Posted by Siamang on: 01.22.2007 /
By Siamang
A big discussion going on in atheist circles, and a rather embarrassing one, is the Churchill/Chamberlain debate.
I haven’t brought it up here because, quite frankly it embarrasses me as an atheist. I find it petty, small-minded and intellectually void.
I’ll sum it up here, for those who haven’t heard about it.
Atheist writer Sam Harris, author of “Letter to a Christian Nation” has written that moderate theists give cover for their radical counterparts. His point is that “faith is a virtue” is a notion that the masses of moderate believers follow, and create a world where extremists can grow. In the minds of the Sam Harrises of the world, moderate believers are to blame for the sins of radicals.
This notion has created a divide among some public atheists. Hopefully this is an argument that’s only taking place on the internet, because I’d hate to think otherwise. But the divide is this: If you’re with Sam Harris against the moderate believers, you’re on the Winston Churchill side of the debate. If you think that moderate believers are properly allied with atheists on issues like science education in schools, public policy for social services, etc, then you are an appeaser of the Neville Chamberlain variety.
Yes, it’s an ugly way to argue. In fact, it’s so ugly that I’m ashamed of it on behalf of atheists.
…
So I haven’t written about it. Partly out of embarrassment and partly out of not having anything constructive to say about it other than to complain.
But yesterday I read a thoughtful post by Josh Rosenau over at ScienceBlogs, and it hit the spot. He argues that the “enemy” isn’t religion. The enemy is authoritarianism. That’s the problem, and there are people who will follow authoritarian leaders in political movements, social movements and religious movements. But moderates of all stripes are natural allies.
And it’s the perfect antidote to these “Churchill/Chamberlain” types. Give it a read.
…
Siamang
Comment by: Karen
1Very interesting. Thanks. I also find the “I’m a better atheist than you are!” debate very frustrating and counterproductive.
Rosenau’s links led me to this blog debate between Andrew Sullivan, a moderate Catholic, and Sam Harris, author and strong atheist.
It’s civil, easy to read (doesn’t get into tons of philosophical jargon), erudite and very interesting so far. It mirrors a lot of what we atheists talk about with the (mostly) moderate believers over on the DB. I’d recommend it.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
2I’m definitely on the ‘Churchill’ side. I’m all for atheists working together with moderate believers who have common ground with them on such issues as what is taught in schools. I think atheists who won’t work with moderate believers are shooting themselves in the foot by not taking the opportunity to form coalitions with like-minded others.
I’m not sure if the issue is authoritarianism - I’d have to think about that. Conversatives are quick to reject being under any authority they do not think lines up with God’s wishes - so, maybe it’s not as simple as, some people are in favor of authoritarianism and some are against. Along those lines one of the most ironic things I’ve ever seen is the church choir in a very conservative church singing “WE WILL NOT BOW!” - meaning, they will not bow to anything or person they think ungodly. However, they are very intent that each other should bow to God, their spiritual leaders and the women to their husbands.
Comment by: Mike O
3I’m looking forward to reading it. On the surface, it seems like we’re going to be on the same page on this one … I posted something back in November having to do with fundamentalism and how “social justice” Christians are no less fundamentalist than “fundamentalist” Christians, they’re just “fundamentalist” on different verses in the Bible.
And looking at the first link to the Churchill/Chamberlin definition, I agree that it’s weak and hypocritical to pounce on the logic errors of your opponent, but gloss over the logic errors of your own. Perhaps we’re all just blinded to the weaknesses of our own world views, but I’ll admit … I do it. We all do. Perhaps out of blindness, perhaps out of an unwillingness to be wrong. But we do it.
Comment by: NCxian
4You are right, Siamang. This is really ugly. I appreciate your having the nerve to raise the question, even though it means exposing the puritans in your own camp. I don’t feel any sense of allegiance that requires me to defend doctrinally-purist Christians and I don’t hold it against you if you don’t care for yours.
It goes without saying, I guess, that I think Harris et al are shooting themselves in the foot. I can’t imagine anything good coming out of it.
I take that back. The rabid purists might make other atheists look good by comparison. I studied social protest rhetoric eons ago in college, and we talked about how the violent, militant civil rights activists paved the way for somebody like Martin Luther King, Jr., who was actually quite radical but looked moderate in comparison. (Civil rights is just one example of what we learned as a typical dynamic.)
Comment by: David S
5I think the primary problem is faith-in-men… which is authoritarianism. Unfortunately faith lends itself to that sort of abuse. At their core nearly all organized religions are based on faith in some man/prophet or other to tell followers about their god. Luckily these men usually aren’t alive anymore to tell followers that god wants them to do or think some heinous thing. But there’s enough trouble just from the writings they’ve left… and the tradition of faith as virtue is always there to help some authority take control of people somewhere.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
6Mike O wrote:
I would say, anyone could show traits of fundamentalism, but I don’t see anything inherent in caring about social justice that makes those particular Christians fundamentalists.
Maybe what this discussion means is that instead of saying there are
fundamentalist Christians
moderate Christians
atheists
we should break this down into
fundamentalist Christians
moderate Christians
moderate atheists
‘fundamentalist’ atheists
and accept that while the middle two groups may easily see the value of working together, the other two will at best take some convincing and at worst might never come around to the idea.
(And I know some people are neither Christian or atheist - so maybe six categories would be better - with ‘other moderates’ and ‘other fundamentalist’ - which can reduce down to ‘all fundamentalists’ and ‘all moderates’ perhaps)
Comment by: Siamang
7Ir (Helen) wrote:
Sadly that puts you, and me and many of us on the “Chamberlain” side. Chamberlain, the prime minister who tried to appease Hitler.
As I said, it’s an ugly appellation. It really doesn’t befit people who claim to be intellectuals.
(I’d rather say that I was on the Richard Clarke side while they’re on the George W. Bush side!)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
8Siamang, that IS sad if there is the equivalent of Hitler around today and we’re trying to appease him.
But hopefully that doesn’t quite apply…
Comment by: Siamang
9Sure, an appeaser like you would say something like that!
Comment by: Jim Henderson
10This is how I have come to understand the reality of the situation. I look for people from either end who fall into the moderate camp. It can be tricky - and almost no one likes to be called a fundamentalis
Comment by: Matt Casper
11In my opinion, discussions in which pigeonholes are created and you must choose one (Chamberlain/Churchill: which one?!?), defeat constructive conversation, and are fundamental in and of themselves.
And that is an essential problem in discussing beliefs: they can’t be proven, measured, or quantified in any way, therefore they are always subjective, and always “right.”
We are human beings–flawed, clueless, fortunate. Yet, we have a “rage for order” (Wallace Stevens). We need things in their proper place, we crave structure, and for many people, fundamentalism fulfills that need.
No one likes to go through life not knowing, but I am learning that that is exactly how we go through life: not knowing. And the second you think you know, you are no longer capable of constructive conversation, and instead look at people as being with you, or against you.
The world is round: you can’t possibly choose a side.
Matt Casper
Jim’s co-author of “Jim & Casper Go to Church”
Comment by: JG
12I wholly agree with Matt on this.
But not sure I agree with this. How do we “know” this is true? If we amend to read “know it all” or “know absolutely” then I would fully agree.
We can know some things. We may be confident about other things but still open to being wrong. And on other things we may just have ideas.
Sorry to be a pain but I’m not sure about this either. Like Matt says, I don’t think people fit into two neat pigeonholes, fundamentalist or moderate. And even if they did I don’t think this determines their abiity to engage in dialogue or in working together with others.
One of the things I find most unhelpful in dialogue is a black and white attitude where things are either one thing or the other with no in between.
Qualities which I think are important are:
1) Respect for other people and their views and beliefs regardless of whether you agree with the or not.
2) Interest in other people and in what they think. As opposed to a “I know what I think and couldn’t care less what anyone else thinks” attitude.
3) Genuine care for other people rather than just for self.
4) An attitude of equal value of all rather than one of smug superiority.
Lastly, it may be that it is people who are relatively confident in themselves and in what they believe or not believe who will feel able to engage in dialogue. People who lack confidence are IMO less likely to engage in dialogue.
Comment by: Rachel
13That’s great line, Matt!
Comment by: Rachel
14Good point, JG! I also think people who can engage in constructive dialogue are people who will not feel deeply threatened or diminished if they actually change their minds as a result of the dialogue.
Comment by: JG
15Rachel, thanks, I agree with you.
Whilst 180 degree turns may sometimes happen, I see it more as thoughts, ideas, beliefs etc being developed, refined, improved, enhanced etc through dialogue.
I find this happens more through dialogue with people you disgaree with than those you do agree with. When someone expresses a different view (or the same view but in a different way) either you take on board some or all of what they say or you think about the way in which you don’t agree with them. Either way, your own thinking is developed.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
16Rachel & Matt, I thought that was a great line too!
JG, I agree - it’s discussion with people who disagree with us which challenges our thinking and develops it. When people agree with us it feels good but it doesn’t produce any helpful development.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
17Categories help us face reality. They make us choose. They are unquestionably “unreal” as JG says people don’t fit neatly into categories. And his ingredients identify the same things I find helpful exceot I would add “humility” - the ability to see myself in the other (especially my ideological enemy)
Comment by: MTran
18NCxian said:
Agreed!
I think the demand for “purist” thought and attitudes is at the root of far too many disputes. Purists and literalists seem to get more attention, though, even as they make discussion more difficult.
There is a great deal of good to be said about tolerance and forbearance; we are all fallible.
This doesn’t mean that we must be willing to throw out every concept or activity we value for the sake of co-operation or compromise. But the zero tolerance approach is a problem, not a solution.