Are we hating atheists enough yet?
Jason Rosenhouse points out another way of looking at the matter:
What is so significant about the New Atheist books is the sheer volume of books that they sold. They have revealed that to a far greater extent than was previously realized, there is a hunger in America for books written from a non-religious perspective. That is a momentous accomplishment, and one that should warm the hearts of anyone who cares about promoting science and reason.
Quite; and in doing that, they have also made it easier for atheists to be frankly as opposed to covertly atheists. That too is a momentous accomplishment, and a useful one. That is one reason it is irritating to have reactionaries telling us ‘No no no no no, you have to be covert about it, all this frankness is a disaster and an outrage, get back in that closet at once.’
This is all just standard scapegoating from M and K. It’s so much easier to focus on a handful of writers who arrived on the scene just in the last few years and to ignore the deeper cultural forces that have tended to make America more hostile to science than other industrialized countries.
It’s scapegoating and worse – it’s become a full-throttle campaign to work up hatred and rage against atheism and atheists. Mooney and Kirshenbaum may not even realize that’s what it is, but if they don’t, they’re being very stupid and very reckless. They should be more aware and more careful. They should realize what kind of language they are using, and stop doing it. They should not, for instance, say that ‘The atheist biologist Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago, for instance, has drawn much attention by assaulting the center’s Faith Project’ – but that’s exactly what they do say. That’s very loaded language – loaded, provocative, misleading, and potentially dangerous. Like Jason, I find that vexing.
It’s easier for those of us living in the Midwest to see Dawkins’ impact. The big box book stores in Oklahoma, such as Barnes and Noble, have an entire section of the store, consisting of multiple book cases, devoted to “Christian Inspiration”.
Prior to the God Delusion, there was no section at all for nonbelievers. But after Dawkins published his book, and proved there’s a market for atheism, the B&N in Oklahoma City now has a shelf labeled “Atheism and Agnosticism”. It’s just one shelf, not a whole set of bookcases like Christianity gets, but at least it’s something.
And having that shelf helps other atheist writers. Sure, there’s Dawkins and Dennett and Harris and Hitchens on the atheist shelf. But it also included “Doubt” by Jennifer Michael Hecht, “50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God” by Guy P. Harrison, “Atheism Explained” by David Ramsey Steele, and other less known but still very talented writers on the topic of atheism.
From this side of the Atlantic, it looks like quite a broad sweep of hate. Talking about atheists waging a holy war is ham-fisted allusion to jihad which would pass for wit on Fox News. The quick response is show me the atheist suicide bombers. However, if you’re a Muslim who thinks jihad can refer to the struggle to live a virtuous life, then you might question the sincerity of MK’s respect.
Picking on Muslims for a cheap stereotype has more than religious connotations as this atheist blogger said when he explained why he wasn’t reproducing the Jyllands Posten cartoons:
This is from the sort of blogger who MK have criticised for inflaming the religious. Using a phrase as shorthand to equate Atheists with Muslims, and by extension violence, looks like casual bigotry to me. But that could be the side of the Atlantic I’m on. Perhaps there’s a much more sophisticated understanding of Islam in the USA. Or does MK’s choice of words indicate a crusade for respecting a specific religion?
Incidentally, if I’d co-written a book which showed you can criticise Islam (along with other religions) without resorting to kneejerk stereotypes then I’d plug it here.
But I haven’t written one.
There’s a level of animosity that I find quite disturbing and at times inexplicable. I think the fact that the “new atheists” are so successful upsets a lot of folks. I expected it from Bunting type theists, who are trying to carve out a middle ground where being a apofartic theist is better (in her eyes) than being atheist or fundi, and where both atheist and fundi are equally bad. What gets my goat is the atheists who tell other atheists to shut up like Mooney, et al. They gloat and act all superior. There is nothing superior about being a condescending and sometimes mendacious prat.
Aw shucks, Alun.
Quite so about the level of animosity. I think I’m going to write a book about that.
Very interesting original post thanks.
Re the level of animosity, and use of loaded language, It may be rather than being ‘special’ to the atheism vs religion situation it reflects the hostile, immediate and personal characteristics of most debate in the which have moral weights attached to agreeing with whatever side you pick.internet age. Its a waste of time debating creationists, or prochoice vs prolife, or the other ‘marker issues’. And loaded language is hardly restricted to the anti-rational sides…
Thouless’ Dishonest Tricks of Argument, wasn’t it, the old Loaded Language?
Its a waste of time debating creationists, or prochoice vs prolife, or the other ‘marker issues’. And loaded language is hardly restricted to the anti-rational sides…
Generalisation is always wrong. ;)
If you’re referring to the average punter like me, then yes, I’ve argued and will surely argue poorly again in the future. But it seems to me that mine host and the other “new” atheists like Dawkins, et al. are very fair and unreasonably reasonable.
Quite so about the level of animosity. I think I’m going to write a book about that.
“Does God Hate Atheists?”
“Does God Hate Atheists?”
Let’s ask his self-appointed representatives….
YES!
That’s a very good title. Layers of irony.