james_davis_nicoll (
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2014-09-27 12:16 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Atheists are people, too
Unfortunately that means some of them are terrible people.
I’ve been writing about atheism for about 10 years now. What has driven me is a combination of awe at the amazing insights produced by science, so much deeper and more substantial than any collection of myths, and a furious rage at the lies and injustice and corruption of humanity by religion. For a while there, in the middle, there was also an ebullience at the growing success of atheism, and hope that someday we would be able to cast aside the follies of faith. The awe is still here, the rage is still burning, but the optimism is fading and is being consumed by a new anger at the incompetence and betrayal of the self-appointed atheist leadership.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
This is a natural human enterprise, so I'd be stunned if they weren't organized.
no subject
no subject
On the flipside, as a polytheist, in my life I have actually been evangelized at (and condescended to, and treated like an idiot, and patronised, and otherwise treated badly) by so many self-proclaimed atheists that I am more wary of someone who feels the need to tell me they're an atheist than someone who feels the need to tell me they're a Christian.
So it exists, and it exists as most organizations amongst humans do: at least in part to tell everyone else that they're wrong and ruining society and should be ashamed of themselves.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Finally, there are spiritually-inclined persons who have had direct experience of the supernatural. To such an person, the atheist worldview makes about as much sense as Young Earth Creationism does to a geologist working the lower levels of the Grand Canyon. I.e, it comes across as the babbling of a smug, ignorant fool and isn't going to persuade said spiritual person that the atheist has anything of value to say.
Calling said spiritual person a deluded idiot while mocking their deities ("magical sky fairy" and the like)--who may well be close personal friends in the case of animists or neo-pagans-- won't make them magically agree with the atheist. It will just make them see the atheist as a smug, ignorant, rude asshole.
Edits: because I can't speel early in the morning.
no subject
If that were true, I couldn't BE an atheist without inherently disrespecting you (even if I never said a word about your religious experiences one way or another). Moreover, if that were true, you couldn't be a spiritual person without inherently disrespecting me. I hope that's not what you actually mean to imply.
no subject
Let me loudly disagree. I have had what I believe to be direct experience with something outside myself. To me, the atheist worldview makes perfect sense, given that atheists haven't had that direct experience (or have had something similar that they explain in a different way.)
It is absolutely possible for a believer to respect atheists, to respect the intellectual and emotional paths that have led them to choose atheism, and to learn a lot from various atheists.
no subject
Thank you. For context, I was raised agnostic, decided early in my high school years that I believed in Christianity, was baptized Episcopalian at 21, and subsequently changed my mind and left the church. I have indeed had experiences of my own that at one time I thought of as religious experiences and now see otherwise. Of course I can't know whether they're anything like what anyone else has experienced.
no subject
I have no problem with someone who has had different experiences and come to different conclusions. If a/any religion doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. What I do not respect are people who insist that your or my experiences and beliefs are invalid because they don't believe that way themselves.
no subject
"The atheist worldview" is not a very good name for that subset.
I don't really know whether I think other people's beliefs are valid. I am not sure I know what you mean by validity. If I thought their beliefs were completely valid, after all, I would agree with them, and if I don't, I don't. But I don't have to agree with everything someone else thinks in order to get along with them -- just enough so that we have sufficient assumptions in common that we aren't inherently incompatible. Some beliefs are going to be deal-breakers for me. Lots aren't.
no subject
no subject
This is something of a general principle actually: don't presume to lecture to me about your views if you have no intention of listening to mine in return. Fair enough?
no subject
no subject
Seriously, try to discuss public displays of the Ten Commandments with a Fundamentalist without, at some point, saying, "No, you're wrong. The Commandments aren't common sense morality. More than half of them would be un-Constitutional if enacted in law."
no subject
In my experience, most supposed atheist "evangelism" actually equates to "refusing to stay silent or spout polite lies when discussing religion". And most of the purpose of atheist organising and lobbying, at least in the US, comes under the heading of "protesting theocracy".
no subject
no subject
There is a massive double standard in play. Atheist speakers are labelled as extreme and fanatical just for politely and calmly answering when directly asked about their views, whereas religious agents seem to need to start actually detonating bombs before they get anywhere near the same treatment.
"I believe, based on my study of reality and history, that all human religion is both factually mistaken and ultimately harmful" is a much less offensive statement than "all non-believers are going to eternal torment, and it is right and just that this is so". The first statement creates scandal whenever anyone with any public profile says it; the second one is routinely delivered, in varying levels of explicitness, by religious figures around the world every day without a stir.
no subject
"Tu quoque" is a lousy basis for a society. I have lived in a predominantly Evangelical Christian community full of bad logic and rudeness. That doesn't justify anybody else's being full of bad logic and rudeness; it's a stain against that community.
"I believe, based on my study of reality and history, that all human religion is both factually mistaken and ultimately harmful"
If online atheists (and Christians! and everybody else!) stuck to statements like this, the world would be a better place.
' is a much less offensive statement than "all non-believers are going to eternal torment, and it is right and just that this is so".'
Surely the atheist response to this is the same as the atheist response to being threatened with the wrath of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
no subject
Is "magical sky-daddy" impolite? Sure. Do plenty of atheists say impolite things about religion, particularly when talking amongst themselves? Absolutely. Is any version of the gently mocking phrase "sky-daddy" anywhere near the same ballpark of obnoxiousness as "God hates fags"? Or even the more polite versions of that phrase used in more respectable churches? Absolutely not.
And yet there is an attempt to equate the two; the routine declaration that "militant [1] atheists are just as bad as / worse than fundamentalists". The example you're citing of obnoxious atheist evangelism is one person making a mildly snarky comment equating religion with hallucination (which, although not polite, is hardly an original or outrageous statement) in a context in which there was no reason to suspect that the commenter had ever intended any sort of "evangelism" at all. And is immediately followed in the comments by a discussion amongst a bunch of other atheists about how they feel that those sorts of statements are counter-productive and they wish he hadn't said that.
So, the example you're citing was: not from a formally declared atheist; not apparently done with the intention of evangelism; mildly cheeky at worst; not technically incorrect; immediately criticised by atheist bystanders for bad tone.
In my experience, most supposed atheist "evangelism" actually equates to "refusing to stay silent or spout polite lies when discussing religion".
I'm happy to stand by that.
[1] For values of militant that equate to calmly and clearly stating views when asked.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Here are some things I'm pretty sure lostwanderfound and I agree with:
1. The dominant Evangelical culture in the U.S. has (A) too much political power and (B) is full of loudmouthed ignoramus assholes.
2. The formal atheism movement has infinitely less power than do Christians, and especially less power than Evangelical Christians.
3. Atheists are a lot more oppressed in the U.S. than Christians. (See the recent move in which the Air Force tried, and then backed down, to prevent an airman from reenlisting unless he included So Help Me God in his oath.
Summary: atheists are being oppressed, and need a constant fight to be treated as complete human beings and citizens. The dominant culture is NOT religion-neutral, and it ought to be.
Here's where I think we disagree:
1. The official atheism and atheism-advocacy groups have, historically, included incredible assholes (as well as courteous and reasonable human beings) in their leadership. Richard Dawkins. Penn. Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
2. These self-selected and, in some cases, community-supported thinkers have been just as insulting and divisive as their religious opponents.
3. Some of the rank and file of the atheism-advocacy groups have modeled their behavior on the prominent assholes in the movement.
That's what I'm talking about. Blanket statements that "well, the atheists aren't behaving as badly as their opponents" don't wash with me. Some of the atheists, including prominent and community-accepted representatives, are behaving just as badly as their opponents, minus the power.
no subject
no subject
The things that get Dawkins held up as a paragon of incivility are usually nothing more than calm statements of beliefs that are not in themselves unreasonable or offensive.
Arguing that "I think all religion is massively harmful, factually wrong and so blatantly ridiculous that I'm frankly amazed that any non-idiot would fall for it; perhaps it reflects a deep-seated flaw in human rationality" is just as insulting and divisive as the crap routinely spouted by vast numbers of mainstream religious leaders on a constant basis displays a serious lack of perspective. Or did you have a particular example of Dawkins' intolerable offensiveness you were thinking of?
I am rather reminded of this comic: http://api.ning.com/files/xl2Uv0dtDlkQGdAp5Xs0bqLDBcFyT0*jfLrFemocQqhvk-PZy1nRusbyp1Kbgg7G1ah8-vtW49Mf82W44IqlQerm3BVs0mHi/Thouwiltrespectmyreligion.jpg?width=465&height=600
Religion in the USA is massively privileged, more so than in the rest of the West. The fact that religious folk there tend to react to the slightest rebalancing of the scales with cries of "oppression!" is in itself a feature of this privilege.
"Just as badly". You're equating the occasional bit of intemperate verbal mockery with the routine and open advocacy of imprisonment, death and eternal suffering for large segments of the population, an endless collection of statements to the effect that abuse/rape victims brought it on themselves, and a frequent declaration that scientists are immoral ungodly deceivers who must be ignored. Etc.
It's the false equivalency that bothers me, not the (trivially true) claim that some atheists are sometimes somewhat obnoxious.
Relative power matters. See prior discussions in online activism around "kicking up vs kicking down" and "why members of an oppressed group are not obliged to be polite when discussing their oppression".
no subject
My particular objection to Richard Dawkins is that he has constantly belittled sexual harassment as an issue, and has gone so far as to classify which rapes he does and does not think are traumatizing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-says-date-rape-is-bad-stranger-rape-is-worse-on-twitter-9634572.html
http://freethoughtblogs.com/entequilaesverdad/2014/09/19/dear-richard-dawkins-your-hypothetical-is-still-rape/
an endless collection of statements to the effect that abuse/rape victims brought it on themselves,
Indeed.
Here is Sam Harris being asked about why his audience is heavily male:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/is-sam-harris-sexist.html
“I think it may have to do with my person[al] slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people… People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this—it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”
You cannot get out of "atheists are unwelcoming and dismissive of the concerns of women and other non-majority groups" with "atheists are oppressed". You can be both oppressed and an oppressor.
When I think of rudeness and atheists, I do think of Dawkins, and of Harris, and of all the other people within the movement who have attacked individual women for speaking up about women's issues and their own experiences. That's where I'm coming from. I should have stated that clearly in my original post, and I apologize for not thinking more clearly then. (Edit: Just to clarify: My initial statement should have been what I said right here, rather than wiffling about the Guardian.)
I'm not saying "One prominent feminist said something extreme, therefore I can ignore all of them". I'm saying "Lots of prominent atheists dismiss women and sexual harassment, and they're being endorsed as the public face of the movement by such means as headlining conferences and book sales." It's the difference between "Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes were eugenicists" (true) and "The current Planned Parenthood organization and its spokesmen support eugenics" (false).
no subject
no subject
Both Harris and Dawkins are widely considered within the atheist community (particularly by the Skepchick and FTB crowd) to be complete arseholes, and their appalling attitudes to gender equality and rape culture are the primary reason why (Harris' racism doesn't help him either). This is also why a large proportion of atheists do not consider Harris and Dawkins representative of anything but Harris and Dawkins and their respective fanbases.
Their repeated misogynistic arseholery does not, however, appear to have any causal link with their atheism. It's not part of the scripture. And the vast bulk of the criticism they face from outside the atheist community itself has nothing to do with their statements on gender and everything to do with their statements on religion.
Ophelia, Greta, P.Z. and others have been advocating for some time for the exclusion of obnoxious speakers from conferences, and the active promotion of equality in stagetime and general conduct at conferences. The demented Slymepit reaction to Rebecca Watson was a reaction against the growing profile and authority of women in organised atheism.
It's a perfect mirror of the crap that's been happening in gamer circles with Anita Sarkeesian, also echoed in the recent harassment scandals at tech and science conferences, also echoed in recent fandom scandals. Geek boys on average are shitheads on gender.
no subject
But both Harris and Dawkins are widely idolized/admired within the atheist movement, too. They aren't fringe figures *within the movement*. There are a lot of people who object to what they say, but there are also a lot of people shouting down people who criticize them.
Yes, gaming, fandom, atheism, open-source ... there's a specific sort of "The woman I hypothesize myself being wouldn't have this problem/complain about this/mind this" person who is much in evidence.
no subject
no subject
"Dawkins is a dickhead on gender issues" is a whole separate thing from "public advocacy of atheism is just as obnoxious as the behaviour of religious evangelists". The reputation of both Dawkins and Harris has been plummeting within the atheist community for years, and you'll be hard pressed these days to find any defenders of them at Skepchick or FTB. Amongst the libertarian/MRA faction over at JREF or richarddawkins.net, however...
PZ's post is about the first (and other things); this thread began with the second. Sharp and unyieldng criticism of self-appointed atheist leadership is a notable feature of the Gnu's. So is being bluntly honest about religion (e.g. "no, actually I do think that your religious tradition is both destructive and blatantly idiotic to the point of being an obvious scam, and I will not be politely silent about that view").
It's the second factor which shapes the public criticism of organised atheism. Criticism of the first comes almost entirely from within the atheist community.
no subject
PZ Myers works in an area of science in which degree programs are rapidly becoming majority female, which might be one of the things driving him to take relatively enlightened positions there.
no subject
Unlikely.
1) PZ does not appear to be the sort of dickhead who requires a personal stake before he'll do the right thing.
2) I come from a female-dominated academic background (psych, although on the relatively Y-chromosome heavy neuro side of the field). No shortage of misogynistic douchebags there (put it this way: the mother of my professor's child was one of his ex grad students), despite it having been a majority female profession for quite a long time.
no subject
There are voices within atheism saying "Stop. This isn't cool. Back off." There are equally (at least) powerful voices within atheism saying "These women and their allies are being ridiculous." It isn't a settled issue. It is an ongoing issues, with ongoing flareups. The most recent I could find was August 2013, where atheist leading lights James Randi and D.J. Grothe, of JREF, bungle a sexual-harassment case badly.
This is a big problem; it can't be isolated to a few bad apples.
I apologize again for getting sidetracked into Guardian comments. That wasn't what James was posting about, and it wasn't what I should have talked about.
no subject
no subject
I'm one of the people contributing to pay for the lawyers on the plaintiff side of the harassment case.
no subject
But it's a minority cesspit, and it's on the way down (IMO). The MRA crowd are self limiting; they repel everyone except themselves.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
We still have plenty of jerks, of course, just fewer people being jerks by reason of religion (or lack thereof).
no subject
no subject
no subject
Christ, what an asshole.