The New Atheists: Arrogant, Rigid and Charmless
John on January 6, 2007 at 11:04 pm
That’s not what I’m saying, that’s what Sam Shulman is saying in a Wall Street Journal commentary piece on the new atheists. Then again, when it comes to the self-anointed atheists leadership, I’d have to agree Mr. Shulman is pretty much on target:
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.
I’ve been told by atheists that they feel the same irritation when the suggestions is made that they all march in lockstep with Dawkins. I noted an LA Times story on that topic about a week ago.
Shulman suggests the new atheists have become an unattractive example of the dangers of fundamentalism:
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.
[snip]
Anyone who has actually taught young people and listened to them knows that it is often the students who come from a trained sectarian background–Catholic, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, Mormon–who are best at grasping different systems of belief and unbelief. Such students know, at least, what it feels like to have such a system, and can understand those who have very different ones. The new atheists remind me of other students from more “open-minded” homes–rigid, indifferent, puzzled by thought and incapable of sympathy.
I’m not a teacher, but I’d say we’ve seen some of that unsympathetic rigidity here at VS (and to be fair we’ve also had some very reasonable and polite atheists drop by and make good points).
The atheists say that they are addressing believers. Rationalists all, can they believe that believers would be swayed by such contumely and condescension? They seem instead to be preaching to people exactly like themselves–a remarkably incurious elite.
So long as one recognizes he’s not talking about all atheists, I think Mr. Shulman makes excellent points. The whole thing is worth reading.
Category: Atheism |
Listening to Richard Dawkins may sound like you’re being scolded by someone’s mother, but it’s infinitely more refreshing to listen to than the garbage that comes out of all the fundamentalist religious leaders in america right now. You want to talk about charmless and arrogant? Sit down and listen to Ted Haggard talk about all the de-gaying experiences he went through with the church. There’s so much denial in his actions that his credibility has imploded on itself and reached a singularity where no form of integrity can escape.
But really, this is a battle over the spotlight. The fundamentalists have been fighting hard to push intellectualism out of any form of power. There’s no time for intelligent and courteous discourse in a shouting match, unfortunately.
May 31, 2009 @ 6:15 pmI strongly agree.
The thing that the religious community is not getting about the “new atheists” (I’m an old atheist btw), is that we are:
A) Not going away – we have decided that the Bush years have shown us how dangerous silence in the face of religious stupidity can be.
B) Organizing – that is, the internet has allowed us to become less isolated and more mutually supportive.
That said, one of the great contributions that we have to make is that we will be there vocally calling “bullshit” on many of the religious rationale for various political actions. And it’s a good thing to IMO.
The “strident and shrill” tone of atheism is, I believe, an artifact of two things:
First, I think that we really are often strident and shrill – a lifetime of being a hidden and hated minority tends to boil forth with anger once you “come out” This is similar to the whole feminist anger that occurred back in the 60′s and 70′s. In addition to this, it is common that when a person stops believing in magic he or she becomes angry at all the religious lies and intolerance that they have been indoctrinated in their whole lives. No one likes being lied to after all.
The second reason is that we have a cultural taboo that says that it’s not OK to challenge another person’s religious belief. This means that it is often true that no matter how polite you are, the pampered religious listener thinks you are being a jerk simply because you are saying things like “your beliefs don’t make sense and are logically impossible” (for example). These statements may or may not be couched “nicely” but they offend regardless. This is not about the message, it is about the reciever.
All that said I want to offer you 3 quotes to be used by 3 different minority groups:
First we have the gays who said:
“We’re here! We’re queer! Get used to it!”
Then we had the cows who said:
“We’re here! We’re steers! Get used to it!”
Then we had the atheists who said:
“We’re here! We don’t believe in magic or in your bronze-age mythology! Get used to it!”
‘nuf said.
June 1, 2009 @ 8:30 amHeadline you’ll never see: Christians Fearful as Atheists Use Humor to Rally Skeptics to Their Cause.
: )
June 1, 2009 @ 8:55 amYou mean like:
GEORGE CARLIN ON THE 10 COMMANDMENTS
from “Complaints and Grievances” (HBO special)
Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?
You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here’s what happened:
About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.
Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I’ll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it’s a decade, it’s a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It’s a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that’s a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.
Let’s start with the first three:
I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME
THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN
THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH
Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord’s name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we’re down to 7. Next:
HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER
Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn’t be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent’s performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don’t, period. You’re down to six.
Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we’re going to jump around the list a little bit.
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don’t really need two you combine them and call the commandment “thou shalt not be dishonest”. And suddenly you’re down to 5.
And as long as we’re combining I have two others that belong together:
THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE
Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don’t think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else’s wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he’s waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we’re gonna keep this one and call it “thou shalt not be unfaithful”. And suddenly we’re down to four.
But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing “thou shalt always be honest and faithful” and we’re down to 3.
THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR”S GOODS
This one is just plain fuckin’ stupid. Coveting your neighbor’s goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays “o come o ye faithful”, and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you’re down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven’t talked about yet:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL
Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Cashmire, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who’s doin the killin’ and who’s gettin’ killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:
Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.
&
Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.
Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin’ pocket. I wouldn’t mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
;-)
June 1, 2009 @ 10:03 amLOL. I did stop to think for a second about whether there were any prominently atheist comedians. Should have thought about it for a few minutes. Touche.
June 1, 2009 @ 10:07 amBill Maher is another.
June 1, 2009 @ 3:22 pmNo, I’m not going to grant you that one. I don’t know anyone who finds Bill Maher funny. At best, he’s a mediocre comedian for angry liberals…and that is being generous.
June 1, 2009 @ 3:37 pmI thought there might be some dissent on the comedian aspect. :) I realize not everyone finds him funny (although many turn out to view his “Real Time” show–with a stand-up routine, his HBO specials and his stand-up act in comedy clubs), but you did concede he was at least “a mediocre comedian” so I guess my nomination stands which meets your minimal, “any prominently atheist comedians.” By the way, congrats Morgen on the Sotomayor coverage.
June 1, 2009 @ 4:54 pmThere is so much ignorance in your comments Susac that I find it baffling that your IQ reaches room temperature. I chalk it up to just another bitter ex-Catholic. Roger’s the same way when he comes to this site – angry and bitter. Romanism produces this behavior in spades. I won’t refute you point by point – it’s too painfully boring.
June 1, 2009 @ 5:16 pmThanks Richard. Who would have ever thought that a couple of late nights of internet sleuthing would have led to all of this? I am glad to see that the Senate Republicans are being fairly measured in their response to all of this. Judge Sotomayor deserves a fair and courteous confirmation process. But I also think we deserve a direct explanation from her over the subject matter that I brought to light. I look forward to the hearings!
June 1, 2009 @ 6:07 pmJohn, is there something we can do about editing out some of the F bombs that Susac keeps dropping on this site? We give him the freedom to blaspheme our Lord and all that we cherish, but can we draw the line somewhere with this guy?
June 2, 2009 @ 1:25 amJeez Jim, do the words “arrogant rigid and charmless” mean anything to you?
You know, I would like to take this opportunity to say a couple of things about the word “fuck.”
While it is true that I have used this word occasionally, and while I can see it has offended some, I have no apologies for this offense.
First off, when I have told Jim to “fuck off” it was in direct response to his decision to characterize me as immoral because I am an atheist.
I have no qualms about Jim or anyone else disagreeing with me or even calling me names because they don’t agree with my beliefs, but what Jim did in that case was he lumped me into a group (atheists) and then proceeded to demonize me as a member of this group. This is no different than characterizing black people as lazy or Italians as gangsters and it is offensive in its own right.
But Jim’s offense was more dire than this. By characterizing a group as inherently immoral, Jim placed me and all atheists into a category of loathsome dangerousness. By this I mean that when a behavior is “immoral” it is something you don’t want to do, but when a person is immoral he or she is someone who you cannot suffer to live.
So yeah. I told Jim to “fuck off.” No apologies here. And I’ll do it again, if I feel the need.
In the above case, I am quoting George Carlin to make a point. You may or may not find him funny (personally I find him hilarious), but I think I made my point well. This is one of those “censorship vs. art” situations, and while I know where I stand (swear words don’t offend me), you have to do what you have to do.
I guess the point I am making is that while I do use the word “fuck” from time to time, I don’t throw it around lightly. I try to use it as an adult. I will not stop using it, but I will not throw it around for the simple sake of being offensive.
Do to me what you will.
June 2, 2009 @ 8:24 amOne of the guys in the ancient Middle East said, “By their fruits you will know them.” That’s still the best response to atheists…. What, exactly, do they believe? How do they spend their time? Can we look forward to homeless prevention programs, community clinics, and community gardens developed by atheists? (Will these be major topics of conversation at the national atheists convention? Or will the atheists be howling and shouting about some stupid thing that a third-rate missionary said in 1974?)
Atheism, at best, is a blind alley. It doesn’t take us to anything. By its very nature, it’s simply a negative…. Hey, there are lots and lots of things that I DON’T believe. However, I prefer to talk about the things that I enjoy.
The good Samaritan who helps his neighbor is the person who makes the world a better place.
November 8, 2009 @ 8:05 pmThe atheist who wastes time by attacking his neighbor’s beliefs is spinning his wheels in the mud. At the end of the day, atheism is pointless, at best.