The angry atheist
(Excuse the poor image quality. I can’t seem to scan it as line art.)
Richard Dawkins and his followers are perpetuating the myth of the angry atheist. Just like the man in the comic above, evangelizing his view that all evangelizing should be banned. Taking an extremist view to counter the religious extremists is going to win you neither support nor respect. I think the time has come to shut up with the angry rhetoric and belittling of all who follow a religion. After all, we have the best tools humanity has ever invented on our side: logic, reason and the scientific method. Why should we need to lower our arguments down to the level of religious fundamentalists to make a point? That’s one of the reasons I started this blog.
Before starting this blog I’ve been reading various atheist blogs trying to get a feel of what the atheist part of the blogosphere is. That’s how I stumbled upon the so-called “War on Christmas”. People are encouraged to say “Happy holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. My first though was: who the hell cares? Do Atheists really care about such petty issues as how people express their wish that they have a good time?
Luckily, this imaginary war seems to be all in the heads of American Christians. The worst thing is that they’re probably profitting from making it seem like the followers of the devil (i.e. atheists and other non-christians) are attacking them from every angle. Luckily for me I live in a country where this is a non-issue. The Norwegian word for Christmas, jul, has no relation whatsoever to Christianity. In fact, the Christians stole both the word and the tradition from the pagans.
I’m much more concerned about the fact that some atheists are becoming increasingly intolerant of other views. This is just flat out wrong, no matter how stupid other people’s beleifs are. This fall, Elton John said:
From my point of view, I would ban religion completely. (…) Organized religion doesn’t seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it’s not really compassionate.
This has to be the most idiotic quote on religion I’ve read all year. This tops everything everyone’s said about how atheism is evil, this even tops the millitant islamists who say that Allah wants them to kill innocent people. Religion, or lack thereof, is a deeply personal thing. Like the fact that supporting free speech means supporting the right to say things you disagree with, religious freedom means supporting the right to believe things you don’t believe in. Luckily, people seem to agree with me on this.
On a Norwegian forum I frequent, someone recently asked:
Why should I respect something so dangerous as religion?
This got me thinking. As it’s apparently fashionable to not believe in God, more people are standing up and saying they are atheists. They seem to forget the art of respectfully disagreeing. Like I said above, religion, or lack thereof, is a deeply personal thing. This seems to provoke people into writing and saying stuff they never ever would have even considered writing on any other subject. People are becoming like politicians in this respect: a politician can’t just change his opinions in the middle of a debate, even though he’s convinced that his previous view was wrong, because he represents his party. Many people seem to be under the impression that atheism is like a political party. They can’t disagree with the party’s official stance on any question, so they continue to be intolerant of other people’s views, at least in public.
I’m all for a discussion of the role religion plays in today’s society. With an increasingly global culture, and all the tension and violence that’s rooted in religion today, it’s certainly called for. But this elitist view of everyone who disagree with you, no matter how stupid their beliefs are, has got to stop. Right now. Tolerance and respectfully disagreeing is the best you can do for the cause of atheism.
Sam Harris’ words and others’ may very well fall on deaf ears, thanks to both the real and perceived intolerance from atheists. Most atheists, I suspect, do not view all religious people as stupid, militant extremists. But those who do ruin it for the rest of us. The image of the angry atheist has got to go.
Update: see also More on the angry atheist, in which I clarify my position.
Filed under: atheism, religion | 22 Comments
-
Recent Comments
angie on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Ereredync on Empire State Building, Evoluti… phil on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Avil on The Blog Is Dead Kevin Trudeu on Starting Your Own Religion: a …
Excellent Post!!
As an American Christian, I could not agree more. (one note on the “War on Christmas” thing… It comes from the banning of Christmas trees in public places, whereas the Menorah or Star and Cresent is permitted under the name of “tolerance.”)
The necessity for mutual respect is the foundation for any kind of discorse between opposing parties. If I say, “I’m right and your are wrong because you are dumb” then I have just attacked you on a persoonal level and have done nothing to expose the flaws in mine or your point of view.
Simen, I think I have to respectfully disagree. As a not-very-angry-but-occasionally-really-annoyed American atheist living in the Bible Belt, I think you may not realize what’s bugging the angry atheist. While I’m really glad you’re blogging and providing a more balanced view of atheism for the blogosphere, I don’t think it’s time for the angry atheists (I love Dawkins, btw…he gives me hope and confidence to imagine a world where people begin to grasp reason rather than hide their heads in scripture, and the courage to speak more freely myself) to go away. In places like here and England, where there’s been a resurgence of fundamentalism, there is need and motive to speak bluntly and publicly about the problems with religion.
While I would never encourage a banning of religion (I think that would just strengthen it, and it needs to be allowed to die a natural death), I do think that no one should be forced to speak respectfully of religion. It HAS done so much harm, and until the religious are willing to confront the problems that religion has created and continues to create, there are going to be angry people like Dawkins speaking out (thankfully!) on behalf of those whose lives are made worse by the flourishing of religion among them.
I don’t live in the Bible Belt, so you’re right, as I don’t experience religous fundamentalists in person every day I don’t get provoked as often as those who do. But, honestpoet, I think you misunderstood. I’m not saying we need to be respectful towards religions per se (they’re only belief systems, after all, and don’t have feelings) but rather the people behind them.
I do agree with much Dawkins says. I just disagree with the packaging of most of it. I think it’s just fuel on the fire the fundamentalists are keeping. I’m just calling for people to look behind the angry facade and really get at the core arguments. Why is religion threatening society today? How can we prevent it from doing so? Exactly what is wrong with these beliefs, and why does it concern me, the reader of the highly opinionated essay you’re writing?
Remember, though they may have silly beliefs, and even dangerous beliefs, they are still people. And people are a lot more likely to listen if they perceive you as nice, even though you’re bluntly stating that they’re idiots. That’s hard.
Perhaps the media are hyping the angry atheist myth too much. Dawkins allegedly didn’t want his documentary to be called “The root of all evil?” and even specifically requested that they add the question mark. Maybe he had an even more controversial title, or maybe he was trying to make the kinds of judgments I’m talking about.
So no, I don’t think Dawkins et al should shut up completely. I just think we need to review what good the angry atheists have done, and whether funny atheists or hippie atheists or other kinds of presentations of the same arguments would have helped more. Call it our war strategy, even though I want this to be more of a civilized conversation than a war.
I think ALL sorts of atheists need to speak out, including the angry ones. (And I do think, actually, that the media hypes up the angry part a lot…it’s good for ratings.) When I’ve watched Dawkins on youtube, he usually comes off as charming and amusing, in that British-y sort of way. And not just because I agree with him, but because he actually is charming and funny. And reasonably respectful of the people he’s addressing, even when they don’t agree with him.
There’s a difference between mocking a religion (which is entirely acceptable) and mocking all religous people, though. We need to focus on calling only the stupid religous people stupid, and not all religous people.
So, yes, the conservatives who hate other people purely because of their warped vision of an ancient book are stupid, and so are those who kill people in the name of their invisible friend in the sky. I read a blog post on this today, Should we respect religion?, which basically concludes that religion as a concept can be mocked, but we need to be more careful about mocking religion specifically to upset a person. I agree.
I agree, as well. The problem is, though, that many religious people (esp. Muslims, I’m afraid, though of course some xtians do, too) take any criticism of their religion very personally, and feel it as a personal affront even when it’s not intended that way. Enough to kill over it, even. And it’s this sort of nonsense that has led some atheists to become more strident in their criticism.
Obviously no personal feelings should ever prevent atheists, or anybody else for that matter, to call the stupid stupid, the ignorant ignorant and so on.
If I might jump in for a minute with the point of view of one of those “crazy Christians”.
I grew up in a liberal city and was reguarly mocked for being a Christian. But such is life… some people are children in adult bodies and if I were not a Christian they would find something else to insult me over. Anyway, in a way I am used to the insults and really don’t care that much any more. However I do not think the angry response you may receive from a Christian, who feels they have been insulted, can be attributed to religion. Instead I believe the blame for this falls on human nature. Have you ever been to a sports game? How easy is it to piss of the various sports fans.
All people get angry when they believe things they care about have been insulted. Religion is just one of MANY things which can be used to make people mad to the point that they act irrationally.
Yes, you’re right. I think many of the people who do stupid things in the name of religion would’ve found something else to rationalize their stupid acts if there was no religion. Such is human nature.
But I also think religion is a product of human nature. Witness the fact that the gods of early religion were very human in nature, quarelling between themselves and with the humans. Now, as civilization has moved on, there’s a move to monotheism and God becomes increasingly different from humans.
In the early religions, the concept of “god” was clearly defined. There were gods, half-gods, and people could become as gods themselves. In the religions popular today, thoughts of humans becoming gods is considered blasphemous, and the term “god” is becoming increasingly diffuse.
i have seen dawkins on numerous videos and read many articles by the man, as well as ‘the selfish gene’ and ‘the god delusion’. i truly am under the impression that dawkins is using logic, reason and the scientific method. that is, in fact, his strong point. he is, in fact, quite funny and congenial, and, as honestpoet says, charming.
his directness, however, is no different when he’s discussing religion than it is when he’s discussing matters of his science of biology. i can understand how this can distress quite a few people who are not used to it.
i agree that some people perceive him to be evangelical or fundamentalist, but i think that is because they are not accustomed to religion being treated as any other subject of discussion. i actually like that he doesn’t pussyfoot around.
i like the fact that more people are speaking out, each in his own way — after all, atheists are not a homogeneous bunch and we don’t follow a set of rules other than reason or the scientific method. it’s really great.
[Fixed your italics. - Simen]
Well, yes. But my problem is when he starts using terms like “child abuse” when talking about indoctrinating beliefs in children. Sure, it is in no way acceptable – but is it really child abuse? Does he have any data dealing with how these children do later in life? Sure, many of them might keep the beliefs they were brought up to, but does it really justify calling it “child abuse”?
If for nothing else using loaded terms like that will divert from the main message, however well laid out it is.
Sure, religion should be treated like any other subject. Unfortunately, religion inspires an “us/them” view which would never be tolerated if the division was anything other than religion.
i think, in many cases, indoctrination into religion may be called ‘child abuse’. in ‘the god delusion’, (pg.321) dawkins takes as an example jill mytton who was deeply traumatised by her religious upbringing.* but even if one doesn’t consider himself scarred, teaching a child to disregard the evidence of the world around him in favor of superstitious behavior seriously impedes his ability to cope with a difficult, sometimes dangerous world and to deeply enjoy his existence in this wondrous place we’ve found ourselves in — the universe and this lovely earth.
surely religious dogma inspires the us/them view, not rational arguments. i’ve always just enjoyed seeking the truth.
*she can also be seen on ‘the root of all evil?’
In one of my earlier blog posts I agreed with Dawkins about the child abuse label. Around here there are a number of psychiatric patients of whom I have knowledge that were terribly scarred by their fundamentalist upbringing (esp. in the Pentecostal church). And even the less-toxic sects do cause people to, as tmt says, miss out on a lot, and maybe risk a lot, when their practitioners are encouraged to disregard reality in favor of a mindset that teaches that this world is a temptation to be avoided and escaped.
And now we’ve got scientology. Have any of you read about their child-rearing ideologies? Absolutely whacked. Those kids don’t stand a chance.
Scientology is the archetype of a bogus religion created purely for the benefit of its leaders. The founder is alleged to have said
Even if this quote is fake, I don’t doubt for a second that this was the motivation.
The man was a B-science-fiction writer who’d been arrested previously for fraud. How he managed to form a new religion is one of the beauties of this absurd universe. I love it, because it allows us a first-hand glimpse of the genesis of a religion.
They were ALL created for the benefit of those who started them. The pharoahs (sp?) in Egypt were divinely empowered (and the priests made a killing selling “books of the dead” to guide the suckers who bought them through the dangers of the underworld, which the priests hyped up…excellent marketing!), as were the kings and popes of Europe. Religion has always been about power and money.
The man who scribed the book of Mormon was a wife-beater who told her that they’d get rich off it if she’d just keep her mouth shut (this from some of her letters).
What amazes and alarms me is that so many people are STILL buying it.
I can’t imagine why something like Buddhism would be created for the benefit of the creators. There’s not really any real power to be gained from starting it, there’s no God, and the whole thing is more of a finding yourself journey tha anything else.
But I agree that most religions were probably created at least partly for the benefit of their creators.
Buddhism was started as more of a philosophy than a religion. That came later, and yes, plenty of buddhist clerics have been nasty, greedy, child-molesting types.
Buddhism, as a philosophical/mental practice rather than a religion, leads to independence of thought, which is the opposite of the mental slavery engendered by religion.
Then where should we draw the line between philosophy and religion?
I’d say there are two things that define religion vis a vis philosophy: dogma, and conjecture about the afterlife.
Buddhism, like any good philosophy, once the religion’s been scraped off, is really just about a more beneficial mindset: an acknowledgment that we create most of our own suffering through our desires. In addition, it does offer some efficacious practices to readjust our mindset, but one needs to be careful not to misunderstand or apply them, and not to fall into the trap of certainty, that idea that one has attained enlightenment, when all one’s really done is gotten on the right path. Because that’s the surest sign it’s lost again.
The “angry atheist” is a natural mud-flinging response by a group completely unused to criticism. Hundreds of years of fear, intolerance, torture and murder was the de-facto response to any sort of negative or derogatory statement about religion (Christianity in particular here) and the faithful are bound not to enjoy the upsurge in people saying what they feel. It is ironic that the religious have no trouble speaking their minds, from the burning of flags and embassies to the preachers and ministers espousing the sins of the abortionists or unbelievers.
I wouldn’t call myself “angry” but I am certainly annoyed. I am annoyed at having to try and justify my non-belief in a fairy tale, I am annoyed when my son comes home from nursery school and tells me that “jesus loves me” and “he died for our sins” – apparently his teacher is a born again and there is a lot of religious indoctrination at that school and guess what – nobody asked me if it was ok.
Harmless beliefs don’t have abortion doctors murdered, or teachers torn limb from limb or nations and people vilified for no reason. They do not burn down embassies or fly planes into buildings. They don’t burn people alive for being witches and Satan worshippers (this still happens today in South Africa amongst the poor and uneducated but well indoctrinated communities). or have them stoned to death when they happen to be unlucky enough to be raped.
I think more of your tolerance and respectful disagreeing should be awarded to the so called “angry atheists” and their right not to buy into the madness.
p.s. I have watched most of the Dawkin’s videos and documentaries and not once have I heard him lose his temper, he sometimes comes across as incredulous as to what he is hearing but not angry.