Atheism and violence

I had a discussion some months back regarding atheism and its potential for violence. This discussion arose out of the Intelligence Squared debate “Atheism the New Fundalementalism.” The original debate can be found here. Below is a summary of my point of view on whether or not atheism can lead to violence. Admittedly, this is more geared towards an atheist audience as a theist would most likely disagree with many of my premises. The post also uses terminology drawn from the Intelligence Squared debate, resonating from the points that Dawkins makes. Continue reading…

Atheists and Islam, Part IV.

This is Part IV of a three part series. Previously, Part I, Part II, Part III.

Atheists and Islam: Part IV, Enlightenment Values.

So, what does all of this have to do with atheists? The risk is that an aversion to Islam could push some in the atheist community towards condoning violations of freedom of religion and expression. These are two of the central values of Enlightenment thought, and the best angels of the Enlightenment spirit are the cornerstones on which all free, rational discourse relies. Call me an Enlightenment fundamentalist if you will, but these are two principles which should never be compromised.

My concern is that it is too easy for us to point our finger at Islamist terror and conclude in a self-satisfied way that this proves our point about religion better than anything. And perhaps it does – after all I am not denying that the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam plays an important role in encouraging the violence in the Middle East. But to leave it there is to tempt us into being intellectually lazy, and once you get lazy, you also get defensive and reactive. During my discussion with Aslan, he expressed surprise at my assertion that all the atheists I know are opposed to the minaret ban and the ban on the veil – and as you can see, this has been the case at this blog. Aslan however went as far as to say that the willingness of atheists to circumvent religious freedom in the name of opposing Islam in fact characterizes the majority of our community.

The idea that this might be true distressed me. Therefore, I decided to do a little research on the question, and spent several hours trying to find commentary on atheist blogs concerning the question. What I found was mostly reassuring – at The Friendly Atheist, for example, Hemant Mehta came down clearly on the side of opposing the minaret ban in Switzerland as a violation of religious freedom, and of the extensive thread that followed, I counted only five discrete commentators who supported the ban. The Freethinker fared less well, containing about 20 supporters of the ban in the thread about Switzerland but at least an equal number of people opposed to it. (I also counted as ‘supportive of the ban’ people who complained that the call to prayer was the cause of their support, although they are misinformed as the call to prayer was already not allowed in Switzerland.) The Freethinker, it occurred to me, is a British blog, and it was suggested to me by other atheists that the divide between European style atheism and American style atheism could be an important part of what was going on here – and indeed, Aslan had just returned from a trip to Europe where he had been dealing with that particular brand of opposition to religion for several weeks. Perhaps this helps explain his surprise at the dedication many atheists have to the principle of freedom of worship – perhaps also, as I suggested to him, this has something to do with the split between what one hears at a grassroots level, and what one hears from the loudest, most visible members of a community. Indeed, even in Switzerland agnostics and atheists actually voted against the minaret ban in higher numbers than religious believers.

Continue reading…

Episode 28: ‘Creation’ Film, Boy Scouts, Morals Without God

Excellent discussion featuring Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson

If you are unfamiliar with either of these men (or even if you are familiar), please avail yourself of the following new video from the Richard Dawkins Foundation:

The topic is the ‘poetry of science’.

Beating a dead horse

The “are atheists assholes?” debate continues on this week with this column by David Penberthy. Interestingly, this is a debate which takes place largely from within the agnostic and atheist community, since most people who identify as religious can easily unite under the banner of “YES.” Although this has been talked about so much it is doubtful I can add anything here which has not already been offered, nonetheless I feel compelled to clarify (again) a few distinctions.

First, there is a difference between being a jerk and being a “fundamentalist,” a word that many who dislike the new atheism like to throw around. Almost all complaints about new atheism’s “fundamentalism,” revolve around people being dismissive or condescending, not being violent or attempting to restrict the civil liberties of other human beings. While the behavior of some atheists is not conducive to high quality, thoughtful discourse, neither should it be described with the same adjectives that are used to account for suicide bombings and the murder of physicians who provide abortions.

Second, it seems doubtful to me that the proportion of atheist jerks greatly outnumbers the proportion of jerks in general. Because they cause offense and receive a lot of attention, they unfortunately overshadow the more thoughtful rest. But there is nothing inherent in atheism that is going to greatly alter the distribution of human characteristics – assholes come in all shapes, sizes, and beliefs. And when you start to consider what the motivations of the more offensive atheists might be, it seems to me that this is not a situation of some people being dangerously closed minded, but of some people being rather immature. If only I knew how to eliminate immaturity, I would, but in the meantime the best approach is to simply ignore their provocations, as outrage is precisely the high that the immature seek.*

—————

* Penberthy has some notably weak examples, however, for an argument he could have found better ammunition for. Dawkins is dismissive, I grant you, but hardly a raving ideologue. And I don’t know how you can fault Bobby Anderson for delighting fully in the Flying Spaghetti Monster; the FSM is a wonderful and hilarious satirical device, and there is no point in denying it or restricting the uses to which it can be put.

Atheist vs. theist and agnostic vs. gnostic

This article has been rattling around the internet lately and has been widely commented on and responded to by the atheist community. I think that youtube user ZinniaJones does a great job of refuting it point by point. In any case, I think this would be a great opportunity to repost a clear, concise blog post from The Freethinker. Basically, Agnostic and Gnostic are opposites on a continuum and deal with whether we can know that a particular god exists. Theist and Atheist are opposites on a continuum and describe a particular person’s beliefs about whether a particular god exists. So if Mr. Rosenbaum does not affirm the belief in a god, he is an atheist with respect to that god. It makes me think that Mr. Roenbaum is in the not-too-unique position of an agnostic atheist who doesn’t know he is an agnostic atheist. For shame! However, it is worth pointing out that he was paid a $15,000 fellowship by the Templeton Foundation to write this article. Yes, that Templeton foundation! The one that awards the “Templeton Prize” which Richard Dawkins has derisively called “a very large sum of money given…usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion.” If the Templeton Foundation would like to pay me $15,000 to write an article entitled “An “Old” atheist explains to Ron Rosenbaum that he is actually a confused agnostic atheist” I would be happy to oblige.