I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I followed the link to your blog and I will definitely be checking back there again, really interesting and engaging stuff. At the risk of extending this conversation beyond the point where it is annoying I did want to address a couple of the points you brought up.
First, I think I should clarify my position a little bit. I do not mean to argue that atheists should shy away from a frank and open debate about the existence of God and the relative merits of belief in that existence. I concede that there are some people for whom the debate alone will be offensive, however, I think that there is a middle ground between using kid gloves and the inherently (and I would suggest purposefully) disrespectful tone established by using terms like “insane” to describe believers and comparing a belief in God to believing in the FSM. I want to stress that at this point in my argument I am not yet suggesting that a moderate tone between kid gloves and calculated disrespect is necessarily the right tone to strike, only that an alternative exists (You actually illustrate it quite nicely when you suggest that believers “contentions about the nature of the universe are totally misguided,” this is an uncompromising statement but far less provocative and inflammatory than saying or implying that “people who believe in God are crazy and stupid.” ).
You suggest that Dawkins’ and Harris’ more aggressive rhetoric would be completely unremarkable in the political sphere and I think you’re right about that, but I also think that’s part of the problem. The tone that the New Atheists strike is useful in a number of different ways; it attracts attention and sells books, it solidifies a base, and it helps set the terms and tenor of the debate, after those things have been accomplished, though, I think that the more derisive and hostile elements of the New Atheist’s rhetoric begin to work against them. I suppose that my fundamental criticism of the tone that Dawkins, Harris, and the New Atheists often employ is not that it’s mean or unfair but that it is not an effective way to win over many moderates and change the minds of believers. And I should say, I recognize that the majority of Dawkins’ and Harris’ rhetoric is actually pretty respectful, but both men can’t resist the temptation to twist the knife every once in a while when the opportunity for mockery comes along. The impact of those (comparatively rare) disrespectful elements of Dawkins’ and Harris’ work is so much greater than everything else (they get all the all the media attention and drive the controversy which drives the book sales) that they don’t have to do a lot of it before a large swath of people perceive the two men’s rhetoric as off putting. Dawkins and Harris’ approach is maybe good and useful in debate, but it’s not so useful when you are engaged in a one on one conversation with someone trying to win them over. Dawkins and Harris and their peers on this front have established a tone for contemporary atheist expression, and it is largely combative and disrespectful. That ad campaign you mentioned didn’t arise out of nowhere, it was part of a continuum, and while I suspect that Dawkins and Harris themselves might criticize it as counterproductive it is attributable to an approach to this debate that they helped establish.
Ultimately I think that approaching this topic as one would a political debate has limited usefulness. When I wrote about people reacting to their deeply held and deeply felt belief in God being insulted (not just questioned) I did not mean to imply that their beliefs would whither, quite the opposite, in response to disrespectful (perceived) attack the positions are likely to calcify and become more entrenched and make those believers less likely to listen or be reasoned with. Most people in America occupy a space in the middle of the faith spectrum and are probably disinclined to engage in a debate in the first place. They find themselves just as turned off by combative religious people as they do by combative atheists, but where they encounter many examples of non combative religious people in their every day lives the people who publicly proclaim themselves as atheists are more rare, and their rhetoric can seem almost entirely negative (this isn’t true, but that’s the perception that exists).
And finally, “Supers” is hard to argue with but I can’t help but hear a sarcastic note in there, like a bunch of students in a classroom pointing to the weird kid over in the corner eating paste and wearing his underpants on his head, “look at the ‘Super.’”
Ok I’m done. This was interesting, thanks again. Best Wishes.
Soma, I don't think anyone here claimed that the FSM was an "invention meant to invalidate the whole of Christianity," only that it was calculated to be provocative disrespectful and therefore probably counterproductive in winning people over. Also, theists may have their blood up about the FSM but Freddie is an atheist and his criticism comes from his belief that the FSM feeds into the popular conception of atheists as mean spirited and hostile (which is fine, except that lots of people who might be open to reasoned debate on the subject of God are turned off by that sort of attitude). Finally, regardless of the original intent behind it's invention, Dawkins' and many other atheists have come to use the FSM as a short hand symbol of the stupidity of belief in God (and by extension the believers themselves). Dawkins has every right to do this, but let's not pretend that the intent behind the FSM is anything other than malicious (even if that malice is only directed at people you don't like such as creationists). The problem for Dawkins and others is that when they adopt this disrespectful posture many reasonable people who may not necessarily have strong feelings on the subject of God will find those aggressive atheists to be unpalatable (if for no other reason than they may know, respect, and care about people who believe in God but are not the imbeciles Dawkins and Harris et al. imply that they are by invoking the FSM).
I got here by way of Andrew Sullivan's blog. I think Freddie makes some really important points. Scanning through the comments I felt compelled to respond to something I saw written by Paul (#57) with whose work I became familiar when I was in grad school studying Shakespeare.
Paul, your suggestion that Dawkins and Harris are simply confident in their defense of atheism and that this is the only reason people think they are bullies doesn't ring true for me. In "The End Of Faith" Harris specifically advocates the use of ridicule and hostile marginalization as useful tools in the fight against religion. With regard to Dawkins, Freddie does a good job of explaining how the FSM is inherently disrespectful as an illustration. Dawkins could use any number of different images to show that the existence of God is unlikely, but there is a certain low grade cruelty inherent in the FSM. Dawkins equates something believers hold dear (God) with something exceedingly stupid and ridiculous (the FSM), setting aside for the moment the fact that this sort of treatment of deeply held beliefs is hurtful (the emotional equivalent of insulting a person's dead mother) the FSM illustration is unavoidably insulting as it suggests that believers must be stupid to believe in such a thing. In that same vein, Dawkins and Harris both frequently use the word "insane" to describe a belief in God and it's not hard to see how the suggestion that you're crazy might cause offense. Both Dawkins and Harris suggest (sometimes explicitly but usually implicitly) that smart mentally stable people do not believe in God or the supernatural, just one example is Dawkins' advocacy of the term "Brights" as an alternate label for atheists (If atheists are "Brights" then what are theists, "Dulls?"). I imagine that calling believers ridiculous, crazy, and stupid (or implying as much) is probably emotionally satisfying for aggressive atheists, but it's not respectful and I know it turns off a lot of reasonable people. Paul, you say that atheists shouldn't have to hedge their thoughts, and that is true enough, but Freddie (and other critics of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Maher, etc...) isn't criticizing aggressive atheists (or in Maher's case agnostics) for their thoughts but rather for the way they choose to express them. Some people believe that in order to tell the truth as they see it that truth must be presented in the most harsh and unvarnished terms, but you can still be uncompromising in expressing your position while at the same time being respectful and sensitive to those with whom you disagree (call it tact, diplomacy, or simply kindness, it's maybe not the best tool for making rhetorical points, but it works well when you are actually trying to win over an individual). Dawkins and Harris choose not to apply that sort of sensitivity in their arguments, and that is their right, but having made that decision they cannot complain about being viewed as bullies.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Paul (#82),
I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I followed the link to your blog and I will definitely be checking back there again, really interesting and engaging stuff. At the risk of extending this conversation beyond the point where it is annoying I did want to address a couple of the points you brought up.
First, I think I should clarify my position a little bit. I do not mean to argue that atheists should shy away from a frank and open debate about the existence of God and the relative merits of belief in that existence. I concede that there are some people for whom the debate alone will be offensive, however, I think that there is a middle ground between using kid gloves and the inherently (and I would suggest purposefully) disrespectful tone established by using terms like “insane” to describe believers and comparing a belief in God to believing in the FSM. I want to stress that at this point in my argument I am not yet suggesting that a moderate tone between kid gloves and calculated disrespect is necessarily the right tone to strike, only that an alternative exists (You actually illustrate it quite nicely when you suggest that believers “contentions about the nature of the universe are totally misguided,” this is an uncompromising statement but far less provocative and inflammatory than saying or implying that “people who believe in God are crazy and stupid.” ).
You suggest that Dawkins’ and Harris’ more aggressive rhetoric would be completely unremarkable in the political sphere and I think you’re right about that, but I also think that’s part of the problem. The tone that the New Atheists strike is useful in a number of different ways; it attracts attention and sells books, it solidifies a base, and it helps set the terms and tenor of the debate, after those things have been accomplished, though, I think that the more derisive and hostile elements of the New Atheist’s rhetoric begin to work against them. I suppose that my fundamental criticism of the tone that Dawkins, Harris, and the New Atheists often employ is not that it’s mean or unfair but that it is not an effective way to win over many moderates and change the minds of believers. And I should say, I recognize that the majority of Dawkins’ and Harris’ rhetoric is actually pretty respectful, but both men can’t resist the temptation to twist the knife every once in a while when the opportunity for mockery comes along. The impact of those (comparatively rare) disrespectful elements of Dawkins’ and Harris’ work is so much greater than everything else (they get all the all the media attention and drive the controversy which drives the book sales) that they don’t have to do a lot of it before a large swath of people perceive the two men’s rhetoric as off putting. Dawkins and Harris’ approach is maybe good and useful in debate, but it’s not so useful when you are engaged in a one on one conversation with someone trying to win them over. Dawkins and Harris and their peers on this front have established a tone for contemporary atheist expression, and it is largely combative and disrespectful. That ad campaign you mentioned didn’t arise out of nowhere, it was part of a continuum, and while I suspect that Dawkins and Harris themselves might criticize it as counterproductive it is attributable to an approach to this debate that they helped establish.
Ultimately I think that approaching this topic as one would a political debate has limited usefulness. When I wrote about people reacting to their deeply held and deeply felt belief in God being insulted (not just questioned) I did not mean to imply that their beliefs would whither, quite the opposite, in response to disrespectful (perceived) attack the positions are likely to calcify and become more entrenched and make those believers less likely to listen or be reasoned with. Most people in America occupy a space in the middle of the faith spectrum and are probably disinclined to engage in a debate in the first place. They find themselves just as turned off by combative religious people as they do by combative atheists, but where they encounter many examples of non combative religious people in their every day lives the people who publicly proclaim themselves as atheists are more rare, and their rhetoric can seem almost entirely negative (this isn’t true, but that’s the perception that exists).
And finally, “Supers” is hard to argue with but I can’t help but hear a sarcastic note in there, like a bunch of students in a classroom pointing to the weird kid over in the corner eating paste and wearing his underpants on his head, “look at the ‘Super.’”
Ok I’m done. This was interesting, thanks again. Best Wishes.
Soma, I don't think anyone here claimed that the FSM was an "invention meant to invalidate the whole of Christianity," only that it was calculated to be provocative disrespectful and therefore probably counterproductive in winning people over. Also, theists may have their blood up about the FSM but Freddie is an atheist and his criticism comes from his belief that the FSM feeds into the popular conception of atheists as mean spirited and hostile (which is fine, except that lots of people who might be open to reasoned debate on the subject of God are turned off by that sort of attitude). Finally, regardless of the original intent behind it's invention, Dawkins' and many other atheists have come to use the FSM as a short hand symbol of the stupidity of belief in God (and by extension the believers themselves). Dawkins has every right to do this, but let's not pretend that the intent behind the FSM is anything other than malicious (even if that malice is only directed at people you don't like such as creationists). The problem for Dawkins and others is that when they adopt this disrespectful posture many reasonable people who may not necessarily have strong feelings on the subject of God will find those aggressive atheists to be unpalatable (if for no other reason than they may know, respect, and care about people who believe in God but are not the imbeciles Dawkins and Harris et al. imply that they are by invoking the FSM).
I got here by way of Andrew Sullivan's blog. I think Freddie makes some really important points. Scanning through the comments I felt compelled to respond to something I saw written by Paul (#57) with whose work I became familiar when I was in grad school studying Shakespeare.
Paul, your suggestion that Dawkins and Harris are simply confident in their defense of atheism and that this is the only reason people think they are bullies doesn't ring true for me. In "The End Of Faith" Harris specifically advocates the use of ridicule and hostile marginalization as useful tools in the fight against religion. With regard to Dawkins, Freddie does a good job of explaining how the FSM is inherently disrespectful as an illustration. Dawkins could use any number of different images to show that the existence of God is unlikely, but there is a certain low grade cruelty inherent in the FSM. Dawkins equates something believers hold dear (God) with something exceedingly stupid and ridiculous (the FSM), setting aside for the moment the fact that this sort of treatment of deeply held beliefs is hurtful (the emotional equivalent of insulting a person's dead mother) the FSM illustration is unavoidably insulting as it suggests that believers must be stupid to believe in such a thing. In that same vein, Dawkins and Harris both frequently use the word "insane" to describe a belief in God and it's not hard to see how the suggestion that you're crazy might cause offense. Both Dawkins and Harris suggest (sometimes explicitly but usually implicitly) that smart mentally stable people do not believe in God or the supernatural, just one example is Dawkins' advocacy of the term "Brights" as an alternate label for atheists (If atheists are "Brights" then what are theists, "Dulls?"). I imagine that calling believers ridiculous, crazy, and stupid (or implying as much) is probably emotionally satisfying for aggressive atheists, but it's not respectful and I know it turns off a lot of reasonable people. Paul, you say that atheists shouldn't have to hedge their thoughts, and that is true enough, but Freddie (and other critics of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Maher, etc...) isn't criticizing aggressive atheists (or in Maher's case agnostics) for their thoughts but rather for the way they choose to express them. Some people believe that in order to tell the truth as they see it that truth must be presented in the most harsh and unvarnished terms, but you can still be uncompromising in expressing your position while at the same time being respectful and sensitive to those with whom you disagree (call it tact, diplomacy, or simply kindness, it's maybe not the best tool for making rhetorical points, but it works well when you are actually trying to win over an individual). Dawkins and Harris choose not to apply that sort of sensitivity in their arguments, and that is their right, but having made that decision they cannot complain about being viewed as bullies.