some important social and cultural issues.
Cultural studies programs were completely fascinated by subcultures for a while. Lots of good reading out there on the phenomenon. However, what a subculture is and how they work aren't very easy to convey in the context of a tv-series review, hence the vague reference to media-saviness. I'd imagine a sociologist of religion would know better.
But the general point is worth thinking about.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 4:39 PM
The fact that the new series has less vitriol and takes a more measured tone seems to have been completely lost on Lynch, who like many religious people probably reacts to any level of skepticism as hateful personal attacks.
I'm sorry, how do we know Lynch is religious?
link
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 4:46 PM
Yes? And this is news?
It is entirely true that some of us are trying to build a somewhat more institutionalized framework for atheism (but even there, we're dealing with a very independent population, and we know it). Dawkins himself says it in The God Delusion, where he notes that we are a significant minority that ought to have a little more political influence than we currently do.
It's a long way from that to claiming that atheism is a religion driven by hate, however.
Posted by: PZ Myers | August 11, 2007 4:50 PM
Monty,
You are certainly entitled to have your own thoughts and opinions concerning spirituality. However, I'll bet the next time you start to describe yourself as "spiritual", you will have second thoughts. And if you're reminded enough times about how anti-intellectual "spirituality" really is, and if you are an intelligent person, you will start to re-think your philosophies. Or not. In which case the world will have gotten dumber by one person.
Posted by: Duff | August 11, 2007 4:52 PM
It's a long way from that to claiming that atheism is a religion driven by hate, however.
It is a long way. But who says "atheism is a religion driven by hate?" I don't think Lynch says that does he? he mentions the importance of hatred as an important motivating force in the recent surge of atheism. Hatred is central to a lot of subcultures, and Lynch doesn't seem altogether convinced that he ought to worry about it in the case of atheists.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 5:00 PM
"It is a long way. But who says "atheism is a religion driven by hate?" I don't think Lynch says that does he? he mentions the importance of hatred as an important motivating force in the recent surge of atheism."
So in other words, he says atheism is driven by hate, but doesn't really. Or something. I dunno.
POMO lit crit at it's finest, apparently.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 5:06 PM
BTW: it is NOT a good sign for the future of atheism's political influence that it is beginning to look a lot like a subculture. Very much the opposite.
The culture identities that coalesce into subcultures tend to be hopelessly and/or voluntarily disenfranchised. Subculture is more or less a creative voluntary exile from mainstream politics.
[I'm being pretty fast and loose here, so someone will no doubt produce a counter example presently.]
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 5:08 PM
Bagpuss and Professor Yaffle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70kUVZWokm4
The same animator did the Clangers, and there is serious animation addiction there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HArUmqqiL0s
You have been warned.
Posted by: lunartalks | August 11, 2007 5:10 PM
Yes, Tyler, it must be either black or white. No nuance or subtlety of meaning permitted. No need for precision: With us or against us.
Were you raised in a evangelical household?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 5:13 PM
"Yes, Tyler, it must be either black or white. No nuance or subtlety of meaning permitted. No need for precision: With us or against us."
Give me a break. The only feasible difference between "Atheism is a religion driven by hate" and "hate is an important motivating factor in the upsurge of atheism" is the "religion" detail. The "hate" detail is clearly the more important one, and one which Lynch clearly emphasizes. Your Clintonian hair-splitting notwithstanding.
"Were you raised in a evangelical household?"
Nope, I was raised completely areligiously. Nice cheap shot, though.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 5:19 PM
Tyler, btw the distinction would be between saying "atheism is a religion driven by hatred" and saying atheism is "an identity" for which hatred of believers is troublingly important.
The second statement does not imply that hatred is the be-all and end-all of atheism, or that the acting on that hatred is the point of atheism, as the first statement seems to imply.
Lynch is clearly criticizing atheists. But what he says doesn't boil down into PZ's dramatic phrase very easily. If you can't see this distinction, I think you become exhibit one in Lynch's case against the new atheist subculture.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 5:20 PM
hate is an important motivating factor in the upsurge of atheism
Tyler, that's my paraphrase. I'd suggest you read Lynch's review before defending PZ's interpretation of it.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 5:23 PM
"The second statement does not imply that hatred is the be-all and end-all of atheism, or that the acting on that hatred is the point of atheism, as the first statement seems to imply."
Nor can such plausibly be stated about evangelicalism, so what's the point? Lynch is attempting to render an equivalence between atheism and evangelicalism. Saying "yes, there's more to it than hate" doesn't absolve him of that.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 5:23 PM
"I'd suggest you read Lynch's review before defending PZ's interpretation of it."
PZ's interpretation of it is spot on, unless of course you consider flailing about the "cohesion of our societies" something outside of a clear implication that those hateful, spiteful atheists are a threat to it.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 5:26 PM
Thank you (I think) for that clip, Lunar. I hate to say it, but Brooker's Yaffle comparison was, as Dawkins himself might put it, spot-on: "This is a serious question!" Now I want to see a animated animal version of Hitchens, perhaps as a disgruntled teddy bear.
Posted by: Peter Sattler | August 11, 2007 5:28 PM
He compares certain evangelical subcultures and a certain brand of atheism--not atheism as a whole. Mutual hatred is important to them both.
This, by the way, is not hair-splitting. This is called the life of the mind. If reading carefully, thinking and making fine distinctions doesn't suit you, you should consider something more along your lines. Perhaps a position in the Bush administration. They have a quite similar impatience with nuance and preciseness.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 5:36 PM
"He compares certain evangelical subcultures and a certain brand of atheism--not atheism as a whole. Mutual hatred is important to them both."
So a generally adversarial relationship is enough to impugn someone or class of someones for their "hatred"? If so, this principle extends farther than you probably want it to. How about all the mainstream liberal blogs and discussion fora where conservatives are routinely decried as "wingnuts" and Christian fundamentalists as "godbags" or "fundies"? Should we also flail about their threat to the "cohesion of our societies"? Lynch is only unfairly denigrating atheists for doing something many cultural minorities (e.g., feminists, gays, etc.) have done before.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 5:49 PM
PZ says :
"Dawkins himself says it in The God Delusion, where he notes that we are a significant minority that ought to have a little more political influence than we currently do."
Well, in the USA especially, what's needed is for Science to have more political influence.
I would prefer if neither Atheists nor Theists had any influence whatsoever.
The question for me is wether the current method employed by PZ/Dawkins/Harris is helping the cause of science.
It's not so clear anymore.
Posted by: negentropyeater | August 11, 2007 5:49 PM
I wanted to thank you for expressing articulately things that I would have liked to say as well. Generally speaking, I mean.
With respect to the sub-culture aspects of atheism brought up by Oran, I've been an atheist (but humanist) since primary school, and I have not to date felt a part of a sub-culture in this respect. It is a welcome relief to land among a group of people who are not trying to proselytize, but I generally find sufficient differences in belief systems to not want to band together simply on the basis of what we commonly *don't* believe in.
For one thing, I certainly don't hate people for whom religion is an important part of their lives. I am good friends with another atheist who is much more disparaging (more in line with Dawkins), but I don't see the point in trying to shake people out of their superstitions unless they have made it clear they are open to learning another way. On a smaller level, just try it with someone who is convinced that trace homeopathic levels of arsenic represent effective medicine. Or that vast quantities of vitamin C are beneficial (that was, by the way, my "rabid" atheist friend). Conversion by force doesn't work. We are all subject to our share of superstitions, and the only way to avoid it is to keep one's eyes open.
Know thyself. I refuse to leave that wisdom only to the believers in God.
Posted by: Alethea | August 11, 2007 6:10 PM
Yes, lets.
On one hand, you have a guy claiming to have the secrets to happiness and such, and all you need to do is follow these instructions. On the other hand, you have a guy saying "Boy, do these people who claim to have all the answers talk a bunch of shite or what?"
Yeah, that's exactly the same thing.
A situation that has nothing to do with the media constantly acting like "The God Delusion" is the atheist Torah. No siree, that happened all by itself. 'Twas like that when I got here, honest.
Oh, for fuck's sake! Atheist != Anti-theist. All that being an atheist tells you about someone is what they don't believe in. Nothing more.
Yes, it's also about making it OK to be publicly Atheist without being subject to discrimination.
But aside from all those differences, it's exactly the same. Kinda sorta.
Posted by: Sophist, FCD | August 11, 2007 6:15 PM
Why "denigrating"?
If, as you say, there's nothing particularly special about what he is observing about (certain) atheists, why the acute sensitivity?
And as to Lynch's concern about the mutual hostility (flailing in your terminology) that's nothing special either: There's been reams and reams written on the red/blue split and how deep it is and whatever it may mean.
Is it handwringing? Maybe, but still the interesting point is, there is a developing atheist subculture.
Is this news? No, I and others were bitching about it in these pages a few weeks ago when we had the t-shirt discussion.
The activism that comes out of the subculture is cool: it helps turn over the engine. But where is the mainstream of the movement? I think it ought to be somebody like Dawkins (handsome, accomplished, articulate, on many other topics able to be reasonable and unpetty), but now he's willingly become the center for a personality subcult.
Which makes me suspect that the problem here is that the only atheists who can really be organized into the current "atheist movement" are folks who want a subcultural identity--those who like being the voices crying out in the wilderness--not those who truly care about influencing and participating in society at large.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 6:17 PM
In an effort to nitpick and derail the comments I would like to make a note of this line:
"Not also how we're going to label Islam, Dominionists, Fundamentalists, Christian Separatists, hardline Zionists, and all the other flavors of fanatical religion: "alternative spiritualities"."
Now, why does Judeaism and Christianity get the luxury of being only having its most radical elements highlighted while Islam gets a blanket "fanatical" around its name. Not all (not even a majority) of Islam is "fanatical" by any means. So what gives?
Posted by: Tomas | August 11, 2007 6:52 PM
Where for the love of Pete is this "personality subcult" centering around Dawkins? There may be a few folks around who sort of could be described as "worshipping" him, but I've never met any, and couldn't name any if you threatened to waterboard me.
If there are such people, all it proves is that any group of human beings is likely to have at least a few members who are a little unbalanced, and no one would deny that some atheists fit that description. You could say the same thing about chess players or stamp collectors or drivers of Chevrolets. Are they a threat to civilization?
People who worry about the "threat of organized atheism" are nothing more than the same old crowd who subscribe to the notions that atheism destroys morality (because of course only believers in God--insert the name of your favorite god here--can be moral). How many times do we have to shoot that tired old clay pidgeon down?
And by the way, pointing with pride to the fact that not all atheists are perfect rational philosophers doesn't mean anything anyway. Who ever expected them to be? Is atheism a club that only pipe-smoking, tweed-jacket-with-elbow-patches Ph. D.s can join? Of course some atheists will get rowdy and throw some undisciplined language around now and then. That's because they have strong, passionate beliefs. Does that make theism true?
Posted by: JonJ | August 11, 2007 6:55 PM
Oran Kelley said:
Just because it looks like a religion, doesn't mean it is one. (Just because something looks designed, doesn't mean it was designed.)But it's a good point - a lot of what goes on at RD.net appears to be like-minded people reinforcing each other's ideas and condemning those in the out-group. Not that anything can be done about it, I fear; it's what people do.
Posted by: PaulJ | August 11, 2007 7:18 PM
Any crowd of people can be compared to any other crowd of people, but to paraphrase one of the commenters from an earlier post: Saying atheists are a religious group is like saying people who don't believe in astrology are a religious group.
But Atheists can be brought together: Atheists who really doesn't want to get blown up in some myth-fabricated Armageddon; atheists who are getting really tired of seeing science textbooks sabotaged with religious mythology; the kind who are seeing the country being railroaded towards a theocracy.
The so called "New Atheists" aren't necessarily banding together merely to clamor and harangue the superstitious, or be groupies to anybody, we are being forced to unite--usually reluctantly--because expediency demands that some action be taken against irrationalism in a crowded world, and a united front is generally more productive.
Getting a bunch of free thinkers into a cohesive unit is problematical but the fact that it is slowly happening does not presuppose that we are driven by the same mindset as that which we criticize.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 11, 2007 7:23 PM
PZ, any chance you can put a word in with Richard to have his series made available on iTunes?
Posted by: Ben Abbott | August 11, 2007 8:01 PM
>So, all people who pray are undifferentially
>idiots and cretins deserving of contemptuous mockery?
Pretty much, yep. Unless they're talking to imaginary people because they have some kind of neurological disorder or are schizophrenic -- in which case it's not a "lifestyle choice" -- it's a disease and they deserve pity.
mjr.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | August 11, 2007 8:20 PM
The word "hate" has been appropriated by Christians, including Lynch and Tyler, to mean "heresy" which in the 21st century they apparently can no longer say in public with a straight face.
If you use that translation it all makes a twisted sort of sense.
"You'll burn in hell for eternity" isn't really hateful, see? But gently and rationally explaining that God is a delusion is.
Posted by: melior | August 11, 2007 8:24 PM
I could be wrong about this--it's a feeling I pick up from Dawkins's site and the discussion that goes on there; and from the folks who will brook no criticism whatsoever of The God Delusion; and the speculative answers I get when I try to puzzle out the general line of rhetoric and posturing taken up by Dawkins, Dennett, and Pinker. There is a strong whiff of pandering to the undergraduates about it. Looking for that love.
I can't recall meeting any Dawkins worshipers, either. But I'm kinda ornery.
Well the difference would be that the vast majority of people don't give a damn about stamps or about whether Calvin is pissing on a Chevy logo or a Ford. Religion, on the other hand, can be a fighting matter for a lot of people. So it would seem more reasonable to wonder about divisiveness and hatred around this topic. As Dawkins hardly ever tires of pointing out, wars have been fought over religion. But if you were to say: Lynch is overblowing this threat, I wouldn't argue with you about it. I'm just saying it's not completely unreasonable to express concern.
If you think giving some examples of atheists who were fine fellows or of more-or-less post-Christian societies that seem to be holding together alright at the moment as shooting the pigeon down, then you'll be shooting quite a bit more. The point isn't that "only believers in God--insert the name of your favorite god here--can be moral" and until you understand that, you're not addressing the issue.
The question is "What makes for a stable and well-accepted moral system in a society over a long period of time? How do you generate the sort of social consensus that makes such a thing possible? How do you preserve that consensus?" Personally, I do not believe that religion is necessary for such a consensus to exist, but to claim, as so many atheist activist seem to, that religion has no and never has had any role in establishing and preserving moral order is . . . curiously incurious. I think an honest effort should be made to hash out those questions.
Who is saying theism is true? The way the existence/non-existence of God crops up in inappropriate places, it is sometimes hard to believe that some atheists aren't hearing voices.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 8:26 PM
As I've said before, why are people so worried about a bit of cultural and political organisation?
This claim that any degree of organisation makes you like a religion is absurd. Religion at its heart is about belief in one or more supernatural beings or principles, and about organising your life around that belief (complete with a detailed moral code, etc.).
What makes the organisation of religion so dangerous, at least when religion takes any but the most benign and moderate form, is that it gives power to an irrational and potentially totalitarian belief system. Often the moral code associated with that system is miserable and puritanical. What's more, religionists typically want to impose it on others.
If science fiction readers, or opera lovers, or metal fans organise, there is no such danger - it's just fun. If a bunch of rationalists organise, it's positively beneficial. What matters isn't that there is some organisation. What matters is the value of the ideas around which the organisation takes place.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | August 11, 2007 8:41 PM
"If, as you say, there's nothing particularly special about what he is observing about (certain) atheists, why the acute sensitivity?"
I really hope this was a bad attempt at humor and not a serious argument. The article above targets atheists for doing something completely ordinary in American cultural life. In fact, multiple things: seeking out like-minded people, expressing discontent with the prevalence of certain cultural presumptions, and adopting public faces as representative of their movement. Feminists don't threaten "the cohesion of our society", gays don't threaten the "cohesion of our society". But for some reason, in the mind of Lynch and his ilk, atheists are a special threat.
In case my conclusion isn't clear: we're not, he's full of shit, and his piece tells us more about his own prejudices than any real or even potential cultural trend.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 8:42 PM
"The question is "What makes for a stable and well-accepted moral system in a society over a long period of time? How do you generate the sort of social consensus that makes such a thing possible? How do you preserve that consensus?"
Why do you even want to preserve the consensus? If we preserved the consensus on morality we'd likely still consider women property and darker skinned people inferior, as well as both unfit to legally entitled to vote.
Morals are the way they are primarily because reasoned away the received moral "truths" that were inculcated over generations by religion. Moral reasoning and conversation, along with a healthy helping of natural empathy and compassion, are thus a much better way of establishing a moral consensus than relying on static theological systems.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 8:51 PM
On atheism as elitism.
For starters I'd say that atheists are a sort of elite. No, you don't need leather elbow patches, but I think we should be able to operate with the assumption that the bulk of us are fairly clever people.
I don't think that by playing our worst motives--tribalism, essentially--that anything is gained either for us or for society at large.
Somebody like Dawkins should have written a book on religion and irreligion that could have stood proudly next to The Selfish Gene. Instead he writes a shallow book where he often comes across as a hateful, showboating boor.
I really don't think good scholarship and eyes-open politics is too much to ask for. I don't think appealing to the best in us, not the worst, is too much to ask for.
Brooker's piece seems to indicate that Dawkins may be trying to do a little more. I look forward to seeing the series myself.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 8:53 PM
Oran Kelley finally got to the point with:
"Which makes me suspect that the problem here is that the only atheists who can really be organized into the current "atheist movement" are folks who want a subcultural identity--those who like being the voices crying out in the wilderness--not those who truly care about influencing and participating in society at large."
Thank you for finally revealing the fullness of your socio-bullshit.
Wow! After spending years of my adult life voting, talking issues with people, reading new books and seeking out new ideas while advocating the ones I agreed with, disbelieving in god and the usefulness of religion the whole time while still living in reasonable harmony among the religious, after all that, it certainly comes as a surprise to find out that I don't exist!
Posted by: Neil | August 11, 2007 8:55 PM
The really sad thing is that Professor Lynch peddles this rubbish as being the sociology of religion. So for all those that were trying hard to change public opinion about sociology not being a pseudo-science, well I'm afraid you'll have to start over.
Posted by: HardTimeThinking | August 11, 2007 8:55 PM
Both feminism and the gay liberation movement were big, multifaceted movements with huge differences in strategies and tactics. Using them as examples is meaningless in this context: Lynch identifies a pretty particular stream of atheism, you speak in airy generalities about "feminism."
And did feminism, say, threaten the cohesion of our society? I think a fair number of feminists would answer "Yes, when done properly." I know some gay activists who would also answer yes to that question. But it doesn't matter anyhow, because we're not talking about feminism or gay activism.
If you read closely Lynch says the mutual hatred between evangelicals and atheists threatens cohesion:
So he's not targeting atheists, he's playing with a nightmare scenario in which the conflict between believers and anti-believers becomes socially disruptive. Personally, I think he overstates things, and that the offense you are taking (or pretending to take) at this is pretty absurd.
Lynch's "special threat" is conflict over religion. The same special threat that Dawkins goes on for pages and pages about. I think they're both wrong. I also think there's mor ehere than the last couple of paragraphs.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 9:07 PM
Well so far, you show little evidence of thinking, so from a Cartesian point of view, I'd say your existence is still open to question.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 9:10 PM
Consensus doesn't mean stasis. All the changes you indicate were arrived at through consensus building.
If there is not a consensus, say, that greenish slips of paper with the Secretary of Treasury's signature are worth something, the monetary system collapses.
If there is not a general consensus that certain things should not be done and certain obligations must be fulfilled, even if there is no one present forcing one to comply, then the social order begins to break down. Agreeing with/to these strictures and feeling that the majority of your compatriots also agree with/to them is essential for a society/societies like the West's to operate.
How that consensus gets made and what religion may have to do with it is the issue--the issue to be addressed whether or not you agree with Lynch's perception of risk.
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 9:19 PM
"Both feminism and the gay liberation movement were big, multifaceted movements with huge differences in strategies and tactics. Using them as examples is meaningless in this context: Lynch identifies a pretty particular stream of atheism, you speak in airy generalities about "feminism."
Lynch's "stream of atheism" is an imaginary boogeyman that atheist detractors seem to have garnered a certain fondness for. Speaking of "airy generalities", neither you nor Lynch have yet given us any concrete example of the mindless zealotry, tribalism and hatred you've been accusing us of over and over again.
"And did feminism, say, threaten the cohesion of our society? I think a fair number of feminists would answer "Yes, when done properly." I know some gay activists who would also answer yes to that question."
And I'm willing to bet that was a facetious way of saying that they were dislodging certain cultural presumptions that permeated their societies, making this completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
"But it doesn't matter anyhow, because we're not talking about feminism or gay activism."
LOL. So can I now handwave away analogy I don't like by saying "we're not talking about that"? It sure makes things a lot easier.
"If you read closely Lynch says the mutual hatred between evangelicals and atheists threatens cohesion."
And, like you, he's yet to justify his claim that this phenomenon even exists or is the exclusive pedigree of the adversarial relationship between evangelicalism and atheism. Anyone can talk about their "perceptions", backing them up is a whole other (and more difficult) ballgame.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | August 11, 2007 9:25 PM
My opinion is all the rhetoric from both sides is harmful. It doesn't bother me if atheists want to find each other and form social groups. Believers and nonbelievers cooperate every day in activities such as fundraisers for the humane society, meals on wheels, Race for the Cure, building habitat homes etc. etc. Hatred of one group for another comes when they are segregated and stereotyped. Playing up what we have in common is more helpful.
Posted by: Louise Van Court | August 11, 2007 9:26 PM
You obviously know very little about feminism.
Essentially, you're trying to hide behind well-thought of civil rights movements, much the way evangelicals hide behind them with all of their lawsuits.
As much as you'd like to have the mantle of those earlier movements, you can't have it just by making airy and badly informed comparisons.
Is that easier?
Posted by: Oran Kelley | August 11, 2007 9:33 PM
"How that consensus gets made and what religion may have to do with it is the issue--the issue to be addressed whether or not you agree with Lynch's perception of risk."
The consensus is made regardless of religion. Social cohesion can exist in both repressive societies and open societies, and both of those broader categories feature more secular and more religious societies. If someone thinks that religion is