Over at Pure Pedantry, Jake Young has recently posted two long, thoughtful, and civil entries in the New Atheism debate (he must have a thesis deadline, or something). The first follows John Dewey in arguing that a tight link between science and atheism is counterproductive, while the second collects and responds to criticism of the first. they're both well-thought-out, and argued calmly and carefully. Jake's a better man than I am.
I say that not just because he managed to keep his cool after entering this argument, which I'm demonstrably not able to do, but also because I'm going to pick up one piece of his second post, and use it to cause trouble. Specifically, I was struck by some of the material in Jake's Point 2), specifically the analogy between "New Atheists" and gay rights groups, as put forth by Jason Rosenhouse among others.
Now, this is a better, or at least less offensively silly, analogy than the previous attempts to draw parallels between atheists on the Internet and civil rights activists in the 60's. It still doesn't really hold up, though Jake does a very nice job of using it to discuss his points. As I said, he's a better man than I am, because I'd like to offer up instead a different analogy to a group with a passionate belief in their cause and tactics that many people find counterproductive: PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
There aren't a great many people around here who would disagree with the core principle of ethical treatment of animals, in the same way that you won't find many science bloggers or science blog readers advocating for the immediate imposition of theocracy. Most scientists will happily agree that animals should be treated as humanely as possible, and many people in the life sciences probably feel more strongly about the, well, ethical treatment of animals than the general public. And if you look, there are plenty of admirable items along those lines to be found among PETA's list of uncompromising stands (humility, sadly, is not one of their virtues).
And yet, many scientists have a rather low opinion of the actual organization, because they've squandered any goodwill they might've earned through a mix of extreme positions and theatrical in-your-face tactics. They're fond of things like really tactless billboards and high-profile publicity stunts, shading into criminally stupid pranks and vandalism. Even people who basically agree with their goals tend to say "Oh, Jesus, not them" whenever the group comes up, and they're a frequent object of mockery in the general public.
They argue that their extreme positions are a moral imperative, and that their theatrical tactics are useful for keeping the cause in the public eye, a sort of "There's no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell your name right" argument. Their critics claim that their actions are counterproductive, because, really, you have to work pretty hard if your message is "Be nice to animals" and you're going to end up a target of mockery and derision. (Guess which way I lean...)
And I think they're a reasonable analogy for how the "New Atheist" camp appears, at least to those of us on the "Neville Chamberlain" side of the argument. Or at least an analogy that will make it a little more clear to some of the partisans how things look from over here.
- Log in to post comments
No. Loud atheists operate in the public sphere and soft-spoken atheists work with individuals on the ground. They are part of the same movement with the same goals, they just have to use different tactics in different fora (and fail to see why the other side is correct about their own strategies for their own medium).
In the public sphere, loud atheists are doing what they need to be doing - being loud and makin atheism a topic that cannot be avoided and atheism an idea that cannot be ridiculed any more (just like the gay rights movement). People who actually work on holding hands of people during the painful personal transitions from faith to no-faith have to be much more gentle and understanding.
On the other hand, Animal Rights and Animal Welfare are opposites of each other, not a continuum of the same movement, not branches of a same movement - they are enemies of each other. The AR, by using some apparently reasonable stances (stolen from AW) dupe reasonable people into supporting their shady (and sometimes downright terroristic) activities.
Belief is something inherent in human nature.
A person who does not believe in a Maker will probably choose something even more pernicious. Like Communism.
Could you give a specific example of Richard Dawkins, say, conducting himself in a way that accurately parallels some specific and objectionable tactic used by PETA?
Can you actually name something a prominent "new atheist" has done that is on par with PETA? What extreme positions and tactics do you find analogous to PETA's? Have new atheists bought offensive billboards? Or do PETA members write best-selling books laying out why they believe what they do? Do new athiests have similiar lists of uncompromising demands they wish to force on the public? Or is the whole analogy just they are two groups who take something you sort of agree with farther than you'd like, with the added bonus of insulting new atheists?
Cue flame-ridden response from PZ in five...four...three...two...
So... when was the last time 'New Atheists' supported terrorism? And if you're going to make ridiculous comparisons, at least try and provide some examples that show the comparison is legitimate (although I suspect the reason that you haven't provided them is that there aren't any). As it stands, your argument rests on nothing more than an assertion.
Adrienne,
Why would you expect a flame-ridden response to a post comparing new atheists to PETA? A post that has three links proving how obnoxious PETA is, but without a single link showing how that is similiar to the tactics of the new atheists. The comparison must be so obvious that no evidence is needed.
When was the last tiem a "New Atheist" stood in the way of lifesaving medical research?
When was the last time a "New Atheist" defaced or burned down a church? When was the last time a "New Atheist" kidnapped the corpse of a pastor's grandma and held it hostage until the pastor recanted his belief?
You know, Chad's not calling the more visible atheists terrorists, he's merely pointing out that being an annoying jerk in public forums isn't going to win friends, and the generated influence is going to be negative. PETA's merely an extreme example to make the point.
That holds no matter WHAT you're trying to endorse.
Jamie, the problem is that no one is really being that annoying. People aren't saying that theists are evil, just that they're wrong. Why is loudly calling a belief wrong being an annoying jerk?
Oh, I don't know, why WOULD calling %90 of the people on the planet either deluded or insane in mass media be considered obnoxious?
I may happen to agree with it, but I'm not stupid enough to go shouting it on CNN or the BBC, and then wonder why people think I'm an annoying jerk.
If it's one thing I've learned in these unceasing "militant atheists vs. Chamberlain atheists" debate, it's this: never argue by analogy. People will take whatever analogy you use and absolutely tear it apart piece by piece.
"Well no, atheists really aren't oppressed *just* like gays! Or PETA! Or Communists! Or blacks! Or fat people! Or..."
Jamie - so what you're saying is that theists are free to continue saying that God is 'obvious' from the world around etc., but as soon as someone says that God doesn't exist, that's being an obnoxious annoying jerk? And with your 90% comment you seem to be saying that because there's more theists they can say what they like, whereas because atheists are a minority what they say must be constrained, and not disagree with the majority consensus.
The parallel should be between PETA and religious fundamentalists, not between PETA and so-called "New Atheists".
"Jamie - so what you're saying is that theists are free to continue saying that God is 'obvious' from the world around etc., but as soon as someone says that God doesn't exist, that's being an obnoxious annoying jerk?"
That appears to be exactly what they are saying, which is one of the main reasons I've disregarded that line of anti-"New" Atheist rhetoric.
No, I'm saying that calling the people you're trying to convert stupid or broken to their faces isn't how you go about making an argument they'll actually listen to. The message is less important than the presentation initially, and if you don't get that, you're doomed from the start.
Jamie Bowden: "Oh, I don't know, why WOULD calling %90 of the people on the planet either deluded or insane in mass media be considered obnoxious?"
Ben D: "Jamie - so what you're saying is that theists are free to continue saying that God is 'obvious' from the world around etc., but as soon as someone says that God doesn't exist, that's being an obnoxious annoying jerk?"
Interesting how you translated "calling %90 of the people on the planet either deluded or insane" into merely saying that God doesn't exist. When someone tosses around the word "delusion," coins a new insult for theists, and uses Nazi analogies to boot, there is a leeetle more going on than just saying that God doesn't exist.
Jaime, don't you mean the people *WE* are trying to convert?
After all, that's the MAIN impetus of the framing movement - to more effectively convert Christians into atheists. Are so motivated to spread the message of atheism that you are giving strategy tips to the like of Richard Dawkins? Or do I smell a bible in your pocket? JAIME?
I don't understand this whole debate. It seems that the "Chamberlain" atheists just accuse "New Atheists" of spending all of their time screaming at religious people and insulting them, but this is just a stupid caricature. Richard Dawkins, the most prominent of the new atheists, has worked on several occasions with moderate religious leaders towards short term objectives. I would argue that all new atheists support such efforts. I'm also certain that Dr. Dawkins would take no offense if one of those religious leaders wrote a book explaining why faith is logical and important, so why should the likes of Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens keep quiet on theism? Can't we vocally disagree with moderate religious leaders, AND work towards common goals?
You can call me whatever you like, but I've been a Recovering Catholic since I was 12. That still ignores the fact that you're pissing into the wind and wondering why your legs are wet.
JJ Ramsey - just saying God does not exist trivially states that theists are deluded, just as saying God exists trivially states atheists are deluded. Delusion is not an insult, it is a statement of fact.
Ben D: "JJ Ramsey - just saying God does not exist trivially states that theists are deluded"
No, it states that theists are mistaken, which is a whole different ball of wax. "Deluded" has a connotation of mental defect, while "mistaken" most certainly does not.
Rancorous polarized pseudodebate makes me a New Agnostic.
JJ Ramsey - No. A delusion is a false belief strongly held in the face of contradictory evidence, which is exactly what atheists claim theists have, and what theists claim atheists have. There's nothing insulting about it, unless you want to claim that simply disagreeing is insulting. Like Tyler, I'm beginning to think that that's exactly what you do mean.
"There aren't a great many people around here who would disagree with the core principle of ethical treatment of animals"
yeah - thanks to PETA's hard work. How easy people forget. People's opinons of animals have changed a lot over the last 25 years. This is largely in thanks to PETA's efforts.
Funny, I haven't heard of atheists hanging around churches and snatching people's crucifixes, or invading churches and desecrating the implements, or even forming human chains across the sanctuary doors. Let alone shooting at priests, or torching the churches.
In short,, I don't buy your analogy. PZ's crowd are rallying the base, providing material support to the educational efforts, and incidentally assisting a few people's journey out of atheism. They're not physically attacking the believers, or even going out in the streets and trying to "deconvert" people. (And if they did, I bet their signs would be a lot funnier and more tasteful than PETAs!)
These are the guys defending the left edge of the Overton window. Just because you don't want to get up there on the barricades, doesn't mean you should (or can) tell them to get down.
Ben D: "JJ Ramsey - No. A delusion is a false belief strongly held in the face of contradictory evidence"
What part of "connotation" do you not understand? If you really think anyone can use the word "delusion" these days without the baggage from its clinical usage, you are fooling yourself.
Furthermore, you neglect the "in the face" part of even your own definition. If a guy thinks he is Napoleon Bonaparte, there is plenty of contradictory evidence in his face. He is in the wrong century; his birth name will be wrong, etc. The evidence against God is nowhere near as blatant, nor is anyone likely to stumble on it in day-to-day life.
Yawn. Yet another egregious comparison. What is it with you guys and making such silly, silly statements?
Another interesting (though broader) analogy is between atheism and vegetarianism, it would seem (me being both). Certainly both movements have their more, ah, forthright proponents, as well as much more moderate ones, etc, One interesting thing about vegetarianism is how some - many, even, in some places? - folks react to the most non-combative statements, with a sort of verbal aggression/anger perhaps thinly cloaked in humor. We're not talking irritated responses to folks loudly lecturing their lunch partners about how they're eating dead animal flesh, how disgusting!. or whatever, but merely being openly vegetarian, however innocuous. Carol Adams, in Living Among Meat Eaters: The Vegetarian's Survival Handbook, has a rather implausible and kinda self-righteous explanation about how it's really about meateaters all being insecure "blocked vegetarians" - oy vey - but certainly such a choice can be seen as a bizarre rejection of - or even threat to - the "normal" way of life - a loaded issue deeply bound up in matters of family, hospitality, tradition, and identity.
As with atheism. A "Living Among Theists" book along those lines - analyzing reactions and attitudes and suchlike - would be an interesting thing.
The day job mostly kept me away from the computer today, so I haven't been able to respond to comments as they came in, which is sort of a shame, but may be for the best.
So, with apologies, here's a late blanket response to the criticisms of the analogy: Yes, there is not a perfect parallel between "New Atheists" and PETA. But I will maintain that the analogy is at least as good as the analogies to the gay rights movement, let alone the civil rights movement. The difference in perception of the two has more to do with who's being flattered by the analogy than the mathematical precision of the mapping from atheists to activists.
Which is kind of the point.
Thanks, Chad.
And it was a thesis proposal deadline...
To throw one more analogy into the mix, there really is only one analogy which fits: persecution as a religious minority. Now before anyone sets fire to my boat, I do not mean that atheism is a religion. However, like a religion it is determined by your thoughts and "beliefs", which you are free to change (as much as any of us have free will). Atheism is not innate, as opposed to skin color or sexual orientation.
So, a good analogy for "new atheism" and the way it is viewed by the general public would be that of the general attitude toward, say, Quakers in the 18th century. Let's count the similarities: spoke their mind (loudly) against the established churches, were generally viewed as amoral (given their unwillingness to take oaths or take up arms for their country), fought among themselves (Hicksites vs. Orthodox) over rather small issues, etc.
Something to think about.
I personally dislike PETA because they misrepresent science and lie. When they chickens are as smart as "some people" and suggest that no animal research is valuable I get pissed. When they have naked girls go from city to city to raise awareness, I'm not as upset (although others are I guess).
Sure seem to be a lot of religiously fanatical atheists around here.
"We're the new Gays!"
"No, we're the new Quakers!"
"Say it LOUD, we're atheistic and PROUD, DAMNED PROUD!"
Sure is a lot of noise about this lately among those who see themselves as scientists. What's up? Isn't there enough real science left to do?
Did we get the Unified Field Theory sorted? String Theory.... isn't that coming undone?
Or is there some new outfit handing out grants to the most atheistic physicist of them all?
What gives folks?
JJ Ramsey - Theists believe that God is talking to them. God is not talking to them. Therefore, they believe this in the face of the evidence, which is all around them. Therefore, delusion is exactly the appropriate term.
And Chad - if you continue to insist the analogy is apt, could you please give even just one example of the 'New Atheists' using extreme tactics similar to PETA?
One of the least endearing characteristics of the "New Atheist" arguments is the tendency to use words very skillfully in order to construct maximally insulting statements, and then turn around and feign ignorance of the entire idea of connotative meaning to argue that what was written was not, in fact, insulting. See, for example, the attempt above to claim that "delusion" is not insulting, or The Dawkins in Scientific American trying to claim that "ignorant" is not insulting.
Closely related to this is the tendency to make frequent use of argument by analogy when it's flattering to the cause, but then lose all sense of how analogies work when other people make unflattering analogies. Such as, well, now.
An argument by analogy does not require a precise one-to-one correspondence between each individual element of the two cases being compared-- that would be an argument by allegory. Similarly, if I were to describe someone as behaving "like a bull in a china shop," the comparison is not invalidated by pointing out that the individual in questions lacks horns, hooves, and a tail.
The point of an argument by analogy-- such as "atheists are just like gay rights activists" or "atheists are just like PETA-- is that the cases compared are similar in at least one aspect, and that that aspect serves to illuminate some aspect of the situation being discussed-- the belief of "New Atheists" that they are struggling for their rights against an oppressive society, or the belief of the "Neville Chamberlain" set that in-your-face tactics alienate people who otherwise might agree with you. These arguments and analogies stand or fall on the strength of that particular comparison, not the degree to which incidental items match up. The fact that "New Atheists" tend not to throw fake blood on the Archbishop of Canterbury does not undermine the PETA comparison any more than their general failure to appear on parade floats in studded leather bondage gear undermines the comparison to gay rights activists.
In fact, the real failure modes of these two analogies are exactly the same, as I said in my previous comment. Which, again, is kind of the point.
I agree entirely that an argument by analogy does not require a precise one-to-one correspondence between each individual element of the two cases being compared. However, it's always nice when they are similar in at least one aspect, which is again something you assert but do not give any examples of. Stop dodging the question, and just give *one* example of the 'New Atheists' using extremist tactics similar to PETA. Unless you want to claim that calling someone deluded is equivalent to PETA's extremist tactics? Incidentally, I maintain that deluded is a far more accurate description of someone who talks to voices that aren't there than 'mistaken', and should not be taken as insulting. But then, as far as I can see, the 'Old Atheist' side of the debate seems far less concerned with accuracy than avoiding giving offence to theists, whether that involves definitions, or science.
"Now before anyone sets fire to my boat"
I've never heard that before - I rather like it. And really, I rather like Quakers, too; there are few religious groups I'd rather be compared to . . .
"an their general failure to appear on parade floats in studded leather bondage gear
That would be awesome. Although we'd somehow need to involve tentacles or suchlike for PZ . . .
PETA certainly is a far-from-perfect analogy, but it's pretty obvious what Chad's getting at. If one's going to criticize the inaccurate bits - and that's entirely fair, given that such an analogy does implicitly, if unintentionally, suggest a link between the new atheists and "criminally stupid pranks and vandalism" - acknowledging the point would also be good, whether one agrees or not . . .
And the argument "oh, but the term "delusion" is technically accurate" just makes me crazy: it's either completely disingenuous or completely tone deaf - or at least, dealing with an entirely different set of concerns. It's like that "brights" idiocy, which thankfully seems to have sank beneath the waves. Calling people's often-heartfelt, highly emotional, even foundational, beliefs "delusion" is going to be taken as an insult, both personally and more than personally. Among the array of possible titles it's something like this: 'The God Misunderstanding' ->'The God Mistake' -> 'The God Myth' - 'The God Delusion' -> 'The God Craziness' -> 'The God BS'. Now, if that's not a concern, or if it's the point - to project an impression of supposedly socially powerful plainspoken confidence/arrogance - that's one thing, but if folks simply aren't grasping that most religious people aren't going to glance at the title and go, 'oh, right, I guess my belief system could be described as delusional, but clearly that isn't saying anything about me, really, except that I have such a belief system, and frankly there's no cause to take offense' - well, that's delusional. I'm not sure anyone at all actually thinks that, but sometimes I wonder . . .
Ben D: "JJ Ramsey - Theists believe that God is talking to them. God is not talking to them. Therefore, they believe this in the face of the evidence, which is all around them."
How you gather contradictory evidence that God isn't talking to them? Most theists who "hear" God's "voice" do not expect it to be audible to anyone else, so it isn't as if you can use audiotape to check. Furthermore, there is a reason that Christians will speak of a "still small voice"; they do not expect God's voice to seem as blatant as a schizophrenic's voices are to him or her. You could make a circumstantial case from indirect evidence--but that puts us right back to the lack of "in your face" evidence.
Oh, an Scholar, a couple more points on you lovely little ad hominem, since I'm here checking up on this.
One: My name is Jamie; J. a. m. i. e. From Scottish diminutive of James, but I'm not James, I'm Jamie. My license reads that way and everything. Not Jaime, which is Spanish in origin last time I checked. You don't be readin' so good fer a guy what calls himself Scholar. Perhaps you should work on that when you're not busy insulting large swathes of the population and wondering why they're kinda pissed off at you.
Two, I'm not trying to convert anyone. I really don't give care what other people believe, as long as they leave me alone. I wouldn't give the religious right in this country the time of day, much less any time in my thoughts if the self righteous assholes weren't trying to legislate their bullshit.
Okay, let me see if I have understood the tone of this discussion.
Chad: "You know, there are some causes I agree with, but which are championed by annoying people who are assholes-- like PETA and animal rights, or Militant Atheists and atheism."
Militant Atheists: "We're not assholes! We don't do this thing that PETA does or this other thing that theists do!"
Other People: "Calm down, that doesn't mean militant atheists aren't annoying in their own very special way."
Militant Atheists: "We're not! We're not annoying or assholes! PETA are really really big assholes, as everyone agrees, and theists are all completely delusional! And if you agree that they're really big deluded assholes, then it is logically impossible for militant atheists to be annoying assholes! We have proven it with science! And you're all closet theists!"
Other People: "Oooo-kay, then...."
Trust me, militant atheist people, you've proven Chad's point more than you know.
I'm going to side with Novak
I'll also second the confusion about the claims regarding the brain power of chickens....I'm sorry, My family has kept a home flock and they are not "as sensitive as cats or dogs" (as one guy handing out pamphlets claimed) let alone people (although maybe by getting people to believe this stuff they are proving it to be right....)
In the public sphere, loud atheists are doing what they need to be doing - being loud and makin atheism a topic that cannot be avoided and atheism an idea that cannot be ridiculed any more (just like the gay rights movement).
I read this and immediately pictured a LOLpzmyers in my head: Im in ur sphere, peddlin u atheism
Whilst i agree that there is genuine debate in whether 'new' athiests are only ever going to achieve a pyrrhic victory, it has to be said that the comparison to PETA is stretching the point. PETA uses tactics that are criminal, 'new' athiests are merely loud. No one can seriously claim that, except for shooting themselves in the foot, these groups have anything else in common. The analogy loses a lot of it's force when you realise this explicitly.
Couldn't the debate be turned around? Would you similiarly chastise an 'old skool' religious person for getting in the face of athiests when all his tactics are likely to do is to harden the opinion of the athiest?
You don't seem to shy away from confrontation (and imflammatory analogies) when discussing 'new' athiests, but as a Chamberlain athiest you must when discussing with religious people. Does this dicotomy strike you as interesting? Surely you should be equally hard or soft with each group (afterall you cannot claim that religious firebrand are less confrontation than athiests; what with the damning to hell and what not) to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.
Surely the athiest lobby consists of the rationally minded? Couldn't we settle this hard/soft atheism debate with studies into the optimal way of one person reducing the influence that religion has in another persons life (assuming we all agree that's the goal here). Presumably it's a complex problem with many scales (you don't want to burn bridges with, say, family even if it's the best way to 'conversion' but people like Dawkins are willing to take the heat on TV) but we're smart people and should be able to at least make progress on the issue.
Just saw this, thought I'd comment.
On the one hand, the analogy's purpose does not really come through as clearly as it could. On the other hand, Chad's later point on how some atheists are so very, very good at generating an eloquent, well-written insult and yet will turn around and pretend it isn't one - and another's comment that this is equivalent to "shooting themselves in the foot" is in the context of this discussion at least, very true.
Please, stop pretending that you're smart enough to string together very witty little insults, and then pretend you're NOT smart enough know what you're saying is quite vicious. I write, and I love to read, so I'm very sensitive to the denotations AND connotations of words - so this DRIVES ME NUTS to see this kind of behavior. Stop it, please. It's childish, and it's very immature. In short, it's very unbecoming and you'll be better off realizing that yes, words like "delusion" and "ignorant" are such strong insults that you CANNOT fool people into accepting your re-definition of their connotations, and to do so is make yourself look like nothing more than a snotty kid with a large vocabulary. They are words with teeth; very big ones. When you use them, you know EXACTLY what you're letting loose, and to pretend you aren't is frankly ridiculous. Stop acting like a rationalizing brat making stuff up as you go along, and act like an intelligent and reasonable adult for a change. He (those?) who describe theists as "hearing voices" do not help their case much either. Especially with any of said theists, whom they're allegedly trying to "convert".
I mean, you can be a pointlessly and needlessly immature ass if you want, there's nothing I can do to stop you, nor would I want to infringe on your free speech. However, keep in mind that by BEING an immature ass to people while so happily touting atheism as the pinnacle of awesomeness, all you do is add fuel to the anti-atheist fire, and turn away otherwise quite intelligent people who might accept your views, if you weren't so damn snotty about them.
-Jamie W.