When Atheists Behave Like Fundamentalists

[rug]

By Keith Kloor | December 31, 2012 2:22 pm
So it looks like I’m ending 2012 in a pissing match with PZ Myers.

I don’t understand why he’s making such a big issue of me quoting writers like Saul Bellow and Margaret Atwood. I haven’t suggested they are experts in science. I’m merely highlighting observations about the human condition made by literary artists—observations that speak to an important facet of this debate between science and religion.

It’s odd to be engaging in an infantile back-and-forth with someone who I broadly agree with on matters related to science and religion. Additionally, as regular readers know, I spend much of my time on this blog pushing back on pseudoscientific claims and rhetoric made in other realms, such as the GMO discourse.

The ferocity of the science is not compatible with religion claim is truly something to behold. I personally reject that the two are mutually exclusive. I’ve previously made an argument here, and I suppose that the fracas between me and Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers will lead to me to try and strengthen my own case.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2012/12/31/when-atheists-behave-like-fundamentalists/

[bluestateguy]

1. Most atheists are not fanatics

But it also has to be conceded that neither are most Christians fanatics either.

[rug]

2. No argument.

[tama]

3. Silent majorities

and vocal fanatic minorities. The links from the OP:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/peter-higgs-the-boson-man-takes-out-after-richard-dawkins-for-the-usual-reasons/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/27/no-one-should-be-embarrassed-to-speak-the-truth/

It is true that much if not most great writing etc. art is based on channeling rage, but ad hominems originating from dogmatic with-us-or-against-us purism and personality cult don't make quite make it into that category.

[Laochtine]

12. I am

I want 12 atheist channels on basic cable. I want to blame weather events on Christians. I want to picket churches for the Hell of it.
Just seems like the thing to do

[Silent3]

16. What constitutes a "fanatic" in atheism?

Does thinking science and religion aren't compatible, in and of itself, make you a fantatic? Does saying that out loud make you fanatic? Is saying it out loud OK, but only if you make enough of a diplomatic fuss over how you know there are good and intelligent people who are religious, otherwise then you're being a fanatic?

[longship]

27. Somebody who openly expresses their opinion.

That's who.

That's why I openly state that I am an atheist. Let others label me as strident, or whatever other label they would use.

When a Christian (for example) does it, they are expressing their faith. When an atheist does it he is strident and mean.

I am a loud and proud atheist. I have few problems with most religious people, but have a huge problem with where religion, in general, has taken society.

The one thing that really gets me riled up is equivocating non-belief with meanness simply because a non-believer speaks out about his or her lack of belief.

The other thing that pisses me off is those who feel obligated to impose their beliefs on others, especially those who want to use legislative fiat to do so.

[cbayer]

28. I disagree. I know very few atheists that I would describe as fanatics.

I have a friend who travels a certain road frequently. There is a marker where someone probably died and he stops there to rearrange the stones, which are in the shape of a cross, into a peace symbol He's a fanatic.

Openly stating one is of one religious group or another or an atheist. doesn't make one a fanatic.

Where do you see people equivocating non-belief with meanness?

[longship]

29. Well, I was putting my take on it.

So my choice of words (mean, strident, etc.) should be taken with a grain of salt.

However, I really get my shorts in a bunch when atheists are equated to these or similar attributes.

And the atheist you know who rearranges memorials isn't what I would call a typical atheist anymore than the Westboro Baptists are typical theists. These folks are just acting like jerks. Nobody should be portrayed as being similar to some minority opinion simply because they share some common other trait.

Unfortunately, I see many posts in the blogosphere which inevitably paint atheists, and similarly theists, with such a broad brush. I do not like either.

Most atheists and theists would probably agree with me on this.

I like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers. But if I disagree with them on something, I defend their right to express their points of view. Certainly I would not malign them because they expressed themselves. If a person disagrees, so be it. They should probably not go to Pharyngula or wherever. Problem solved.

As to your atheist friend, I consider his actions similar in type to those who would defile a religious shrine simply because it is religious. Like the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, I would hope atheists and theists of all kinds would condemn such actions.

I hope your holidays were pleasant, my friend.

[cbayer]

30. You are right. My friend is not typical at all.

I would describe the fanatics on both sides as those who feel they have the one true way and that everyone else is stupid, delusional, going to hell, etc. They heap disdain on those with a different POV and are intolerant to the max.

While I defend their right to express their opinions, I also defend mine to disagree with them.

My holidays were very quiet and very pleasant. We are in the middle of some major repairs here and stuck on the mainland for a few more days.

[intaglio]

4. Always nice to look at only one side of the issue

It doesn't let your prejudices be challenged

Talk about completely missing the point…he had previously written a post quoting Saul Bellow saying science was unsatisfying; I was baffled about why he thought Bellow was a particularly insightful contributor on this topic, especially since his comment was so banal and ignorant. I was NOT suggesting that he needed to get a better-ranked author to convince me; I’ve got nothing against Bellow’s literary contributions. But that seems to be the only thing he took away from my post.

So now he’s put up a short post (promising more later) which consists of little more than a quotation from Margaret Atwood.

I think that the religious strand is probably part of human hard-wiring…by religious strand, I don’t mean any particular religion, I mean the part of human beings that feels that the seen world is not the only world, that the world you see is not the only world that there is and that it can become awestruck. If that is the case, religion was selected for in the Pleistocene by many, many millennia of human evolution.

Like the Bellow quote, I really have nothing against the source; in fact, I’ve enjoyed the writings of both Atwood and Bellow. My complaint is with the abysmal vacuity of the content, and the fact that Kloor seems to be playing a game of Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. It doesn’t advance the argument to quote someone else saying something wrong. (Although he probably feels it gives him cover.)

Link to Myers' post in question

[rug]

5. I doubt PZ will offer anything more.

I’m done with him. He’s too stupid to argue with further.

So there.

[intaglio]

6. So being against arguing for arguments sake is bad

and expecting skeptics to bow to a single source text is good.

Got ya ...

[rug]

11. No, but saying I'm not arguing with you because you're stupid is something I'd expect from PeeWee

Herman, not PZ Myers.

[intaglio]

14. Read Pharyngula, he uses the word frequently

and he is also able to support that view in the majority of cases. Would you prefer he used the word "heretic" or perhaps "apostate"?

[rug]

18. I expect he's about to use heretic and apostate frequently too.

[intaglio]

20. Nope, as I say read him you might learn something

You might find it uncomfortable - but aren't you supposed to be able to martyr yourself for faith?

[edhopper]

17. Well

quoting Star Trek TNG scores a win in my book.

[Speck Tater]

7. I am an A.A.

Apathetic Atheist.

I don't know if God exists and even though I strongly doubt it, I really don't give a damn one way or the other.

[cbayer]

8. Burgeoning movements often benefit from leaders at the extremes,

but they may become liabilities as the movement gains a foothold.

I think we are seeing more of that and some pretty significant backlash.

Suspect this is just growing pains.

[JoeyT]

9. You mean they're

engaging in honor killings and bombing abortion clinics? The bastards. Have they no shame?

[dimbear]

10. No, it's far worse than that. They're arguing. If only they had one chief infallible atheist,

everything would be fine.

[Laochtine]

13. That's why

occupy confounds. they can't point their vitriol.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

15. The worst sin on Pharyngula is "accomodationism"

Which Kloor correctly defines as

If you dare to say (as I do) that religion still has some redeeming qualities for people, you’re branded an “accomodationist.” If you dare to say (as I do) that science and religion can coexist, you’re branded an “accomodationist.”

In other words, the Pharyngula party line is "religion is, at best, wholly worthless; it is more likely bad in and of itself," and if you dare to disagree with the party line, you are denounced as an accomodationist. Saying "do you think you should be a bit more moderate and/or at least minimally respectful when talking to believers" gets you called a "tone troll", almost as bad a creature as an accomododationalist.

Because my brother was a contributor to Pharyngula, I thought that I would try posting there. I lasted a month or so, and left because I was, shall we say, not treated kindly.

Just now, I googled my user name and Pharyngula and discovered that I am not just not remembered there kindly, but I'm not remembered accurately. According to http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/12/28/were-meddlesome/ my brother says that "Because I’m an atheist I’ve been snubbed by several people I thought were friends, I’m estranged from my brother". I am not estranged from my brother because he is an atheist; rather, he has estranged himself from me for reasons unknown. The last time I tried to call him, he couldn't get off the phone quickly enough.

Another poster wrote

Also, in case you are not aware of it, the brother that ‘Tis is speaking has commented here in the past. He went by the moniker of Fortinbras Armstrong. He liked to complain about how “nasty” atheists are. He also claimed to have an Aristotelian proof of god but that we were not prepared to accept it.

I did not "like to complain about how 'nasty' atheists are." What I actually said was, "I can understand why someone would be an atheist. Indeed, I can make the arguments against religion just as well as you can. What I don't understand is why some atheists feel they have to be nasty about it." It's not exactly "liking to complain" since it is a genuine question, not a complaint. Second, I did not "claim" that I had "an Aristotelian proof of god" that they were not prepared to accept. What I said was that I had reasons for believing in God that are meaningful to me, but I realize that no one else would be likely to accept," which is something wholly different.

[rug]

19. Misquoting is a common technique.

[cbayer]

21. This anti-theist position you describes appears to be losing traction within the

growing non-believer community. I read more and more objections to it and see more marginalization of it's loudest spokespeople.

I have also had the experience of being labeled as something I am not because I don't support the stands of the anti-theists. There seems to be an assumption if you are not just like them, then you are the "other". Accommodationist and apologist are used to discredit you, while what you really are is tolerant and open to the ideas and POV's of others, even it they are markedly different than your own.

I am most interested in places where both believers and non-believers and those in between can exchange ideas with mutual respect and civility. Any site that takes a fundamentalist approach that they know the truth and everyone else is wrong, be it religious or non-religious, is highly unlikely to be that.

[okasha]

23. At least it's not "collaborator."

n/t

[gcomeau]

22. If the worst things that religious fundamentalists did...

...was *disagree vocally* with those ideologically opposed to them, then this article title would have something resembling a point. As it is it's just purely stupid.

[rug]

24. That's a step up from calling the author stupid.

Watch your back, you may be next.

[gcomeau]

25. I'm not familiar with Kloor

...and wouldn't call him stupid without reading more of his work. That particular article is not a promising introduction however.

[rug]

26. Fair enough.

[MisterScruffles]

31. So What

Yes, there are many cases of Atheists engaging in unsavory behaviors. In every case, it was due to other views the person held dogmatically. PZ, Rebecca Watson, Greg Laden, and the other clowns in that group are dogmatic due to left wing extremism. Ayn Rand was dogmatic due to greed. Mao was dogmatic due to narcissism and the communist party engaged in state worship. In all of these cases, the aforementioned people could have been religious, and that would have changed little except how their propaganda was presented. You can certainly find, however, people whose evil stems from religion. I don't think that the Palestinians would willingly strap suicide bombs onto their children if they were not told to do so by their Imams. I don't think that Africans would refuse to use condoms during sexual intercourse if the pope had not told them that contraception would damn their souls. I don't think that the Germans would have willingly participated in the holocaust if they had not been told for years by their local ministers that the Jews were the spawn of Satan, engaged in human sacrifice, and had killed Jesus.