Events in Maine give me an opportunity to make some comments on the dispute between the appeasers (who argue that we must praise religion to achieve political ends) and the "new atheists" who are outspoken critics of religion.
(Ironically, this seems to mirror the dispute in the Republican Party over whether the Party should make room for moderate Republicans or take a hard-line conservative stand and risk losing seats in the legislature to the Democrats.)
In Maine, the Catholic Church spent over half a million dollars - money that could have gone to feeding the poor and tending the sick - to inspire the citizens of Maine to do harm to their peaceful neighbors in the past election.
We must only only count the Church's own contribution to greater immorality in the state of Maine, we must also include the contributions to immorality it inspired in others. In addition to the Church’s own money, we must add the contributions of individuals that it inspired and encouraged.
And they succeeded. Bigotry and injustice won the say in Maine, adding that state to the list of states whose laws impose unjustified harms and burdens on citizens for no reason other than to feed hatred and bigotry itself.
At the same time, we have this dispute between the "new atheists" who are taking a hard-line stand against religion, and the "appeasers" who condemn this harsh language because it pushes moderates into the camp of the religious extremists.
It is interesting to note that this dispute between the "new atheists" and "appeasers" is very tightly focused on the question of teaching evolution in high school science classes. It is as if this is the only cause that really has any merit - and the position that atheists should take on all other issues is to be measured by its effect on this one issue.
This tunnel vision is particularly accute on the part of the appeasers. The criticism of the "New Atheists" covers a broad spectrum of evils and abuses that can too often be traced back to the leadership of some religion or other. It is not just the evil of pushing for teaching biblical creation in science classes, but evils like those which we just witnessed in Maine, and witnessed last year in California. It includes the evils of 9/11, the murder of a young woman in Arizona for the crime of being "too westernized", the slaughter of children as witches in parts of Africa, terrorist bombings in Pakistan, and laws that treat women as property rather than as people.
When the "new atheists" bring up this broad range of harms and abuses that all too often are traced to the teachings of some religious group, the "appeasers", it seems, tell us that we must not speak about those other harms because it might have an adverse effect on efforts to keep creationism out of science classes.
Also, there is a serious weakness in the "appeaser" strategy. Just as the "appeasers" seem willing to forego the victims of other wrongs that spring from religious organizations for the sake of their cause, they can expect those others to forsake the cause of teaching creationism in school in order to buy allies for their purposes.
How many people are the appeasers willing to see killed, maimed, and otherwise harmed for the sake of this one end?
I do have a serious problem with the "new atheists". They tend to heavily rely on what I am calling the Bigot's Fallacy. This is a fallacy in which the argument begins with claims about the objectionable behavior of this or that specific religious teaching or the wrongful acts of a specific religious person, then suddenly and unjustifiably leaps to conclusions about "religion" or "theists" in general.
They use these arguments in the hopes that their audience is blind to the fact that the conclusions are entirely unjustified given the premises, so that they can sell their own prejudices to that audience. Unfortunately, nature has given humans a disposition to divide the world into tribes of "us" and "them", where they seem to be happiest when there is a tribe of "them" they can hate, without regard to justice or merit. This disposition blinds them to the Bigot's Fallacy, since by ignoring the fallacy they can feel that their hatred of members of the "them" tribe is something "they" deserve.
So the members of the "new atheist" tribes eagerly cheer and celebrate those members who are the loudest and most vocal users of the Bigot's Fallacy - in the language of the "us tribe" against the "them tribe".
This, in turn, leads moderates to claim that the "new atheists" are really not any different from the "fundamentalists," particularly in the widespread use of the Bigot's Fallacy by the celebrated leaders of both of these tribes.
Note that my criticism of the "new atheists" has nothing to do with the effect their actions have on the political feasibility of teaching creationism in science classes. I condemn the Bigot's Fallacy on its own demerits, I would condemn the use of the Bigot's Fallacy even if it proved to be successful in rallying the Tribe to keep creationism out of science classes - because there are a lot of evils and injustices that easily spring from embracing this particular detour from reason.
The "new atheists" can avoid the Bigot's Fallacy by focusing on specific wrongs, and staying focused on those wrongs, resisting the urge to leap to unfounded generalizations about 'religion' and 'theists'. Doing so is not a case of "playing nice with religion". It is a case of respecting the rules of logic and not making unfounded generalizations. However tempting nature has made it to embrace the bigot’s fallacy – no matter how good it feels – it is one of those dispositions that we must learn to suppress. It does us no good.
And to the "appeasers", I say that the world of value does not begin and end with the issue of teaching creationism in science classes. There is a long list of evils out there that deserve condemnation. One of them, of course, being the evil found in the Bigot's Fallacy. Saying that these other evils must go unchallenged so that we can buy allies in the fight to keep creationism out of science classes involves demanding a great deal of human sacrifice for this one end. Are you sure your cause is worth so much?
27 comments:
'I do have a serious problem with the "new atheists". They tend to heavily rely on what I am calling the Bigot's Fallacy. This is a fallacy in which the argument begins with claims about the objectionable behavior of this or that specific religious teaching or the wrongful acts of a specific religious person, then suddenly and unjustifiably leaps to conclusions about "religion" or "theists" in general.'
I thought of this blog when I read this. Stenger's slogan is pretty much a perfect example of such bigotry.
The term 'new atheist' has become a stereotype. A much better label is 'unapologetic atheist'. See my post promoting this term here, and Mano Singham's post promoting it here.
I don't agree that all unapologetic atheists fall into the trap of the Bigot's Fallacy when pointing out the wrongs of religion in general. Surely, some of the less thoughtful ones make such arguments, but I would say for the most part that there is simply an implied understanding that what they are talking about when they talk about religion is faith-based religious beliefs and dogma.
Thus, when they say 'religion flies you into buildings', what they mean is that 'faith-based religious beliefs and dogmas can cause you to undertake dangerous and/or harmful actions that you would not normally otherwise undertake.' They're saying that faith is dangerous. Which is exactly what Sam Harris was saying in The End of Faith, and why it was the book that kicked off the unapologetic atheist movement, and not some other philosophical treatise on logical/rational atheism.
So, to point out all the wrongs done in the name of religion is to enumerate the evidence to support the idea that faith and dogma are dangerous.
"The "new atheists" can avoid the Bigot's Fallacy by focusing on specific wrongs, and staying focused on those wrongs, resisting the urge to leap to unfounded generalizations about 'religion' and 'theists'."
No. This misses the point. The generalization needs to be made. But the generalization is not really about 'religion' and 'theists'. It's really about faith and dogma. 'Religion' is just a convenient short-hand for 'faith-based religious beliefs'.
I admit that this line of reasoning goes unstated quite often, but I think most, if not all, unapologetic atheists would agree with it.
If we were to narrow-sightedly focus only on the specific harms caused by religions and theists, we would completely miss the elephant in the room, which is faith itself. People pretending to know things that they don't really know. People getting their egos and identities tangled up in unsubstantiated beliefs. People shutting down open criticism of 'sacred' beliefs. People ignoring obvious problems in deference to a taboo against confronting the causes of those problems. These are the things that the unapologetic atheists challenge.
It seems to me that the "bigotry" of the new atheists is something along the lines of intolerance of intolerance. Or the unwillingness to accept the irrational choices made by others based on their faith-based religious beliefs alone. I read somewhere that "Stupid is a condition; ignorance is a choice." The targets of new atheist bigotry are people who willingly chose to ignore facts, logic and reason and instead rely on superstition and dogma.
Contrast that to the outright bigotry of Christian fundamentalists who direct hate and intolerance at homosexuals, a group of people who did not chose the "deviant lifestyle" that the fundamentalist so vehemently oppose.
Wonderist:
The term "new atheist" identifies the group that I am writing about.
As for the question of faith, you do realize, of course, that many religious people do not hold that their belief comes from 'faith'. It is an inference to the best explanation of the world they see.
Ultimately, in a community that is 85% atheist, for example, we would discover that most of the people in that society would hold their belief that no God exists for the same reason that people in our society believes that a God exists. It is one of those things that they pick up from society and accepts and never finds sufficient cause to question.
So, to take 'faith' and say it applies to all 'religion' is, in fact, an example of the Bigot's Fallacy. Not all religious belief is faith-based, and not all faith-based belief is religious. So, when we talk about this leap from faith to religion, we are talking about an invalid inference - a fallacy. Furthermore, it is a fallacy that aims to unjustly and unjustifiably villify a whole group of people by making accusations against them that, in many cases, are simply not true.
P.S. I would consider myself to be an unapologetic atheist. I do not make these claims because I thing that there is any need to apologize to theists. I am concerned with the truth of the premises and the validity of the arguments.
Christian Poppycock
It is absurd to try to defend an act by saying, "Look, they're doing the same thing!" If this is an adequate defense it has to imply that what they are doing is not bad. If one is saying that what they do is bad, it implies that one ought not to be doing the same thing that they are doing.
I think Christian Poppycock's argument was more along the lines of "We criticize bad things, but they criticize morally good or morally neutral things. Therefore our criticism is not bad and theirs is."
Is criticism a moral necessity? Can there be a working moral theory with neither criticism nor punishment?
"The term "new atheist" identifies the group that I am writing about."
It may have, 6 months ago. It may still, in your personal conceptual framework. But in the last 6 months or so, there has been a dramatic shift in usage of the term 'new atheist' in the public, especially the blogosphere and online news sites. Try doing a blog search for "new atheists" and see how few actually talk about the arguments of atheists, and how many spread the stereotype that 'new atheists' are shrill, angry, militant, fundamentalist, etc. (see http://www.icerocket.com/search?q=%22new+atheists%22 ).
When you use the term 'new atheists', you will inevitably be dredging up these inaccurate adjectives to go along with it. Clear communication would indicate it's better to use the more accurate term, 'unapologetic'.
"As for the question of faith, you do realize, of course, that many religious people do not hold that their belief comes from 'faith'. It is an inference to the best explanation of the world they see."
It doesn't matter if they see it as 'faith' or not. I define faith as 'belief despite lack of good evidence, or in spite of good evidence against'.
I have never come across a theist who did not rely upon the faith fallacy, as I'm describing it.
Inference requires good evidence. Faith is not inference.
"Ultimately, in a community that is 85% atheist, for example, we would discover that most of the people in that society would hold their belief that no God exists for the same reason that people in our society believes that a God exists. It is one of those things that they pick up from society and accepts and never finds sufficient cause to question."
Be that as it may. But that doesn't contradict the claim that faith is dangerous. It seems quite irrelevant to what I said in my previous comment.
"So, to take 'faith' and say it applies to all 'religion' is, in fact, an example of the Bigot's Fallacy."
??? How? Remember that I said that 'religion' is being used as a short-hand for faith-based religious belief. With this understanding, it's clear that faith applies to all 'religion', i.e. faith-based religious belief.
"Not all religious belief is faith-based, and not all faith-based belief is religious."
I never said either of those. I said that faith-based religious belief is dangerous. In fact, faith-based belief is dangerous. It just so happens that religions (here I mean the institutions and dogmas) tend to be the most tenacious defenders of the idea of the idea of faith itself.
"So, when we talk about this leap from faith to religion, we are talking about an invalid inference - a fallacy. Furthermore, it is a fallacy that aims to unjustly and unjustifiably villify a whole group of people by making accusations against them that, in many cases, are simply not true."
When you replace 'religion' with 'faith-based religious beliefs' in that quote, your claims about 'vilifying' a whole group of people don't make sense.
When I say that Christian dogma is dangerous, I'm not saying that 'all Christians believe in dangerous dogma, and are therefore all dangerous villains'. I'm saying that there are tenets within the category of 'Christian dogma' which are dangerous to believe. There is no attempt to vilify anyone. I'm criticizing beliefs and dogmas, not people. (See the posts I linked to in my first comment for more on this.)
(continued)
(continued)
"P.S. I would consider myself to be an unapologetic atheist. I do not make these claims because I thing that there is any need to apologize to theists. I am concerned with the truth of the premises and the validity of the arguments."
From what I know of you in the past, I agree that you're an unapologetic atheist. I only propose the term 'unapologetic' as a replacement for 'new' because of the recent stereotyping that's become associated with 'new'.
I understand your arguments here are based on reason and logic, not on a complaint about 'tone'. I'm trying to address your arguments in kind; I hope you don't think I'm only here to defend the word 'unapologetic'. Primarily, I'm saying that I don't think your Bigot's Fallacy applies to very many people you claim it applies to. I think, instead, that you are probably misinterpreting the basis of those people's arguments. So far, it looks like the confusion hinges around the words 'religion' and 'faith'.
"It is absurd to try to defend an act by saying, "Look, they're doing the same thing!""
That's not what Christian Poppycock is saying at all. In fact, he's saying the opposite, "Look, we're *not* doing the same thing, but we get *accused* of doing the same thing."
"It seems to me that the "bigotry" of the new atheists is something along the lines of intolerance of intolerance."
Note 'bigotry' is in irony quotes.
"Contrast that to the outright bigotry of Christian fundamentalists who direct hate and intolerance at homosexuals"
Note that he's highlighting *actual* bigotry.
Pointing out the absurdity of beliefs through ridicule of those beliefs is totally different than ostracizing and legislating against actual living people.
No unapologetic (or 'new', to go back to the content of your original post) atheist I know of is advocating actual bigotry against actual people. If you know of any, let me know. I'll be right there with you denouncing them.
Wonderist, I mostly agree, however due to perhaps imprecise language or perhaps actual bigotry, there is a culture of condemning all religion among a certain subset of atheists. They point out that religion is the most obvious motivation for some atrocities. They make the argument that those who are mildly religious are enablers of those who are more religious.
The enabling argument is probably true. If religiosity among a population follows a normal curve, it's much more difficult to condemn the 90% who are mildly-to-extremely religious than if religiosity were evenly spread across the non-to-mildly religious with a big jump of no people moderately religious, and a small population of the extremely religious.
If all religion is bad, then such enabling is bad. But I think the argument has been made that not all religion is bad, and not all religious people are deserving of condemnation.
Some people do say they are only arguing that religion should not be free from condemnation, but should receive its fair share in the marketplace of ideas. Other people title books "How Religion Poisons Everything." A person who sees the cover and is not aware of the arguments within the book reads this as a condemnation of all religion.
Every time an atheist does not laboriously spell out exactly what they mean and leaves themself open to interpretation in a critique of religion, they can be reasonably accused of bigotry.
Every generalization must be made specific. (looks up list of irony)
Wonderist
That's not what Christian Poppycock is saying at all....Note that he's highlighting *actual* bigotry.
So am I.
Wonderist, you keep saying "Remember that I said that 'religion' is being used as a short-hand for faith-based religious belief."
Instead of using 'religion' as short-hand for 'faith-based religious belief', just use 'faith-based religious belief'. It prevents conflation, which can sometimes lead to the bigot's fallacy.
"So am I."
Alonzo, you have *not* actually established that your so-called 'new atheists' have actually committed any such bigotry. That would require evidence in the form of quotes or video clips. I see none in your post.
"If all religion is bad, then such enabling is bad. But I think the argument has been made that not all religion is bad, and not all religious people are deserving of condemnation."
I don't know of *any* of Alonzo's target 'new atheists' who claim that all religion is bad, nor that all religious people are deserving of condemnation.
The closest you will get is Hitchens' "Religion poisons everything", and even that is nuanced to mean that 'there's nothing good that the religious can do that the non-religious cannot also do, and without the burden of faith-based beliefs'.
They are simply not making the lame arguments they are accused of making. If you think I'm wrong, show me. Quote them. Show a video clip. Just be aware that I will follow up on any quotes to ensure they are not being taken out of context or misquoted.
"A person who sees the cover and is not aware of the arguments within the book reads this as a condemnation of all religion."
And the problem is?
If they misinterpret what he means, then that's a problem with their over-active religious sensitivities. They are jumping to conclusions. Judging the book by its cover, literally. There's a reason Hitchens takes a whole book to lay out his case.
People choose provocative book titles and catch-phrases all the time. This is nothing new. What is new is calling that 'bigotry'.
"Every time an atheist does not laboriously spell out exactly what they mean and leaves themself open to interpretation in a critique of religion, they can be reasonably accused of bigotry."
WTF?!?! This is the most outlandish double-standard I've heard in quite some time.
Since you did not laboriously spell out exactly what you mean there, and leave yourself open to interpretation, I guess that makes you both a bigot and a hypocrite, by your own bizarre standards.
The proper response to ambiguous language is to ask, "What do you mean?" or otherwise try to discover the meaning for yourself. This is called intellectual honesty.
To call someone a bigot merely for using ambiguous language (and doncha know that all natural language is inherently ambiguous) is incredibly silly.
Surely you're joking, now?
"Instead of using 'religion' as short-hand for 'faith-based religious belief', just use 'faith-based religious belief'."
*I* usually do. I'm simply saying that most of Alonzo's target 'new atheists' are simply using the word 'religion' as a convenient short-hand. This invalidates his argument that they are committing the bigot's fallacy.
"It prevents conflation, which can sometimes lead to the bigot's fallacy."
The bigot's fallacy only makes sense when it is the critic himself who fails to understand the distinctions. When the audience misinterprets the critic's terminology, this is not an actual case of the bigot's fallacy. If the audience only took the time to ask, "What do you mean by 'religion'?" then they would see that the critic is not really a bigot.
Wonderist,
I was joking by the end because I realized I was generalizing myself. The question in my mind at that point was, is all generalization bigotry? It's impossible to not generalize. Saying that the sky is blue is a generalization. That is not bigotry.
Can one generalize about people safely? Any generalization about people will involve prejudice. Not all prejudice is bigotry. However, the general accusation is that a significantly prejudiced person is indeed a bigot - that is, such a person's assumptions are likely (though not certainly) to have a negative impact on their treatment of the targets of their prejudices.
More accurately, a prejudiced person who will not change their prejudices when confronted with evidence to the contrary - that is the definition of a bigot.
One way to avoid bigotry when using generalizations is to make a point of saying "most" instead of "all" or leaving it open for the uniformed listener to assume "all". Instead of "religion poisons everything," one would avoid bigotry with "most faith-based decision making causes some harm."
Is metaphor an enemy to logic?
Hello Wonderist. You said:
The bigot's fallacy only makes sense when it is the critic himself who fails to understand the distinctions. When the audience misinterprets the critic's terminology, this is not an actual case of the bigot's fallacy.
I disagree. Any speaker/public figure/critic with an ounce of integrity will re-read his post/speech/book before making it public and think "considering my target audience, what is the most likely interpretation of my words?".
If he used words in a way not generally used by the public (or target audience), did he clarify his unique usage and make pains to differentiate it from the standard usage?
If he called for action against those who peddle hatred, did he clarify that this action should be only within the realm of private choices and speech and must never include violence? (Alonzo almost always posts a 'standard disclaimer' (and kudos to him!) when making such a call).
When communicating, we are forced to use the imprecise vocabulary our language grants us. However we should ask "how are my readers most likely to interpret what I say?"
If a writer understands that the words he uses are most likely to result in one interpretation, but then uses the excuse "That's not precisely what I said! My words can also be interpreted to mean this-other-thing, which is what I actually meant!" then he his guilty of deception. He technically left himself an escape route, even tho he knew this was not how his statements would generally be interpreted. Faux News is the master of such deception. They always couch their accusations in "some say" or "could it be that...?", and all the while they know that their purpose is to create false beliefs in their viewers while not technically lying.
Do you hold those in your "in group" to a higher standard than FOX News? If so, call them on their manipulations. If not, don't act offended when others lie to further their own ends, it is hypocritical.
Eneasz,
"I disagree. Any speaker/public figure/critic with an ounce of integrity will re-read his post/speech/book before making it public and think "considering my target audience, what is the most likely interpretation of my words?"."
You are talking about effective communication. I'm talking about the bigot's fallacy. They are two different things.
"If a writer understands that the words he uses are most likely to result in one interpretation, but then uses the excuse "That's not precisely what I said! My words can also be interpreted to mean this-other-thing, which is what I actually meant!" then he his guilty of deception."
Again, this is a different issue. This is the issue of deception. It is not relevant to the bigot's fallacy.
From the OP: "They tend to heavily rely on what I am calling the Bigot's Fallacy. This is a fallacy in which the argument begins with claims about the objectionable behavior of this or that specific religious teaching or the wrongful acts of a specific religious person, then suddenly and unjustifiably leaps to conclusions about "religion" or "theists" in general."
Whether the person is communicating poorly, or being deceptive (which has *not* been established in the case of Alonzo's target atheists), is a completely separate issue from whether they are overgeneralizing from specific behaviour to an entire group of people.
"Do you hold those in your "in group" to a higher standard than FOX News? If so, call them on their manipulations. If not, don't act offended when others lie to further their own ends, it is hypocritical."
This is non-sensical. I might even say it's an example of *you* falling into the bigot's fallacy.
The atheists targeted by Alonzo are not part of my 'in group'. Atheists are not a group per se, any more than bald people are a real group. Even unapologetic atheists are not a cohesive group, as there are countless different ways to be unapologetic.
Next, I don't agree that these atheists are guilty of any manipulations of the sort you are accusing them of. I'd like to see your evidence that they are! Quotes please, or video clips, or other such evidence.
Finally, I do not 'act offended' by Faux News. You're the one that brought them up; I didn't even mention them once. I find it very interesting that you *assumed* that I behave that way, when really you know almost nothing about me. Could that be an example of.... the bigot's fallacy?
Wonderist,
You are talking about effective communication. I'm talking about the bigot's fallacy. They are two different things.
When vague communication is used in a way that causes the appearance of bigotry we have a right to ask why this communication was so poor. Is the speaker incompetent? Or did he intentionally use language that would lead most people to accept a bigotted claim while leaving himself a way out? If the latter is the case then this instance of poor communication is (thinly-veiled) bigotry.
This is the issue of deception. It is not relevant to the bigot's fallacy.
It is relevant, because we are prompted to ask "why is this person being deceptive?". If it is an act of deception used to disguise the bigotry of the speaker then it is directly relevant to the fallacy.
Atheists are not a group per se, any more than bald people are a real group.
Bald people are a group - the group of all people who are bald. They aren't a cohesive group in any sense of the word, but they don't have to be. "White people" are not a cohesive group. That doesn't prevent some of them from acting as an in-group and treating non-whites as inferior. "Males" are not a cohesive group. That doesn't prevent some of them from treating those that aren't part of the "male" group as inferior.
There is no formal or cohesive grouping required for the in/out-group mentality to arise. It is instinctual and automatic. One of our species' greater flaws. :/
Re: your request for evidence of atheist bigotry - seriously? You've never stumbled across any yourself? I'm at work right now, but I'll post some links in the evening when I get home.
Re: Fox News - I assumed you would be offended because they are despicable liars. Anyone who watches Fox should be offended, and appalled that they are still able to profit from this. That network is a stain on our nation's honor.
"When vague communication is used in a way that causes the appearance of bigotry we have a right to ask why this communication was so poor."
Absolutely. Which is why I said earlier:
"The proper response to ambiguous language is to ask, "What do you mean?" or otherwise try to discover the meaning for yourself. This is called intellectual honesty.
To call someone a bigot merely for using ambiguous language (and doncha know that all natural language is inherently ambiguous) is incredibly silly."
It appears to me that you are attempting to do the latter, instead of the former. You are assuming intentions (such as deception), without sufficient justification.
""White people" are not a cohesive group. That doesn't prevent some of them from acting as an in-group and treating non-whites as inferior."
The proper group there would not be 'white people', but 'white racists'. Not all white people are racists.
Atheists, and even unapologetic atheists, more resemble 'white people' as opposed to 'white racists'. I recommend you choose a label for the people you're talking about, such as 'atheist bigots'. This would clarify the discussion.
My point is simply that I don't see very much evidence (and none has been provided in this blog discussion) for 'atheist bigots'. I see lots of atheists, and lots of unapologetic atheists, but I do not see many atheist bigots, especially not among the group targeted by Alonzo as 'new atheists'. I would like to see evidence of these 'atheist bigots' you guys are so worked up about. Please show me some evidence.
""Males" are not a cohesive group. That doesn't prevent some of them from treating those that aren't part of the "male" group as inferior."
Again, the proper group there would be male chauvinists. Males are a proper group in terms of biology, psychology, and behaviour, but chauvinism is a learned, cultural aspect, distinct from the biology of maleness.
"There is no formal or cohesive grouping required for the in/out-group mentality to arise. It is instinctual and automatic. One of our species' greater flaws."
I agree that our species is prone to this fallacious reasoning. However, *specific* in-groups are not instinctual or automatic. Males are not born male chauvinists. Whites are not born racists. Atheists are not automatically atheist bigots.
Humans are prone to group chauvinism, but it is not a foregone conclusion, as sexual orientation or familial bonding are.
"Re: your request for evidence of atheist bigotry - seriously? You've never stumbled across any yourself? I'm at work right now, but I'll post some links in the evening when I get home."
Really. I have stumbled across some, but it is usually among anonymous drive-by internet postings in blog and online-news comments. However, you can find such bigotry in *any* discussion, and I do not see evidence that it is any more prevalent in atheists than in any other group. In fact, I think it is a lot less frequent in atheists than most other groups.
I have *especially* not seen evidence that any of the so-called 'new atheists', targeted by Alonzo in this blog post, are among these 'atheist bigots'. I have seen a lot of *accusations* that they are bigots, but no *evidence*.
It is this last point which I am most arguing for in my comments here. I think Alonzo (and you) is misinterpreting unapologetic atheism for atheist bigotry.
(continued)
(continued)
"Re: Fox News - I assumed you would be offended because they are despicable liars. Anyone who watches Fox should be offended, and appalled that they are still able to profit from this. That network is a stain on our nation's honor."
I agree that they suck. But I have given up being offended by such institutions since November 2004, when Bush was elected the second time around.
I am now more offended by the American public which laps up this slime like good little puppies, than I am by the slime-mongers themselves. It is the public which is in most dire need of correction. The fact that anyone in America watches Faux News at all is more of an indictment of the people who watch than it is of Faux News. After all, Faux is just a corporation out to make a profit. They tap into an audience. The audience is there. It exists. And it consumes. The audience is the problem, moreso than Faux News itself.
This is why I promote unapologetic atheism. I am more interested in waking people up out of their ignorance, than I am in gently saying, "Oh, it's okay. You continue in your harmless beliefs, but please stop voting for idiots and supporting misanthropic organizations." It is those 'harmless beliefs' which are the problem. They are not actually harmless, they are indeed dangerous. This is what Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett are saying, as well. This is not bigotry. It is simply an unapologetic statement of facts as we see them.
I do not support bigotry. It is one thing that I am vehemently against! Which is why I'm unapologetic.
Sorry for the delay, I was side-tracked yesterday. Anyway, for some examples, see the more recent thread What Is Not Bigotry?
See also Dan Savage's Youth Pastor Watch
I want to clarify something. I love both Dan Savage's and PZ Meyer's blogs. I read them daily. I'm a big fan of the Four Horsemen as well, I keep up with their speeches and debates as best as I can (there's too many to catch them all, for me). I'm not trying to tear down support for them.
In fact, I really enjoy their diatribes. When Hitchens rips into an apologist and rips him a new (intellectual) a--hole, I cheer. It's awesome. :)
But I know the difference between theater and reality. I also love The Boondock Saints. But I do not approve of vigilante justice in real life, I know it's just for entertainment. And so I think it's just as important to say "This is a bigoted argument, don't use in in real life" as it is to say "Don't kill people you think are bad in real life, that's what we have a system of justice for."
The fact that some people argue against pointing out that some of these statements amount to bigotry simply reinforces, for me, the fact that it is really important to point out that "Yes, this is bigotry, don't do it in real life, it is BAD!"
I remain thoroughly unconvinced that these targeted atheists are guilty of such bigotry. And I'm still waiting for some convincing quotes. I'll just leave it at that.
I posted the same comment to a different posting. However, it seems that I should mention the same here so that it will not be missed.
I am not coming down hard on atheists at all. I am coming down hard on bigots, I am only coming down on atheists to the degree that some atheists are bigots. If it is the case (as some commenters seem to want to contend - perhaps because they hold that atheists are incapable of having moral flaws) that no atheists are bigots, then clearly there cannot be even one real-world atheist that fits the account I give of a bigot.
I have not named names because I was interested in the overall concept rather than applying it. Clearly, I do not need to name actual rapists to discuss the wrongness of rape, or identify a specific liar to point out that liars are parasites who feed off of the manipulated intentional actions of others. Nor do I need to identify specific atheist bigots to identify what bigotry is and what it is not.
However, Eneasz is right - the poster that shows the World Trade Center still standing with the text "Imagine No Religion" - which was prominently displayed on Richard Dawson's web site and at the Freedom From Religion Foundation - qualifies as bigotry. It takes a specific wrong and applies it to a whole group of people many of whom are innocent of that wrong. It is done for the purpose of selling unjustified hatred (hate mongering, as I call it).
Steven Weinberg's quote also counts. There are far too many ways other than religion for good people to do bad things. Bill Mahar, with his crusade against government immunizations, will be responsible for a few deaths. I know any number of parents who think they are doing the right thing in NOT getting their child immunized or even going to flu parties. Some will get their child killed and, for some, the disease will use the child as a conduit to somebody else with a health problem who will die. Good people doing bad things without religion playing any role whatsoever.
PZ Myers, with his quest to dessicrate a communion wafer, was able to justify what amounted to the theft of property from the Catholic Church on the grounds that taking property from a Catholic Church under false pretenses is not theft. (Fraud, to be more precise.) History makes me worry how far up the ladder of moral crimes one can excuse when the victims belong to a target group of "them".
The reason that I warn against atheists adopting bigoted practices is that I believe most of my readers are atheists and, thus, it is the type of bigotry against which I can have the most effect. I also believe that bigotry is grounded on fundamental facts about human nature - a human disposition (that atheists share, since atheists are human) to divide the world into groups of "us" and "them" that too easily leads to inter-tribal violence unless effort is taken to prevent it.
The violence we see between religious groups is NOT dependent on any Gods. That violence came about even though no God exists - because humans - without any God to guide them - are disposed to divide the world up into 'us' and 'them' and to rally 'us' to do violence against 'them'.
One of these days, if we are not careful, we will be dealing with a very real news story about an atheist shooter who decided to go out in a blaze of glory by taking as many of "them" with him as possible. And the question would and should be asked. As atheists, did we do anything to prevent or discourage that line of thinking?
Wonderist
I also have to say that I continue to have objections to your claim that you are defending "unapologetic atheists".
If that is your target, then you should be defending me, since I am an unapologitic atheist.
The blog contains the word 'atheist' in the title. And that's my real name. I have never apologized for my beliefs. Nor have I ever argued for being nice for the sake of being nice.
Instead, my attitude is that the virtue of using true premises and valid reasoning is more important than the "virtue" of not believing in a God. Indeed, what is wrong with the worst religions is NOT that they involve belief in a God, but that they are intellectually reckless beliefs that are used for the purpose of 'justifying' behavior harmful to others.
If one holds that intellectual recklessness is a vice, then it remains a vice even when the person who is being intellectually reckless is an atheist. There is no sense in condemning a particular practice when "they" do it, yet ignoring that same fault when the people practicing it are on your side.
The practice should be condemned wherever it is found.
"If that is your target, then you should be defending me, since I am an unapologitic atheist."
I defend you when you are unapologetic. But I won't defend your arguments when I think they are wrong and/or overblown, as is the case here.
I do not blindly defend them *merely* because they are unapologetic. I defend them because the accusations I have seen you make and hint at here are unjustified. I am attacking your arguments and claims more than I am defending specific people.
If you could show me actual cases of these atheists you're targeting making actual bigoted statements, I would support your argument. But you haven't. You've shown consistently that you conflate criticism and ridicule of beliefs, dogmas, and institutions as if they are hate-speech and fear-mongering on actual people. Blasphemy is not bigotry, and you've given me no reason to change my mind on that point. IMO, you are pointing at blasphemy and saying, "Bigotry!"
"If one holds that intellectual recklessness is a vice, then it remains a vice even when the person who is being intellectually reckless is an atheist. There is no sense in condemning a particular practice when "they" do it, yet ignoring that same fault when the people practicing it are on your side."
You have not provided sufficient evidence that your target 'new atheists' are actually guilty of intellectual recklessness. You've made accusations of bigotry that, when examined, fall apart and are exposed as merely unapologetic statements of fact as the person sees them. Sometimes they are wrong, but being wrong is not intellectual recklessness, and nor is it bigotry.
Look. It should be easy, if what you say is true. If this atheist bigotry is so wide-spread and such a 'too common' occurrence, then you should be having a field day! You should be able to do a quick google search, or open the news, or crack open a book and pull out several quotes of actual bigoted statements.
Don't you think your difficulty in locating any solid evidence is indicative that your claims of atheist bigotry are at best overblown?
(As an aside, I'm not surprised you can't find evidence. I have made this same request to dozens of people, and have not seen one purported instance of 'new atheists' actually being bigoted. I'm not saying the evidence isn't out there. I'm saying I've never seen it, and many have tried to provide it. Accusations of bigotry abound, but the evidence is mysteriously lacking.)
My very first comment on this topic summarizes the position I still hold. I have been consistent on this from the beginning:
"I don't agree that all unapologetic atheists fall into the trap of the Bigot's Fallacy when pointing out the wrongs of religion in general. Surely, some of the less thoughtful ones make such arguments, but I would say for the most part that there is simply an implied understanding that what they are talking about when they talk about religion is faith-based religious beliefs and dogma."
Followed by this clarification:
"From what I know of you in the past, I agree that you're an unapologetic atheist. I only propose the term 'unapologetic' as a replacement for 'new' because of the recent stereotyping that's become associated with 'new'.
I understand your arguments here are based on reason and logic, not on a complaint about 'tone'. I'm trying to address your arguments in kind; I hope you don't think I'm only here to defend the word 'unapologetic'. Primarily, I'm saying that I don't think your Bigot's Fallacy applies to very many people you claim it applies to. I think, instead, that you are probably misinterpreting the basis of those people's arguments."
Hi Wonderist. This is going in circles so I'll just give a brief summation.
When a speaker points to an action taken by a single person (or only a few people), then takes a characteristic of that person (religion or lack thereof, skin tone, place of birth, eye color, etc) and makes the claim that the action was motivated by that characteristic, and that everyone who shares that characteristic will also be motivated to take that action, we are invited to evaluate the accuracy of that claim.
If the claim is blatantly false, as seen by the presence of millions of others who share that characteristic and yet do not take that action, then we must ask why the speaker made such a gross error.
It is often because he dislikes the group of people who have that characteristic. Generalizing from a single example to wrongly condemn a large population is what bigotry is.
And it happens ALL THE TIME among atheists. I used to do it myself, constantly. You were given a few specific examples (which you oddly rejected), but the fact that you have to ask for examples already shows you're blinding yourself to the problem. Anytime Dawkins or Hitchens speak they almost invariably resorts to this tactic at least once. Harris often did too, but now he's more likely to invoke the Jaines(sp?) as an example of a decent religion.
You can try to hide it by linking long chains of reasons together. "Faith is promoted as a virtue by religion X. And faith causes people to uncritically accept certain claims. This makes them more likely to uncritically accept other claims. These claims may be false, and may also be dangerous, such as the claim that if you fly an airplane into a building you will be reward by an eternity in paradise with 72 virgins. Therefore all religions are bad."
Even if we ignore all the weak inferences, AND the jump from "religion X" to "all religions", there is still the basic problem. You point at 19 fanatics who flew planes into buildings, and say that religion (in general) leads to this act. And yet you ignore the tens of millions of people who don't fly planes into buildings every day.
Ok, that was a bit longer than I planned. :/
Post a Comment