Perhaps one of the most widespread claims by the New Atheists is that religion is harmful. For Richard Dawkins it is a virus that spreads and infects the mind and is comparable to child abuse. For the late Christopher Hitchens religion “poisons everything” and is a “menace to society.” Greta Christina claims that the belief in supernatural entities makes people “more vulnerable to oppression, fraud and abuse.” Sam Harris likens religion to mental illness. One could go on and on with examples like these.
Given that the New Atheists ground their arguments in science, reason and logic it behooves us to hold these conclusions to very high standards when analyzing them. It goes without saying that truth or knowledge claims should be supported by data, cross-cultural research and empirical evidence whenever possible. This should be measurable and certain principles of reasoning should be employed. Claims of this nature should also be scrutinized amongst a community of experts to try and reach a consensus before drawing conclusions. Unfortunately, the New Atheists fail tremendously in this regard.
The idea that religion is “harmful” or “poisonous” should of course be a hypothesis first and a conclusion second. For whatever reason, these twenty-first century super-heroes of science seem to skip over this important step. There are of course anthropologists, sociologists, scholars of religion and mythology, historians, psychologists and philosophers who have been studying religion for very long periods now. They’ve used peer-reviewed journals, scholarly book publishers, case studies and other academic forums to present their ideas and receive critical feedback. Yet, there have been no scientific findings concluding that religion is poisonous, that belief in supernatural entities leads to harm or that it infects people like a virus. These types of claims are limited to a chosen few.
Case and point: How can any of these New Atheists claim that the Dinka religious tradition of Africa is harmful? They’ve probably never heard of it, let alone conducted any sort of anthropological or sociological studies to determine the degree of harmfulness it poses to its members or others. Dawkins claims “I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence.” I’d love to see the data and research he’s gathered to reach such sweeping conclusions about religion. Has he investigated the Japanese religion Tenrikyo? The Korean tradition Wonbulgyo? Have any of these atheists been to Iraq or Iran to interview any Mandeans? Do these atheists ‘know’ in some scientific way that the traditional mythological beliefs of the Inuit of the polar regions were harmful or led to more harm? Are Native American religious traditions really child abuse?
The website Adherents.com currently lists that there are 4,300 different faith groups worldwide. Wouldn’t information need to be gathered from each of them before reaching scientific conclusions about whether or not the entire category of religion is harmful or poisonous? Furthermore, what kinds of research questions would need to be asked? What sort of variables would be involved? Are there measures that could be agreed upon by a community of researchers to analyze what makes a particular religion harmful? Helpful? Would the researchers be all white, middle/upper class men like those that have predominantly defined new atheism? Or would diverse voices from around the globe and located in various social locations be included? Given the widespread findings due to the varieties of religious expressions how would you summarize them into one neat conclusion? The simple answer is that you can’t. These atheists’ knee jerk conclusions are laughable and an insult to all of the legitimate efforts that qualified researchers and scholars have undertaken. In short, there is nothing scientific about them.
Greta Christina claims that with the belief in supernatural entities “the capacity for religion to do harm gets cranked up to an alarmingly high level – because there is no reality check.” This is a hypothesis that needs to be tested with some sort of measurable evidence and scholarly insight. Has Christina looked at how religion is expressed in cultures throughout the world, both indigenous and not and found data that supports her assertion? Is she in relation to anthropologists and scholars who have reached similar conclusions? Or is she simply an armchair atheist relying on anecdotal examples rather than evidence? What is the relationship between belief in supernatural entities and violence? It’s an incredibly complex question that Christina attempts to answer in a single blog post. None of her claims are backed up science or evidence for that matter.
Christina also states, “If people believe they’ll be rewarded with infinite bliss in the afterlife…people will let themselves be martyrs to their faith, to an appalling degree.” First of all, one could easily point out that there were many “martyrs” for Stalinism. Second, Christina’s claim is another hypothesis. But this one seems disproved on even the most cursory examining of the facts. What percentage of the billions of people on this earth who believe in an after life become “martyrs for their faith?” How many Inuit martyrs were there? The population of people who kill themselves in the name of God is very small when compared to those who don’t. Plus if you look at actual scientific research done on the subject such as Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by University of Chicago professor Robert Pape you’d learn “The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. … Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.” Furthermore, “The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka-a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.”
Racism In the New Atheist Movement
When Greta Christina says that religious people should be actively converted to atheism or Dawkins likens religion to a virus that infects the mind they are effectively saying “we know what’s best for you.” This is the crux of the problem with the New Atheists. They’ve identified belief in God or religion as the single most oppressive factor in people’s lives and feel justified in liberating people from it because they have “reason” on their side. However, as Reinhold Niebuhr warned, reason is always tainted with the prejudices of the privileged groups in society. He called this the historicity of reason. Thus, the way the New Atheists understand the designation “harmful” or “poisonous” is largely shaped by what they view as most harmful from their own social location.
In her book Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars author and atheist Sikivu Hutchinson describes the heart of the problem with the New Atheists:
New Atheist discourse purports to be “beyond” all that meddlesome stuff. After all, science has been cleaned up to redress the atrocities of the past. The “bad” racist eugenicist science and scientists of back in the day have been purged. Religionists of all stripes are merely obstacles to achieving greater enlightenment in the generic name of science and reason. Race and gender hierarchies within the scientific establishment are immaterial when it comes to determining the overall thrust and urgency of the New Atheism. Non-believers who argue for a more nuanced approach to or progressive understanding of the political, social, and cultural appeal of religion are toady apologists. Religious bigotry and discrimination are deemed the greatest threat to “civilized” Western societies. As delineated by many white non-believers the New Atheism preserves and reproduces the status quo of white supremacy in its arrogant insularity. In this universe, oppressed minorities are more imperiled by their own investment in organized religion than white supremacy. Liberation is not a matter of fighting against white racism, sexism and classism but of throwing off the shackles of superstition.
If you are in a privileged position, as many of the white New Atheists are you may think that it’s easy to just give up your religion. But this of course ignores the complexities of how religion operates in the lives of people everyday. For African Americans, Christianity and Islam have played a central role in the process of humanization – both in the eyes of the dominant culture and in building up the community, personal identity and psychological resilience to resist white supremacy, slavery and segregation. “Reason” as articulated by the new atheists makes no room for marginalized populations need to resist these forms of oppression, nor recognizes the important role that religion has played in this process. Rather, the simplistic labels of harmful, poisonous or virus are carelessly used to discredit it.
The queer identified Metropolitan Community Church (MCCSF) in San Francisco played a central role during the AIDS crisis of the 1980’s. Their website describes it as such:
It is impossible to overstate the impact of HIV/AIDS on the life of MCCSF during those years when there were no effective treatments for HIV. During the peak of the crisis, it was not uncommon for there to be three or four funerals on each day of the weekend, and growth in church membership could barely keep pace with the rate of deaths. And yet, even in the midst of this virtually unbearable period, the church persevered, with fellow members supporting one another during the most painful times, and the church served on the vanguard of advocacy efforts for people living with HIV/AIDS.
I don’t think that belief in God or religion was the thing these people needed to be liberated from.
As citizens of the U.S. we of course live on occupied land. Over the course of hundreds of years we systematically wiped out Native American cultures that were indigenous to the area. The arrogance of “we know what’s best for them” dominated. Their religious and cultural traditions were prohibited. It was the height of cultural imperialism. Of course Native Americans are extremely marginalized and face numerous pressing social issues today. Rest assured, their oppression has nothing to do with their beliefs in God or their traditional religious practices and ceremonies. Unfortunately, when Greta Christina says we’d be better off without religion and insists that we convert believers to atheism she is reproducing cultural imperialism against Native Americans. She knows best because she has reason on her side.
Furthermore, home foreclosures, poverty, homelessness, oppression, inadequate mental health and social services, poor health care and violence plague America. Whether we like it or not, religious organizations are often the first to provide the much needed spiritual, material and social services to this sick society.As much as the new atheists would like to pontificate about religion in a context free environment, there is no such thing. As long as these social ills go unaddressed religious organizations will continue to play central roles in combating them. The broad and sweeping attacks against “religion” by the New Atheists do little to advance any sort of helpful conversation about what communities or people really need. They also don’t adequately interpret the positive role that religion plays in these issues.
If many of the New Atheists want to hold to an absolutist position that religion is harmful (despite not being based on any scientific evidence) then they inherently sweep into their critique Native Americans, the gay men who benefited so immensely from MCCSF during the Aids crisis and the Dinka tradition of Africa. Any benefit that the Nation of Islam or the Black Church had for African Americans is negated by the insistence upon religion or belief in God as the single most oppressive issue. If they make qualifications and recognize that yes, there is something wrong with waving a finger at Native Americans and scolding them for their childish ways, then they must abandon generalized sweeping notions like “religion is harmful.” They can’t have it both ways. Either they lecture every culture in the world about their religious traditions (after all you’ve discovered the TRUTH) and as a result reproduce cultural imperialism or make room for a more complex analysis.
Many of these New Atheists claim that holding onto the belief in supernatural entities is absurd or irrational. However, there is nothing more absurd than whiteness, class oppression and patriarchy. Resisting these absurdities means a more nuanced approach to religion – one that recognizes the positive role it can play in undermining such systems of domination. Ultimately, it means relying upon relationships more than reason.
UPDATE:
I wanted to comment on an important point. As someone who has experienced white, male, heterosexual and class privilege I’m most likely far more privileged than Greta Christina. This privilege is assigned to me by the dominant society whether I like it or not. As a white American I’m no less capable of reproducing racism or cultural Imperialism than Christina is. My article is not meant as an attack or a “gotcha.” I don’t address these sorts of issues like that – rather I try to uncover ways that we all might be reproducing forms of oppression. Despite my best intentions I unwillingly think and say things that are racist, sexist and that may reproduce cultural Imperialism. Thus, by me highlighting how some of the effects of the New Atheists or Christina’s ideas/actions may reproduce this, I’m not saying that I’m better, more holy, or less racist. I’m fully implicated in this process as well. People like Tim Wise have written entire books about their white privilege, I could do that as well. But here I’m talking about a few specific areas related to religion, atheism and oppression.
I chose to highlight a few of Christina’s statements because she has publicly advocated converting believers into atheists as well as written passionate and sweeping claims about why she believes religion is harmful and wrong (the subject of my article). When I hear someone advocating the conversion of believers into atheism without any sort of qualifications or context it concerns me. Because I do think of African Americans in the 50’s and 60’s in the Nation of Islam and the Black Church. I do think of Native Americans. I think of queer people who find strength and solace in religious communities. I’m concerned that this statement can be viewed as a sort of panacea and is made without any real relationships to the people or communities that could be affected by it. I’m concerned that people will see this and believe that throwing off superstition is the most pressing issue, when I think it is a non-issue when compared with whiteness or class oppression. Again, I simply don’t see why believing in the afterlife is such an urgent issue to liberate people from. Yes, many religious expressions have reproduced sexism, racism and bigotry. But this is not because they believe in God or heaven (one can believe in those without having to be bigoted). It’s because the religions reflect the larger institutional forces of oppression. Dr. King and Malcolm X believed in God but also fought staunchly against white supremacy. Again, I simply don’t see how liberating Dr. King from his theism takes precedent over ending whiteness or is even an issue.
I do know that Christina has written lists of atheists of color and is perhaps one of the more concerned people when it comes to these issues. But she still makes sweeping denunciations of religion and publicly advocates converting believers from their beliefs. What is the context here? What sort of relationships are formed before doing this?
I simply wish that a fraction of the energy that goes into attacking people’s personal beliefs about heaven were to go into educating or writing about the larger social forces of oppression that also shape a believers life. Imagine if much of the passion and fire that characterizes much of the New Atheist community could be directed towards the racial, class and patriarchal oppression that believers experience rather than their beliefs about God or heaven. Of course, as atheists are marginalized in a Christian and hegemonic culture there is a need to resist this persecution. As I’ve said before I think those who are affiliated with religion have a direct responsibility to aid in ending this misguided attack upon atheism.
UPDATE II:
In 2009 an article appeared on Alternet.org under Greta Christina’s name titled “Why I want to Turn Religious People in to Atheists.” In this update I had previously said that this title was evidence that she publicly advocated turning religious people into atheists. She wrote to me saying that this was not her title as Alternet often chooses titles on their own. I will take her on her word here. The title was eventually changed to “Atheism and Diversity: Is it Wrong for Atheists to Convert Believers?” But it doesn’t really matter because she states early in the article, “But a good number of atheists are, in fact, trying to convince religious believers to become atheists. I’m one of them.” She didn’t coin the title but it most certainly accurately reflects her written sentiments: converting religious believers to atheism.
Follow me on Twitter. Because, why not?
Be Scofield is founder of www.godblessthewholeworld.org and Dr. King scholar. He writes for Tikkun Magazine and Alternet.org and is an anti-racist educator. He is a leading voice on issues of progressive religion and atheism. Be is studying to be an interfaith minister at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, where he recently taught a graduate course called “Dr. King and Empire: How MLK Jr. Resisted War, Capitalism and Christian Fundamentalism.”
Criticism of religion =/= racism. And we’re done.
You talk about the church’s role in fixing racism and slavery but you leave out that slavery and racism were often justified by those same religions and religious texts.
You point out the positives religion has had in the aids crisis but say nothing of the damage religion has done in preventing condom use in aids ravaged africa.
You pick and choose only the good religion has done and ignore all the evils that same religions has perpetrated.
“You talk about the church’s role in fixing racism and slavery but you leave out that slavery and racism were often justified by those same religions and religious texts.”
Absolutely. But this would only be a valid response if I were saying that one shouldn’t criticize the harmful effects of some religious behaviors. I’m not saying that religion is “good.” I’m critiquing people that are saying it is ALL harmful. Religion has certainly been used by people to do all sorts of bad things. But me saying this is different than saying “religion is harmful.” It’s different than me saying that because religious people have done bad things in one context that Native Americans should be converted to atheism. Political leaders have done awful things, but I’m not going to say that “government is harmful” and convert people to anarchism.
“It’s different than me saying that because religious people have done bad things in one context that Native Americans should be converted to atheism.”
Be: the problem with your argument is that absolutely nobody involved in this conversation, besides you, has said anything resembling “Native Americans should be converted to atheism”. If I’m wrong, please show me with specifics – bearing in mind that “convert” is a word with a defined meaning, which is different from “express an opinion that particular religious claims are probably wrong”. Who talks about “converting” anyone to atheism? What would that even mean? Might a Native American happen to pick up a copy of The God Delusion, or read Greta Christina’s blog, and be convinced (or not) by the arguments therein that their traditional religion is wrong? Sure – same as could happen to anyone else, so why single out Native Americans? That’s the point of the internet, what you write could potentially could be read by anyone. I just can’t fathom what point you think you are making here. Personally, on the religion question I would favour extending the same right to Native Americans that I would extend to any other human being on the planet: the right to make up their own f*cking minds, if that’s quite alright with you.
“Who talks about ‘converting’ anyone to atheism?”
Greta Christina, among a few other prominent atheists, have expressed an interest in convincing people to give up religious belief; as Scofield points out (brandishing the title like a hunting trophy) below, Christina has written a blog post titled “Why I Want to Turn Religious People into Atheists.” In light of Christina’s tremendous talents as a writer and representative of out-and-proud atheism, you might enjoy giving it a read: http://is.gd/54dq4
Of course, back here, Scofield (like other absurd gnubashers) mangles Christina’s position beyond recognition, freakishly turning it into some kind of zealot demand that everyone spend massive resources grabbing disempowered minorities and all but beating the God out of them. It’s sort of impressive, really: under Scofield’s bizarre analysis, a lukewarm sentiment that (1) Idea X is a bad idea and (2) some people would like to convince others that they should reject X becomes (34,879) drooling racist cultural imperialism. This is high-test crazy, here.
As he’s made clear, the Gnu Atheism Scofield trashes is a ridiculous figment of his own imagination. There’s not a lot more to say, though admittedly that hasn’t stopped several of us from trying.
Well, exactly. I read what Greta wrote, and Be’s representation of what she wrote, and – well, let’s just say it’s the type of thing that the term “strawman” was invented for.
When Greta says, “I want to convert believers”, she makes it clear (to any person not being wilfully obtuse) that what she means is, “I want us as a community to make good, well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments as to why our viewpoint is correct, and also to set good examples of ethical behaviour, so that those who hear us will be inclined to choose to agree with us.” She is not talking about concentration camps. Yet Be chooses to summarise her position via the language of “converting the Natives” with all the distasteful allusions that go along with that, of the residential schools and the forcible removal of children from their cultures, languages and traditions in the interests of a good Christian upbringing – despite the fact that nobody is proposing that or anything like it. It’s just a brazenly manipulative bit of politically-and-emotionally charged spin, which he ought to be thoroughly ashamed of.
The point about setting a good ethical example is worth remembering. Because if there’s anything driving people away from traditional religion as much as the new atheists, it’s the behaviour of the apologists. The article above, with its combination of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and sanctimonious finger-wagging, is a great example of that.
Much as disproving a slanderous claim is practically impossible, dismantling this hodgepodge of misrepresentations and epistemologically laughable assertions would take a few hundred pages. I’ll try to refute the most egregious transgressions in the limited space available.
“It goes without saying that truth or knowledge claims should be supported by data, cross-cultural research and empirical evidence whenever possible.”
Cross-cultural truths? That’s a new one. Does f = ma cease to be true if an inuit happens to think otherwise? Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept, I’ll tell you what truth is.
First, let us agree that there is a reality outside of our minds which our minds do not control. If you are a solipsist, then good luck and good bye. If not, the following is germane.
Gravity is gravity, whether we accept it or nor. Aristotle was famously wrong in this respect, for example. We do not say that “cross-cultural research has shown that our notion of gravity should be subject to further scrutiny until a consensus is reached between Aristotelians, Galileans and Newtonians”. We say Aristotle was wrong, Galileo was right, and Newton was even righter. Full stop. End of discussion. Why? Because if NASA had tried to send astronauts to the Moon using Aristotle’s ideas, they would all have died, that’s why. If you happen to think death is irrelevant, then please stop posting articles intended to be read by human beings.
Now, truth is a characteristic of well-formed formulas which, when used as premises of a valid logical argument, yield a previously known fact or predict a previously unknown fact (and by fact I mean “a verifiable, repeatable event”). Anything short of this requirement can be called “truth” only on pain of divesting the word “truth” of any semantic content. You can claim that religion is a different approach to truth: well then, show me a valid religious argument that yields a formerly unknown fact (i.e. a verifiable, repeatable event) and I shall eat not only my hat and shoes, but yours too.
As you say, there are probably 4,300 different faith groups. According to your argument, one should research every one of those groups (plus their various schismatic denominations; at the last count, there were 30,000 Christian denominations, so you might want to multiply your 4,300 by – oh, I don’t know: 1,000, to be generous?) before one is allowed to even address the issue of religion. Are you aware of the implications of that statement? It would mean that nobody could ever say anything about religion, because no-one, no institution, no country, no corporation in the world could possibly conduct such a vast (and pointless) research. It should be obvious that Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and all the so-called new atheists are interested in relevant religions: Islam, Christianity, Judaism. Let it be clear what I mean by “relevant”: relevant religions are those with enough followers or enough power to pose a threat of nuclear war if pitted against each other.
Yor article is incredibly (and shamefully) condescending and racist. How dare to say that Christianity, the religion of the slave owners and traders, “played a central role” in the humanization of African-Americans? How dare you say that we atheists “wave a finger against native Americans and scold them for their chiuldish ways”? We don’t wave a finger at ethnicities; we wave a finger at stupidity, wherever it comes from. A stupid Inuit, a stupid Navaho, a stupid Iranian and a stupid America are just human beings united by their shared stupidity. The suggestion that we shoull tolerate someone’s stupidity because he/she belongs to a minority is about the most condescending and misguided stamement I’ve ever found on the Internet, except for some laughable and openly racist sites.
Meanwhile, you can keep mentally masturbating with the Dinka and the Tenrikyo. I’m sure it will be a significant contribution to solving the most urgent problems in the world of the here and now (aka reality).
Be,
Unfortunately, you have grossly misrepresented what Greta has written in the past into some “strawman” (“strawperson”?) version of “new atheism.”
She has responded to you online here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/01/26/atheist-argument-racist-cultural-imperialism/
I recommend that you read it and remember that feedback is a gift.
You are correct that the “new atheist” movement does have some serious problems that need addressing with respect to race, economic class, and gender. The same can be said about Unitarian Universalism as movement.
However, you need to accurately report on what Greta has said in the past. As a person who is a candidate for the Unitarian Universalist ministry, I’m sure that you’re aware of the ethic of reciprocity (aka “golden rule”) that is present in nearly every world religion. I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t want others who disagree with you to misrepresent what you’ve written and said.
If an ethic of reciprocity is to have any meaning at all, it needs to apply to everybody — even the atheist that you disagree with.
Lets be serious here. The reality is that the “problems” atheists, and skeptics, have with race, and sex and class, but those things are ***virtually identical*** across all parts of society. There is virtually no job, where women are not payed less, or hired less, or where credit for their actions is not taken by someone else. There is virtually no place in western society where being poor isn’t seen as somehow “your fault”, instead of a result of circumstance, which isn’t always solvable by the person in that situation, and where the level of trust, and respect, shown to a person depends more on how much money they have, than on their skills. And as for race…. All you have to do is look at the hyper-religious BS from the current Republican candidates, and statements like make by Gingrich, where he claims that the majority of welfare recipients are “minorities”. Even if he was trying to claim that the “minority” where people who where underpaid he would be wrong, never mind the reality of race, where over 60% of the people on welfare are white.
Its a problem *everyone* has, precisely because we spent centuries, prior to things changing, that slavery was ok, even if it was called something else, like “indentured servitude”, women shouldn’t be given the same status as men, and other races where lesser, scary, or animal like. And *every* *single* *one* of those things was justified by phrases like, “Sons of Cain”, “chosen people”, “rulership by the righteous”, etc. The only difference between, say, India and Europe, was the language. In Europe it was, “The nobility was chosen by god to have all the money, and rule, and should not mix blood with the common people”, in India it was, “The karmic balance made this man to be born into a rich family, so they may do anything they like, even abuse those beneath them, so long as they don’t a) marry out of caste, or b) do harm to someone higher than them”.
The only religions that are absent these things are virtually atheistic to start with, and can only be attacked, not based on the social harm they do, but purely the absurd, non-real stuff they claim *exists*, like house spirits, or Ayakashi.
And, really, that is the core thing here to look at, at least with Christianity. Those that **really believe** in the “truth” of its Bible, i.e., that any of the shit in it is real, do things like this:
“New Hampshire Republicans Propose Bills That Prevent Police From Protecting Domestic Abuse Victims”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/26/411865/new-hampshire-republicans-propose-bills-that-prevent-police-from-protecting-domestic-abuse-victims/?mobile=nc
And a whole host of other idiocies. You know which “religious people” are actually doing things for other people, especially without strings, like expectations of conversion, or at least being forced to sit through sermons, and the like, actually believe in most cases? Most of them know much of the Bible is story, pick and choose the good bits out of the horrible parts, don’t believe in “god” in the sense of an all powerful master, who must be obeyed, generally choose right and wrong based on consulting their own feelings, or others around them, not the nearest priest, and, in many cases, may even seriously question a) if anything in the Bible is true at all, b) if Jesus even exists, or even c) whether or not god is really out there.
The farther someone gets away from the false “truth” of religion, and function as a human first, and for most, the more likely they are to act like a human, and do good things for people. The **only** exception to this rule are very tiny, by comparison, religions which make part of their dogma the complete manufacture of some false, not in the Bible at all, idea of spending 80% of their time helping people. And, the reason they are a minority is that they are in fact wrong. Jesus is supposed to have proclaimed that salvation can come only from belief, and action is meaningless. These minorities insist the opposite is true, and that “works” determine how faithful you are. The two concepts cannot be reconciled, especially in reference to the Bible itself.
BTW, yes, the question of, “Does believing the unbelievable cause harm, or help?”, is a legitimate one. They **have** studied it. The conclusion reached seem to be that if you are living in a country that has **little or not** belief, believing is harmful, and serves no benefit to the people that follow it. In a country where nearly everyone believes, it is beneficial, and helps people be happier. The conclusion then could be, “it is completely and totally useless otherwise, but its better for your well being to have it, if every other fool around you thinks its true.” In other words, its the equivalent of showing up at high school, with the wrong season’s wardrobe, and being picked on, or abused, for not being *in trend*… Hardly something that is “needed”, never mind useful, and if the trade off between having it, and getting rid of it, is that fewer people go looking for faith healers, psychics, priests, and con artists, for *fake* help, instead of doctors, psychiatrists, and actual experts, or between creationism, which provides *nothing*, and evolution, which provides a means to figure out *why* things go wrong, and how to fix them, including new medicines, then maybe we should stop insisting on wearing the latest fashion trend in delusional thinking (or even long standing “traditional” ones).
Lets leave religion in the same place as top hat and tails, or the last big “everyone needs to own these jeans!”, trends, and bring it out when its more appropriate, like Halloween, or when someone wants to do a “retro” party.
If the dominant religions in Western society were so beneficial, Be Scofield would not have to resort to desperate dodges like suggesting that maybe the Dinka religion is better. Nor would he have to misrepresent the atheists he criticizes here.
I do agree with Scofield that it would be good to conduct more research on the subject of whether believing in nonsense for which there is absolutely no evidence has more harmful effects, or more beneficial effects.
As for marginalized people: I’m gay. I have consistently experience being marginalized in religious communities, including liberal religious communities. I have never experienced that marginalization from atheists. Based on my own experience, I think it is Be Scofield — and not atheists — who is arrogantly and condescendingly telling marginalized people that he knows what is best for them.
“Would the researchers be all white, middle/upper class men like those that have predominantly defined…” Christianity?
Scientology?
Raelianism?
Economics?
Theology?
What are you, Be Scofield, and why does it matter?
Were you high when you wrote this? Seriously? Because it’s a mess of cherry-picked misquotations, vague assumptions and hypotheses direly in need of research. You can’t just vomit your brain onto the internet and call it a valid and well-crafted argument.
Well, you can, but you’d be wrong.
A long, long string of straw men and ad hominems.
Silly – and disgusting.
Any religion that teaches fallacies, as opposed to how we know the Universe actually works, is harmful.
That is all of them.
Therefore, all religion is harmful.
More instructive Be Scofield excoriating here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/26/the-absurd-whiteness-of-be-scofield/
I can’t be bothered to critique this piece of stupid and dishonest nonsense in detail, so I’ll just take a couple of points:
“Wouldn’t information need to be gathered from each of them before reaching scientific conclusions about whether or not the entire category of religion is harmful or poisonous?”
No. The vast majority of religious believers are already covered if we consider Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism. These are also the religions with which the New Atheists have chiefly concerned themselves with – I have never seen any of them advocate sending out atheist evangelists to convert the Dinka to atheism. Now if these religions are overwhelmingly harmful in their effects, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that religion as a whole is so. No prominent New Atheist that I am aware of has ever made the claim that all the effects of all religions are always harmful – even Hitchens’ “religion poisons everything” is, quite obviously in context, referring to the mass religions listed above.
“As citizens of the U.S. we of course live on occupied land. Over the course of hundreds of years we systematically wiped out Native American cultures that were indigenous to the area. The arrogance of “we know what’s best for them” dominated.”
Yes, and of course those responsible were New Atheists….
Oh, wait. No, they weren’t. They were, almost without exception, Christians.
Mr. Scofield:
The dishonesty and cowardice of this piece are impressive. It’s telling that, amid the constant barrage of attacks on Greta Christina (of all people) there is not a *single* link to the source texts you are attacking. It would appear that you have demurred from linking to Christina’s work because doing so would reveal to your readers that your characterizations of her positions are a farrago of lies, a disgusting attempt to smear an advocate by brutally misrepresenting what she believes and has argued. Shame on you.
The second notable point is the irony of your emphasis on *privilege*, of all things, in this essay–in light of the suffocating *religious* privilege that your piece exists nearly entirely to enforce. You, an employee of and ceaseless advocate for the religion industry, think that you can lecture a bisexual female atheist about the *privilege* inherent in her attacks on the overwhelmingly powerful institution of religion? Your utter cluelessness about the massive privilege beam in your own eye, as you whine mightily about the mote in Greta’s (the magnitude of which you ridiculously overstate), is little short of obscene.
To your specific allegations:
“Greta Christina claims that the belief in supernatural entities makes people ‘more vulnerable to oppression, fraud and abuse.'”
It’s hardly the most consequential falsehood in your piece, but the above is a lie. Greta has made no such claim–and by failing to provide a link to the work from which you lifted that quotation, you’ve made it harder for readers to check your assertion.
Here is the paragraph from Christina’s “The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful” [ http://bit.ly/8qPTM9 ] you lifted that phrase from:
“But moderate religion still does harm. It still encourages people to believe in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. And therefore, it still disables reality checks… making people more vulnerable to oppression, fraud, and abuse.”
Neither in that paragraph, in any other portion of “The Top One Reason,” nor in any other work of hers I am familiar with (as noted, you have conveniently failed to cite any at all) does Christina “claim[] that [it is] the belief in supernatural entities [that] makes people ‘more vulnerable to oppression, fraud and abuse.'” Your assertion that she made that claim is false; you have dishonestly misrepresented her position. Why?
“Claims of this nature should also be scrutinized amongst a community of experts to try and reach a consensus before drawing conclusions.”
What nonsense. Shockingly enough, people are allowed to “draw conclusions,” state them in public, and defend them, without submitting them to “a community of experts” first. Your Argument from (imagined) Authority is a fallacy, and your attempt to apply prior restraint to atheist advocacy (I’m sure you’d *love* to pick the “community of experts” to whom all atheistic claims must be submitted before publication) is risible.
“Unfortunately, the New Atheists fail tremendously in this regard.”
Whereas everything you assert has been vetted by experts aplenty? (If so, it would appear–ahem–that none of those experts were English-composition teachers.) As if.
One shining symptom of unexamined privilege, as I’m sure you know, is horrendous double standards. The hoops that you demand Gnu Atheists jump through merely to *state what we think about the world* are flatly absurd.
“The idea that religion is ‘harmful’ or ‘poisonous’ should of course be a hypothesis first and a conclusion second.”
It is. You simply refuse to address the supporting logic and evidence that Christina and the rest of your targets have supplied for the contentions they offer. Apparently you prefer silly histrionics directed at the fact that they dare to state those contentions in the first place.
Dawkins, for example, spent several hundred words–more than *twenty years ago*–explaining the numerous points of analogy between religious belief and viruses. You are evidently too important (*cough*privileged*cough*) to bother to address his *argument*; instead, you merely waggle your rhetorical fist at the fact that he even made one. In Christina’s terms, all you’re offering is a “Shut up, that’s why” argument–by all appearances, you yourself have decided that you’ve got nothing to present on the merits.
“Has Christina looked at how religion is expressed in cultures throughout the world, both indigenous and not and found data that supports her assertion?”
Yes, she has. She, like several other Gnus you take aim at here, has provided profuse evidence for her claims. Meanwhile, your brutal misrepresentations of “her assertion,” and very likely your silly misconceptions about what constitutes relevant and probative “data,” are neither here nor there. Lobbing out ridiculous red herrings (Dinka? Tenrikyo? Wonbulgyo? AYFKM–you seriously think gesticulating at random “traditions” is responsive to anything Christina has ever written?) may work to divert *your* attention from the blood your industry has on its hands, but some of us have an easier time seeing through the Chewbacca Defense.
“Wouldn’t information need to be gathered from each of them before reaching scientific conclusions about whether or not the entire category of religion is harmful or poisonous?”
No, it wouldn’t. You are simply refusing to deal honestly with the actual “conclusion,” and indeed argument, in question. Christina, like numerous other prominent Gnus, has made it quite clear *what it is* that she is asserting is “harmful or poisonous.” (Hint: it isn’t the Dinka “tradition.”) Your total disregard for her actual points is regrettable.
Most relevantly here, Christina is not attacking a “category” of “traditions”–that’s just you imposing your (PRIVILEGED) religiolatrous preconceptions on her position. Evidently you just don’t care enough about honest dialogue to figure out what Christina is calling “harmful.” How sad.
“Christina also states, ‘If people believe they’ll be rewarded with infinite bliss in the afterlife … people will let themselves be martyrs to their faith, to an appalling degree.'”
Indeed. Do you seriously dispute that? Or are you just determined to pretend that she is arguing something that’s contained nowhere in the passage you quoted from her?
“First of all, one could easily point out that there were many ‘martyrs’ for Stalinism.”
Yes–and? How does that point do anything to rebut Christina’s assertion? You are aware that tu quoque is a fallacy, aren’t you?
“Second, Christina’s claim is another hypothesis. But this one seems disproved on even the most cursory examining of the facts. What percentage of the billions of people on this earth who believe in an after life become ‘martyrs for their faith?'”
An *appalling* percentage, presumably. Again, *do you seriously disagree*?
In 2001, nineteen faithful Muslims attempted to crash airliners into buildings containing enormous numbers of people, and they succeeded in killing nearly three thousand. Fervently religious suicide bombers have killed many thousands more in the past handful of decades. How contemptuous of reality does one need to be to pretend that that does not constitute “an appalling degree”?
Apparently you’ve decided to mangle Christina’s claim beyond recognition–but where in her claim does she state that “martyrs to their faith” constitute a *high percentage, in absolute terms*, of afterlife believers? Where does she allege that more Muslims (or Christians or observant Jews or…) than Hindu Tamils are suicide bombers?
She says nothing of the kind. But you pretend she does. That’s your absurd dishonesty–and you pull that kind of stunt over and over and over again in this piece.
“When Greta Christina says that religious people should be actively converted to atheism….”
That is a lie. Christina says nothing of the kind.
One also notes the sly attempt to paint Christina’s mere position regarding *the utility of an IDEA* as an advocacy of *forcible* (“active”) conversion. How dare you so blatantly misrepresent her?
“…or Dawkins likens religion to a virus that infects the mind they are effectively saying ‘we know what’s best for you.'”
No, in fact, they’re not.
First, Dawkins was making an utterly banal point about the manner in which religion (like other kinds of memes, including many he approves of) propagates itself; I doubt you’ve even read “Viruses of the Mind,” but if you did, clearly your overwhelming religious privilege prevented you from retaining a single point Dawkins made in it beyond the eponymous (and offensive!!eleventy!) analogy.
Second, as Christina herself has responded to this particular smear of yours:
“I am not saying that I know what’s best for you.
“I am saying that, on this particular question, I think I’m correct, and you’re mistaken.”
Which is of course obvious; it’s the same posture you are taking up in this very post (are you “effectively saying ‘I know what’s best for Gnus,'” in that you clearly think we’d be better off accepting your superior notions about the nature and value of religion?), and indeed the same posture *every author of a work of advocacy in the history of the world* has taken up.
Christina has particular thoughts about a particular set of ideas. She thinks other people should agree with those thoughts of hers, and she believes that advocating them is a worthwhile pursuit. Your position is precisely functionally the same. So’s mine. We are all arguing, advocating our conceptions, trying to make a persuasive case for our positions. We–including you–are trying to change minds, not least because we think other people are wrong.
There is nothing objectionable about any element of that–*until* your overwhelming religious privilege whispers in your ear that *Christina’s* attempts at persuasion are critical of particular ideas that *cannot* morally be challenged. And so the double standards, the misrepresentations, and the slime come thick and heavy from you. Those of us who attack your Precious Privileged Notions must needs be silenced, scorned, cut off from acceptable society. The above post is the (latest) result.
“[T]he way the New Atheists understand the designation ‘harmful’ or ‘poisonous’ is largely shaped by what they view as most harmful from their own social location.”
Of course. And the same goes for you, with your overwhelmingly religiolatrous preconceptions and willful blindnesses. Your social location is in fact far more loaded with arrogant privilege than Greta Christina’s is, but you conveniently permit yourself to ignore that.
“If you are in a privileged position, as many of the white New Atheists are you may think that it’s easy to just give up your religion.”
Maybe so. So what? How does that rebut any assertion any Gnu Atheist (of any color–care to respond to Hemant Mehta? Hector Avalos? Maryam Namazie? Jamila Bey? Salman Rushdie? Ian “Crommunist” Cromwell?) has publicly made? For that matter, when have you ever shown us a single white Gnu declaring “that it’s easy to just give up your religion”? Or are invisible strawmen all you’ve got?
Actually I suspect that Hutchinson, for one, *can* offer things that various Gnus have said that are legitimately dubious and wrong on white-privilege grounds, but that hardly supports your attempts to mindlessly appropriate her (vastly more relevant, material, and intelligently directed) points for your own gnubashing ends. That Christina benefits from white privilege–a fact she would never deny–does nothing to rebut any actual assertion of hers that you have pointed to… or that I’ve ever read.
“I don’t think that belief in God or religion was the thing these people needed to be liberated from.”
Wow. You write a disgustingly paternalistic sentence like that and then accuse Greta Christina–a *bisexual woman in a lesbian marriage who lived in San Francisco during the peak of the AIDS pandemic*–of *privilege*? How offensive can you get?
Neither Christina nor any other Gnu you have offered has asserted “that belief in God or religion was the thing these people needed to be liberated from.” You’ve simply fabricated that notion from your tumid imagination. It’s outrageous.
“Rest assured, [Native Americans’] oppression has nothing to do with their beliefs in God or their traditional religious practices and ceremonies.”
Oh, really? *Nothing?*
Care to enlighten us with the “data, cross-cultural research and empirical evidence” that you’ve amassed to support that conclusion? The process by which your hypothesis was “scrutinized amongst a community of experts [who] tr[ied] and reach[ed] a consensus” first? When did that happen? Who were your experts? Show us, please!
Of course, you’ve done no such work at all. You cannot possibly support your laughable overstatement that Native Americans’ “oppression has nothing”–*nothing*!–“to do with their beliefs in God.” But you’ll impose the above-quoted ridiculous double standards on Gnus anyway. What a joke.
“[W]hen Greta Christina says we’d be better off without religion and insists that we convert believers to atheism….”
Another blatant lie. Greta Christina has never “insist[ed] that we convert believers to atheism.” You simply made that up. Why are you so disinterested in arguing honestly?
“Whether we like it or not, religious organizations are often the first to provide the much needed spiritual, material and social services to this sick society.”
Sure. So what? How does the fact that religious organizations provide services to needy people demonstrate that religion is not harmful? As Marx pointed out:
“Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”
Evidently the obvious retort to your notion–that it is anything but clear that relieving the “vale of tears” in question by providing empty illusions is, on balance, a *good* approach–has never, ever penetrated your consciousness. Such are the wages of religious privilege, I guess.
“As long as these social ills go unaddressed religious organizations will continue to play central roles in combating them.”
Indeed. Modern social science bears that–and Marx–out: religion is in large part a symptom of societal dysfunction, a need that we have in large part because we’re beset with fear, ignorance, and material want. Thankfully, it’s also a symptom that humanity is gradually growing out of, as we leave several of our more major communal dysfunctions behind. Again, how is this a rebuttal to Gnus’ arguments at all?
“The broad and sweeping attacks against ‘religion’ by the New Atheists do little to advance any sort of helpful conversation about what communities or people really need.”
That is your overwhelmingly partisan and privileged opinion. That an inveterate apologist for religion finds criticism of religion less than “helpful” means very little. We won’t shut up just because our advocacy bruises your privileged sensibilities.
“Any benefit that the Nation of Islam or the Black Church had for African Americans is negated by the insistence upon religion or belief in God as the single most oppressive issue.”
Again, you have presented no Gnu “insist[ing] upon religion or belief in God as the single most oppressive issue.” Again, you’ve just made that up. Again, you feel the need to propound absurd lies about your opponents. Why?
“If they make qualifications and recognize that yes, there is something wrong with waving a finger at Native Americans and scolding them for their childish ways….”
That’s ridiculous. You have shown no one at all “waving a finger at” *any person* “and scolding them for their childish ways”; the mere position that religion is harmful does nothing of the kind. Blind as your privilege makes you to the obvious fact, *ideas are not people.* Arguing that Idea X is wrong or destructive is *not* an attack on people who hold Idea X, no matter how fervently you insist on pretending otherwise.
“Either they lecture every culture in the world about their religious traditions….”
The concept of “traditions” is one you have arbitrarily, absurdly, and dishonestly shoved into this entire dialogue. You have presented no Gnu–not Christina, not Dawkins, not Harris, not anyone–attacking religious “traditions.” In fact all of the above have occasionally taken issue with *specific* religious practices, but you haven’t even shown us that–instead, you once again misrepresent all of us, pretending that we’ve debased “religious traditions” writ large. Again, you’re lying.
Gnu Atheists attack religious *ideas*, not “traditions” writ large.
As you constantly make clear, it would appear that your critique of Gnu Atheism cannot survive an honest appraisal of its contents. You are a distressingly poor representative of Gnus’ critics.
You said: **Another blatant lie. Greta Christina has never “insist[ed] that we convert believers to atheism.” You simply made that up. Why are you so disinterested in arguing honestly?**
However:
In 2009 Greta Christina wrote an article originally titled “Why I Want to Turn Religious People in to Atheists.” http://www.onepennysheet.com/2009/11/why-i-want-to-turn-religious-people-into-atheists/
On Alternet the title was changed to “Atheism and Diversity: Is it Wrong for Atheists to Convert Believers?” But the original title obviously shows that she publicly advocates that “religious people” be turned into atheists.
Oh, boy–a material response!
I wrote:
“Greta Christina has never ‘insist[ed] that we convert believers to atheism.’ You simply made that up. Why are you so disinterested in arguing honestly?”
And Scofield responded:
“In 2009 Greta Christina wrote an article originally titled ‘Why I Want to Turn Religious People in to [sic] Atheists.'”
Yes, she did. So what? Your earlier claim was *not* that Greta Christina *wants to turn religious people into atheists*. It was that Christina *insists that we convert believers to atheism*. Those are two vastly and fundamentally different notions. Are you really incapable of recognizing that?
I begin to suspect that a major contributor to your atheophobic nastiness is simply horrendous language skills.
“On Alternet the title was changed to ‘Atheism and Diversity: Is it Wrong for Atheists to Convert Believers?’ But the original title obviously shows that she publicly advocates that ‘religious people’ be turned into atheists.”
“Be turned into”? Cute backpedal: now you’re hiding your howling error in the shady subject-hole of the passive voice.
Your apparent borderline functional illiteracy aside, *being interested* in Practice X, *participating* in Practice X, and *defending the ethical legitimacy* of Practice X are blatantly obviously not equivalent to an “*insist[ence]*” on Practice X, especially one directed at “*we*” people who are not the speaker herself. It’s also not advocacy that anyone else engage in Practice X. (Indeed, Christina *has* openly declared her support of atheists whose approach toward religion is wholly different than her evangelistic tack.)
Once again, you are simply jumping to every absurd conclusion your thick religious privilege suggests to you – in total disregard of the text you are responding to.
As a moderately precocious second grader could tell you, “I Want to Turn Religious People into Atheists” is a vastly different idea than “I Insist You Turn Religious People into Atheists.” And as a result, your “paraphrase” was, as I said, a ridiculous lie.
This newest development is interesting in itself: you yourself have provided all the evidence required to show the enormous gulf between what Christina wrote and your characterization of same. Shockingly, it appears that you might not even be capable of *seeing* the freakish distortion you have performed.
The blindness wreaked by majority privilege is continually staggering.
Be Scofield,
Here’s a Hudibrastic verse on woo,
for superstitious folk like you.
The Christian’s Jehovah, an Almighty God,
is a capricious and cantankerous clod;
and, so far as I can tell,
the Christian often is as well.
Confused by dogma, the foolish fogey
can’t fathom the nature of that Bible Bogey.
Is it a father, his son, and a g-g-ghost too?
Well, it should be obvious that’s ridiculous woo.
And Christians claim this god, in its Empyrean lair,
is omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent and fair,
but, with the problem of theodicy,
their dogma is Christian idiocy.
The Jew’s Yahweh, the meshugener, the jerk,
set Jews strict rules on when to work,
how to dress, and what to sup or sip,
and giving baby boys the snip.
Myths of Bronze Age, goat-herding nomads,
have them, metaphorically, by the gonads.
The Moslem’s Allah, a fierce desert djinn,
demands under ‘Islam’, literally, ‘Submission’.
Apostasy is treated just like a crime;
they’ll threaten to kill you, to keep you in line,
and if you dare draw Mohammad in a comic cartoon,
there’ll be riots and killings from here to Khartoum.
Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist,
Zoroastrian, Baha’i, Mormon, and Scientologist,
Confucianist, Shintoist, and Taoist too,
Spiritualist, Wiccan, and the New Ager into woo.
Yea, verily, those of each and every religion,
are mired in the miasma of superstition.
So, why should yours be the one true faith,
in a magic, phantasmagorical wraith?
Belief, without evidence, is just plain crazy,
ignorant, stupid, or thoughtlessly lazy.
When evolution happens, it’s due to Natural Selection,
and life derives no purpose, at a theistic god’s direction.
How do we know that all religions are harmful? We don’t. But we do know that insofar as a religion rests on Faith, and because of that fact alone, it is harmful. And I don’t know of a single religion that does not value Faith over Evidence. It’s really that simple.
Why is Faith harmful? Because Faith is really nothing but a refusal to accept evidence. No one calls a belief “Faith” unless it, in some way, is contradicted by existing evidence. If that’s not the case, the word is simply “belief”. The word Faith has always implied a steadfast refusal to accept reality. Or in the words of the immortal Adam Savage: “I reject your reality, and substitute my own”.
Faith is what leads 40% of Americans to reject the clear evidence of Evolution. Faith is what is leading the same and more people to reject Global Warming. Faith is what led 19 people to fly planes into buildings on 9/11.
So Faith is the enemy.
Show me a religion that is not grounded in Faith, and I’ll admit your point: that religion is not evil. Otherwise, shut up.
Be Scofield’s screed is an excellent example of postmodernist vomit.
It is merely a loosely-connected series of evidence-free assertions, which – for support – periodically include quotes from other postmodernist writers’ loosely-connected series of evidence-free assertions.
Reality refutes it.
The website Adherents.com currently lists that there are 4,300 different faith groups worldwide. Wouldn’t information need to be gathered from each of them before reaching scientific conclusions about whether or not the entire category of religion is harmful or poisonous?
There are over 4,300 chemical solutions possible that contain cyanide. Wouldn’t information need to be gathered from each of them before reaching scientific conclusions about whether or not the entire category of cyanide containing liquids is harmful or poisonous?
Religious falsely describe how the world works. There are varying degrees of being wrong or harmful, but in the end each and every religion is based on a lie. Any philosophy that at its core must teach a person to accept a lie is harmful.
Really? I mean honestly? you asking for scientific evidence to back up claims that all religion is harmful?
How about taking a look back in History almost every war faught in the past 4000 years has had some religious semblence or drive. Common sence tell us that belief in Supernatural forces, entities and a like are just plain rediculous. it’s ok for believers to pray to an invisible and supposedly infallable god(s), yet people are locked away and persecuted for seeing effogies of biblical characters or supernatural beings or entities.
I stand by comments i have made to family and friends Christians, Catholics, Pentacostals,Mormans, Jews and Muslims all share pretty much the same belief systems share pretty much the same “god” yet they all claim their religion is correct, and the others are just full of shit (so to speak).
My main issue with religion is that it promotes the opposite of what it’s supposedly intended to teach, and leaders of these religions, people who are in a position to use their noteriety and wealth to right the wrongs that their religions have plauged the world with, just sit in their million dollar houses sippin champagne, and becoming more powerful than the god they are meant to represent.
The whole concept is sickening and downright fantastical, and the day that it is undisputably proven that god does not exist and religion is exposed for the brainwashing scam that it us “New Atheist” know it is i’ll be there at the Vatican ready to take my share of gold out of the wall to sell it on ebay.
Very true when religion is used for selfish paracitical wants – That creats genocides based – on Greed – they have a right under God to inflict damage upon others – Religion has been used for this reason – then any other – and now days – there at it again – from massive movement of people for religious reasons and political votes – to stifien the Native Born people – The use of God – to kill off anytbody they deam unworthy – for there selfish greed – Take David – a hero then a greedster – that even killed for lust – When out of Egypt – it has become a plague upon man – then 300 ad jesus used as a manic killer – What has been done in the name of God – simply for the lusts of man….
I certainly agree with you, but your ad hominem vitriol is childish.
It’s worth noting that one of the most prominent “New Atheists”, Daniel Dennett, has written a whole book, Breaking the Spell, calling for and in part undertaking detailed empirical investigation of the effects of religion – but pointing out that this cannot be done effectively while religion is protected by exactly the sort of privilege that Scofield is intent on retaining for it. This whole article is simply a diversionary tactic, a whole army of straw men erected to conceal the selfish interests of those who gain power, prestige and money from religion – of whom, of course, he is one.
Yeah, that’s what I said (other than the apropos Dennett citation) – except that I used 28 times as many words. Therefore, uh, I win?
If Scofield were to offer this as a sermon in any UU congregation I’m familiar with, he would get instant and overwhelming pushback from the floor. It represents the antithesis of the “free and responsible search for truth and meaning” of the UU principles and the tradition that warns against idolatries of mind and spirit. The kind of nonsense Scofield sees fit to spout while studying at one of UUism’s premier seminaries is one of the reasons my UU congregation does not, and never will, employ a minister.
That’s a heartening testimony about your congregation and your experience in UUism. By contrast, my seven years as an atheist in UUA congregations involved very different experiences, ones in which atheophobic bigotry very much like Scofield’s spewed from numerous powerful platforms and was uniformly condoned, albeit usually tacitly, by the rank-and-file. Within the UUA are numerous powerful people whose treatment of atheists routinely violates the First and Fourth Principles even more viciously than Scofield’s behavior here does. Have a look at http://bit.ly/scz7e2 , if you’re interested.
Of course, quite possibly a major factor in the disparity between your experience and mine is the ministerlessness of your congregation; nearly all of the most prominent UU atheophobes I’ve seen are, indeed, ministers. And guess what our Mr. Scofield aspires to “Be” in the near future?
Alas, I fear the future Rev. Scofield will fit right in with the 21st-century UUA, in which (in my experience) atheist-bashing is utterly uncontroversial. Not surprisingly, I find life rather better – less dehumanizing, at least – on the outside.
I’m not a New Atheist or a New Spirit-dude. If I knew what god wanted from me, I’d do Her will.:-)
But the tone of the post and most replies is disheartening: The upholding of the honor of Pro or Con with lots of patronizing intellectual maneuvering and showing off. Pleacocks.
That said. The historical recording in the so-called West is also disheartening. Someone already referenced the merger of the Church with the Roman Empire in 300. The Crusades and the Inquisition are part of the historical memory of some of us.
On the other hand, there have been real saints and inspired folks (Dorothy Day, some rescuers, the various religious you can find at Tikkun gatherings,..)
More interesting than culture-war abstractions, would be an attempt to discuss how all this gets carried forward into potentials for transformation now. Karen Armstrong’s work, for example, is honorable and useful in a way that much here is not.
Karen Armstrongs interminable blather is about a useful as a chocolate teapot.
Seems to me that when Maryam Namazie, an Iranian woman who has experienced firsthand the brutality and misogyny of Islam, denounces religion she is not speaking from a position of white priveledge.
I’d offer more commentary here, but 1-) other have already made good and salient counterpoints here and in their respective blogs. And 2-) this is a naked attention-grab, one-legged polemic barely above Ann Coulter level of tribal animosity.
I’ll give it credit for not bringing out the “Hitler/Atalin/Mao were atheists!” cards, though. They’re likely being saved for the follow-up.
“My article is not meant as an attack or a “gotcha.””
Simply a barefaced lie.
“Because I do think of African Americans in the 50′s and 60′s in the Nation of Islam and the Black Church.”
So do I: I think of Elijah Muhammed’s support of segregation, his invitation to George Lincoln Rockwell, founder of the American Nazi Party, to speak at a Nation of Islam rally in 1962, his own blatant antisemitism, his use of funds collected for the Nation of Islam to support his family. I think of the prominent role of black churches in campaigning against gay rights, and of the subordinate role of women within them. These things – with the exception of Elijah Muhammed’s financial corruption – are not incidental to the religious beliefs involved, but inseparable from them.
“Follow me on Twitter. Because, why not?”
Because you’re a fundamentally dishonest, absurdly self-regarding idiot.
Why do you hold Atheism to a higher standard the the 4200 other religions? Please enlighten me which religion it is that bases their beliefs on empirical evidence and rigorous scientific study? Oh that is right no religion does that they base their beliefs on revelation. Basically the “God”(for which there is no evidence) reveals the “truth”(that is not tested nor reviewed but must be taken on faith) about how the universe operates. So the scrutiny you demand from Atheists is never applied to any religion because they rely on faith (a belief that has no evidence to support it) That doesn’t make me A Female Atheist, a raciest. I reject all religions because none of them have withstood any scientific scrutiny. Which religion is it that you believe is true? How old does it state the earth is? What force does it use to explain the orbit of earth around the sun? We know the answers to these questions. Which religion states e=mc2 ? What holy revelation predicted viruses and bacteria make people sick? It wasn’t a religion but germ theory. Which religion is it that predicted DNA? it wasn’t a religion but the Theory of evolution by natural selection. I don’t need to examine all religions from all cultures to determine that no supernatural agency exists. Do you know why? It is because it is the person making the claim that something exists that is responsible for providing the evidence for their claim, so it can be scrutinized to determine if it is true. There is no evidence any religion is based in the reality of the observable universe.
Now if you are claiming that there is no evidence that all religions on earth are harmful and until I scrutinize them all it is racist for me to state they are. My response is childhood indoctrination in religion is always harmful. It brainwashes children into believing things which are false. It teaches that believing in something with out evidence is a virtue. Religion exists to explain the things that science can explain and religion lacks the ethical methodology to determine if it is true. That is why all religions are harmful. They provide “answers” that are not based on reality and provide no tools to evaluate and judge these answers besides I said so, or he said so, or a claim that a god said so.
It’s interesting to note that in the same speech Greta Christina gave at Skepticon IV in which she stated that the main problem with religion is that there is no reality check”, she also stated that ideology (like Stalinism/Lenonism/Marxism/unrestricted capitalism, etc) is also suspect, but does have a reality check in history. When the workers paradise doesn’t materialize over 60 years, the people wake up and throw your ass out. When a religion promises you 70 virgins in the afterlife and die into nothingness, it’s a little late to protest.
Balancing your slander; New atheists are for rational, responsive, responsible government. We are for freedom of thought, assembly, democracy (until something better is invented), and the common good. We are for tolerance of different beliefs, as long as they haven’t been scientifically dis-proven and aren’t based on invalid assumptions (Like: We don’t have to clean up our pollution because G-d will rapture us and fix it.)
I’m an atheist. A new Atheist. I didn’t want to be. I wanted to believe, but I wanted truth more. Without going into tremendous detail how I got there it can be summed up this way: If you reject unfounded belief, meaning belief without empirical evidence (not anecdotal), if you reject scams and unfounded claims. If you demand reproducible results. If you study skepticism, cognitive biases, and neuro-physiology you realize everything religions demand by ‘faith’ is unsupportable or explained by the meat in our heads.
If you want to be enlightened I suggest http://www.lesswrong.com or podcasts like “The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe”. If you start from the premise that what you feel is true, you’ll almost always be disappointed. Science delivers the goods.
A very good comment. Still, though:
“We are for tolerance of different beliefs, as long as….”
I don’t think we Gnu Atheists are “for tolerance of” *any* beliefs whatsoever. Tolerance isn’t for beliefs, it’s for people, and for immutable and/or harmless characteristics of those people. (Same goes for rights: people have them, beliefs and belief systems don’t.)
Even if a particular belief *hasn’t* been scientifically dis-proven and *isn’t* based on invalid assumptions, I’d say (and I think Gnu Atheists would generally say) that there’s no need to be “tolerant” of that belief at all. Attack it, insult it, treat it with all the intolerance you’d like. Give it your best shot. Worthy beliefs – and there are many in the world – can survive the harsh climate of the free marketplace of ideas. It’s only hothouse flowers like the religions Scofield demands fealty to that whine for special holier-than-thou and holier-than-thine-ideas “tolerance.”
The author of the brilliant cartoon “Jesus and Mo” made much the same point in his most recent strip, which is terrific even by his high standards: http://bit.ly/zeJBIT
And, wonder of wonders, Scofield’s (ahem) critique of Gnu Atheism figures in that strip as well….
Thank you Rieux. I accept your clarification and agree completely.
What’d you think of the cartoon?
I think the J&M cartoonist is brilliant, and courageous as hell.
Ha ha, That cartoon so directly nails Be’s argument.
It always amazes me how hard-wired we are to defend our tribe and worldview. It’s hard work to question the foundations of your paradigm and really change your mind. It often requires real courage to make a stand against the beliefs your invested in, and the coercive social and mental games religions and the religious play to tightly bind you into their system. I think it’s interesting how many of the truly successful modern religions (at least in doctrine) require you to exile apostates, cutting off social ties. (Catholicism, Islam, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.). And how they apply social pressure through your family regarding your exclusion from “the big party after we all die”. How like to each other in the evolution of coercive, controlling tactics.
It’s also amazing how hard religious folks (of every tradition I’ve seen to date) strive to emphasize publicly how ‘good’ they’ve been historically and gloss over where others of their tradition have been oppressors. I have family now, indoctrinated by Fox and Tea Party and Church who will ignore all evidence to the contrary and fervently (because they’ve been scared that their “best nation under god” is threatened by ) are supporting a movement targeted to oppress anyone who isn’t a rich, white, heterosexual, myth-bound Christian male. How every voice of dissension (i.e. NPR, CNN, National Academy of Science, the CDC, the FDA, etc) is demonized. It’s very scary when religion, politics and media lockstep.
And I’ve started reading J&M from the beginning. It’s good stuff.
Once again, Be Scofield draws attention to himself with his fundamentally disgusting dishonesty.
Here’s what Greta Christina wrote in her article, which Scofield claims as evidence that she is an evangelizing, imperialistic, racist converter of religious folk to atheism:
“If there’s one single idea I’d most like to get across to religious believers, it would be this:
Religion is a hypothesis.
Religion is a hypothesis about how the world works, and why it is the way it is. Religion is the hypothesis that the world is the way it is, at least in part, because of immaterial beings or forces that act on the material world.
…
If religion is a hypothesis, it is not hostile to diversity for atheists to oppose it.
It is no more hostile to diversity to oppose the religion hypothesis than it is to oppose the hypothesis that global warming is a hoax; that an unrestricted free market will cause the economy to flourish for everyone; that illness is caused by an imbalance in the four bodily humors; that the sun orbits the earth.
Arguing against hypotheses that aren’t supported by the evidence is not anti-diversity. That’s how we understand the world better. We understand the world by rigorously gathering and analyzing evidence… and by ruthlessly rejecting any hypothesis the evidence doesn’t support. Was it hostile to diversity for Pasteur to argue against the theory of spontaneous generation? For Georges Lemaitre to argue against the steady-state universe? For Galileo to argue against geocentrism?”
Yeah, what an imperialist she is!
Scofield, I can’t fathom how you can write with such dishonesty and not feel immense shame.
Very well said.
Lurkers may wish to read the entire Christina article Sally quotes, to evaluate whether Scofield is presenting Christina’s position honestly:
http://bit.ly/4Jgwoc
Scofield just can’t handle the epistemic critique of religion. This failure of his apparently bothers him, otherwise he wouldn’t lash out at one of its most prominent proponents so often.
Just because I haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist (and if somebody could point me in the right direction I would deeply appreciate it), but to date I have never seen a cogent response from any of the big-name New Atheists – or anyone in this comments section – addressing the conflict generated by the denunciation, from within the context of explicitly articulated privilege, of religion and religious expression in the instances when the religion of oppressed minorities (or majorities, as is the case with women) functions as a means of resistance against the many prevalent systems of oppression (white supremacy, cultural hegemony, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.). Systems, I might add, in which the majority of public figures associates with New Atheism are implicated (as am I, as is Be, as I would wager are most of the other commenters to greater or lesser degrees). I am not sure what such an analysis would look like, but for individuals implicated in such structures of oppression, the conversation cannot simply end at the denunciation of the religion’s legitimacy without also speaking to the legitimacy of the tools drawn from religious tradition and practice that are being used to challenge oppressive structures like the ones listed above.
For me, the value of Be’s piece is not in holding up religious people as somehow removed from these systems of oppression, systems that effect believers and non-believers alike. Quite the contrary, I think Be is well aware of just how implicated various religious traditions have been in the historical and even contemporary furtherance of the these systems of oppression. And I don’t think Be’s detractors are unaware of issues like race and gender in the atheist movement. As Be notes, Greta Christina has done an admirable job on a couple of articles covering the need for the atheist movement to respond to sexism and racism. PZ Myer’s response to Be’s article also highlighted efforts to increase diversity within the atheist movement and some of the tensions these efforts have causes.
But what I would hope that readers of Be’s article would take away the understanding that, even without calling for the ‘conversion’ of religious individuals into atheists, there is a deeply problematic power dynamic in play when someone who benefits from oppressive social and economic systems attempts to deny the validity of the modes of meaning-making used by impacted communities to resist those self-same systems. Failure to acknowledge one’s own implication in such systems while simultaneously trumpeting the illegitimacy of the means of articulation by which groups suffering under these oppressive systems seems to constitute, at the very least, a pretty glaring conflict of interest, and at worse, as Be suggests, a denial of agency on the part of the oppressed and a direct furtherance of the oppressive systems in question.
But what I would hope that readers of Be’s article would take away the understanding that, even without calling for the ‘conversion’ of religious individuals into atheists, there is a deeply problematic power dynamic in play when someone who benefits from oppressive social and economic systems attempts to deny the validity of the modes of meaning-making used by impacted communities to resist those self-same systems.
Umm. I am sorry, which group can’t get elected to office, gets harassed, gets sent death threats and hate mail, loses jobs, or can’t get certain jobs, have some time gotten lynched, etc., in modern times:
1. The religious.
2. Atheists.
Note, I say “modern times”. This is only partly about modern times though. There was a “brief” period, right around when Twain, and Nietzsche, and some others where appearing, when it was the “in thing”, even in the US, to question the viability of religion. After that, Europe went one way, and the US did what it does with every important historical figure, they threw out the inconvenient bits, like hits disgust with religion, and turned him into some sort of semi-Christian hero. So, in the US, its the Atheists, in Europe, as long as you don’t make yourself look like one of the wackos we have running for office in the US right now, no one cares. Prior to the industrial revolution, it was Atheists, who where everything from ostracized, to stoned, to burned at the stake.
You seem to be confusing the tools with the framework built from them. And, the one **single** thing within all such frameworks that atheists despise, more than all the garish window dressing, the patched holes, and shoddy workmanship in their construction, is *precisely* the thing that, sadly, often ends up turning the oppressed into the oppressors, as soon as the oppression for them ends. They idea that they are special, chosen, or simply so distinctly different from everyone else, that the original oppressors deserves everything that was done to the oppressed. And, sure, there may be some atheists, we are hardly a cohesive whole, like religions, who think the same thing. But, most simply want a bloody level playing field. Its irrelevant of someone wants to pray to their imaginary friend, they just shouldn’t be allowed to interrupt other people, force other people to participate, or demand that everyone else’s ideas be ignored, because those other people don’t. What is it they want? Usually to make everyone sit and listen, to have their views placed on the top of the list, etc.
Its shouldn’t matter who came up with an idea, as long as the idea is sound. It is a problem if they a) demand recognition that their idea *must* be sound, be fiat, and b) keep presenting the same unsound ideas, over and over again, as candidates, whether it be abstinence, or a long list of other absurdities, that don’t work. Those things *must* be top of the list, because their faith must be top of the list, and its not oppression, according to them, to demand this, or enforce it, its only oppression, by someone else, if that other someone questions it.
And that is nothing more than, “You are not like me, so I don’t have to listen to anything you say.” The tool, both of those trying to hold themselves separate from the oppression around them, when needed, but also of the oppressors, in giving themselves the right to oppress. Its a dangerous tool, since its so, so, easy to slide from using it for one purpose, to using it for the wrong one.
So, yeah, we are well aware of the “tools” used by people to hold themselves together under those situations. And, like the, “people feel happier, with religion, when everyone else around them is religious”, the problem that needs to be addressed is to eliminate the need for such uncertain, double edged, and dangerous, tools, not encourage their over-use. Better yet, improve them, so they are better. Which is also not possible, with religions, which often function in a self imposed vacuum, where change, if it happens, is slow, to the extent of resembling plate tectonics, even when nearly *everything* believed by one of them is wrong, or possibly even harmful (like some of those that have, in the past, required human sacrifice, while failing at more general things, like understanding the cause of droughts). And, its not been religion that has made those less common, its been rejection of religions explanations for them, in favor of purely non-theological knowledge.
“[T]o date I have never seen a cogent response from any of the big-name New Atheists – or anyone in this comments section – addressing the conflict generated by the denunciation, from within the context of explicitly articulated privilege, of religion and religious expression in the instances when the religion of oppressed minorities (or majorities, as is the case with women) functions as a means of resistance against the many prevalent systems of oppression (white supremacy, cultural hegemony, sexism, heteronormativity, classism, etc.).”
To some extent, surely, that’s because any such conflict, to the extent it actually exists (“explicitly articulated privilege”? As in “explicitly articulated” by *whom*?), is largely orthagonal to the central critiques Gnu (and other) Atheists are making. Lies, illusions, and fairy tales are no less lies, illusions, and fairy tales just because various people have, for good reasons or ill, drawn “inspiration” and “resistance” from them.
If religious believers (exercising their own overwhelming privilege, one which Scofield is entirely blind to and you are at best eliding) have the power to silence critical inquiry into their pet notions on the grounds that they find those notions liberating, what hope is there for anything resembling a free marketplace of ideas at all? Free inquiry is impossible if it is fenced off from any conception that a disempowered group claims is liberating.
Aside from that, I’d refer you to my own citation of Marx and “opiate of the people” (and more importantly, the point he is making in the surrounding sentences) upthread as a relevant response to the concern you raise. Sure, religious ideas have sometimes, and entirely inconsistently, offered oppressed people a modicum of solace and escape from oppression. That does not render them sacrosanct, unchallengeable, or undeniably worthwhile, even for the liberation project in question. If, and to the extent that, religion “is the sigh of the oppressed creature,” it deserves no protection from direct critique on the grounds that some of the oppressed testify that sighing relieved some of their suffering.
Moreover, the apologetic Scofield is pushing and you are echoing here effectively always has a partner: total silence regarding the broad and important role that (as Susan Jacoby has documented at length) *secular* and even *anti-religious* ideas and people have played in every organized “resistance” to oppression in American history. Scofield, like a thousand other apologists, simply sweeps under the rug the vital roles that nonbelievers and our attacks on religion have played in the feminist movement, the abolitionist movement, the Civil Rights movement, the GLBT rights movement, and every other significant struggle for justice in the history of this nation. Pretending that the role of religion *within* each of these movements (to say nothing of their oppositions, who were all-but-uniformly fervently religious, indeed Christian) is or was uniformly constructive is an offensive lie-by-omission that attempts to write the likes of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Asa Philip Randolph, and Bayard Rustin out of history–and Greta Christina (among many others) out of the present. Very likely Scofield is entirely clueless regarding the degree to which open opponents of religion contributed and contribute to the justice movements he pretends to advocate for – but if so that’s simply a sign of his deep white, straight, male, and (especially) religious privilege.
“[F]or individuals implicated in such structures of oppression, the conversation cannot simply end at the denunciation of the religion’s legitimacy without also speaking to the legitimacy of the tools drawn from religious tradition and practice that are being used to challenge oppressive structures like the ones listed above.”
How confidently you purport to speak for disempowered persons whose relation to such “structures of oppression” you admit you do not share. Victims of white, straight, and male (and class, ableist, cis-gendered…) privilege do not in fact speak with a single voice regarding “the legitimacy of the tools drawn from religious tradition and practice that are being used to challenge oppressive structures like the ones listed above,” and they never have.
What, pray tell, would you have the Dawkinses, Harrises, and Myers (and Christinas?!?) of the world say to members of disempowered minorities (N.B.: women are commonly termed a minority not on numerical grounds but on grounds of societal power) regarding allegedly liberating religious notions?
As both Myers and Christina have emphasized in their rebuttals to Scofield’s hatchet job, the basic Gnu Atheist question has nothing to do with the *function* of a religious idea (or of – feh – religious “traditions”); PZ and Greta and a million others of us merely consider it of primary importance to ask: Is It True?
How is “I don’t care; I find it liberating” even a *responsive* answer to that question, such that the “conflict” you diagnose in your opening paragraph even exists?
I don’t see any Gnu Atheist claiming (contra, e.g., Marx) that all religious ideas are forever and always functionally worthless. Fundamentally, we’re merely pointing out that those ideas show every sign of being simply false. Short of decreeing that such inconvenient truths cannot be breathed, precisely how are we supposed to alter our presentation of that notion on the grounds that *some* disempowered people nonetheless find religious ideas meaningful?
“Quite the contrary, I think Be is well aware of just how implicated various religious traditions have been in the historical and even contemporary furtherance of the these systems of oppression.”
I couldn’t tell you what Scofield is “aware of,” but his rhetoric reveals a garden-variety apologist who utterly refuses to even consider the responsibility that religion-as-such bears for the thousands of years’ worth of brutality and injustice that have been visited on millions if not billions of innocent people.
I mean, get a load of his brush-off from upthread: “[T]his would only be a valid response if I were saying that one shouldn’t criticize the harmful effects of some religious behaviors.” *”Effects of behaviors”?* Sneering and minimizing garbage like that – garbage that demands that criticism of religion only be targeted at phenomena *two or more levels removed* from the belief systems at issue – in fact bespeaks pathetic denial of “how implicated various religious traditions have been in the historical and even contemporary furtherance of the these systems of oppression.”
“[T]here is a deeply problematic power dynamic in play when someone who benefits from oppressive social and economic systems attempts to deny the validity of the modes of meaning-making used by impacted communities to resist those self-same systems.”
And it’s worth noting that Scofield’s very own work falls afoul of that principle, given the overwhelming and “oppressive social and economic” power that religious ideas, persons, systems, and their apologists (including Scofield and Tikkun themselves) possess in this very exchange – and the extent to which outspoken atheists are a perfect example of a widely despised “impacted community” that very much engages in “meaning making” by speaking truth (such as “God is make-believe” and “There is no afterlife”) to power. Power, indeed, that Scofield represents and is trying to use to marginalize and silence us.
If an African-American or queer Christian thinks that Gnu Atheist attacks on religious ideas “deny the validity of the[ir] modes of meaning-making,” that may well be worth discussing – but their reaction cannot be sufficient grounds to silence criticism of religion, or else free inquiry is DOA.
“Failure to acknowledge one’s own implication in such systems while simultaneously trumpeting the illegitimacy of the means of articulation by which groups suffering under these oppressive systems seems to constitute, at the very least, a pretty glaring conflict of interest, and at worse, as Be suggests, a denial of agency on the part of the oppressed and a direct furtherance of the oppressive systems in question.”
That’s crap. If there’s anyone “denying agency on the part of the oppressed,” it’s you and Scofield, pretending that The Oppressed are a monolithic subset of The Religious. As noted (though never by you, or by Scofield), plenty of The Oppressed throughout history have been just as critical of religion, including religion-as-such, as modern Gnu Atheists are. The paternalism and privilege inherent in that move of yours thus presents a serious problem.
But as Stanton and Randolph might well have asked: if an allegedly vital “means of articulation” for oppressed people requires a foundation on irrational, reality-denying nonsense that no one is ever allowed to question, how valuable and worthwhile can it really be? Or, to switch from the positive to the normative realm, if the principle “God wants you to boycott buses in Montgomery” directly aids and abets “God wants you to vote to ban queer marriage” a generation and a half later, was it ever really a worthwhile principle in the first place?
—
“As I have argued elsewhere, the alleged usefulness of religion–the fact that it sometimes gets people to do very good things indeed–is not an argument for its truth. And, needless to say, the usefulness of religion can be disputed, as I have done in both my books. As you may know, I’ve argued that religion gets people to do good things for bad reasons, when good reasons are actually available; I have also argued that it rather often gets people to do very bad things that they would not otherwise do. On the subject of doing good, I ask you, which is more moral, helping people purely out of concern for their suffering, or helping them because you think God wants you to do it?”
– Sam Harris
…there is a deeply problematic power dynamic in play when someone who benefits from oppressive social and economic systems attempts to deny the validity of the modes of meaning-making used by impacted communities to resist those self-same systems.
You are simply ASSUMING — as Be Scofield does — that only “oppressors” are “attempting to deny the validity of the modes of meaning-making” (a really REALLY fancy way of saying “organized religion”). The observable fact is, lots of people in the “impacted communities” are also asking the same questions as those privileged atheists — and sometimes getting violently punished for it by the “oppressed” people. If you really think rich white atheists were the only people questioning Khomeini’s dictatorship, then you’re a moron — plenty of Iranian Muslims were also questioning it, and still are.
Also, I notice you call organized religion a mode of “meaning-making,” not a mode of actually solving problems or correcting injustice. That choice of words is telling.
I’ve responded to Scofield’s Update (the first one) on Ophelia Benson’s “Butterflies and Wheels” blog in a comment reachable at http://bit.ly/x1lfYO . And I’ve responded to Update #2 both here and over there.
There are several other worthwhile critiques of Scofield on that comment thread as well.
All this verbiage which ignores the basis of
the New Atheist’s premise: Belief in any
Religious System is harmful to Society with
ALL of them (ya’ll) asserting THEIR faith in
“Science”.
“Faith”. Get it? Your “Faith” simply opposes
ours. Pretend all you like; none of you presented
ANY “Science” either “Proving” yours or
exploding ours. Anecdotes, either your or mine,
“Prove” absolutely nothing.
Because, of course, there isn’t any such “Proof”.
And when the lady says “(I) want to show (Society)
their is no (Creator)…” she IS, implicitly, saying
she wants their “Conversion(s)” from one Belief
System, mine, to another, hers. And you’re being
deliberately obtuse when you challenge the statement.
Its NOT a pretty, dignifying sight.
Don’t be intellectual cowards. You have no “Proof”
and neither do I. As for Atheism itself…
…it has in, various forms: Communism, Stalinism
Nazism, et al been as destructive as any Religion.
You should be thankful: It’s believers like me who
make up the majority of those who fight against
the, forcible, installation of Quranic, Sharia, Hadith,
etc. Laws in the USA (And the West in general)
by which, by signing UN Resolution 16/18, Obama
has effectively ended Free Speech in America…
At least where ANY criticism of any thing objectionable
about ANYTHING Islamic is concerned.
Wake Up, Atheists!! They’re coming for you, in regards
to Quranic, Sharia, Hadith, Muslim Traditional Laws,
even worse than for me!! Here’s a couple of links. AND,
as you read and check out some of their links, remember….
ISLAM WOULDN’T HAVE IT ANY OTHER WAY
It’s completely bizarre seeing a racist scumbag from Stormfront pretending to denounce Nazism, as well as falsely claiming it was atheist. Hitler was helped into power by the Catholic Centre Party which gave him the votes to pass the Enabling Act establishing his dictatorship. One of his first acts was to ban the main German atheist organisations. The Roman Catholic Church signed a concordat with him, as it had earlier with Mussolini, and never excommunicated any of the Nazi leadership for their crimes, nor called for resistance against him. The vast majority of Lutheran pastors, too, went along with Nazism, and almost all those who carried out his plans for conquest and genocide were Christians. There is no evidence whatever that Hitler himself was an atheist: when he took over the Nazi Party he was undoubtedly a believing Catholic, and he appears to have remained a theist, although not a doctrinally orthodox Christian. The anti-Muslim hate movement he lauds is also predominantly Christian, although I admit some atheists are involved.
(ooops) my bad:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t856316/
http://americandefenseleague.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/forbes-obama-administration-jihad-backdoor-attack-on-free-speech/
Oh look, Scofield’s got a fan… from Stormfront. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I don’t know what will.
On the other hand, Stormfront garbage does make Scofield look less offensive by comparison. Be is several kinds of wrong, but at least he’s not a drooling racist.
Yes, but the hilarious thing is that Scofield has no grounds on which to condemn Stormfront-style racism. I’m sure he WOULD condemn it, but why? If he doesn’t accept that religion causes harm, then how can he accept that racist religious beliefs cause harm? What evidence could possibly overcome the hurdle of proof which he has set so high for religion in general? Racists can, and do, point to the “good” that white supremacists have done for people of color. The Indian rail system. Generations of welfare. Pat Buchanan infamously asked why black people aren’t more grateful for such things. Is there really much of a difference between this, and religiously privileged people pointing to the missions in Africa and services to the homeless?
“In 2009 Greta Christina wrote an article originally titled “Why I Want to Turn Religious People in to Atheists.” On Alternet the title was changed to “Atheism and Diversity: Is it Wrong for Atheists to Convert Believers?” But the original title obviously shows that she publicly advocates that “religious people” be turned into atheists.”
Be Scofield shows yet again what a stinking hypocrite he is. Greta Christian wants to convince people of a particular belief she holds: that there is no God. Scofield wants to convince people of a particular belief he holds: that New Atheism is inherently racist. Yet by his own (absurd) standards, this must be wrong, because his claimis based on the notion that those with privilege should not attempt to persuade those without that they are wrong. Be Scofield, as a proponent of religion, possesses privilege in relation to atheists (in addition to all the other layers of privilege he has as a white American male), since atheists in the USA are undoubtedly a persecuted minority. Of course, most atheists, and specifically New Atheists, do not object to their ideas being attacked – have at it. But if the attack takes the form Scofield’s has, expect your privilege and hypocrisy to be pointed out.
Welp, I guess I’m going to be the lone voice in the wilderness.
Be Scofield, I agree with you and I’m an atheist/agnostic. The literature, social spaces, and most widely recognized voices of atheism are predominantly populated by Western, white, male, heterosexual, cis, middle class (and above) people. Atheists do indeed face high levels of prejudice as a philosophical/”religious” minority in predominantly Christian countries. And yet, the lopsided demography of our communities tends to draw upon otherwise privileged life experiences, and as you have illustrated, this privilege inadvertently shines through in our literature and our actions.
This is not unlike second wave feminism of the 70s and 80s, and to a lesser extent, contemporary feminism. Second wave feminism received a mountain of criticism because of the racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, and other privileged/prejudiced faults that peeked through the words and behaviors of the most vocal parts of the movement. Eventually, after many years of pointed criticism, the movement began to respond. Mainstream feminism is by no means perfect at this point, but there has been a noticeable movement away from the exclusively privileged perspectives of years past. Similar to feminism, I’m hoping that in the years to come, atheism will be able to form a more honest self-assessment of its failings. Unfortunately, that level of self-awareness is currently not available, and those few atheist voices who do point out these failings are often widely criticized and then ignored.
There are cracks starting to show in new atheism’s edifice, however. The community has been rocked by several rounds of women challenging their male compatriots upon their sexism. The ensuing verbal conflicts have been educational, for they have brought to the surface some rather unsavory sexist attitudes and put those dysfunctional thought processes on display for all to see. This could very well be the the start of a very long, painful process of change. The question is whether or not atheist communities will embrace the challenge of addressing the privilege and prejudice of it’s own members, or whether it will hemorrhage its minority populace of female members. In addition, of course, are a mound of other demographic ills that need to be addressed.
Will the current wave of vocal atheism survive the fracture lines that are slowly permeating its social substrate?
We shall see.
Regardless, thank you for your article, Be. It’s a much needed critique of problematic attitudes that are undermining the collective integrity of atheism. Unfortunately, many of us will dismiss your words far too easily because of your own position of religious privilege. Nevertheless, keep up with the critiques. Some of us are actually listening. In fact, I’ve just put Tikkun into my RSS reader. 😉
When was the last time a religious community was rocked by vocal challenges to the sexism of its leaders, and what, realistically speaking, is the probability that these challenges are going to result in significant change?
Sexism is a society-wide problem. Atheists and skeptics have this advantage over religious folks: we lack an explicitly anti-feminist ideology. Abrahamic religions are explicitly anti-feminist.
Why am I not surprised to see yet another lying for Jeebus flea on the back of the Gnu atheists. Be, doesn’t one of the commandments have something to say about bearing false witness, or doesn’t it count when the lies are about non-accommodationist atheists.
Criticism of this article by a commenter in this thread :
“It is merely a loosely-connected series of evidence-free assertions”
As are Greta Christina’s intolerant screeds on Alternet – only more so.
Thank you for calling out the illogical, evidence-free hate speech of these writers.
For people who claim to have a lock on science and logic, the new atheists are extremely short on both. Actual scientists don’t even claim to be as all-knowing and unerring as these clods, particularly the amateur blogger and comic critic Christina.
I’m going to purchase a paid subscription to Tikkun & send an additional donation in gratitude and that’s all thanks to Greta’s fans & sycophants expressing outrage on Twitter about this article.
“SpiritualRealist”? Now there’s an oxymoron.
I just hope that the writer is just seriously deluded in typing this nonsense.
Religion is actively harmful, especially if you are female (I’m not female, incidentally) or have a different variety of the same religion, or a different religion, or are in ANYWAY AT ALL “deviant” from the set of values arbitrarily decided upon by self-selected priesthood caste.
A very short study of history will show this to be so.
Goodness, humankind are just a bunch of angry toddlers wanting to have their way. THEIR way. And otherwise….ennui. Anyway. I am Jewish and I do not like mission. Atheists, new, old, medium, rare, well or not done at all, are all behaving like missionaries or worse: zealots. Heaven beware us of zealots who become so convinced of their own minds they want to impose their “knowledge” (read: themselves, read: power) on others esp. those who do believe in a higher Presence they themselves cannot understand thus do not believe in. What? Do not want to believe in. Because it would show their vulnerabilities, idiocies, powerholis, and/or their hatefulness. And of course: their endless limitidness and limitation. No higher power can exist in thier puny minds. Science is an evolving abstraction. Nothing godlike. I find this whole thing rather stupid. Thus I end here. Good luck with the New Atheists. Old wine in new bags. Society has been there and done that. 19th and 20th century. Very uplifting periods, wouldn’t you agree? Esp. for scientists. People, do not stop thinking and pound your inflated chests. A little awe and modesty would do. If you can. And stop hating eachother. Everytime I see atheism being discussed, hatred comes out of the closet. To and fro and back again. Silly.
Goodness, humankind are just a bunch of angry toddlers wanting to have their way…
And you’re from…where? Saturn?
Atheists, new, old, medium, rare, well or not done at all, are all behaving like missionaries or worse: zealots.
Oh yeah, tell me about it. I’m sure you’re just as fed up as I am with all those atheists knocking on my door on a Saturday morning, or down the highstreet handing out Richard Dawkins essays, or loudly protesting outside churches… 🙂
And stop hating eachother.
And the award for least self-aware comment on the thread goes to… 🙂
Ad hominem? Do you know what you just wrote? I did take Latin and it does not make any sense. Goodbye. And have a good week.
Flouncy flouncy flouncy!! It’s easier than answering hard questions, isn’t it?
For African Americans, Christianity and Islam have played a central role in the process of humanization…
Yeah, because African Americans weren’t really human until Christianity and Islam humanized them…after enslaving them, of course. Gotta pay dues before you can be fully human, right?
I find it truly amazing that someone can say something that patronizing, and then insist it’s the atheists who are racist. Does Be Scofield even take himself seriously?
Indian-English writer Kenan Malik has a new essay ( http://bit.ly/zmzdgH ) up on his blog that functions as a not-too-indirect rebuttal to Scofield’s piece here. Malik writes:
Malik’s main concentration in his essay is the conflict between fellow Indian-English writer Salman Rushdie and various political factions that purport to defend Islam from him. But the above could just as easily refer to Scofield’s piece right here – to which Malik’s response is on the nose: everything in the above paragraph from “What, however, defines a community” through the end could just as easily have been written as a rebuttal to Scofield stuff like this:
In Malik’s terms, Scofield is stating as definitive his preferred One True Narrative of the “role” that “Christianity and Islam have played” in African-American history and community. He simply pretends Black skeptics and other cross-cutting currents out of existence; as Malik puts it, “What is called offence to a community is in reality usually a debate within a community. – but in viewing that debate as a matter of offence or of blasphemy, one side gets instantly silenced.” Same goes for Scofield’s treatment of Native Americans, and indeed every other community (except for gnus) he mentions.
And that, inevitably, is what a piece like Scofield’s does: it declares an Official Cultural Identity for the group being “protected,” an identity that invariably happens to match the views of that community’s most conservative, if not reactionary, elements. Black skeptics? Native Americans who have discarded religion as unworthy? Muslims who disdain blasphemy laws and policies? Too bad; the Scofields and Rushdie-critics of the world wave them out of existence with a flick of the wrist.
Back in Malik’s original Rushdie-and-Islam context, he points out the analogous destruction wrought by Scofield’s counterparts:
And Scofield is doing the very same thing right here: embracing the most privileged, reactionary, and religious strands of the communities he purports to defend – a tactic that can do nothing but strengthen the conservatives’ hand in the intra-community struggles against liberal and secularizing strands.
Not that this is a new observation, but it’s bitingly ironic that the factions that benefit most from this kind of lefty backstab are the right-wing fundamentalist ones. It’s liberal and secular-leaning African-Americans/Native Americans/Muslims who get screwed by these blindly religious- (and inevitably white-) privileged attempts to “help” or “defend” them.
Its is just not religion that kills people, It is dogma. Dogma from religion or right/left wing ideology. How many millions died under the ideological dogma of Stalin, Mao, Nazism or Pop Pot. Is in any different form those who died under the dognap of Christianity of Islam. It is my way or the highway approach to controlling society.
Love, love, love…is all you need.– the Beatles
Where is the love, kindness, and grace in the comments and conversation? The evidence I’m looking for here is love.
Would you consider it poor form to point out that your citation of the Beatles is the Argument from Authority fallacy?
More directly, Steven Pinker provides a direct rebuttal to the Liverpudlians’ assertion about two-thirds of the way through his wonderful recently-published book, The Better Angels of Our Nature; as he explains, neither love nor its more recently popular cousin, empathy, is in fact “all we need” to get along peaceably. I’d recommend Better Angels to pretty much anyone.
Back on this thread, I’m not sure what makes you think that a hit piece as nasty, dishonest, privileged, and truculent as Scofield’s initial post here deserves to be treated with “love.” Do you dispute the social value of open scorn as a signal of disapproval of misbehavior? Scofield has violated some very widespread, rather simple, and strongly justified mores. Is it not just that the victims of his misrepresentations and targets of his hostility respond with protests and opprobrium?
You are welcome to challenge me with the “authority fallacy.” Thank you for the gentle way you posed your challenge. I thought I was drawing from “art” rather than an “authority,” but I’ll take your point. The word “all” in the song is hyperbole, because we do need more than simply “love.” I do come from this song’s exaggerated perspective and nevertheless offer it here.
I’m familiar with Stephen Pinker, although not the particular work you cited. I’ve also read evolutionary psychology and human evolution texts, going all the way back to Darwin, suggesting that cooperation, compassion, and thinking together were key traits in humanity’s biological success.
I picture you as a friend, Rieux. And I believe we do have a core difference. I believe in “kindness” over against “open scorn”. So I invite Be, me, you, and all those who have commented to consider this question, “How might we work together against privilege and racism and injustice?” Unlike this particular conversation here, I’ve talked with folks all along the non-faith and faith continuum (atheists to Jews to Christians to Muslims to others) who have partnered with me in a “kindness agenda.”
We seem to be in a time of great “mimetic rivalry” (see the anthropology of Rene Girard) where defeating and shaming one’s “enemy” is the highest value. See for example the current political season where my “kindness agenda” is rather out of fashion.
Goodness to you as we ponder our differences. Tim
I cannot speak for all Atheists, but I can speak somewhat for those I’ve talked to, listened to, and read.
We have love, as all humans do, but we reserve it for humans, not arguments. While Rieux’s response is accurate, it doesn’t directly answer your question. Anger in the face of unjust accusation is only reasonable; and you’ll notice no call here by atheists to have Scofield or anyone else murdered, caned, or even harmed. More than many religions can boast.
Religions in modern times like to talk a lot about love, but what do they mean? To love the witch (falsly accused) while you murder her? (yes, it’s happening in Nigeria today) To love the adulterer by excluding them from your fellowship? To love the homosexual while denying them civil rights? To love the infidel while you saw off his head on video? To love the writer or cartoonist while you call for issue a fatwah for their death?
Or do you mean the “Love” (false concern you’ll forget when you walk away) you shine from your eyes while you try to convert someone? The “Love bombing” churches use to influence visitors?
Do you think we don’t show compassion for suffering? Outwardly, there are ‘recovering from religion” groups in many cities. Maybe we don’t yet have a presence in hospitals as “Chaplins” but then again, we’re somewhat allergic to the pious platitudes they pander. For comfort we can say: how much they achieved in their life; how they influenced those around them; how death takes you beyond pain and suffering; how you were enriched by knowing them; how sorry we are that science hasn’t yet found a cure for their illness, but we’ll continue to strive to find one so one day someone else wont’ suffer so. We care deeply, we just don’t dress it up in pink faerie tights.
When it’s been pointed out internally that Atheist’s still have bias’ towards race, sex, etc., we take it seriously, and allowing for individual variance, we embrace change. There are talks given at almost every Skeptical and Atheist convention on these very topics. I know we actively seek to bring minority and disenfranchised voices of reason into these events. We show love by our actions.
Or do you mean social activism? The love the Atheist soldier shows when he knowingly places his one and only life, short as it is, on the line for his country, in spite of being reviled by that same country? Or the long-suffering love scientists show when they spend their lives looking for answers that will give the rest of their race better lives? Or the calls for treating all humans with dignity, even the myth-bound, when they are oppressed by religious zealots?
In terms of virtue? We love seeking truth, testing hypothesis, overcoming biases, emancipating people and concepts from religious bondage, enfranchising humans, speaking out against oppression, demolishing bad arguments, etc..
Yeah…we have love…in spades. What we don’t have, yet, is a strong local, supportive organization. We’re working on it.
And..on the humble side. Ok Rieux (and the rest of you), tell me where I’m wrong. I’m still new to this new-atheist thing. I want to be less-wrong.
Another direct and important reply to Scofield’s piece, this one by Frederick Sparks, is available here: http://bit.ly/yq9kfU .
This part of your argument is quite absurd. Of course most atheists have not studied the Dinka religious tradition, nor interviewed Mandeans. But neither have most believers done these things. So turn the question around; how can believers say religion is a force for good when they haven’t considered the damage done by belief in Karma, which is used to excuse the oppression of outcastes in India by saying that they must deserve their suffering and be paying a Karmic debt? How can they call Native American spirituality is benign when they have not truly examined the oppression of women in some traditional Native American societies?
When examined in this manner, the impossible demand that atheists must know everything about religion or shut up, (while religious believers may spout off from a position of total ignorance), is plainly absurd. And we are therefore led back to the original debate about the actual widespread situation of religion and science and society as it is constituted today.
Damn fine point, atheist. And since Scofield has directly implied that these obscure religions he cites may not be subject to the same criticisms as Christianity and Islam, perhaps we should ask him whether he considers these religions better. And if so, does he plan to start evangelizing for them?
Another thing I notice about Scofield’s mention of lesser-known religions, is that he left out minority religions of WESTERN origin, such as Wicca, Druidry, Asatru, the Hellenic pantheon, etc. He also avoided mentioning the African Diaspora religions, such as Voudoun, Yoruba, Ifa, Umbanda, Santeria, etc. And what about the polytheistic traditions that got suppressed and erased by Islam?
And that’s only the most superficial flaw in this guy’s hyper-defensive apologetics.
Good point Raging Bee. That may be because western religious traditions would be more familiar to folks here and therefore be easier targets.
It has been my observation that the hurtful aspect of humanity is not limited to any particular faith or non-faith group. Anyone who claims innocence over against others (from evangelical Christians to atheists) draws my suspicion. I know for myself that I, too, am complicit with injustice, racism, and the problems of this world. What I appreciate about Tikkun is that we are about the healing of the world together.
@Tim,
Your first observation is valid and second is a good rule of thumb. Assholes exist in every facet of life. I think one of the challenges in modern sociology is to design corporate and government structures that resist the rise and power of fanatics, of whatever brand. I’ve heard it said the the strength of democracy is not efficiency, but that it takes so long to get anything done that the public has at least a chance of being heard. I encourage you to feed your skepticism and to learn to apply it to your own beliefs. It’s hard work, but rewarding. There are some good talks http://skepticon.org/media/, especially Spencer Greenberg on Self Skepticism.
I appreciate your humility in recognizing your own bias. This is the beginning of wisdom. We all suffer with self blindness, both in the way our brains have evolved, and when it comes to the beliefs we’ve been raised with. Seeking ways to deal with these false assumptions and mitigate their impact on our judgement is a noble pursuit.
I’m all for working together to relieve the woes of this world. I have, however, come to the conclusion that much of this woe is the result of acting in groups on policies that’s assumes we have the “right moral answer” that is based on invalid assumptions.
If you believe your Book, teachings or cultural instructions and traditions alone gives you (and your tribe) sufficient cause to disenfranchise and oppress women, homosexuals, infidels, or just folks with a different opinion; to suppress open debate, quash scientific exploration, to restrict opinion and legislation to your standards, to act in intolerant ways, to require others give your beliefs special privileges; you’re being religious, not rational. It’s more effective in the long run to spend your energy looking at what’s science has discovered about human nature, society, power and bias, and try to fashion and support policies that will bring real positive change.
@Storms,
You are certainly correct that when My Group scapegoats others using Our Moral Right that is dangerous.
I follow the anthropology of Rene Girard that suggests that “mimetic rivalry” which leads to “all against all” violence which is resolved in “all against one” scapegoating violence resulting in temporary, unjust peace. The oppressed groups you named have certainly been victims. As you might imagine, the My Groups that I am part of as a human being have both perpetrated and been victims of this violence.
Pain, ancient wisdom suggests, is inevitable. And we always face a choice. We can either transmit the pain inflicted upon us, or we can transform it into compassion and love.
As I write to you, I imagine you have suffered in life. We write to one another as strangers. Please receive my desire for your healing. And I might confess to you that I have endured deep tragedy. I reveal that I do not feel safe to describe it here. When you respond to me, be aware that I have suffered, too- perhaps “less” than you. Our time on this earth is short. Who knows, I may be gone tomorrow, or, you might. So let us demonstrate love, right here, right now, while we have breath. Healing and peace to you, human one.
@Tim
Thank you for your wish for healing and peace. You have mine, too, and a promise to act toward constructive ends as well, within the light I have. We often come off cold, being rational, because we know just wishing for something is ineffective. However that misses the element of connection such wishes convey. On this level, I feel you as a person, and empathize with the pains and tragedy you’ve endured, whatever they are.
If you listen to Greta Christina’s Skepticon IV talk on “Why are you Atheists are so Angry?”, you’ll understand much of our anger isn’t for ourselves. Besides (and often beyond) each of our personal stories of pain, we empathize with those who suffer from the results of rampant un-reason as expressed through political action by (most often) well-meaning myth-bound folks. We’re angered at how politicians court and pander to the religious vote, even when the evidence of their voting record will show they’re insincere (or even worse, when they are sincere and then proceed to try to legislate their tribes morals into law for everyone). We’re angered when we see politically and religiously motivated media provoking fear and panic in vulnerable religiously programmed tribes in order to increase ratings, contributions and votes. We’re angered that media today commonly gives equal weight to sound scientific theory vs any outrageous wacky unscientific woo that’ll bring in ratings (confusing the public and lowering the standard of rationality). We’re angered when critical thinking skills and science education is endangered by legislation to force the teaching of a particular tribe’s faerie tales as a reasonable alternative. And so on…
Religion, because it has no reality check, because it’s seductive to our system-1 thinking and feels right, makes you vulnerable to manipulation (by fear, guilt, threat of loss, holy anger, holy visions, etc). This is why we demand all ideas be examined objectively, by the same criteria. This is why we stress teaching critical thinking and scientific skills in the few years kids are in school. Because they inoculate you against manipulation. They make you independent and strong. There is freedom here!
To sum up, we’re angry because we care deeply. Because we love deeply.
Do not confuse this functional anger, with malice. We (as far as I can speak for others) wish no one harm. The choice of responding with either anger or compassion is a false dichotomy. Granted holding grudges and seeking revenge is a case of the ‘sunk cost fallacy”, and leads to a world of one-eyed folks. I, and I believe most new-atheists, chose both anger and compassion, but constructively on both sides. Anger to motivate our voice toward change, compassion for those who are oppressed and myth-bound.
Also remember that you are hardwired by evolution to detect threat, and therefore hear anger where none exists (especially in text). It’s hard not to feel threatened when you’re closely held beliefs are questioned. Some of the anger (by far not all) is illusory. We will not compromise, however, on the right of every human to question any and all ideas and seek truth. The good ones will survive and strengthen us all. We ask you all to become strong and rational, and tolerant of even acerbic mocking commentary. Learn to let it roll off. Take solace if you must in each other, but let the unfounded ideas and beliefs die. They only hold you back.
@Storms,
Wow! Beautiful writing.
Thank you for the clarifying thoughts on anger. You describe an appropriate anger for a positive, healing, larger, loving purpose– as distinct from malice.
Also, I completely affirm that all ideas, “beliefs,” and thoughts must be tested, examined, questioned, continually evaluated, and judged. In my view, they are evaluated upon how much healing and reality and humanness they bring– including and especially my own and those of My Group.
I promise to continue to read and ponder the words you have written here.
Here you are lowering yourself to the same level of discourse as right wing Christians who tell themselves that Muslims want to institute Sharia Law in the US. That this is an obvious impossibility does not seem to affect their sense of paranoia.
Interesting article, but as an atheist and lover of the books of the ‘new atheists,’ you should REALLY read their books. Calling them racist is a very SERIOUS thing and having met Dawkins and reading Dawkins and Harris, I think that you are only paying attention to the religious propaganda, my cousin that I haven’t seen in a long time!
lol.
I have a new response to Frederick Sparks from Black Skeptics critique of my article:
http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2012/02/01/a-response-to-frederick-sparks-over-reason-and-racism-in-new-atheism/
Yeah, and it’s just as packed full of lies and moving goalposts as your recent responses both here and elsewhere.
It would be helpful if athists didn’t use the language of theists. Does Greta really want to convert, or only convince? My guess is the latter.
Admiring the time and effort you put into your site and in depth information you offer. It’s great to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same unwanted rehashed information. Wonderful read! I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.
Great post! I’m an agnostic/soft atheist but a few years ago I was one of those proselytizing, obnoxious, evangelical atheists. Yes, I was once saved by Reason! Touched by Science! Some of my shrill rantings can still be found online. Cringe worthy, lemme tell ya.
You’ve summed up many of the concerns I have with New Atheism, namely the scientism that inevitably goes with it. Reason is their religion. Science will save them. They believe in Progress. Science has supplanted God but the self-righteous, entitled, imperialistic attitude still prevails. Somewhat ironically, this belief in progress and historical linearity is a Christian/Judaic idea. In my opinion the New Atheists could do with their own Roger Williams or Bartolome de las Casas – an empathetic “believer” in other words. I guess there are plenty of those out there, but as we know it’s always the extremists that yell the loudest.
Thanks once more for a nice site.