Posted by Siamang on: 12.04.2006 /
By Siamang.
Yesterday, the New York Times published an opinion piece by Nicolas Kristof entitled “A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion.”
In it, he writes
“Yet the tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is often just as intolerant — and mean. It’s contemptuous and even … a bit fundamentalist.”
and
“Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them. We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.”
His points in the column (and it’s quite simplistic… how I do wish that people took this stuff more seriously than to package a couple of soundbites) are basically three.
1. Some atheists speak stridently against religion.
2. Sure there have been religious wars, but some ruthless dictators were atheists.
3. Religious groups do good things too.
Therefore, according to Kristof, atheists are being intolerant.
Kristoff cites three different atheists for his proof of intolerance. Dawkins, Sam Harris and …. the author of the “God Hates Amputees” website?!?!?
Now, as far as I can see from Kristof’s piece, he’s citing for intolerance three people who are writers. As intolerance goes in the world, we have people butchering each other because they are a different type of Muslim. We have religious genocide going on in Darfur. We even have issues of religious prosthletizing and oppression of religious minorities in some isolated cases here in the United States. Even Kristof mentions as “a legitimate policy point” Sam Harris’ criticism of religious opposition to Stem Cell research, which is a real impediment to curing or treating the sick. Whether you agree with Stem Cell research or not, there is nevertheless a life or death component to both sides of the issue. Whichever side of the question you find yourself on, people’s lives hang in the balance.
And yet Kristof calls for the atheists to truce from their intolerant writing of books and websites? Kristof, there’s bloodshed, there’s life and death, and there’s real, life-impacting danger based on religious intolerance going on right now, but the worst thing atheists are doing is writing stuff?
Now, I’d say that Kristof is picking and choosing his atheists. He can and should point out Dawkins and Harris, as they both have bestselling books and are quite visible. But he’s picking some pretty doozy of a two there. Where’s philanthropist athests like Bill Gates? Surely the good he does, spending billions to fight AIDS in Africa, counts more in real people’s lives than someone writing a tiny website like “why does God hate amputees.com”.
This seems like the damning of atheism based on the words of a very small handful of atheists. But I’ll tell you, I’d rather spend a dinner party with Richard Dawkins than with Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell (well, I’d probably button-hole Dawkins, get him off religion and pepper him with biology questions!).
The ending paragraph is so strange I thought I’d repeat it:
“Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them.”
I’m sorry, I must have been absent that day. When did this happen exactly? Under whose orders did the Christian Right retreat, and what did that retreat look like?
Now not to give too much to one side of this discussion, here’s another idea. I think there is the potential for atheist oppression of the religious. Wherever there may spring an atheist majority, there is the danger of intolerance toward the minority. When we’re talking about the nation as a whole, there’s no danger in the forseeable future of an atheist majority. But within certain circles, say at a workplace, or at a university, the balance may tip the other way, and yes, there is a danger that people will speak and act intolerantly when they’re in the majority.
And the problem is, Sam Harris’ perscription to atheists is to remove the automatic respect that religion garners.
That’s fine, up to a point, when talking about the nation as a whole. But in the real circumstances of our daily lives, a theist may find him or herself in a minority setting. And that’s where Harris’ style can lead to real intolerance.
Kristof may have a point, but he’s unable to find it himself.
-SIAMANG
Comment by: Carl Buell (OGeorge)
1Kristof writes as if he’s never actually read anything that Dawkins or Harris wrote. I’ve read both books and they state their case like gentlemen; there certainly is no hysteria or threatened violence directed against religion. I suspect the christians want us to be nice and be quiet about our lack of faith. I for one am sick of the non-faith closet, but I would always conduct myself with courtesy, even in the unlikely event of being in the majority.
Comment by: Karen
2Siamang, I’m glad you brought this up. I too was annoyed by the shallowness of Kristof’s critique, and why in the world would he single out god hates amputees!? That website may be blunt and I’m sure it ticks believers off, but it’s very civil, polite and pretty darned hard to argue with the main point it makes!
Speaking of outspoken atheists, I was at the Skeptics lecture yesterday (very interesting, all about the book of Revelation) and Michael Shermer made a pointed comment about the New Atheist thing, saying that neither he personally nor the Skeptics Society in general is out to eradicate religion or promote intolerance toward religion.
If anyone wants to hear some real, substantive criticism of the New Atheist mentality, as well as hear Dawkins and Harris respond personally, I’d highly recommend a panel discussion (click Session 9) where a couple of atheists absolutely rip Dawkins and Harris up one side and down the other (no sacred cows here!) for being simplistic, reactive, uncivil and totally unrealistic in their criticism of religion.
It’s some great intellectual sparring - for those (like me) who really enjoy such things. ;-)
Comment by: NCxian
3I think the thing that bothers me about this point of view that religious beliefs should not be respected is that, of all people, it seems to me that atheists should know what it is like to be told that their belief system is not acceptable. In fact, the impression I have gotten from most of you here is that what you want is respect for everybody’s beliefs, including your own. And I have shared and promoted that position, even though I am in the majority, because I think you are absolutely right.
So I guess I feel that my attempt to join in the quest to have atheism better understood and accepted is invalidated, or devalued, or something, in almost every video or audio clip or quoted passage with Harris and Dawkins. Because, despite whatever tone they may take in their rhetoric, the substance of what they are saying is that I am not only stupid, but evil.
I’m thinking it is not such a good tactic to alienate folks who have the ear of the people whose opinions one hopes to change.
Comment by: Karen
4Boy am I with you on this one, NC! Terrible tactics.
Comment by: David S
5No ideas should be sacred cows. Although people tend to identify with ideas, ideas should not be above criticism/discussion. Ideas do not deserve respect by default (certainly some ideas don’t deserve respect at all). Just because an idea is believed by someone or is a religious idea doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit the above. That holds for atheist ideas, religious ideas, etc.
Nobody is asking for certain ideas to be rejected simply because they don’t like them. They are asking for all ideas to be able to be discussed and examined and be accepted or rejected on merit.
Comment by: David H
6NCxian said:
Part of the problem may be that we (I include myself here) take some of the criticism too personally. Perhaps Dawkins isn’t speaking specifically to me or even about me. Maybe he is only talking about the “Christians” who are stupid and/or evil. I have to admit, and it seems to me terribly shameful, that there always have been religious people like that. Even more unfortunate, they frequently seem to be the ones with the loudest voices and biggest audiences who are leading the charge on some amazingly horrible endeavor.
Yes, Mao and Uncle Joe and Pol Pot did awful things in the name of their beliefs (not strictly atheism in that their destruction of religious institutions was just a part of an overall strategy to radically change the society they wished to control). I left Hitler off the list because he was ostensibly a Christian. But even if we don’t count his 10 million or so, how many pogroms, massacres, crusades and wars have been fought specifically in the name of God? I don’t think the religious want to start stacking bodies to see who has the smaller pile.
I don’t like the stridency of some atheist voices, but neither do I appreciate what is often said (and especially how it is said) by so many I am forced to call brothers and sisters in Christ. I don’t like to be called stupid or evil by people like Dawkins (or anyone for that matter). But I have a bigger problem with those who act in accordance with those names in response. After all, we aren’t facing sticks or stones from the atheist “camp”. What they say can’t hurt me, but it is helping me to think.
Comment by: David H
7One other thought on the supposed retreat by the religious right. My guess is that if there is any pullback or quiet on that front it is more of a strategic withdrawal. If they are talking truce it is while they reform and rearm. Also, quite frankly, I’m not sure they have done any of those things just yet.
It is no secret that Barrack O’Bama has larger political ambitions (he just made that clear himself). The language directed at him during the recent lead up to his talk at rick Warren’s church causes me to believe that my conservative friends are just seeking new targets, not new tactics. They lost the last election for a confluence of largely transitory issues. Given peace and plenty the vast majority of Americans will likely (in time) fall back into the place where they can be molded by fear. The descriptions of O’Bama that I heard make me believe they are prepping him to be another lightning rod for the same old irrational issues that have driven American politics for almost a decade.
Demonizing and dehumanizing never gets old ’cause it never stops working.
Comment by: Siamang
8You spell Obama like it’s a good old Irish name.
Aye, ’tis a good Irish name it is!
;-)
Comment by: Karen
9David H:
I’m not either. And Kristof is terribly naive - and very unfamiliar with these guys - if he thinks they have or that they will anytime in the near future.
They may have lost a skirmish last month, and maybe even been a little bit humiliated, but you can be sure they are re-arming for the next battle (and they do believe it is a “supernatural battle”).
In terms of demonizing Obama, they indeed will probably try to do that. But I suspect it may backfire on them, given the religious-friendly stance he’s taken and his early popularity and charisma.
Comment by: NCxian
10No, actually, David H., he means you and me and every other person of faith on the planet. Check out this BBC interview that has been posted here and over at CatE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8eBuDJuxfM&mode=related&search=
I think you are right.
Comment by: Karen
11Letters from both Harris and Dawkins appeared in the NY Times today as rebuttals to Kristof:
Dawkins’ invocation of the harsh theater critic is an interesting comparison, I suppose. Is it different to baldly criticize an actor’s performance, or a movie script, and to bluntly criticize religious beliefs? I wonder if it’s more personal, and thus more wounding, when it’s religion - or if Dawkins is correct that we only perceive it as “meaner” because we’ve given religious belief such a wide berth of respect that we’re not used to hearing it criticized.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
12Karen, thanks for posting those letters.
NCxian, I hear what you’re saying. I much prefer it when people, whether they are Christian, or atheists, or something else, refrain from implying that “not sharing MY belief/lack of belief means you are stupid or evil”.
My experience is that Christians can be unnecessarily touchy about having their beliefs questioned - to the extent Dawkins is pointing that out I agree with him. However I think it’s possible to question without having a tone of “Come on - how can any sensible, rational person possibly believe what you believe??” Which I agree is how Dawkins tends to come across. In the interviews I saw, he hasn’t been any kinder to liberal/moderate Christians than conservatives although he does make distinctions between them. He says liberals are either thoughtless - because if they would think about what they believe they’d abandon it in a moment. Or they hold a worldview which makes no sense because it’s so similar to atheism, why throw God in there?
That’s my impression of what he thinks, anyway, from what I’ve seen.
Comment by: MTran
13(I hope this isn’t taken the wrong way. This may well be the only site where it isn’t!)
There are a couple of considerations at play here.
First, atheists are not normally told by Christians that their belief systems are not acceptable. They are told that they are not acceptable human beings or that they are, perhaps something much less than human. They are even told, officially, that they aren’t US citizens.
As Pres. George H.W. Bush told an interviewer: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.”
When representatives of the American Atheists organization asked to speak to him about this expression of gross, anti-constitutional intolerance, his response was that he didn’t “give a shit” about their opinions.
Atheists are heaped with abuse from every corner and their detractors are not called to account for their grossly offensive comments because, socially and politically, atheists do not count. Period. They are one of the few demographics that can be demonized with impunity. So given that reality, I cannot see why politically active atheists should have to be so careful of the apparently delicate sensibilities of those people who have villified them with regularity. Atheists have taken the “polite” approach for more than a century. It has gotten them nowhere while religious based hatred has grown immeassurably.
Second: Atheists have no “belief system” to criticze. Atheists do not believe in any god(s). To call that lack of belief a “belief system” is like calling “bald” a hair color.
Third: By law, the US Constitution prohibits the government from making laws that either prohibit or promote any religion. For some reason or other, most people seem to have taken the notion that having a legal right to choose any religion means that religions and religious ideas should never be criticized. Regardless of how many believers may say that religions can be and are “criticized,” in practice, any criticism against religion or theism itself is nearly always counted as an intolerable affront. It’s one thing to say that Catholics should become Protestants, or vice versa, but saying that there is no evidence for god, well that’s just verbotten.
Now I’m generally an easy going individual, but I’ve heard at least a thousand vitriolic condemnations from believers whenever they think that their religion or the existence of god is questioned in the most gentle way by anyone or no-one. Their reflexive hypersensitivity to criticism is astonishing.
This forum is one of the few where I have seen a regular attempt by all parties to simply address one another’s questions regarding belief. Usually, these web page discusions turn into a scream-fest, especially when prosletyzing Christians start rattling the sabers of eternal condemnation and torment when they realize that they can not convince an atheist to accept religion or god.
As a Christian, you may see things differently but I can assure you that the socially accepted, virulent hatred directed at atheists (and plenty of other targets) has not endeared believers to those who don’t share their belief.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
14MTran, thanks for your comments. I’ve reposted them as the following new blog entry:
How Christians (often) treat atheists
Comment by: Carapy
15well done, bro