Alternet: Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism? Wednesday, Dec 30 2009
rationality and religion 1:53 pm
Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism?
A few days ago I saw some blog comment, I forget where it was, but it was something like, “It’s not atheism that I mind all that much, it’s just atheists’ incredible air of smugness about it.”
Being convinced about the high probability of something because your epistemology forces you to be given the observed evidence cannot be an act of smugness or unsmugness itself. I suppose it’s how you present it, but people trying to avoid debating the central core of any given argument will always accuse the other side of smugness, to change the subject.
Of course, the issue is really about status. Low or medium-status people are not allowed to make controversial assertions that contradict the cherished beliefs of high-status people because this is seen as a social power grab. Furthermore, there are many low-status people that indiscriminately oppose the cherished beliefs of high-status people for their own satisfaction.
For more on this, see “The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory”.
“I do not by any means know atheism as a result; even less as an event:
it is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer.
God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers — at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!”
F. Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, “Why I am so Clever” 1 Tr. Walter Kaufmann
I’m going to throw that anonymous blogger a very small bone: there is a certain type of atheist, the so-called “freshman-atheist”, that can be rather annoying. You know who I’m talking about, that person who flaunts their atheism as proof of intellectual superiority over others (not that it doesn’t exist in this case.)
They do this because atheism is so very easy; and it’s easy for a good reason. It’s not hard to find the logical and factual contradictions in any given theology; and there really is little reason to believe in any of the major other-wordy belief systems.
But, it must be understood that beliefs of this kind usually don’t tell you much about the people who believe in them (keep in mind I said ‘most of the time.’) People seem to compartmentalize their intellectual lives rather well. I have met and known of many who held mystical beliefs that where far more rational (on average) then many atheists. Atheism is no test for rationality.
It is interesting, though, why the word “atheist” exists. There is no word for people that don’t believe in the millions of other things that there is no reason to believe in. “atheism” only exists because so many people aren’t atheists. I imagine if we had a society primarily made up of atheist: “atheist” might not be a word (but it probably would.) How many other words do we have that represents a non-belief?
In any case, religion and God(s) are always fun to study from an anthropological perspective. Mystical beliefs seem to be near universal, perhaps theology represented an un-evolved form of philosophy; and our minds beginning to grasp meaning and order; or maybe it’s just a psychological need, or even a neurological protection. Even in a fictional atheist society, I doubt religion will ever stop being talked about.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, “I never met (an idea) that was so foolish that I couldn’t learn something from (it.)”
Regards,
P.S. – the phrase “freshman atheist” was invented-I think- to denigrate atheists as a whole. I don’t want to do that; but as much as I hate to admit it, it is rather useful in describing some people.
Talking about atheism in most instances is an act of frustration by atheists. Being bombarded by religious signs and speech on a daily basis makes an atheist seem overwhelmed. For every atheist comment or sign there are 500 religious messages telling him he is wrong and will be going to an imaginary hell. The atheist knows that no matter what argument he uses, he will always loose and gain zero ground with a religious person and vice-versa. The atheist does not want to beaten without throwing a single punch. If religious people would just shut up, you would hear very little from atheists.
DD
Sam Harris has put it best:
“Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, we live in a world in which the obvious is overlooked as a matter of principle. The obvious must be observed and re-observed and argued for. This is a thankless job. It carries with it an aura of petulance and insensitivity. It is, moreover, a job that the atheist does not want.
It is worth noting that no one ever needs to identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, atheism is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma.”
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/
Thank you for the article link, Michael. It is very interesting.
As to those of you who discuss eating Theists, you echo that satirist who wrote that the meat-eaters will eat the vegetarians. Personally, I don’t find it funny to joke about murdering people who disagree with me.
I’m removing the posts about eating theists because they’re incredibly immature/idiotic and exemplify why I’m sometimes uncomfortable with removing the need to register to comment. (When registering was necessary, barely anyone commented.)
In general, the moderation protocol here is: put thought and seriousness into your comment or it will be deleted.
Commenting on Michael’s comment,
I fell I need to defend myself (as my post was one of the ones deleted.) Here is a quick rundown before I start my rant:
The original “eating theist” commenter, Singulari-something-or-another, started his post by saying theists are comparable to animals, and ended it by saying we should eat them like said animals. Nothing really funny, and the comment didn’t really make much logical sense (it appeared like the average YouTube comment.)
My responsive comment consisted of two sentences; the first said the original poster’s argument was bad; in the second I made a quick Hannibal Lector reference to add a bit of humor (whoever doesn’t get a good ‘fava-beans’ reference is officially not cool.) While I think the intention of my post was very clear, I’m glad the post was deleted with the other, because mine wouldn’t make sense.
Humor is a funny thing (I honestly didn’t mean to pun there.) What I find interesting is that it is almost completely inseparable from debate. A classic form of debating, or thinking, is to recognize the flaws of an idea by exaggerating them; this is where satire is born. Humans have a tendency to find exaggeration and absurdity funny in itself. South Park can base an entire episode on simply exaggerating something.
What you need to ask yourself is this: was my “fava-beans” reference really laughing at cannibalism and killing; or the absurdity of it being talked about in such a casual way, and the general crappiness of singu-what’s-his-name’s argument?
Of course, it is perfectly within anybody’s rights to find offense wherever they want.
But wait, one more argument. I seem to remember a certain Dr. Steel being talked about (and praised) on this blog. The Dr. often mentions how “crazy” he is; at the top of his personal site it says “Dr Phineas Waldorf Steel for World Emperor.” Does Michael find people with serous mental illnesses funny? Or is it that he finds dictatorship funny? Those with schizophrenia, or the millions of people who died over the past 100 years under brutal regimes probably wouldn’t find it very funny.
See how easy the moral indignation game is to play.
Of course Michael doesn’t like Dr. Steel because he thinks “madness” and “dictatorship” are funny. It’s the absurdity of how they are presented that makes Dr. Steel so enjoyable (plus, the juxposition of his constant cynicism with his idealism is great.)
There is something everybody needs to understand. That no matter what we believe, no matter how complicated, nuanced, and rational it is: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE FOOLS WHO AGREE WITH US. Everybody can handle fools who disagree with us, in fact, we often like those people; they make us more confident in our own position. We often raise such people up for they could be heard more. Look at what Michael did just a few posts ago; he based an entire post on one silly commenter who wanted to enslave vegetarians (whose comment remains as of this comment, I might add); why is there no post devoted to the “atheist cannibal?”
(Here’s the post: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2009/12/charles-rubin-on-reprogramming-predators/#comment-129288)
A quote I got from Overcoming Bias: “People consider a particularly bad argument for something an argument for its opposite”(Paraphrasing.) It is particularly disconcerting when this “bad argument” is made in defense of something we care about.
You know how to avoid this? Examine things fundamentally; examine everything at its core. A rational man does not focus on the worst arguments, he focuses on the best; because he does his own thinking, and he knows that mocking an idiot or worshiping a genies can not replace his own judgment and the need to deal with ideas.
Regards,
This comment is a little late, but I’ve been thinking about this for the last few days. While I understand the potential drawbacks of novice/freshmen/militant (take your pick) atheists, it seems to me that increasingly vocal atheists are a very encouraging sign, simply because we are raising awareness. (Please note, I am not referring to “eat the theists” kind of rants, but rather Michael’s original post topic concerning vocal atheism.)
By raising awareness of religion’s absurdity, it may be possible to enlighten some of the majority who use superstition to drive their worldview (frequently resulting in homophobia, anti-science, etc). That seems to be a definite step in a positive direction for society.
As other commenters above have said above, atheism is not an opinion, but a rational observation of reality. I am as atheist as I am a-leprechaun. If the majority constantly bombarded me with leprechaun lore (and made policy based on it), I would be a very vocal a-leprechaunist.
Another feeling that I frequently have is that religion IS worthy of all sarcastic responses it receives. Nonsensical proclamations about the universe are hard to deal with in any other way. Not sure how to make that more politically correct. Is it really necessary to be sensitive when dealing with completely absurd ideas regarding nature and what supernatural entities want from me?
Michael, awhile ago you posted a rhetorical question regarding any scientific studies of testable religious premises (and as I’m sure you are aware, a few studies on prayer efficacy have been done; negative as you’d expect). While the need to do such investigation is as unnecessary as disproving orbiting teapots, a great site that illustrates related futility of religion is the “whywontgodhealamputees” website.
This is all made more difficult by the “untouchable” nature of religious beliefs. Which probably results in the apparent smugness of vocal atheists. The “Sacred Cows” concept of religion is where the actual smugness exists.
I’ve voiced a similar opinion – “I don’t care that you’re an atheist; I care that you’re an asshole.” An atheist is not defined by his/her actions, but an asshole is.
It’s fine to attack a particular idea or action, but attacking a *person* or a group of people accomplishes nothing of lasting value, and most likely simply fuels an antagonistic response. Stressing in group/out group dichotomies and us/them identities simply encourages each side to further entrench themselves in their respective positions and engage in group-branding behaviors. Anybody (regardless of belief or group identity) who engages in these types of behaviors is probably bringing the collective social consensus about his/her group (and whatever they stand for) down.
My two cents, for whatever it’s worth.
Atheists the militant variety are in fact anti-theists. They do not try to prove that atheism is a fact, but that theism is flawed. This is not analogous to the method of astronomers as they study the physical world and find solid evidence that disproves the relevance of all astrological methods (mathematically, chemically, etc.). Now if atheists could similarly study the material universe terrestrial or otherwise and find similarly conclusive proof contradicting theism that would be impressive, but of course it will never happen. So instead they rail in their impotence, resorting to immature dichotomies, immature insults etc. they have no hope for the future (barring those of the ironically fictional, irrational, unscientific variety) and so which to bring others to the same level (“What’re you smiling about, right, if I have to be miserable than are too”, “if I’m going down…”).
“The best form of defence is attack”.
Attrition warfare is a military strategy in which a belligerent attempts to win a war by wearing down its enemy to the point of collapse through continuous losses in personnel and matériel.
The war will usually be won by the side with greater such resources (personnel, time, etc.).
Attrition warfare represents an attempt to grind down an opponent through superior numbers, it represents the opposite of the usual principles of war, where one attempts to achieve decisive victories through maneuver, concentration of force, surprise, and the like.
In this context athiests lack the ideology to achieve decisive victories through the objective principles of persuasion namely, intuition, logic/proof, and evidence. Therefore they use their sheer presence (outspokeness).
Danjib put it well, I think. The immature dichotomies/insults seem to be defining features of so many bloggers on atheist-dedicated websites. Are they representative of atheism generally? No idea, but I wouldn’t bet on it. But it *is* this sort of attitude that puts people off. It isn’t going to win converts to the un-cause. In that respect, I would disagree with punr, if that’s the sort of “outspokenness” s/he has in mind. Insulting beliefs or believers, agnostics, or atheists who don’t fit their mould, a la Dawkins, Myers et al, isn’t clever, or mature, or even good strategy. It is offensive and self-defeating. And I’d suggest that it is arguing from the wrong base when writers like these gentlemen take the a priori position that the physical universe is all there is. I know it leaves me cold (and coldness, btw, is the overall impression I’m left with, after reading any of the rants of Dawkins and co). I know I don’t appreciate being told my experiences are delusions and that I’m probably sick or depraved or whatever’s the insult du jour. I’ve been atheist; nowadays I’m not, though I don’t follow any religion. I’m not in the least impressed by the breed of atheist – I’d call them Dawkins fanboys – who can do no better than throw in the FSM, flying teapots and other nonsense, to “demolish” the very idea of divinity, and talk as if they are too smart to be bothered with Mensa, and everyone who disagrees with them failed the village idiot test. Sorry fellers, schoolyard bullies are just that, and that’s how some bloggers come across.
Someone I work with visits your blog frequently and recommended it to me to read too. The writing style is excellent and the content is interesting. Thanks for the insight you provide the readers!