The atheist is always wrong
8 June 2007 by vastleft
In the mainstream press — and even in much of the leftysphere — commentary about atheism routinely boils down to this:
- Atheists question religion, which has caused many wars, acts of terrorism, and so on. Hmm, maybe they have a point…
- Nah, using little or no documentation, I’ve decided that atheists are a bunch of angry freaks. Unlike the people who cling to ancient supernatural beliefs, atheists are unreasonable. Screw ‘em!
Canadian writer Andrew Potter beautifully illustrates this formula in his article, “At what point does belief in religion constitute a threat to others?”
Hey, that sounds like an important and interesting topic — asking whether religion is a potential hazard. It’s not too interesting to Potter, though, who wastes no time careening over to point #2. The piece is subtitled “Radical atheists are wrong not to find common cause with religious moderates.”
This cycle repeats in the body of the article, with the cadence resoundingly completed at the end.
The only quote he offers is from a relative of the accused plotters of a terrorist attack on Fort Dix:
“It’s fine to be a religion man. But if you get too much of the religion, you get out of your mind and do stupid things.”
Potter continues to validate the rationalist viewpoint:
I entirely agree with the substance of the atheist critique, that religious belief of just about any sort is intellectually lazy and that there is no more reason to believe in God or saints or angels than in ghosts, goblins, or the tooth fairy. It’s all infantile magical thinking as far as I’m concerned, and any rational person should be embarrassed to believe any of it.
But it just wouldn’t do to conclude with that perspective, now would it?
Without any citations from their work whatsoever, Potter declares that skeptics such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens are too extreme in seeing religion as generally problematic.
… if I had to choose between the overheated ranting of Hitchens’ God is Not Great and the mannered sensibility of Murat Duka, I know whose side I’d choose. As Duka might say, it’s fine to be an atheist man. But if you get too much of it, you get out of your mind and write stupid things.
So, despite the fact that religion is “intellectually lazy” and “infantile magical thinking” that drives some people to horrific acts of mass murder, who is the target of Mr. Potter’s critique?
Just remember rule #2: when in doubt, shoot the atheist. Even when there is no doubt, and you totally know that religion is a sorry farce, still, you shoot the atheist.
After all, atheists are “militant.”
How militant are they? Very militant, it seems.
A Google search finds 90,500 citations of “militant atheist” or “militant atheism,” and the same number of pages citing “Richard Dawkins” and the m-word.
Aside from “militant Muslim” and “militant Islam,” with an impressive 991,000 citations, atheism is the point-of-view on faith most painted with the “militant” brush.
Other results include:
- “militant Christian, “militant Christianity,” “militant Christianist”: 32,868
- “militant “Hindu,” “militant Hinduism”: 23,550
- “militant Jew,” “militant Judaism,” “militant Zionist,” “militant Zionism”: 11,868 (about 1,300 without Zion/Zionism)
- “militant Buddhist,” “militant Buddhism”: 3,520
- “militant Quaker”: 240
- “militant Baha’i”: 4
A handful of the “militant atheist” references are from people who have claimed that epithet as a badge of honor. But typically, it’s a pejorative meant to caricature those who think widespread, institutionalized irrationality can and does cause major problems.
Even though these authors tell us we’re right, we are still adjudged as wrong, and our writings are “stupid,” unlike those sensible stories where a guy houses every species of flora and fauna in the world for over a month on a homemade boat, or where a virgin’s resurrected son ascends bodily to heaven.
8 June 2007, on 12:14 pm
I think that religion has some value in that one can obtain some valuable self-help techniques from it (e. g., yoga, meditation, even prayer).
No, I don’t think that these practices invoke any supernatural deity (as I do not believe that one exists) but it does help calm and center myself and maybe, just maybe, makes me a little bit less selfish and more caring about others.
think: what athletes do prior to competition.
So, yeah, the superstitions of religion are pretty dumb (miracles, resurrected bodies, golden plates, flaming chariots, devine revelation, hell, charkras (sp), etc.) but I’d be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
8 June 2007, on 12:20 pm
I’d be careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I wouldn’t. Religion has been pushed in our face for centuries. Personally, it’s been shoved in front of me all my life. I really don’t care if the baby goes out with the bathwater.
TO HELL WITH THE BABY!
lol - now is that last sentence militant, stupid, or both, Mr. Potter?
8 June 2007, on 12:23 pm
it does help calm and center myself and maybe, just maybe, makes me a little bit less selfish and more caring about others.
I don’t need religion for that. That’s the major theme of my life: Helping others, and I’m doing my best to impress that upon my young son.
8 June 2007, on 12:27 pm
@ollie:
How is meditation religious?
Just because religions use meditation doesn’t make meditation religious any more than drinking wine or eating crackers is religious.
8 June 2007, on 2:30 pm
“think: what athletes do prior to competition.”
Ollie, are you referring to masturbation?
8 June 2007, on 3:13 pm
Replies:
I am not saying meditation, yoga or anything else is necessary; they are useful tools for ME and others, in the same way that yoga is a good exercise for the body (but hardly the only good one).
No, meditation doesn’t have to be religous, but some of us learned it there(I am a recovering theist and I still do yoga).
Travdawg:
it has been my experience that masturbation doesn’t help performance (I get too sluggish), though Marty Liquori (famous American miler in the 70’s) did record one incident of someone setting a world record within an hour of doing just that! See: Guide for the Elite Runner, Liquori.
8 June 2007, on 3:55 pm
Ha ha, I’ve heard it’s good stress releif before the big game.
8 June 2007, on 6:41 pm
Ollie, which is the baby and which is the bathwater?
Why should we assume that religion is intrinsically good, and that the venal and hateful elements are the aberration?
In my Bible reading so far, I’ve seen little evidence that YHWH is anything to write home about.
8 June 2007, on 6:48 pm
Ollie,
The problem becomes when people turn to prayer when they could be doing something useful about their problems.
I agree about meditation and it can have a soothing affect, yoga=good in my book, yada yada. But, I think the atheists point (call it militant if you will…) is that religion, by and large, does more harm than good and therefore, we should be looking at it with more critical of an eye.
I personally don’t have a problem with religions who don’t try to convert me, leave my family alone on the weekends, don’t have their “holy” sounds fill up my neighborhood and don’t tell my friends and family they’re going to hell. However, those types of religion seem to be few and far between nowadays.
Actually, that’s not true, I do. And it’s this: If they have a church, are they letting their church be used for other types of gatherings or did they destroy habitat, merely that their building could be used by their kind, when they see fit? Just because you can afford to build a church (thanks at least in part to ridiculous tax breaks) doesn’t mean that you should.
8 June 2007, on 6:50 pm
One last thought about religion and taxes. I’m sure you’ve all seen it, but one of my favorite bumper stickers:
“Religious groups should stay out of politics. Or be taxed.”
8 June 2007, on 8:22 pm
Vastleft: “the baby” are those *individual* practices that give an individual comfort and centering. “The bathwater” is just about everything else (e.g., telling others what to do, telling people (especially kids) that they might go to hell, attempting to ruin science and basic research, etc.
I am saying that good *can* be extracted from *some* religious practices.
Does it do more harm that good? I don’t know what percentage of the population is of the “tell others what to do” crowd or “whatever we do is blessed by our diety’ crowd. But in the US: I’d have to say “more harm”.
Prayer: is not a substitute for action; if someone is hungry praying for them won’t help; feeding them will. Prayer can be helpful for the person doing it as a self-help technique (say, you are with a beloved parent who is losing their mind and you want to guard against getting impatient)
Taxes: yeah, churches should be taxed, and churches unfairly eat up taxable property. But good luck getting that through our elected officials.
Terra: I like your bumper sticker!
By the way, I am not a troll; I got here from Mike’s Blog Roundup “Holy Crap” section (Crooks and Liars). I’ve just finished “End of Faith” and “The God Delusion” and loved both books.
8 June 2007, on 9:02 pm
I think that some theists like the idea of calling atheists militant because they really want to set up this false dichotomy and inaccurate representation/comparison between theists and atheists.
Many theists like to see themselves as the “bringers of peace through the word of (god, allah, insert god here), so to fit this propaganda they have of themselves, anyone or any group which is not in lockstep with them, MUST be seen as the aggressive or militant party.
It sets up the false dichotomy that the more religious amongst us love so much. “You are either for us or against us” - “You are either good or bad” - “You are good or evil” and you are either “peaceful or aggressive/militant.”
Frankly, I think that wherever there has been militant action, the presence of religion has always been obvious.
8 June 2007, on 9:57 pm
Ollie,
The baby/bathwater dichotomy for religion is just as false as the dichotomy that beepbeep describes.
Religious apologists cherry-pick the nice parts of religion and rationalize / pretend away the bad parts. The parts that are bad aren’t the “real” religion, they claim. It’s the old “no true Scotsman” argument.
8 June 2007, on 10:20 pm
There is no such thing as “militant” atheists. When have you seen atheists, in any *organized* manner:
* Interrupt religious ceremonies at baptisms, weddings, and funerals
* Stand in front of church doors trying to prevent people from entering
* Carry protest signs warning believers that “science is gonna get them”
* Use bullhorns to disrupt religious services
* Stand on street corners pushing atheist pamphlets into the hands of reluctant passers-by
* Insist that students recite the Humanist Manifesto at graduation ceremonies?
This sort of thing lies within the realm of the religionists. Although, come to think of it, perhaps atheists should begin to consider some of these tactics. If people are going to describe us as militant, then maybe we should show them what militant really means.
8 June 2007, on 10:49 pm
General Shade51, I want to join your army! Sir!
8 June 2007, on 11:46 pm
Vastleft, I think that I understand why “baby with the bathwater” was a bad metaphor; that seems to imply that there is some good “core” in religion, and that wasn’t what I meant to say.
Thank you for pointing that out.
My point is that there are some useful things that can indeed be cherry picked.
9 June 2007, on 12:32 am
My favorite oxymoron is “militant pacificist”.
Favorite double entendre: “an act of congress”.
9 June 2007, on 1:05 am
“Militant atheist” is always a term given to athiests by theists. They seem to consider atheists “militant” only when they make their atheism known in no uncertain terms.
The closest I’ve heard to an atheist admitting such is Douglas Adams referring to himself as a “radical atheist.” And he only did this to emphasize the fact that he was serious about his atheism. (Hint to theists: Douglas Adams was a funny, tongue-in-cheek guy.)
Hell, to the fundies, we’re all “militant” atheists…
9 June 2007, on 8:46 am
Ollie,
Thx for your follow-up.
One of the biggest impediments for progress in this area is that few people who have a soft spot for religion recognize that there’s another side to that coin, the inevitable risks when people swap out reason in favor of “faith.”
9 June 2007, on 12:35 pm
Militant Quaker?
That one made me laugh out loud. If there is anything I’ve ever associated the Society of Friends with, it’s pacifism, not militancy.
9 June 2007, on 1:17 pm
GG,
Well, Nixon was a militant Quaker, or at least a militaristic one.
9 June 2007, on 6:14 pm
I don’t care what other people believe why do they care so much what I believe [or don't believe?].
I do care when their made up ritualistic beliefs start to interfere with important things like critical thinking, personal freedom, scientific exploration and societal progress.
The religious types seem to get most annoyed when informed that they are not allowed to impose their beliefs on everyone. If it’s not just about control, why is it such a problem for them to keep it to themselves?
I won’t replace reason and understanding with faith in a magical superstition. Why is that a problem?
10 June 2007, on 5:37 pm
There was also the Butler family of Philidephia. One was a secretary of war and his son, Smedley, became commandant of the Marine Corps. He also won two medals of honor. I’m told by”Friends” from that area who are friends that neither was ever “read out” of meeting. In pre-revolutionary days the city had to supply militia, but to avoid martial language they had “associators” not militia. There was in fact a company of “Quaker Blues” many of whom fought, but they were read out of meeting. I understand most were accepted back.
13 June 2007, on 11:38 am
[...] So, why are articulate and well-reasoned folks like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris constantly being tarred as militants, even by humanist leaders? [...]
16 June 2007, on 11:28 pm
There were a lot of Quaker abolitionists in the 19th century. Maybe they were considered “militant”?
22 June 2007, on 11:54 am
There was also a meeting of the Society of Friends in Philadelphia during the American Revolution who felt that in times of crisis, if the spirit so commanded, they could take up arms and fight in wars. This was, however, not particularly popular with the rest of the church, and so the Philadelphia Free Quakers were expelled from the rest of the convention and eventually died off.
Interestingly enough, Quakers, Mennonites, Moravians, and other peace churches were often viewed very suspiciously by the Congressional forces, who tended to see in their pacifism a de facto sympathy with the crown.
22 June 2007, on 5:25 pm
Nice post, vastleft - I just found it through C&L.
I find that even people who think religion is illogical, harmful and foolish are shocked at my lack of religion.
I wonder if there isn’t some Stockholm Syndrome going on? Many of my relatives and associates who are most comfortable with my beliefs are also believers. They believe in mythical sky beings (my fave is the Flying Spaghetti Monster), and I beleieve there are no such.
But people without a belief either way (agnostics, negative or “soft” atheists who just don’t believe any particular thing) seem to be embarassed that I actively disbelieve.
I’ve also had the amusing experience, as a high school history teacher, of teaching people their own theology in a comparative religions context. And many who attended Bible study so frequently it interfered with their homework had no clue about the actual tenets of their faith.
Thanks again.
22 June 2007, on 8:21 pm
umlando,
Thanks. I absolutely agree this is a form of the Stockholm Syndrome.