Sam Schulman has written an essay about the rudeness of modern atheist evangelists who act as if no one else throughout all history has wrestled with the questions they claim to have answered.
What is new about the new atheists? It's not their arguments. Spend as much time as you like with a pile of the recent anti-religion books, but you won't encounter a single point you didn't hear in your freshman dormitory. It's their tone that is novel. Belief, in their eyes, is not just misguided but contemptible, the product of provincial minds, the mark of people who need to be told how to think and how to vote--both of which, the new atheists assure us, they do in lockstep with the pope and Jerry Falwell.For them, belief in God is beyond childish, it is unsuitable for children. Today's atheists are particularly disgusted by the religious training of young people--which Dr. Dawkins calls "a form of child abuse." He even floats the idea that the state should intervene to protect children from their parents' religious beliefs.
For the new atheists, believing in God is a form of stupidity, which sets off their own intelligence. They write as if they were the first to discover that biblical miracles are improbable, that Parson Weems was a fabulist, that religion is full of superstition. They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism. Most of all, they assume that no intelligent, reflective person could ever defend religion rather than dismiss it. The reviewer of Dr. Dawkins's volume in a recent New York Review of Books noted his unwillingness to take theology seriously, a starting point for any considered debate over religion.
Quite apropos... purportedly rational atheists might want to consider their delivery methods.
Hopefully you realize that not all atheists are like that.
"Most of all, they assume that no intelligent, reflective person could ever defend religion rather than dismiss it".
Especially that part. Many atheists understand that a reasonable person can be a believer, and frame their discussions in a way that tries to understand a reasonable person's relationship with faith and doubt, rather than dismissing belief as clearly crazy or stupid. (Lately my comments about atheism, here and on Randy's blog, have been a little less sensitive, since I have primarily been trying to defend my point of view rather than to understand or explore the Christian point of view. But in conversation, and on certain online debates, I hope I give the other side the kind of sincere consideration that it deserves. I even admit that modern Christianity probably does more good than harm, so (unlike Dawkins) I am not eager to rid the Earth of it).
Ok, I'll announce it officially: I have started to write a book about what I think is wrong with the Christian/atheist "debate" that goes on today. Both the Christians and the Dawkins-followers are missing some pretty big points, in my opinion. Of course, I don't think I'm the first to realize this. Michael Shermer and especially Daniel Dennett have written points very similar to the ones I am developing, but always as part of a discussion about something else, rather than as the sole point of a book or article. People on both sides need to realize that the people on the other side could be right, and that people think what they think due to understandable and relatively arbitrary differences in how they look at the world, rather than due to ignorance.
(I have never published a book, so in the end I might just end up posting it online or something. We'll see. No point in me pretending that I expect my writing to be commercially successful).
The "unsuitable for children" part, I'll support, though. I think children should ideally be taught about all religions from a fairly neutral unbiased point of view, so that they can evaluate them honestly, and then make a choice that does not cause the kind of anguish that one goes through today while abandoning their family's religion. Why on earth do you think it's ok to tell children that people of other religions are misguided and will go to hell? At the very least, children should be made aware of the fact that most people in the world do not share their family's religious beliefs, that many many people have no religious beliefs at all, and that this is ok, since most of those people are still good people. One last interesting point in this topic is; Why does it make any more sense to refer to a little kid as "a Christian boy" than it does to refer to him as "a Marxist boy" or "a Libertarian boy" or "an Existentialist boy"? Why is a child of Christian parents considered to be Christian, even when they are too young to contemplate what this means?
Here are a few more thoughts:
When you write "Atheists are rude", you are potentially insulting atheists like me who worry quite a bit about how not to be rude while exploring these issues. I understand that talking with Christians is fundamental for me to be able to respect your point of view and to understand how mine differs from yours. I understand that if I do this in a way that upsets the person I am talking to, it's harder for me to get anywhere. So if I started some discussion by saying "Christians are stupid, I say this because I know this one Christian person who did something stupid the other day, so please tell me why I should not hate you despite your stupidity", then I will probably not learn much.
And in general, why should an article or blog post ever be titled "[category of people] are [negative adjective]"?
I mean, sure, it can be fun to be cynical about the people whose opinion is different from yours, people whose beliefs sound absurd to you. Your blog sometimes includes such cynicism, usually towards the last line of some posts. But if you actually want to learn anything, or sound like something other than "Ha ha, we are so smart, people who disagree with us are so stupid" (the very attitude you are complaining about when it comes to many vocal atheists), then you have to be a little more careful to make criticisms rather than insults. Yes, there's a grey area, and you're usually quite safely towards the "criticism" side, but occasionally you slip into the "insulting/cynical/snide" side. I can't tell you how or what to write in your own blog, but if you're complaining about those atheists' method of delivery, then I feel like I should point out to you that your method of delivery sometimes is similar. Most of the time, you explain yourself in a way that is interesting and thought provoking (especially for me, since I disagree with a few of your opinions), and I enjoy our friendly personal relationship, so in general I enjoy reading your blog. But if you complain about people being rude in a way that your own writing occasionally is, then you gotta expect someone to call you on it! =]
Bernardo, your overall rhetorical approach is pretty outmoded. You're demanding that Michael garble his own prose with ridiculous disclaimers to avoid offending you. But you aren't really offended. You're just hoping to wield the power to muddle other people's minds by claiming to be offended.
What makes this particular attack so popular is the concealed insult. You're accusing Michael of being so stupid that he doesn't understand that his generalization isn't true for each and every atheist on earth.
But if anyone made a parallel accusation about you, then you would dismiss it as absurd. Because obviously anybody can play that stupid game. Anybody can claim to be offended and then take advantage of the other side's politeness to twist them into knots. Anybody can willfully misconstrue the other side's statements, and then demand an apology for their own confusion.
The best example is the poor guy who was fired for using the word 'niggardly' around some black coworkers who didn't know what it meant. But they knew enough to claim to have hurt feelings, and those hurt feelings trumped everything. The speaker was punished for the listeners' ignorance.
I'm very sorry if you misunderstood what Michael wrote. But his writing was quite clear, and your misinterpretation of it is not his responsibility, no more so than if he had used some words that aren't in your vocabulary.
One must always consider the potential motives when faced with people like Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson and Dr. Dawkins and his ilk. While the two groups of people would seem to be polar opposites they do have at least one thing in common: motives.
Their organizations, if to serve the intended purposes of acquiring power and influence on all matters of public policy and discourse, require money and the mechanisms to both attract more money and keep already intact money streams flowing smoothly. These things are telling. They create necessities and needs that can only be met in full by, occasionally, distorting the truth and misrepresenting their opponents.
MW tells "purportedly rational atheists" that they might want to consider their delivery methods. Perhaps. And perhaps "purportedly rational theists" should consider their delivery methods as well. Everyone should see them for what they are: extremes. They're extremes whose power and influence is only as great as the amount of money and support given to them. Ignore them in every way and they'll go away. They will be leaders with no followers; two men, going in opposite directions, just out for a walk.. and everyone else, regardless of which man with whom they most closely sympathize, will carry on just fine without them.
No, Ben is right, I wasn't really insulted. But I was a little shocked at the title, that's all, especially since I expect that Michael knows that not all atheists are as extremist as the ones the article mentions. So I was not implying that he is stupid, I was surprised that he chose that post title despite knowing better. I don't expect Michael to change the way he writes, but it's worthwhile pointing out that his occasional cynical remarks are similar in nature (and in their alienating impact) to the things these atheists do that make them so unpleasant and arrogant.
I didn't misunderstand what he wrote. But if his problem is with how those atheists express themselves, then he probably should express himself in a way that cannot be seen as "rude", that's all.
For the record, I agree that it's silly to be insulted by someone else's word choice when the other person was not communicating a prejudiced or otherwise negative opinion. If you say something, and someone else is insulted by your word choice because they believe that the word you chose has negative connotations or a negative meaning you were not aware of, then they should not be mad at you. They don't own the word any more than you do. When you use a word, you mean something. If someone else thinks that you meant something else and this upsets them, then too bad. I just want to make clear that I agree that it's silly to have to be too careful in making sure one only uses PC vocabulary.
But on the other hand, one could say that it is insensitive and rude to use words that other people will be upset by, whether or not those other people have good reason to be upset. Just as it is insensitive and rude to express a belief that all theists are stupid. Just as it is insensitive and rude to title a blog post "Atheists are rude", even if some atheists ARE rude. Isn't it all kinda similar?
And Mark, are you saying that these groups are not motivated by a sincere dissatisfaction? That they want influence for its own sake rather than for changing something they feel needs to be changed? They do misrepresent their opponents horrendously, though (I can't stand most atheism books because their description of a Christian is terribly unfair, something that should be clear to anyone who has ever actually met one). But I think they do want to change things. They won't go away if you stop paying attention to them. It is too bad, though, that they are drawing more attention to their attitude than to the problems they hope to get fixed.
Bernardo: I think it's very hard to draw the line between sincere dissatisfaction and influence for its own sake with these groups. If no one pays attention to them and stops supporting them, whatever sincere dissatisfaction they may have won't matter because they'll simply be "the outspoken barfly" or, more seriously, "the rest of us"; those of us (who are many) who don't have the power, individually, to shape matters far beyond the scope of our own individual lives.
These groups need attention, support, and validation at least as much as their individual members might sincerely desire to see significant change in the world because the latter doesn't happen without the former.
He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him.
George Orwell
the phrase "atheists are rude" is pretty unambiguous. It is an accusation, and an untrue generalisation. MW's true point could be easily better made, without garbling and without provoking anyone. "Athiest's, don't be rude" would have been better all round. Unless he wanted to be provocative or ironic.
The majority of athiests are not at all evangelical
Well, clearly he wanted to be provocative or cynical. Which is fine, except it's odd that he did it while complaining about atheists being provocative or cynical. That's all I really wanted to point out.
I just realized that the reason I was not really offended is because I know Michael isn't stupid and could not really believe what that sentence says. That's somewhat interesting. When someone says something "offensive", it is usually better to give them the benefit of the doubt, to try and see how their statement could mean something less offensive. So I wasn't insulted, primarily because (knowing Michael) I knew that he did not mean what that sentence said, despite it being pretty unambiguous.
I also felt the urge to defend myself as an atheist, although I realize that all I accomplished was to come off as someone who is way too sensitive to "potentially offensive" comments, which in general I really try not to be.
Ok, I'll be quiet now.
It's interesting to me that people seem to be interpreting the title of this post as a statement of my belief. In fact, I simply thought that "Atheists Are Rude" was a pithy summary of the essay I intended to quote.
Bernardo: You raise an interesting point about raising children, however your perspective is clearly influenced by your unbelief. If someone were to say, e.g., that children should be raised to see the benefits of both flat earth and round earth beliefs, you'd say that person was crazy. Similarly, as hard as it may be for you to wrap your hear around, Christians actually believe that we know the truth. Teaching our kids that non-Christians are "ok, since most of those people are still good people" would be nonsense.