The struggle for assertive self expression and demands seems to have started when Atheists began to come out of diffrent church holes, mostly having read Dawkins': The God Delusion, and Hitchens': God is Not Great.
Atheists started to group in public and became a vocal group. And since not much is written in stone for the God Free, Atheists tend to be outspoken, challenging "common knowledge" and ancient moral guides.
The Pious have been fiercely kicking back, sometimes with Inter-Faith unity against the Faithless threat.
Under the influence of the Ghost of Blasphemy, many feel offended by Atheist's assertive stance and criticism. And in a backlash, Atheists once again are debating whether they should or shouldn't "confront" Religion.
Confront? Harsh word! could mean calling for a sword fight; Out for a good bar fight... perhaps storming into a church some Sunday morning disrupting a good-old cermon? Or maybe just a Door -to-Door preaching with The God Delusion under the arm?
If that is what the word means, I agree, not cool at all.
But who's up for that? Besides, most Atheists are not in the greatest shape for that sort of "confrontation".
What self-criticising Atheists have really meant by "confrontation" is open criticism. Perhaps by "confrontation" they mean: demanding and suing for separation of church and State, no tax, other exemptions and favors to those who claim to worship a God. Perhaps "Confrontation" means accusing Bible followers of discrimination and regressive laws; Halting promising Stem-cell research that might give hope to people suffering from a variety of presently incurable diseases; Pointing to the immoral and senseless treatment of the right to marry and divorce. Does "Confrontation" refer to criticizing Catholics who can "annul" their 25 years of marriage- with- children so they can remarry, yet view sex outside marriage as a sin, and at the same time would deprive gays from their wish to institutionalize their committment? Should Atheists not protest the senseless military law by which a category of recruits should hide their sexual identity, and pretend to be what they are not...the list is long.
Offending? yes. Quite often a discussion with the pious ends abruptly with something like: "...you think that I am stupid, You are arrogant to think that you can understand how God works, to criticize God's word...but nobody can. I know that because I am not bound by reason alone. I have Faith...and you can try and insult me and God...but you are the one who lives an empty life and will go to Hell..."
Now I don't know too many Atheists who call others "stupid". It is inferred though when Atheists demonstrate that those who just "accept" that it means a refusal to think critically. Calling on inconsistencies or lack of evidence, often proves to be intimidating enough for some believers who feel "stupid".
Should Atheists be more concerned with disturbing the Pious emotional status quo and abstain from challenging unexamined claims and moral judgment?
I am afraid that's too risky. Acceptance has shown us time and time again, how vulnerable it can make good people. Vulnerable to mind manipulation including abuse, atrocities and violation of human rights. Acceptance kept Catholic boys and girls silent and scarred for years, about abuse behind the cloth. It still keeps many Catholics from marching to the Vatican and taking it over.
Moreover, In a tight, modern, complex society we are extremely intertwined and interdependent on each other, whether we like it or not. When the far right votes or buy votes, all bear the consequences.
Atheists have no choice. To keep quiet and "polite" would be irresponsible and uncaring. Everyone is effected, hence, can't afford the wait for the culture to change by itself. As it stands, Atheists are the voice of progress. If anything, they could get louder. Perhaps sometime we would be able to catch up with some Western European societies and lower the voice...
I agree that atheists should come out. And that merely stating your lack of belief in God will be offensive to some. But we shouldn't offend just for the sake of offense (I don't believe Dawkins etc does).
ReplyDeleteAs the Victorians put it: "a gentleman never offends unintentionally."
We've just seen a very interesting series of TV programs by Richard Dawkins, who visited schools in Britain to see how well science is taught. He found that many "science" teachers either are afraid to push the idea of evolution too hard for fear of offending sensibilities, or claim to be able to meld science and some sort of "creation". We need to start with education. In France there is strong opposition to mixing religion and public schooling. Even in private schools, often religion isn't required on the curriculum. If the Dreyfus case brought anything good, it strengthened the case for secularism. I don't remember ever having anybody in France (except occasional Jehovah's witnesses, they're everywhere!) trying to convert me. Basically most people don't care about religion. The churches are empty. No one is shocked if you don't believe in God. they're shocked that Sarkozy dares to visit the pope!
ReplyDeleteI'm on AtheistNexus and that comes up when you search my name and I certainly think atheists should come out of the closet (with lighthearted humor when possible, e.g. The Flying Spaghetti Monster). However, I also think it's important to clearly state what we stand for in a world devoid of God, which is why Secular Humanist is a useful identification.
ReplyDeleteI also think it would be helpful if more people were future-oriented and *cautiously* optimistic about the radical changes we are likely to see in the next 10-40 years, including indefinite lifespans (see the SENS Foundation http://www.sens.org/ ) and the rise of greater than human general intelligence (see http://singinst.org/ for an ethical institute working toward that goal in competition with less ethical groups). That's why I also refer to myself as a "transhumanist" and a "cosmist," using Ben Goertzel's definition of the word: http://cosmistmanifesto.blogspot.com/ While defense of freedom to live in a secular society is vital I think emerging technologies are going to radically change society while most people are paying inordinate attention to mainstream pop culture (see future-shock levels at http://sl4.org/shocklevels.html and http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/works/shocklevelanalysis.htm ).
In the end, we all have a lot more to worry about and hope for *in this world* than is commonly acknowledged and the political fights with religious zealots trying to impose their beliefs on everyone is a huge distraction from matters that will have more bearing on the future of life, assuming there will be such a future (i.e. superintelligent artificial general intelligence without a friendliness utility function would probably be neutral on the question of long term human [or "posthuman"] survival).
Sorry for going off-topic but I think we need to put our fight for tolerance and rational dialog in the future-shocky context we find ourselves in.