Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Ron Rosenbaum thinks so. Julian Sanchez disagrees:
Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris &c. can come across as arrogant jerks [...], but then, who else is going to really proselytize for the absence of a belief? It’s like starting a non-chess-players club; plenty of people fit the membership requirements, but only those with an active hostility to the game are going to feel the need to make a point of joining. In any event, this is at most an observation about a particular group of people; it doesn’t have much to do with the soundness of an atheist position as such.
But Julian has a more serious point: Rosenbaum, Julian explains, wants atheists who make "a point of saying 'but I may be wrong' a little more frequently, or demurely refrains from asserting his secular background worldview too explicitly." This that means Rosenbaum wants atheists to concede they are not just uncertain about the existence of God but radically uncertain -- that because they can't answer the question "Why is there something instead of nothing," they have to concede that there might be a reason -- a divine reason -- that there indeed is something instead of nothing. For atheistic Julian, this is ridiculous. He should, he says, be able to tell us flatly that he doesn't believe in God, without having to answer for the presence of something instead of the absence of everything in the universe:
I don’t know why there’s something instead of nothing, if the question is even intelligible, any more than I can prove I’m not a brain in a vat. These are interesting facts to reflect on in an epistemology seminar. They have very little to do with my ordinary assertions [...] or whether the details of any particular cosmology seem persuasive, or whether praying to Mecca or confessing to a priest seems like a sensible thing to do. The question of whether there’s a God is only really interesting or a live debate in practice because its embedded in these more particular traditions. Punting to the non-local question of why there’s anything at all is, ultimately, just changing the subject—a fact that may be obscured by gesturing at the realm of mystery and calling the question mark that lives there God.
Maybe. Or maybe that's a way of changing the subject from the matter I'd like to discuss: how we tell the difference between something and nothing, and how we determine what counts for something and what counts for nothing. Julian's best attempt to save atheism from decaying into agnosticism about God requires him to champion agnosticism about being. Does anyone else smell something rotten? Nietzsche did. I'm not terribly worried that Julian is going to become a culture-destroying nihilist anytime soon. He's been embedded in some traditions that cut against that. And besides, he has too much fun being smart. Oh, and one other thing -- he's not possessed of great political power. But those three things aren't true of everyone, especially in combination. And that's a fact that may be obscured by gesturing at the realm of mystery and calling the question mark that lives there a possibly nonexistent question mark.
- Comment (40)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
I don't think you can ever go wrong by calling for people to be more polite, whatever the subject. I noticed that Ron mentions my father's wonderful book:
I don't call the book wonderful merely out of filial loyalty; if these questions interest you, I really don't think there's a better discussion.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
I don't see how an atheist can be sure there is nothing. Doubt I understand, but that is not what atheists claim. They claim being sure there is nothing beyond the universe.
But, accepting that one can be sure of nothing, why be so hostile to others that believe? I have never understood that. Why should an atheist care what I believe? Especially against modern Christianity?
Jun '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
One must have a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist.
Jun '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Pop over to YouTube sometime and treat yourself to Brad Stine and the Apostles of Comedy. Brad is the conservative Christian version of Robin Williams. His take on atheism, popular culture, and political correctness will leave you doubled over with laughter.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
I am an atheist, but I generally keep it a secret. Part of the reason is that I consider life to be an IQ test and low-IQ people are at a disadvantage and need any help they can get. If religion helps them, more power to them. I don't want to make their lives any more difficult than they already are.
Another reason is that I suspect that any set of ideas that can survive 1000s of years must have some truth-value.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
I heard Mr. Berlinski on Medved's show a few months back and found him so refreshing. My wife heard the same show independent of me and brought it up that evening, and for the same reason: she was so impressed to have such a smart guy acknowledge gray area, doubt, questions not-yet answered. Great guy.
And until now, I wasn't aware of Claire's relation.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Claire Berlinski: I noticed that Ron mentions my father's wonderful book:
I don't call the book wonderful merely out of filial loyalty; if these questions interest you, I really don't think there's a better discussion. · Jul 11 at 11:33pm
Of course, I have that book in my library here, along with a couple of other Berlinski classics (I'm still bad on the integral of "e").
My problem with atheists (like leftists, come to think), which includes Christopher Hitchens (whom God should heal), is that their enthusiasms seem to require them to assert- repeatedly- that Believers of any type (regardless of behavior) are consequently stupid, unenlightened, superstitious, and dangerous to society.
I don't ever say or imply that atheists or agnostics are stupid or evil; I just see them as wrong. I''d appreciate the same courtesy from them.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
For the low-brow set Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God," is a very humble, personal, (funny) one-woman show in which she comes to terms with losing her faith. She management to be both polite and highly persuasive at the same time. It personally think the show advances the case for tolerance on both side of this "debate" quite effectively.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Duane Oyen My problem with atheists (like leftists, come to think), which includes Christopher Hitchens (whom God should heal), is that their enthusiasms seem to require them to assert- repeatedly- that Believers of any type (regardless of behavior) are consequently stupid, unenlightened, superstitious, and dangerous to society.
I don't ever say or imply that atheists or agnostics are stupid or evil; I just see them as wrong. I''d appreciate the same courtesy from them. · Jul 12 at 7:22am
I think this is a case where the atheists who don't go around saying all believers are stupid and dangerous just don't get invited on TV, because 1) they aren't driven to write caustic books and 2) they just don't care that much what you believe, just as you and I wish. I think it's interesting that he doesn't seem to make such comments toward a person he's talking to directly (like Peter Robinson), and in those personal settings he appears a bit more humble about his atheism.
Jun '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Since they're competing now, I think Atheism missionaries should be as polite as Mormon missionaries, and that's pretty polite.
Jun '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Here's a great example: Theodore Dalrymple (or, now that he's retired, Anthony Daniels). He is very clear about his lack of faith (don't know if that mean's he's an agnostic or an atheist), but speaks with great respect for the religious and for religion as part of Western civilization. In City Journal, he wrote this in response to the aggressive “new atheists,” (e.g., Richard Dawkins):
"The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency." [“What the New Atheists Don’t See,” City Journal, Autumn 2007]
Now there is an honest, respectful man.
Jul '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Both Dawkins and Hitchens are professional controverialists. It is necessary for them to assume extreme points of view to sell books and tickets on the lecture circuit. Try prefacing one of their incendiary statements with "In my opinion . . ." and see how limp it sounds. No, they must blaze with zeal and their voices ring with certainty. In passing, I will observe that generally speaking an atheist will inform you of his views within five minutes of the commencement of a conversation. They believe -- no, they are certain -- it is a mark of higher than average intelligence and wish you to understand that.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
I have been thinking on this today. I think that Western atheists tend to behave as if they were members of a universalist religion. That is to say, like Christianity, they need to go forth and do mission work. This is unlike non-Universalist religions, like Judaism, which tend to ignore what others believe.
It always amazes me that the atheists apply only reason, and come to the conclusion that society should follow a rational-Western model that was shaped in large part by the very Christianity that they so seem to loath. Their ideas on what is the right thing to do always end up just what we have, but with no grounding. If our rights do not come from God, then we really have none, and it is all social contracts.
The level of disdain from atheists is always amazing. outstripp shows this above. Somehow, he sees being dumb faith go together. Einstein believed in God. Maybe not a Jewish or Christian God, but one nonetheless.
Finally, official atheists are responsible for more organized murder than any other group in history through the communist purges. I guess we can go on tolerating a little rudeness.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
As long as we're on the topic of rudeness, can we just mention Bill Maher? The man is enough to make the most fervent agnostic start speaking in tongues just to disassociate with him.
Rob has been on his show I know. I wonder if he is a great guy in person?
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
I consider myself an atheist and define atheism as "the absence of a belief in the existence of a god or some type of divine creator." I don't try to disprove the proposition "God exists" (though some atheists involve themselves in that intellectual endeavor). I'm not certain god is non-existent; I merely argue that the arguments so forth offered that suggest a god or gods exist are unsound, either because of false premises, fallacious reasoning, or both.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Michael Labeit
I consider myself an atheist and define atheism as "the absence of a belief in the existence of a god or some type of divine creator." I don't try to disprove the proposition "God exists" (though some atheists involve themselves in that intellectual endeavor). I'm not certain god is non-existent; I merely argue that the arguments so forth offered that suggest a god or gods exist are unsound, either because of false premises, fallacious reasoning, or both. · Jul 12 at 5:49pm
And, Michael, you are taking the best approach. We Deist/theists types will work on you over time, but not in an overt, preaching, or condescending way. And you are still our friend.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
I care about what others believe, particularly religious others, because beliefs tend to influence conduct (not necessarily, but the tendency exists). I'm "pro-choice," "pro-gay marriage," and against "Don't ask, Don't tell," and find that my opponents on these issues are overwhelmingly influenced by religious convictions. I find the religious basis for their arguments, i.e., the premises from which they proceed, to be false. Argumentation is the method through which I attempt to inform them of their errors (at the risk of sounding overconfident).
I care what you believe because you may vote in accordance with your beliefs. If your beliefs are untrue, then the consequences of your act of voting may be disastrous, depending of course upon the content of your political participation.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
This is a frequent objection against atheism. I would argue against it because I define atheism as "the absence of a belief in the existence of a god or some type of divine creator" (a - without, theos - god-belief). To me, atheism is a kind of non-belief, by definition. Now faith, if I may, is defined as belief without evidence. Now there's belief and non-belief (every term that refers to an existent has its contradictory term). The genus of atheism is non-belief (the specific differentia being "in the existence of a god or gods) while the genus of faith is belief. Thus,
Either belief or non-belief. Faith lies entirely within the class "belief" and atheism lies entirely within the class "non-belief," and both classes are mutually exclusive and non-overlapping, necessarily.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Someone on Ricochet the other day mentioned 3 influences of Western civilization: Greco-Roman philosophy, Judeo-Christian ethics, and Anglo-Saxon law. I consider the first, especially Greek logic and epistemology, to be the most important cultural undertaking ever, the third to be flawed but progressive (in a true sense) and the second to be non-progressive.
I don't think our rights must "come from somewhere." I believe people ought to be treated as if they possess rights, i.e., moral and legal sanctions of the commission of non-violent actions, because, among other things, the social recognition of rights is a necessary condition for economic progress. This is an ethical and economic truth, independent of religious metaphysics.
May '10
Re: Should Atheists Be More Polite?
Of course, you realize that those whom you speak of (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, some think Hitler was an atheist as well) did what they did for political or ethnic reasons, or both. Now, one may kill in the name of atheism as readily as one may kill in the name of pacifism. However, the relevant point is if pacifism (or, in this case atheism) condones what's being done in its name. Pacifism does not condone killing of any kind. Neither does atheism. Indeed, the most prolific killers have been atheists. But their atheism is no more at blame then their facial hair.