Edmund Burke once said:
Boldness formerly was not the character of Atheists as such. They were even of a character nearly the reverse; they were formerly like the old Epicureans, rather an unenterprising race. But of late they are grown active, designing, turbulent, and seditious.
I wonder what he’d say about this event. I have to confess that I agree with this statement:
Secular Americans can run for office and adequately represent theists, just as theists in office can represent their secular constituents proudly and openly.
But I have my doubts as to whether the organizers of this rally really mean it. One of the principal sponsors is the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is actively hostile to religion.
February 17th, 2012 | 11:20 am
Hmm. Would you characterize most religious groups as “actively hostile to atheism”?
February 17th, 2012 | 11:40 am
I second Ray Ingles’ question. There’s some fishy false equivalency going on here, though it’s not the first time it’s happened in the rhetoric of religion, and it won’t be the last.
February 17th, 2012 | 12:53 pm
The difference with atheism is that it isn’t a belief, just a lack of one. “If there were no God, there would be no atheists,” said Chesterton, and while that might be a bit of an overstatement, it certainly is true that if there were no believers in God, there would be no atheists. Atheism is fundamentally constituted as an opposition to belief in God, with no positive tenets of its own.
So, no, I wouldn’t characterize most religious groups as “actively hostile to atheism.” I don’t think most religious groups pay much attention to them at all. Since religious belief is opposed to atheism, if atheists chose to raise the issue, they would reject or perhaps express some amount of hostility to it. But religious belief is logically prior to the existence of atheism.
February 17th, 2012 | 1:05 pm
Hmm. Would you characterize most religious groups as “actively hostile to atheism”?
Atheism is phrased in negative terms – rejection of religion – whereas humanism, like religion, is phrased in positive terms.
I would argue that any religious group that names itself in a way that suggests its primary attribute is a rejection of atheism could be effectively paired against atheists, while any religion that names itself in terms of what it believes (which includes all of Christianity, Judaism, and most other religions) would be comparable to humanists, not atheists.
Humanists and atheists are the same group. There is no significant difference between them, except that humanism is about what they do believe, whereas atheism is about their rejection of God and religion.
So I think it’s perfectly fair to treat “atheism” as different than religion. When people who embrace the Enlightenment’s core beliefs are describing themselves as atheists, they are doing it as culture warriors arrayed against the enemy religion. When these same people are pursuing positive goals, rather than negative ones, they themselves tend to prefer the term humanist.
February 17th, 2012 | 1:06 pm
Patrick writes: “atheism is fundamentally constituted as an opposition to belief in God, with no positive tenets of its own.”
Okay, but all the atheists I know exhibit a passionate disinterest toward religion rather than a fundamental opposition. I don’t go around on Sunday morning to berate people in the parking lot because they’re walking into church (and I’ve never witnessed an atheist who did, but that’s the rub when you rely on empiricism).
I am passionately disinterested in what they’re doing on a Sunday morning because I’m only interested in what I’m doing that morning.
February 17th, 2012 | 1:36 pm
“Passionate disinterest” is an interesting oxymoron, Christopher. Could you unpack the term a bit? While I too have never seen atheists haranguing people from a parking lot, atheists have sued to have “under God” removed from the pledge of allegiance (more silly than threatening, but even so . . .), to disallow prayer, or even a moment of silence in which prayer is optional, in schools (as if a moment of silence somehow establishes a religion), to disallow organizations with a religious bent to meet on public property. Richard Dawkins has even suggested taking children away from parents who are raising them in a religion. While haranguing people on the sidewalk may be annoying, unlike the examples above, it affects no one beyond range of the harangue. It’s always struck me as odd that destroying religion seems to be so important to so many atheists. If God doesn’t exist, why on earth do so many of you care so deeply whether or not others believe in Him?
February 17th, 2012 | 2:23 pm
Fred: So while you haven’t seen any haranguing, you still perceive that hypothetical as a threat? To me that feels like you’re moving rhetorical goalposts.
“Passionate disinterest” I might define as willful avoidance. If a squirrel crosses the road while I’m driving, I might willingly avoid running it over because I’m interested in caring for my car, but I maintain a passionate disinterest in the health of the squirrel.
Richard Dawkins is a British Boogieman created by media producers and consumers–I don’t know what he has to do with the benign American atheists who live everyday lives and don’t carry on a career courtship with journalists.
February 17th, 2012 | 2:49 pm
Patrick –
Or a lack of acceptance.
Note that agnosticism, as defined by the coiner of the term, refers to the belief that the question of the existence of God(s) is radically unanswerable.
A theist, necessarily, believes the question’s been answered in the affirmative. An atheist, by contrast, can believe the question’s been answered in the negative, or that the question hasn’t been settled to the positive yet.
I’ve got no problem with people practicing and advocating their religion. For all the religions I’ve looked into, I can’t agree with their premises, reasoning, or evidence (sometimes all three), but hey – maybe they really have gotten a divine revelation I’m not privy to.
In other words “not accepting” is not the same thing as “opposing”. That said… there are religious practices I’m opposed to. Denying minor children life-saving medical treatment, for example…
February 17th, 2012 | 3:06 pm
Fred – Opposing government endorsement of religion is different from opposing all religion, period. Not everyone grasps the distinction.
Oh, and BTW, you might want to read what Dawkins actually said. Personally, I am entirely in favor of taking kids away from religious parents when it can be shown the religion is doing harm. E.g., as just noted, preventing kids from getting life-saving medical treatment. Or female circumcision. And yes, if a child is being traumatized by how their parents teach about ‘hell’ (doesn’t seem most are, but some are) then I’m okay with that, too.
February 17th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
For what it’s worth, my friend’s son is a militant atheist and he plans to attend that reason rally. He describes it as a celebration of atheism and a poke in the eye to religion. That is why he is going. I deleted him from my Facebook friend list because I got sick of his anti-religion screeds. I would be surprised if the rally turns out to be truly more reasonable than he wants it to be.
February 17th, 2012 | 3:29 pm
If God doesn’t exist, why on earth do so many of you care so deeply whether or not others believe in Him?
Fred,
I don’t consider myself as an atheist, but I would say it is not that people believe in God that bothers atheists (and me), but what they believe about God and particularly what the do as a result of those beliefs.
Also, I suppose for atheists, many religious people would seem to them the way people who seriously believe in astrology seem to me. I think they are embarrassing themselves, and it is very uncomfortable for me to talk to someone who actually takes astrology seriously (as opposed to reading horoscopes occasionally for fun).
February 18th, 2012 | 9:14 am
Personally, I am entirely in favor of taking kids away from religious parents when it can be shown the religion is doing harm. E.g., as just noted, preventing kids from getting life-saving medical treatment. Or female circumcision. And yes, if a child is being traumatized by how their parents teach about ‘hell’ (doesn’t seem most are, but some are) then I’m okay with that, too.
I feel the same way about people whose humanist beliefs lead them to do things like failing to protect their children from sexualization below the age of consent.
Giving children anything that encourages sexual activity when that child is below the age of consent is proof of unfit parenting, no different from the parent who plies his or her kid (or the neighbor’s kids, or the school’s kids) with alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, etc.
Beliefs should not be a defense against child abuse – a point that usually works in Christianity’s favor, since Christianity is a belief system that promotes familial health, while humanism is a belief system that actively encourages individual pleasure-seeking beyond the point where it destroys social values, cannibalizes family trees, and harms children.
But Dawkins actually believes that parents who teach their children that wrong behavior will be punished are abusive. He actually crosses the line to where even having beliefs he finds offensive should be criminalized.
He is not a caricature created by the media. He is a caricature – as are other toons like Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris – but the media does not make any of them say the ridiculous, mean-spirited things they say. Militant atheists really just are that ignorant and hateful. They honestly believe their own faith-based assumptions are less ridiculous, because they lack self-awareness; they honestly believe that if they can’t understand why someone believes in a different religion, the other person must be flawed; they really believe that they can be ethical people even as they call for an ethical code that punishes people for having differing views.
Sam Harris calls religion a “cancer” and makes it responsible for humanity’s fallen nature (as if removing it would bring Utopia). Dennett has argued that people who reject religion should be recognized as “brights” – inherently smarter and better – while religion should be banned from public, with humanism becoming the only belief system allowable in all meaningful senses of the word.
It is something that comes up whenever people who offer “progress” start building a Utopia: the thing that prevents heaven on Earth is always the existence of those who don’t share the master race’s ideological assumptions – enemies of The People.
Whether rejecting God inevitably leads to wanting build that dissent-free Utopia here on Earth is or is not inevitable is an interesting question. But certainly there’s an oft-neglected irony in that the primary grievance atheists tend to have against the religious is their supposed intolerance. As if Christian states tended to oppress atheists to the same extent atheist states have been known to oppress Christians.
February 18th, 2012 | 5:39 pm
“As if Christian states tended to oppress atheists to the same extent atheist states have been known to oppress Christians.”
As if they don’t?
February 18th, 2012 | 11:04 pm
Blake, I’ve linked to what Dawkins actually said above. I can likewise point out that Dennett specifically disavowed any ‘denigration of non-brights’; just like ‘gay’ and ‘straight’ are words with positive connotations, he suggested ‘supers’ for those who believe in the supernatural.
And not even Harris has claimed that religion is the source of all of humanity’s problems. A source, sure. The source? Not him, not any prominent atheist. There aren’t even that many random anonymous blog comments that claim that. (Certainly fewer than Christians wishing death and violence upon atheists.)
February 20th, 2012 | 8:43 am
As an atheist I point the problem is not religion. The problem is not if people believe in God or not. The problem is that atheists have been vilified (an example of that here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130100220.htm ) by theists. So, in a Newtonian way, don´t expect that the action doesn´t generate an equal reaction (even if most forms of modern militant atheism are silly, probably because they emulate the religious fervor of most forms of militant theism).
February 20th, 2012 | 10:34 am
Fred:
“Passionate disinterest” is an interesting oxymoron, Christopher. Could you unpack the term a bit? While I too have never seen atheists haranguing people from a parking lot, atheists have sued to have “under God” removed from the pledge of allegiance (more silly than threatening, but even so . . .),
Ohhh please. If tomorrow they suddenly started minting coins that said something like “Reason above Religion” or “Celebrating Humanity putting belief in God behind it” you can bet dollars to donuts an army of lawyers would suddenly start billing $500/hr retainers to a host of very loud religioius interest groups.
Peg
For what it’s worth, my friend’s son is a militant atheist and he plans to attend that reason rally. He describes it as a celebration of atheism and a poke in the eye to religion. That is why he is going. I deleted him from my Facebook friend list because I got sick of his anti-religion screeds. …
Interesting what passes for ‘militant’ in this very passive day and age. Trust me a few hundred years ago sectarian wars were not fought by Facebook posts and strategic ‘unfriending’. Secularism has, indeed, left many of us quite spoiled.
February 20th, 2012 | 11:33 am
You are being presumptuous. His militancy is not limited to Facebook postings, bumperstickers and the like, nor did I say so. My point in commenting is that I will not be surprised if that Reason Rally has an atheistic thrust, based on this fellow’s remarks (for what they are worth. I did say that).
February 20th, 2012 | 2:16 pm
I will be flying from the West Coast to attend the Reason Rally. Most of us are not interested in trying to work against the existence of religion, as that seems a pointless waste of time. The main idea of secularism is to keep the religions from fighting over government control so we avoid the long history of religious wars we saw in Europe.
Most of us just want to keep un-reason from religion from being inflicted upon us. Religions can hold their meetings and do their rituals etc., but must meet us as equal citizens with equal rights in the public square. The Reason Rally is about showing the general public that the people who are openly not religious will stand up and be counted.
February 20th, 2012 | 2:26 pm
His militancy is not limited to Facebook postings, bumperstickers and the like…
Well yes, he likes ‘poking religion in the eye’….which means like mocking it. Not poking the eyes out of religious people, which in the history of humanity has not exactly been that uncommon. For this he is a ‘militant’.
But if your friend also had a daughter who was Christian, what exactly would she have to do for you to describe her as a ‘militant Christian’? Facebook posting? “Keep Christ in Christmas” bumper sticker? Protesting, say, a college class that made one of Christopher Hitchens or Dawkins’ books required reading?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure your friend’s son is getting some type of rise from being non-religious in front of you. He has a converts zeal and wants people to argue with him. But understand this is the type of atheist who will be visible to you because he is the type of atheist who wants to be visible to you. There are many atheists who don’t really care so you’ll never know who they are or what motivates them unless you’re the one making it a point to confront them with your religious beliefs and trying to get a response from them. In some sense, you friend’s son is paying you a compliment. He is saying your views are important enough to be worth picking a fight over. Would it really be better if he smiled and nodded because he writes off your views as not even worth a real response…as if you were telling him you were really fond of cats or just couldn’t get the appeal of sushi? Not saying he isn’t a jerk, he very well might be, kids usually are to one degree or another.
February 20th, 2012 | 2:40 pm
“Atheism is fundamentally constituted as an opposition to belief in God, with no positive tenets of its own.”
Some, maybe even many atheists will say they might believe in a god (which one of several hundreds is the question) if provided with sufficient evidence. None has ever been forthcoming, and time is running out.
Actually, personally, I am a devout, militant atheist, and certainly DO have positive tenets. First, there is no god. I am positive. My belief/revelation is just as valid as yours. What is a devout atheist ? A person who is quite prepared (and moderately informed) to discuss, even argue, the case for/against ANY religious beliefs, if invited. The militant part comes when I am confronted with people who wish to impose their religious beliefs and behaviors on me, and on others. Far too common in many countries. They are inviting a knuckle sandwich. I have no objection to people believing what they wish. But I would not hire a supernaturalist, as this is demonstrable proof if an irrational mind. Keep them away from any machinery, let alone government.
February 20th, 2012 | 3:46 pm
Farmerbb
The militant part comes when I am confronted with people who wish to impose their religious beliefs and behaviors on me, and on others.
Hate to say it but this just doesn’t seem very militant. What would a non-militant atheist do?
February 20th, 2012 | 4:13 pm
It has gotten to the point where a “militant” atheist is anyone who simply admits to being an atheist. In the Islamic world, that can get your head removed. In the U.S. the attitude we get from the religious is “look, we won’t burn you at the stake (anymore), but keep that atheist stuff to yourselves” so we are expected to keep quiet or be labeled “militant.”
That time of expecting us to “stay in the closet” is ending, because we are not going along with it, anymore.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:19 pm
Farmerbb –
Atheist here (here’s my bona fides) and I gotta disagree with you on that point. If only because every human has “an irrational mind”. I’m sure there are several things that most people believe today that’ll be considered irrational in the future. Consider – some one could be a naturalist, and a racist and sexist. Or a supernaturalist who is non-racist, but sexist. Or… you get the idea.
The question when hiring someone is, “are they rational enough in the areas relevant to the job to be able to perform the job”? Given the human ability to compartmentalize, I wouldn’t be particularly worried if I found my doctor believed in the power of intercessory prayer. If I found they were into homeopathy, though, I’d be quite a bit more concerned.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:31 pm
Ray, it would worry me if my doctor believed in intercessory prayer because it has been scientifically studied and shown not to work (or even be stress increasing if the patient knows of and feels a responsibility to “live up” to the prayers). If it did work, the insurance companies would be donating vast sums to prayer organizations in hope of shortening the hospital stay times (big costs for them) by even a small amount. If you are going to give people a break on superstition, you need to limit it to things that can’t be actually tested.
February 20th, 2012 | 4:50 pm
Non-militant atheists often turn aside, when confronted with fundies of any stripe making public claims. They may snicker, but rarely step up and challenge them. They don’t want to make trouble. It is a bit like running into a flat-earther. Same concept. Belief in something so lacking in evidence, so demonstrably the product of a person who is ignorant of the easily available facts, that you just have to turn away, shaking your head. Non-militant sphere-ists would probably decline to get into that discussion, as few have a pocket video handy of the camera view taken from an ascending rocket.
What is often forgotten is the concept that when you make extraordinary claims about your religion, you have to display some really powerful evidence. Revelation just doesn’t cut it. Holy books written by men 2,000 years ago, who did not even understand the germ theory of disease, or the circulation of blood aren’t going to be a reliable source of info on how things came to be. Morals and ethics, sure, they had the basics figured out by then. But slavery ? They thought that was OK. Homosexuality ? Un-natural. Kind of like red hair is un-natural. Or blue eyes or albinism in an African. We know better now. Rare does not entitle your 2,000 year old predecessors to say it is evil.
If I claimed to have a 2009 Ford Pinto that gets 200 miles per gallon using water as a fuel, you would be within your rights to say ” Hogwash. Prove it. I see three things wrong with your claim.” Same with creation. It was supposedly done 6,000 years ago, roughly, by a being with powers obviously extremely supernatural, who built a universe 93 billion light years across, just to house our tiny planet (not even one light second across) and populate it with the entire world of nature, including fossils, so that we would hopefully worship him, while he listens to our prayers, and knows what we are thinking. Oh yes, if we don’t, he will punish us forever. And you would like me to believe this ? Some, as you know, insist I believe it. On pain of death. In the U.S., some will deny me a government job because I won’t swear I believe it. But I apologise. I am becoming strident. (Taps self on wrist.)
February 20th, 2012 | 7:16 pm
Freedom from Religion Foundation is only hostile to the intrusion of religious control and its privileged status over the secular. If one wants to put a cross on one’s own property, put up two and FFRF wouldn’t care less…
Farmerbb, I like your take on the idea of a ‘devout’ atheist. I wouldn’t, personally, use the term militant unless actual force, extreme measures or confrontation is deemed necessary, otherwise it de-’means’ the true meaning of the word militant…
February 21st, 2012 | 9:39 am
Quine –
Like I said, everybody’s irrational about something. It wouldn’t bother me much if, after making the correct diagnosis and prescribing the appropriate treatment, the doc went home and prayed for me. It wouldn’t hurt me any.
It’s only when religious practices negatively impact others without their consent, or when people are forced to engage in religious practices they don’t agree with, that I get upset.
February 21st, 2012 | 1:43 pm
It has gotten to the point where a “militant” atheist is anyone who simply admits to being an atheist
I don’t see how anyone can honestly say that.
Are you denying that atheists are behaving aggressively? There are many examples.
One wonders exactly what motive you have for “admitting” to being an atheist. Atheists seem to have this idea that, because they are “rational” rather than “superstitious”, that makes them entitled to engage in behaviors that would be seen as aggressive and/or proselytizing and/or attacking the beliefs of others if, say, a Baptist were to do the same thing.
February 21st, 2012 | 1:45 pm
I will be flying from the West Coast to attend the Reason Rally. Most of us are not interested in trying to work against the existence of religion, as that seems a pointless waste of time. The main idea of secularism is to keep the religions from fighting over government control so we avoid the long history of religious wars we saw in Europe.
What a marvelous fantasy: “religion” causes war.
Not scarcity of resources, or incompatibility of values – “religion”.
And thus you are justified in treating those religious warmongers the same way Protestants treated Catholics during the Reformation, and Catholics treated Jews during the Inquisition. Because apparently every new, ascendant religion has a moral obligation to make a scapegoat out of the older traditions.
February 21st, 2012 | 1:50 pm
Freedom from Religion Foundation is only hostile to the intrusion of religious control and its privileged status over the secular.
Putting a religious display on public property is no different than putting a “gay rights parade” on public property.
You think your beliefs should be publicly celebrated, while everyone else’s should be shoved “into a closet” – even when those crosses are part of American history, your intolerance wants them out of sight.
You have adopted the position that any tolerating religious anything in public constitutes an illegal “preferencing” of religion over secularism.
But if you have the right to be free from my religion, then I have an equal right to be free from yours. Your arguments fail the “golden rule” test.
You want nothing less than to replace the “melting pot” with a humanist equivalent of theocracy. Your beliefs are the very essence of intolerance.
February 21st, 2012 | 2:12 pm
Blake, I did not imply that religion causes wars, just that keeping up the wall between Church and State prevents religious wars from getting going within a country (independent of cause). That was the vision of Jefferson and Madison that has allowed us to have different faiths, or no faith, without the historical violence that goes back to the dawn of civilization.
February 21st, 2012 | 2:23 pm
Your arguments fail the “golden rule” test.
I should say, the equality test.
February 21st, 2012 | 3:49 pm
@Blake…
“Gay rights parade” is a religion? If that is the case, then your argument works, but not until then…
February 21st, 2012 | 4:47 pm
Not scarcity of resources, or incompatibility of values – “religion”.
Off the top of anyone’s head, any examples of a major war that was really fought over scarcity of resources? WWI and II were not. The Cold War wasn’t. The Civil War wasn’t. I suppose early in American history you can say the European powers fought over colonies and trade routes but then WWI illustrates they were happy to fight each other directly. Some leftists claimed the Iraq invasion was about oil and Afghanistan was about a pipeline but I don’t think that stands up to too much scrutiny. Even Nazi Germany, which had a real scarcity of oil problem, only made capture of Russian oil fields near the Caspian a 2ndary priority.
Are you denying that atheists are behaving aggressively? There are many examples.
No there isn’t really. There’s only so many times you can flog Dawkins over this. Any mean thing you can point to an atheist saying about a theist you can find an example of the reverse. You also find a pretty brazen double standard. For example, arguing that ‘God in Trust’ on public money is a trivial thing which atheists are ‘militant’ for objecting too when the fact is if tomorrow some gov’t official proposed putting an atheist slogan or *gasp* a Muslim slogan on the currency those very same people would run screaming to the to of the hills.
Or for example:
One wonders exactly what motive you have for “admitting” to being an atheist. Atheists seem to have this idea that, because they are “rational” rather than “superstitious”, that makes them entitled to engage in behaviors that would be seen as aggressive and/or proselytizing and/or attacking the beliefs of others if, say, a Baptist were to do the same thing.
1. I find it hard to seeing someone question a Christian’s ‘motive’ for ‘admitting’ he is a Christian. Notice the whole tone of the first sentence above seems to be premised on the concept that for an atheist to actually talk about and defend his beliefs constitutes an act of aggression. Yet my TV is littered with televangelists who pop up on offbeat channels every Sunday as well as late night as well as at least 3-4 channels devoted to them and I know of no one who claims that is an act of aggression.
2. Golly gee, I don’t even know where I’d begin to look for a Baptist who was engaged in proselytizing! Such a fantastic concept, it’s almost beyond imagination. I also know one would have to look really, really hard to find an example of a Baptist attacking other people’s beliefs. I think I had a friend who once told me in the back of an adult video store in Times Square 25 yrs ago they had a video booth where you could go, for $0.50, watch 5 minutes of a sermon criticizing atheism….but that place was torn down long ago and they put up a Gap in its place so I have no idea if he was telling me the truth.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact