Who sets the tone
Julian pointed out in a comment on Wassup with the new atheism? that a lot of people think that atheists are dogmatic anti-religionists, and that if we now have good reason to believe that this is the impression being created, we should think about altering our tune.
There is something to that, there’s no denying it. It is quite possible that vocal atheists are alienating huge numbers of people who would otherwise be secularists and/or liberal believers, with potentially harmful results. This is of course the drum that Matthew Nisbet never tires of beating, though he does it very aggressively and also very manipulatively (as in repeatedly claiming that Paul Kurtz is not a vocal atheist but a politely bashful one of the type that Nisbet favours – which is just absurd) – but the worry could be real even though Nisbet shares it. But…
But I still think, once we’ve thought about it, we shouldn’t alter our tune. Partly that is because people think atheists are dogmatic and rude and naughty because they keep being told that, endlessly, monotonously, and with wild exaggeration and often just plain invention. This is people thinking atheists are dogmatic the way people think Obama is a Muslim or a socialist or a guy who ‘pals around’ with Bill Ayers. People thought that during the campaign (and some still think it now) because rivals wanted them to think that, and set about to make them think that. Rivals made stuff up. Many theists are very very angry at Dawkins and at overt atheism in general, and as a result, they say things which are not accurate; they make stuff up. Now here’s the deal: I don’t think people should let that kind of thing set the terms of debate. I think we should resist. I think we should resist because that’s a bad corrupt stupid unhelpful way to carry on debate, and I don’t think we should let it win. I think we should deny it a victory.
This is what happens when reformers and innovators hit a nerve – people who don’t want reform and innovation tell whoppers about the reformers. It happened with second-wave feminism, and it hasn’t yet stopped happening – feminists still get called stupid sexist names for the crime of being feminists. That happened to me a few months ago on a blog I used to read, much to my surprise – it was like walking down the street chatting with a friend and suddenly finding myself in a roomfull of very drunk fratboys, covered with beery vomit.
That shouldn’t be what sets the tone, and it shouldn’t be what decides what we can say. It’s bullying, and we shouldn’t give in to it. That’s especially true because the overtness of the atheism is the whole point. It is the being silenced – the deference, as Jean said – that we are objecting to, so if we went right back to being silenced because believers demanded more deference – well, we would be giving up the very thing being disputed. Yes, it’s often good to build coalitions with believers and so on, but not at the price of forever pretending that there’s nothing the slightest bit dubious about religious beliefs. We’re tired of that, just as women are tired of being considered second-class citizens or afterthoughts or property or evil tempting sluts luring men to their doom.
So, no. I take the point, I see what is meant, I understand the risks (some of them anyway); but no.
The ideal would be that the God crowd were as respectful of and as deferential to atheism as atheists are expected to be towards the God crowd.
We’re all sensitive, even Beale.
“Partly that is because people think atheists are dogmatic and rude and naughty because they keep being told that, endlessly, monotonously, and with wild exaggeration and often just plain invention.”
Right ho. I wish only to add that people can come to similar conclusions about athiests even in the absence of the disingenuous opinion-makers targeted in OB’s post. I have often been surprised at how often my meekly saying “I am a vegetarian” can be interpreted by others as an indictment of their moral integrity; and this happens without there being pundits spreading rampant fear of vegetarians. Such “unsteered” (and innate?) reactions only compound the negative effect of the slander about athiests. It is as if concepts like athiesm, vegetarianism, and their opposites were directly hardwired to the brain’s tribalism center, which appears awfully overdeveloped in some people. Even without the anti-athiest whoppers, I fear that there would still be plenty of pressure for athiests to defer and be silent, and we would still need to resist–politely, consistently, unapologetically, and firmly.
Isn’t it odd that dogmatism is often bracketed with militancy? The essence of dogmatism is the refusal to argue and the intolerance of opposing views. It cites authority and demands compliance or silence. And firmness of opinion or vehemence of expression has nothing to do with it.
_____
It would be a mistake to assume that the false perception of atheists is a result of their actual behaviour. Atheists are called “militant” or “aggressive” – even by other atheists – for saying things that are extremely mild.
Saying that Christianity/Islam/Hinduism is a false religion is seen as somehow beyond on the pale, but any religious person who refrains from blowing themselves up in crowded places is hailed as a “moderate.”
The real reason for this false perception of atheists is the prevailing taboo against honest and open criticism of religion. Going along with the over-the-top-politeness that religious people demand would only make the problem worse.
This came up in conversation with a friend today, in quite a different context: People who personally, individually mention to you in private that you are perhaps taking the wrong tone and might want to moderate your approach – those people might actually be offering well-meant constructive criticism. Sometimes. Maybe.
But every damned time someone publicly upbraids you for your “tone” or “approach,” every time someone openly “shares their concern” that you are being “too confrontational,” what they are really doing is telling you to sit down and shut the fuck up. It’s an ugly form of manipulation, and its practitioners are nothing more than passive-aggressive bullies.
If you have an argument against what I’ve said or how I’ve said it, make your argument. If you want to change the topic of conversation to my “tone,” I will also change the topic of conversation – to origami. As in, how many sharp corners you can fold your “concerns about my tone” into, and where you can shove ’em.
As long as we’re living in a world in which belief is largely privileged, atheists are largely excluded and the privileged many are already making a lot of noise, I am unimpressed by any calls to moderate our tone and think the motivations of those making those calls are far more in need of analysis than our very simple calls to change a disgraceful status quo.
What OB says about the negative perception of atheists being composed largely of crap made up by believers was one of the first things that came to my mind on reading Julian’s piece. Rings true to my personal experience, too, with people telling me, the atheist, what it is that atheists believe (atheism is apparently perceived as a faith by almost anyone who isn’t one) and why it’s an untenable one.
To heed calls to be less vocal about one’s views is to be complicit in the abuse of all holding them.
On the subject of tone, I agree with the specifics – there is nothing wrong with the tone, or the many tones, adopted by Dawkins. But that doesn’t mean that questions of tone (and rhythm and nuance) are generally unimportant or uninteresting.
As for tone – which just means “tone of voice” – it really can make a difference whether something conveys anger or hatred, seems to be shouting at you, encourages you to want to riot, encourages sad reflection, suggests that you might laugh kindly, insinuates a suggestion for more cruel laughter, or whatever. The effect on the reader can, in turn, have a great effect on how she acts. This is not just airy-fairy English-department stuff, but stuff of practical importance.
Yes, I know, that too much has been made of the supposedly strident “tone” of, say, Dawkins’ writing. But that doesn’t entail that we might as well be tone deaf or think that tone is unimportant … as a lot of people in the blogosphere seem to be claiming lately for some reason. That’s an overreaction.
On the contrary, I think it’s critical to read Dawkins with an ear for his changing tone of voice – to pick up when he’s being cheeky, when he’s funny, when he’s being reflective, when he’s (rarely) being righteously angry, etc. You can be sure that, like any professional writer, he has worked hard to achieve those effects.
If we write without producing variations of tone, we’ll offer our readers horribly flat and ineffective prose. If we read without appreciation of tone, we’ll miss a huge element of the meaning in any piece of even moderately good writing (and much of the pleasure to be gained from it).
Good writing involves some mastery of tone, nuance, and prose rhythms. Good reading picks up on these things. Please don’t let the (usually tone-deaf) anti-Dawkins squad make you throw out the baby of sensitivity to tone along with all the bathwater of ill-informed kneejerk responses to any criticism of religion.
G. as someone that has often complained about your tone I do it because you are far more cogent and convincing when you dont resort to ya boo stuff, not to shut you up?
Russell said “…I think it’s critical to read Dawkins with an ear for his changing tone of voice…” and I agree that is an important point. There are several science writers who I particularly enjoy reading because I am familiar with their speaking style. When I read Dawkins, or Sagan, or Attenborough, it is their voice I hear in my head.
So I can’t help but notice that the tone deaf reception that Dawkins often receives is odd, since of the four he is, arguably, the most recognizable thanks to a few narration jobs on high profile TV documentaries. I suppose Hitchens is in the same tier of celebrity (not sure how these things work, are intellectuals and pop stars on the same “A” list?) as Dawkins, and he has never shown an aversion to gratuitous offence, but he still gets trotted out as an example of the new atheism less than Richard.
So, why is it that the author who is among the easier to become familiar with is the one who is most often mischaracterized? Or is this all just my own confirmation bias showing?
The first answer that comes to mind is that Dawkins is the most prominent and recognisable and as such is the first choice for attack (this choice probably also includes some kind of subconscious idea that if the king can be killed, the army will flee) and therefore is also the subject of so much distortion. If you can’t hit your target playing by the rules, move it (or, in other words, misrepresent its position) a bit closer to where you can hit.
I love this blog.
“If we write without producing variations of tone, we’ll offer our readers horribly flat and ineffective prose.”
That’s a great point, Russell, and one I’m very keen on. I hate flat prose; it can be the ruination of potentially good writing (good on substance, etc).
The why Dawkins question is interesting. I’m not sure he actually is the most prominent in the US, for instance – Hitchens turns up on tv a lot here, and he is at least as alarming as Dawkins. I have no explanation to offer.
Russell’s point is indeed cogent and worthwhile, but it also kind of misses the central theme of the current discussion. Yes, as writers and speakers, we certainly *do* need to pay attention to tone because it’s part of how we get across what we are trying to say. But no, people who criticize the tone of minority voices as being “too strident” or “shrill” or whatever are *not* in fact trying to help the minority learn to get across their meaning more clearly; they are trying to silence the minority. And the best evidence for that is, as Grendels Dad points out, how remarkably tone deaf these critics are consistently revealed to be when the people and writings they criticize are evaluated with an objective eye – say, for example, by actually reading those writings instead of forming an impression of them relying largely on hearsay.
I think in the U.S. Dawkins has a few more celebrity points than Hitchens does, and also might be accessible to relatively more video-watchers or readers. I don’t remember that Hitchens has been in a movie, even though he gets on TV quite a bit. It’s also possible that people who can get the gist of Dawkins have a harder time getting Hitchens’.
Jesus H. Christ, Some People get a lot of mileage out of shrill and strident.
I shall defer to those living in the States as to who is most prominent there. Which of the books did best? Seems to me only Dawkins gets epithets like “arch-atheist” attached to his name. His “faith-guided missile” piece after 9/11 sticks in my memory as the opening shot in the current campaign, the moment when mere criticism of religion gave way to the idea that the existence of religion is too much of a threat to everything not to be fought in those terms. Jean may have it right that no one is perceived as a greater threat than he is. With all due respect to Julian’s right to his opinion, I think I’m anything but alone in feelng that the outspokenness embodied by Dawkins is exactly what had been missing before. Speaking of which, those who haven’t yet caught the latest Pat Condell video ought to take a peek.
Re: Condell. I think he already has another one out, so I mean the one before that, where he tells everyone to lay off his religion, which is freedom of speech.
I don’t have an objective measure of their respective popularities in America, but my sense is that the answer depends largely on demographic. Among younger people, Dawkins seems to be the most popular (he is the only one to have an episode of “South Park” dedicated to him). Those interested in political commentary will stumble across Hitchens most often. Harris’s books have, along with TGD, sold the most copies; Harris and Dawkins have the highest profiles among Christians. Dennett is virtually unknown outside of academia. The tone of his writing may very well contribute to his lower profile; he bends over backwards to be gracious and polite to believers. A respectful tone in itself doesn’t grab airtime or column inches among media whose coverage favors sensation to ideas.
My college freshman stepson knew Dawkins from the South Park story arc. Had not heard of the other three.
G, perhaps my comment was a bit tangential to what has been said right here, although my point was partly that the people who criticise Dawkins as strident, or TGD as a kind of one-note rant, are showing that they are tone deaf. So it’s not even a matter of whether “we” should change our tone. It’s confirmation of the point that “our” tone is always going to be misunderstood by people who will read stridency and a wish to hurt into any criticism of religion, however mildly expressed.
But I also had in mind some of the equivalent discussions to this in other forums, notably Pharyngula, where commenters often (seem to) assert that questions of tone are not even relevant. Perhaps I misunderstand the point that these people make, but they seem to think that it makes no difference whether I speak (or write) in a way that suggests I’m angry with, or contemptuous of the person I’m addressing, or trying to wound them … or whether I’m appealing to him or her as someone sensible and intelligent whom I’d like to persuade. Or maybe I might be making fun of them slightly, but in a good-natured way balanced by an element of self-deprecation.
People do get to react to how they are addressed. They do get to ask “Why are you angry?” if shouted at; they get to leave the room (or ask the person addressing them to leave the room) if addressed contemptuously or in a way that is clearly meant to be hurtful.
Perhaps no one here was denying that tone is important in all sorts of ways, but it seems to be an idea that’s Out There at the moment, and often proposed by people who are essentially my allies in this little culture war that we all seem to be involved in. I wanted to get off my chest this idea that questions of tone really are very important, but also very complicated.
But again, the tone of TGD is not strident, or angry, or that of a long exasperated rant. It is generally very calm, gently humorous, occasionally showing flashes of anger at human cruelty, sometimes cheeky or ingeniously, hilariously forthright – as with Dawkins’ now-famous multiply-adjectival denunciation of the Old Testament God.
Doubtless, the average religionist is not going to relish somebody writing in this variety of tones, none of which is deferential to religion. But it’s important, I think, to for them to understand that Dawkins’ work is not simply strident or angry or anything of the kind, but something much more complex, with much more care and much more literary craft.
Well put, Russell. Most of what I have read about TGD coming from the other side seems to have been written by people who were either deaf to the tone, didn’t read the book at all, or are deliberately misrepresenting it. It is sad to see how little it has been welcomed as an intellectual challenge worthy of respect, or maybe of some answers better than we’ve had so far.
Being an atheist before the new atheists appeared was a bit like Clinton’s policy towards gays: don’t ask, don’t tell. I for one wasn’t likely to proclaim openly that I was an atheist nor was anyone likely to ask me about my religious beliefs or lack of them. The new atheist books brought the issue into the public light, and not only did atheists dare to become more vocal, the God crowd became more defensive (belief in God being based on faith or tradition needs a goodly share of defense mechanisms to keep on keeping on) and more on the look-out for atheists. So, these days, if an atheist sticks his or her head out of his or her fox-hold, he or she is likely to be shot at. Maybe life was easier for atheists in some ways before the new books, especially for atheists like me who have no interest in convincing others that God doesn’t exist and that religion is an illusion, in Freud’s words. However, life is probably more entertaining as a result of the books and even more dangerous for an atheist. Live dangerously, said a famous atheist.
Partly ditto to what Amos wrote, partly not. Also an atheist for nearly forty years prior to 9/11. I knew I didn’t believe in any god, but the word “atheist” had such a negative connotation it was simply off-limits for self-descriptive use. What would be the point if all anyone understood by it would have been something like “amoral potential criminal and destroyer of society’s fabric”? To say “I’m an atheist” till a few years ago would have been like saying “I’m a pariah.” As far as I’m concerned, the recent developments in atheist visibility are 100% positive. Most particularly, now that I think about it, it is marvellous that such a self-identification no longer automatically indicates loner status, rather it denotes membership in a group, however misunderstood and maligned, whose existence can no longer be denied or written off as some kind of infrequently occurring aberration. What’s happening now is certainly comparable, though by no means identical, to what happened with homosexuality a few decades ago.
I will repost a part of what I said in the first post’s thread in a mixed reply to Tim and OB:
The analogy to feminism is a good one, though, especially considering the double standard. Even considering the worst that Dawkins comes up with, it’s actually much milder than what extreme religious people come out with on a daily basis.
To elaborate on this further, feminists who forthrightly claimed patriarchy was nonsense were vilified for being too harsh. Folks who said women were inferior, in so many words, were not too harsh or strident at all.
As far as religion goes, saying religion is nonsense is too harsh; saying nonbelievers are going to hell is…part of a lot of people’s beliefs.
I don’t believe we are alienating people who are likely to be atheists from becoming atheists. I think the world’s percentage of self-identified atheists is quite likely to be small in any case. I do think, as I said earlier, that we might be missing a chance to appeal to *secularists.* I don’t say that we’re “alienating” them because I don’t think we’re inducing them to stop being secularists, but we are losing a chance to work with them as allies. Which in my view is the important thing.
Because really, why should atheists care about making more atheists? We’re not a proselytizing religion. I personally don’t care. I guess some might care about persuading others to atheism, but I still think even they should care much more about persuading others to secularism. When it comes to atheism qua atheism, why bother playing to the crowd? (Or aggravating the crowd unnecessarily, either, which is another form of playing to it). Let’s just state what we think and leave Nisbetian PR maneuverings to Nisbet.
I also do think some of what Dawkins & Co say deserves to be criticized for being unfair, inaccurate, excessively harsh, etc. But on the *merits*–not because it will prevent people from being atheists.
Russell: Ah, now I understand the wider thrust of your comments – and I certainly agree. (I already agreed with the substance of them; I just didn’t quite see how they fit in with this discussion.)
Jenavir: Maybe *you* don’t have an interest in making more atheists – or, more broadly, religious skeptics – but that doesn’t mean all atheists should share that perspective. I for one am absolutely convinced that faith as such is the most pernicious of the many widespread cognitive flaws to which humans are prone: If for no other reason, I am convinced that faith makes bigotry and tribalism much more difficult to root out.
Note, however, that “faith” is not the same as “religion,” although of course they overlap. Unitarians and Buddhists aren’t the problem – and they’re generally already secularists.
It doesn’t have to be about proselytising; as long as there are societies in which non-believers are disadvantaged (if not far worse), there’s a status quo that needs overturning and it will not happen through meek, accepting silence. If we consider such a state of affairs outrageous, why on earth should we not behave in an outraged fashion? And we’re being criticised for doing far less than that. My gut feeling is that most of the criticism we get, however it chooses to express itself, really springs from a kind of anger that we’re not ashamed of ourselves. And, in a certain sense, that is, I suspect, the most decisive split that exists among non-believers; that between those too timid to tell a disapproving society it is wrong and needs to change its ways and those who are now free of that crippling inhibition.
G., I’m quite well aware that some atheists hold that opinion. I don’t. But I think fighting the privileged place of religion in public discourse and law is even more essential than making new atheists, and I don’t think the former depends on the latter, either.
Although, if you refer to “religious skeptics” instead of atheists, I might agree that it’s very important to make more of them, depending on what you mean by that.
There are several not necessarily related conflicts between atheists and the God crowd (which is broader than just organized religion).
1. What Jenavir points out, the struggle for secularism. Keeping religion or God out of abortion laws,
science classes, etc.
2. The struggle for recognition of the right of atheists to affirm the non-belief in God without being attacked or ridiculed or excluded socially.
3. A concern about the violation of human rights and basic ethical principles by certain religions, which is part of a general concern about human rights violations, be they the product of theocracies or secular dictatorships or even democracies (e.g. Guantánamo).
4. The Dawkins project: to wake religious believers or the God crowd (which in contemporary society includes many people who are not members of traditional organized religions) from their delusion and get them to see that God does not exist.
The first three points concern me much more than what I call “the Dawkins project”, although I don’t see any problem with and am not opposed to what Dawkins is trying to achieve. It’s simply not my project or my cause.
But one can define 4 a little more broadly, to take in G’s point about faith. I think the project is primarily about getting people to see that faith is not a good way to find things out or get at the truth or think about troubling issues.
The problem with theists attacking and ridiculing and excluding atheists would disappear if all theists actually understood that they don’t have any good reason to believe God exists. They would realize their belief in God is just something they choose, and they would come over all quiet and humble.
In my dreams. But anyway, the faith aspect is key.
Well put, Jenavir.
Faith seems very deep-seated in most of the God crowd. Maybe it’s genetic. Just as skeptical people can’t help being skeptical, at times skeptical about their skepticism, I suspect that the God crowd can’t help
seeking a rock on which to build their church. The skeptical mind is dialectic: one thinks of X and immediately not-X appears as a possibility. Your mind either works that way or it doesn’t: the mind going around in circles can keep you awake all night when you just want it to shut up. The God crowd mind, on the other hand, seeks confirmation of what it already believes. Sartre somewhere talks about how he thinks against himself. The God crowd mind inevitably thinks in support of what it already believes. Doubtless, the differences are not so clear-cut in every person, and there are borderline cases, but in general, the God crowd has more defensive barriers than Reagan’s Star Wars plan.
That’s probably what you meant about the lifelong contrarian thing, that I was so rude about that time – you were talking about a congenital habit of mind. I suppose there’s a lot to that, but I also think (naively? possibly) that skepticism can be taught, and learned, to some extent.
But the lightbulb has to want to change. Nicholas Beale illustrates the type of the lightbulb that will not change not nohow.
That was a long-time ago. Take care of yourself.
I am very sympathetic to the view that faith and skepticism have deep, epigenetic roots. Nonetheless, there is good reason to think that skepticism can be cultivated: the widespread existence of mechanisms developed by churches to control and quarantine doubt among their members. Christians (at least in the Protestant churches with which I am familiar) are routinely counselled that doubt is a natural obstacle on the “spiritual path,” which is not easy, smooth, and straight, but hard, crooked, and full of difficulties. Doubt is treated not as a rarity in the church, but akin to the common cold. It happens to everyone at some time or another, so don’t worry. If it happens to you, just take two Bible verses (including the one about Zacharias the Doubter who finds his way back to god), get plenty of prayer, and you’ll gradually regain your full faith in due time.
There is plenty of doubt among believers; it is just well protected under layers of rhetoric, social pressure, and complacency.
Well phrased, Tim. Doubt is indeed everywhere. It’s important to remember that faith “as a way of [not] knowing” is applied to a fairly narrow range of concepts. Everyone can and does to some degree engage in basic problem-solving behaviors that ultimately rely on evidence-driven critical thinking – figuring out why your car won’t start, for example. Every human mind has the capacity to entertain alternatives and doubts: Refusing to take doubts seriously is quite often just that – a deliberate and cultivated refusal, a conscious choice to cordon off a sub-set beliefs (not always religious beliefs) and shield them from all doubts and questions. Critical thinking and confirmation bias, rebellious questioning and easy conformity, relentless curiosity and lazy acceptance – these are all mechanisms available in every human’s mental toolbox, even if there are lots of causal reasons (possibly including genetic differences) why any given individual might use some of those tools more frequently than others, or some tools in some areas but not in others.
Amos: I don’t think your 4 quite captures the main point of Dawkins’ (or most other vocal atheists’) aims at all. Making clear, cogent arguments for why most ordinary beliefs about God (or gods) are baseless nonsense and why faith is a crap way of establishing any beliefs at all is not going to persuade true believers. Aphoristically, you can’t (usually) reason someone out of some position that reason didn’t lead them into.
But there are many people who publicly identify as religious adherents – even many who regularly participate in communal religious activities – who do not in fact believe, or who believe in only the most tenuous and tentative way. There are also many young people who experience profound dissatisfaction with the teachings of their familial/cultural religious traditions – especially young women, considering how often those traditions are outright hostile to them – and they deliberately seek alternatives. Strong, clear arguments against the existence of gods out in the public space – books on bookshelves, controversies in newspapers, documentaries on telly – give these people an alternative that would otherwise be (and historically has been) lacking; a chance to escape the faith racket entirely.
Statistically speaking, the fastest-growing religious affiliation among young people in the United States is *none*. While I think there are many sociocultural factors which contribute to that trend, one factor is surely that rejecting religion entirely is a much more openly discussed alternative: It’s a position more young people embrace simply because more young people are exposed to it as a live option, and more older people are willing to admit as it becomes more socially acceptable. Dawkins has spoken very movingly about his first God Delusion book tour in the U.S. and how many people came up to him and thanked him for saying what they always secretly believed, or for giving voice to doubts that had always lurked in the back of their minds but they had feared to confront.
Carving out a social space for rejection of supernatural beliefs does in fact lead to fewer religious believers, but not directly by persuading believers to become non-believers. Rather, it provides an otherwise-absent opportunity to escape faith entirely to doubt-filled pseudo-believers, to people who participate in religion out of social pressure without any real belief, and to young people who are searching for identity and might otherwise just find another set of slightly-less-discomfiting falsehoods to embrace (and maybe to other inhabitants of the religion’s borderlands I haven’t thought of).
I think frequent, loud, clear arguments that expose god beliefs as nonsense serve the same beneficial purpose served by public arguments against pseudoscientific woo (antivaccine activism, “alternative” medicine), denialism (Holocaust, AIDS, global warming, etc.), conspiracy theories, and all other kinds of fashionable nonsense: None of those arguments ever changes the minds of true believers (or at least not in any significant numbers), but they might just keep down the number of new true believers recruited from the ranks of the vulnerable, ignorant, and/or gullible. In this way, outspoken atheism is quite simply a public service.
I think outspoken, forthright atheism – and yes, even boisterous and rude atheism on occasion – serves a second sort of public service, something profoundly important even though it may be tenuous or difficult-to-measure. Debunking quacks and conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts and the like is just too easy: Lots of people already doubt and disapprove of such nonsense. Debunking God and religion – not just a religion that is dubious to everyone outside it like Mormonism, and not just a particular approach to religion like fundamentalism, but debunking the very existence of any god or gods and therefore the foundations of (almost) all religions – that’s another matter altogether. Such bold arguments drive home the central principle at the heart of any and every genuine quest for truth – that no belief is sacred, that every assumption must be questioned, that no claim is or can ever be beyond all possible doubt. If faith is the most disastrous of epistemic vices, fallibilism is its opposite, the most important of epistemic virtues – and nothing advances fallibilism more than publicly, loudly, and repeatedly tipping sacred cows.
I have some reservations about the second of Amos’ four points a few posts ago: “2. The struggle for recognition of the right of atheists to affirm the non-belief in God without being attacked or ridiculed or excluded socially.”
Yes, we must have the right to affirm our non-belief in a god without being legally discriminated against or suffering physical attack. But social exclusion on the informal level cannot be regulated by law and, as someone who insists on having the right to ridicule my ideological opponents, I don’t feel I can lay claim to any right to do my own thing ridicule-free. I think I know what you meant and of course I want to see society change in such a way that ridicule of atheists will be broadly perceived as ridiculous itself, but the phrasing was too close for comfort to the claims of believers that they have a right not to be offended (and we know what follows from that claim).
G: I did say that the difference between the skeptical mind and the God crowd mind is not always clear-cut and that there are borderline cases. Yes, you’re right that basic problem-solving tools are in everyone’s mental tool-kit, but for some reason, most people refuse to use them or cannot use them, except when it concerns figuring out why their car won’t start, as you point out. Probably, there are lots of factors involved: habit, lack of training, mental cowardice, conformity and I think, genetic factors. I’ve observed several children grow and some kids question the world around them more than others. I’ve also been a teacher, an English teacher, and have tried to get my students to think or to express themselves more clearly, and after five minutes talking to a student, I can tell whether my efforts (I may be a bad teacher) will go in one ear and out the other or not: that is, in a few minutes, I can see whether the student has a skeptical, questioning mind or not. By the way, the majority of my students, who were training to become English teachers, that is, got moderately good (although not excellent) scores on standardized university admission tests, did not have a questioning mind. You say that most young people in the U.S. mark “none” as their religious affiliation. I don’t doubt your statistics, but organized religion is not the only form of nonsense based on not thinking things through: the options range from detox to post-modernism to New Age ideas to Marxism-Leninism in its most vulgar form (I put in a good word for Karl Marx himself) to most forms of psychoanalysis to aromotherapy to the anti-globalization protesters. My opinion, based on personal experience, not on extensive empirical research, is that people are drawn to organized religious because they seek an unthinking faith in life and if they leave organized religion, they will adopt another unthinking faith.
amos: My experiences also support the idea that there is a certain caste of mind, highly variable in particulars and extents, that is drawn to unthinking faiths; which faith is largely a function of culture and geography. I come from America–supposedly the most religious industrialized country–and my wife from the former East Germany–supposedly one of the most irreligious (former) countries. Yet there is, in my experience, no difference between the two lands in the prevelance of nonesensical beliefs. What takes the form of religion in America is expressed in Germany in pseudo-scientific views on health and nature.
nothing advances fallibilism more than publicly, loudly, and repeatedly tipping sacred cows.
I don’t agree, G. Or at least, not that Dawkins’s brand of outspoken atheism reinforces this kind of fallibilism. To many he really does look like just another sacred cow, with his atheism just another dogma, so if he tips over sacred cows…well, it’s just because he’s jealous they’re eating from his pastures. You can argue that he’s really not a sacred cow, and I would be in qualified agreement with that, but he can come across as one, and no, this isn’t entirely the fault of unfair press or religious propaganda. It also has to do with his way of stating conclusions without going through the reasoning for them (to be fair, he often does this in interviews and other fora where he can’t really go into detail, but the effect is the same).
Well…it may not be entirely the fault of propaganda, but the propaganda does tend to set the whole process up. (This applies to political campaigns too.) Once you get the meme going, then whatever happens after that can be and often is seen via that meme. The Dawkins-is-dogmatic meme means that he is blamed for short interview answers (or edited ones, for all we know) when he has no other option – and so on.
So the relentless push of majority opinion goes on and on and on, enforcing orthodoxy on pain of being silenced or distorted in perpetuity. This is an annoying process.
At last! I was beginning to think that nobody was really taking Russell’s comments seriously. By that I mean that the comments so far had all pointed to tactics or convenience as the reason Dawkins is so often mischaracterized.
So, is a change in tone warranted? As I mentioned before, I am more familiar with Dawkins as an author. I have only seen a couple of interviews with him. Do you have any particular examples in mind Jenavir? I suppose that beginning each response with “As I explain more fully in my book,” would get a bit tedious, and likely be edited out of finished interviews even if such precautions were taken.
As I have said before, though I don’t remember if it was here, I advocate a variety of tones depending on the situation at hand. I find the tone used in TGD to be an appropriate default. For any given reader it may be more or less than they are comfortable with, but his still strikes me as frank but polite.
Would the vague language of the recent Templeton Prize winner suite people more? There is a thread with several hundred posts over at PZ’s site debating weather his remarks are a subtle jab at religion or naturalism. Although nobody accuses d’Espagnat of being too aggressive, he does draw equally vehement comments for obscurantism, and from two sides.
No, for my money, honesty is the best policy here. If we believe a particular definition of god is untenable, we should say so as politely as situation dictates. And if we find the entire concept unlikely, there is nothing wrong with saying so, frankly and honestly.
Amos said:
Change that to *some* people and I agree 100%. The important task is to give the people who aren’t for one reason or another “locked in” to a faith-driven view of the world somewhere else to go – a social space for non-believers that is safe, welcoming, visible, and well-populated.
Jenavir said:
The qualifying phrase “to many” is exactly where I think you (and Julian Baggini, and many others) are simply buying into the public opinion propaganda mill driven by those who think forthright, honest criticism of religious beliefs is beyond the pale. If you actually read what he says – not just in books, but in blogs and interviews as well – Dawkins focuses relentlessly on evidence and reasoning, which of course is what fallibilism is all about.
Maybe today’s news from the UN Human Rights Council – strike that, the UN Limited Human Privileges Council – ought to stand as a warning to the politeness police whom you have been defending, and appear to count yourself among: In my considered opinion, this perpetual “you’re too militant/aggressive/negative epithet du jour” criticism aimed at outspoken atheists – whether it comes from believers or from non-believers who insist that politeness is overwhelmingly important (based on some strategic communications perspective that is never very clearly explained or clearly argued) – gives aid, comfort and support to the free speech-stifling “How dare you question or criticize my deeply held religious beliefs!” crowd.
I’m not saying – in fact, NO ONE is saying – that *every* atheist in the public sphere should be as direct and outspoken as Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers: A diversity of approaches in public communication is always best, because some people are receptive to some messages and others are receptive to very different kinds of messages. But every time another atheist (or worse, a self-described and self-righteous-about-it agnostic) bitches about Dawkins or Myers or whomever’s communication style, they are in effect joining the chorus of voices attempting to silence any and all criticism of religion. Talk about poor communications strategy! “Atheists should just shut the fuck up” is definitely a message that doesn’t need to be spread and supported any more widely, thankyouverymuch.
I’ll gladly accept your correction to “some people” instead of “people”.
In some sense, what we’re doing here is creating a space, a virtual space, where non-believers feel comfortable and welcome and normal. Let’s thank Ophelia for that.
G.: Well, no, “politeness” isn’t really what I’m getting at–at least not the sort of politeness that involves significantly watering down anyone’s essential argument. It’s more like the distinction between argument and noise. And what Dawkins says, rightly or wrongly, does get taken for noise quite a lot. By that–and by my previous reference to “many”–I am not referring to media portrayals of Dawkins, but rather what I’ve heard plenty of actual people I know (most of whom are quite critical of religion) think of him. This is anecdotal, sure. I don’t have polling data. But it wouldn’t surprise me to see polling data that says people see Dawkins as promulgating yet another dogma.
“Aid and comfort” arguments seldom persuade me, sorry, any more than “you’re alienating the nice moderate folks who would agree with you if you’d just be nicer” arguments do. I don’t think I need to hold back on my own criticisms of Dawkins because some religious people might choose to take that as validation for their silliness. If they do, I will correct them as loudly as I can. But I won’t shut up about what I consider to be Dawkins’s flaws any more than I’ll shut up about religious beliefs I find pernicious. Though politically I consider the latter much more important than the former and will devote more energy to it.
Grendels’ Dad: no links on hand, sorry, but there was an NPR (if I’m remembering right) interview a while back where Dawkins made some deeply ignorant comments on religious history and child psychology. Timothy Burke (Swarthmore College professor, Google him for his blog) wrote an interesting critical blog post on it, that’s how I found it.
OB, you’re right, once someone gets a reputation in the media it’s very hard to dislodge that. Label someone as something, and everything they do will be judged in the light of them being that thing, whether or not it should be. The lure of a good story is tough to resist, and labels lend themselves to stories.
“Dawkins made some deeply ignorant comments on religious history and child psychology”
I found that article by Burke, and I disagree (with him). Dawkins might be wrong, but “deeply ignorant”? No. It’s not as if he’s saying “this is definitely how it happened”, rather he’s saying “it’s plausible there is a misfiring of an evolutionary useful trait, such as children believing their parents”.
I think Dawkins’ main focus is on the general principle of “misfiring”, rather than the specifics of “gullible children”.
Hmmmmm…Jenavir, so far, at least, you’re just passing on third-hand rumours as if they were somehow probative. In other words you’re not doing anything different (so far) from the usual thing of handing on stories about Dawkins’s reputation without giving any actual examples of Dawkins being arrogant or dogmatic or ignorant or whatever it is. Sorry, but that’s not convincing and it’s not even very civil, or fair. Why should anyone take your word for it that Dawkins made some ‘deeply ignorant comments’ when you can’t be bothered to find and quote them? Why is that business about a maybe-it-was-NPR story not just a bit of idle gossip? You ‘won’t shut up’ about what you ‘consider to be Dawkins’s flaws’ – but you also won’t take a minute to find some actual evidence of Dawkins’s putative flaws? That’s really not very impressive.
I realize that’s rather harsh, but I think you’re thoughtful and reasonable, and that comment of yours gives off an air of reasonable thoughtfulness – it takes a bit of effort to notice that the air of reasonable thoughtfulness conceals the complete absence of evidence for what is being claimed. There’s something irritating about the combination – the Olympian tone coupled with the actual lack of substance, especially given that it’s a matter of joining a crowd of people blackening someone’s reputation. You agree with me about the power of labels, yet you add your bit of labeling to the mix, with nothing but a mention of Tim Burke to back you up. Ungood.
Well, I didn’t realize I had an “Olympian tone”! Not sure what you’re referring to there. It’s really vague and seems like it could be leveled at, well, anything.
I agreed with Burke’s criticism, as I really don’t think the ‘misfiring’ theory can be extricated from what he said about children’s minds. And I should have dug up the link, I’ll concede that. However, I provided enough information (the blog, the blogger’s name, the subject) that an interested person *could* dig up the link and judge for themselves. You obviously did. So, no, I don’t think there was a “complete absence of evidence” for what I said or that it’s “idle gossip.” My point was that Dawkins makes rash statements, and I provided a reference to an analysis of those statements, though I should have added the actual link as well.
“My point was that Dawkins makes rash statements”
I know, but you didn’t offer a single direct quote to back that up, and you still haven’t. It’s pure hearsay – and since whether or not Dawkins makes rash statements is the very point at issue, just saying that someone else says so is really not adequate. Sorry, but it is idle gossip.
I have to say that I was disappointed with the Burke post that I found. He summarizes Dawkins position as explicitly stating –part of the reason is…- and then goes on to call it an Anthropological Universal. And all of this, again, without any actual quotes. Well, there were a few scare quotes in the post.
Does someone, somewhere really have a problem with something Dawkins actually said? Some of the comments after the post I found were interesting. People seemed much more willing to accept criticism from one of their own, so to speak, as opposed to an unbeliever. And then only when the criticism dealt with the effects of belief, not its truth.
I am tentatively convinced that the talk about tone is a red herring. The issue of tone is real enough, but nobody seems to be addressing the tone actually used, or the context it is used in.
Well now that I’ve read it, I can say that it certainly doesn’t do what Jenavir wanted it to do, however good or bad it may be on its own merits. It’s just what Tim Burke thinks about Dawkins; it is in no sense evidence of what Dawkins actually says. It’s paraphrase and summary and attribution, not quotation much less transcript. So it is, indeed, in this context, mere gossip, and since part of the subject is the fact that Dawkins’s reputation for being dogmatic or rash or rude is indeed a reputation – is indeed a story put about by crowds of hostile witnesses – pointing to yet another example of doing that is absolutely not the way to argue that Dawkins is in fact dogmatic or rash or rude. I can’t really see why this isn’t blindingly obvious. If I say ‘Terry is mean’ and you say ‘How do you know?’ and I say ‘Everybody says so’ and you say ‘That’s just hearsay’ – it’s no good my saying ‘Tim says so too!’
It could be the case that Dawkins is dogmatic or rash or rude, but pointing at Tim Burke reacting to something he says he heard on the radio (but doesn’t quote) doesn’t count as reason to think so. In fact it just counts as one more passing on of the meme.
I’ve listened to quite a few of Dawkins’ radio appearances and watched most of his recent television appearances. My coverage isn’t comprehensive, but it’s a very good sample. In my judgment, he usually comes across as mild and thoughtful, and quite kind to whoever he’s dealing with. Can I think of cases where he’s lapsed from this? Yes. But how many of us would have no lapses of that kind in his place? This isn’t easy work that he’s doing.
On possible lapse that comes to mind was his interaction with Ted Haggard on the “Root of All Evil?” program. Folks who’ve seen this will remember that Haggard eventually went into a crazy-seeming rant. To be fair, though, his opening line was a friendly “Welcome to America!”, while the immediate response from Dawkins was a comparison between Haggard’s mega-church service and the Nuremburg rallies.
That may have been a good move for television, as it provoked Haggard to show his true colours, but it was certainly an example of Dawkins being aggressive from the get-go against an interviewee whose opening gambit was perfectly courteous, and indeed an attempt to be charming. I think there could be a good debate about Dawkins’ approach on this particular occasion – for all I’ve said, perhaps his exasperation with a successful charlatan of Haggardian proportions was justified.
But my point is really that these examples are very rare. In all the hours of stuff I’ve seen/heard, there are very few examples like this when Dawkins has initiated an aggressive tone. Imagine if that could be said of, say, a politician.
Dawkins seems to be being held to an unreasonable standard, which suggests to me that anyone who openly argues against religion will be characterised as “strident”. The criterion for being, let’s say non-strident, is, seemingly, that you hide what you really think.
Exactly, and that’s why it’s so exasperating. Atheists are held to an unreasonable standard, even by other atheists.
I’d forgotten that the Haggard interview went that way; selective memory, I guess. What I remember is the bit in Haggard’s office when he sets Dawkins straight about evolution, and at that point Dawkins does get heated – but I’ve always found it pretty much impossible to blame him, given that Haggard didn’t know what he was talking about and yet opposes what he takes to be evolution just the same. Anyway Dawkins doesn’t call him a bad word or anything, he just points out that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
When you’ve done enough work on something to make you an expert on it (and doesn’t that include having done more work or research on the subject than almost anybody else?) and someone who has done no work whatsoever on that subject tells you you’re wrong (and ought not to be arrogant into the bargain – if memory serves), you can hardly be blamed for getting a bit heated.
Since you asked, here’s a small sampling from roughly least to most important:
1. He makes errors about the history of Christian belief in The God Delusion. No, he doesn’t need a grounding in Christian theology to disbelieve in God, but he does need a grounding in Christian theology and history and sociology to talk credibly about what Christians think and have thought. For instance, in Ch. III, “The Argument from Scripture,” he claims that the four Gospels in the official canon were “chosen arbitrarily” out of others including the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdelene. (Unlikely: a “gospel” has usually been supposed to be an account of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, which Mary’s and Thomas’s are not, so it’s not like they were all gospels and people just picked 4 from them.). He also claims that the four official gospels are derived from a common source–Mark–which, according to scholars, is possible for Matthew and Luke but not John. It’s fine if Dawkins doesn’t know religious history, or is not acquainted with the debates about it, but then he shouldn’t make strong claims about it.
2. In that same chapter, he claims that the only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the Gospels is that one is modern and the other is ancient. That is a quintessential “rash statement.” The only difference? Really? How about that the DVC is a thriller meant to entertain people, while the Gospels were religious texts meant to convert people, often at the risk of the lives of both converters and converts? How about that the Gospel-authors were writing about events they thought had occurred in the recent past, while Dan Brown was writing about a millenia-old cultural myth? I would say that these are important differences. Perhaps what Dawkins meant was that in terms of relation to fact, they are no different. That is a more defensible claim, but if that’s what he meant he should have said so.
3. He claims that Jesus’s teachings of love-thy-neighbor and salvation are limited to Jews-only and that, largely, Christian and Jewish teachings are about being nice to your in-group and not anyone else. In so doing, he ignores that teachings in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy on how Jews should treat foreigners and strangers because *they* were foreigners and strangers in the land of Egypt. He also ignores that Jesus himself defined what “neighbor” meant in the story of the Good Samaritan, and he made it clear that it didn’t just mean “fellow Jew” (as Dawkins claims).
In fairness, Dawkins is following the anthropologist Hartung in some of these interpretations, but he clearly did not check or scrutinize the texts or other sources on his own, and most of this is fairly accessible. You don’t need to be some heavy religious scholar to do it. And you don’t want to go digging into religious history, then don’t make such strong claims about it!
4. He decisively claims a much greater role for religion in bloody conflicts than is warranted. In imagining a world without religion, he claims, for instance, that although the situation in N. Ireland was and is complex, “without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge.” Really? Seriously? People wouldn’t be capable of inventing non-religious labels? Perhaps he really thinks that, but to state it so categorically is the definition of a “rash claim” in my opinion.
5. He says flat-out that the status of atheists in America today is equivalent to that of homosexuals fifty years ago. This is the sort of claim that needs strong evidence, including evidence of atheists being violently attacked, beaten and murdered for being atheists, in order to not be rash and disproportionate.
For the gospel history, my main source was Richard Burridge: http://www.amazon.com/What-Are-Gospels-Comparison-Graeco-roman/dp/0802809715/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b
About the genre of the gospels, which makes it unlikely that their selection was arbitrary. They were chosen for a specific purpose.
All right, now that’s backing up a claim, and interesting to boot.
(He said all 4 derived from Mark? Even I know that’s wrong.)
Good stuff.