Too Strident
by Joseph Rowlands

While talking to some atheists, I mentioned that there was something about many people in the atheist movement that bothered me. Before I could say what it was, they tried to guess. They assumed I was talking about how strident some atheists are, like Richard Dawkins. They talked about him and others as if they are belligerent and rude.

It's a strange reaction. When I read The God Delusion, I was almost annoyed with how far backwards he would bend in order to be respectful. When I talked to someone born and raised in atheist China, I was told the same thing. He's too polite. He's being way too respectful of ideas that deserve no respect.

Now I'm not trying to criticize the book or the author. He has to pick an intended audience and try to communicate to them. Since people are so immersed in religious belief and culture, even the craziest ideas may need to be approached with some amount of respect. He can't just dismiss it all as nonsense, even if it is. He's trying to get people to reconsider it, and that means presenting it clearly and discussing why it is wrong.

So when I say he's too polite, I just mean that he's treating the topic and the beliefs with way more respect than they deserve. Maybe that's necessary if he hopes to reach the right audience, but there is still something disquieting about it all. Treating nonsense as if it were an honest mistake or honest confusion, instead of a dismissal of thought and reason, is very generous, to put it mildly.

It turns out this is a widely debated topic. Are the "new atheists" too strident? Shouldn't we try to convince religious people that religion is okay and we just have a few minor issues with some of the extremes? Some say yes. Some say absolutely not. Once you surrender the principles, you can't argue over the details. If you agree that faith is okay, and that morality is properly the realm of religion, how do you then come in and say that the extremes are bad? You've already surrendered the means of judgment.

While that argument rages on, I find it interesting that people will have such different reactions to particular writers. Richard Dawkins is a great example because people view him in such wildly different ways. Some thing he is strident, some think he is civil and reasonable, maybe even to a fault. Why are there such wildly different views? There may be multiple reasons.

First, it's clear that some people are concerned about religion as a value to the people that adopt it. Religion doesn't just tell them how to act or what to value, it is considered a value in itself. Any worldview can be a value. It gives you a framework for understanding the world. It may give you a sense of identity and a community to be part of. It may describe your place in the universe. And it may provide you with beliefs that make you feel better about problems. The view that there is a life after death is reassuring to many people, especially those who are dealing with the death of a loved one.

What this means is that the tone of the debate it not really the issue here. If you try to take away this value from people, it is considered bad no matter how you do it. There is no right way to take away a cherished value. For people who see it this way, there is no possible way to argue against religion itself that isn't strident by definition. Also for them, anyone who would try to take away this value from others must be mean-spirited or malevolent.

Of course, there are plenty of atheists who think that giving up religion would make people's lives better. It's a crutch that creates its own dependency, and if you ever do get rid of it, you learn to stand on your own two feet. Instead of groveling at the feet of an imagined deity, you can stand up and live your life.

Not all atheists may think of it this way though. Instead, some focus on the great evils of religions: violence; terrorism; bigotry; ignorance. And why are such evils allowed to happen, even among religions that claim to be peaceful and loving? Because there's nothing to stop it. Reason can't reign in the evils because it is rejected. Morality can't reign it in because morality is thought to be a matter of faith. There's nothing to stop any of it.

These are the means by which religions do evil. But you can't target faith while making an exception for the religious "moderates". Either the whole lousy methodology has to go, or you have no means of criticizing the "excesses". I put these terms in scare quotes because there's nothing excessive about any of it. It isn't an example of faith taken to far. It is just a different example of faith. The content is different, but the approach is identical. So claiming that the problem is people being too extreme is not accurate.

Given all of this, these atheists would look at a discussion about religion and see a problem with trying to spare the feelings of the "moderates". If you try to say that what they're doing is perfectly fine, you are surrendering everything. If you treat their views as if they were perfectly reasonable, you can't go on to critique the worse views. And people know it.

I once heard a story about a religious family that blamed Satan for all of their trouble. They had plumbing problems? It was Satan. They ran into traffic during rush hour? Satan. It's almost funny. So I brought it up with some people I knew, including one who was religious. I asked her what she thought about this. She refused to answer. She knew that there's no way of criticizing them without criticizing the rest of them, including her own beliefs. She sensed the trap, and just walked away without answering.

I mentioned that in terms of judging the tone of the books or arguments, some people will consider any attempt at robbing religious people of the value of their religion as being rude or even cruel. But there is another possible reason for the disagreement.

One view is that the tone that the atheist should use is based on who the majority is, and what the default position is. Since religion is dominant in the US, then atheists should view themselves as guests in someone else's home. They should be respectful and treat religious people with diffidence. Perhaps if it were the other way around, and atheists were in the majority, it would be religious people who would be warned not to go around telling the atheists that they are going to hell.

There are variants of this position, but each essentially argues that the level of respect should be based on the status quo. Since religion is the default, it should be treated with a certain amount of respect. Your behavior can't vary too far from the norm, and the norm is that religion is respected and admired. You can say that you aren't sure if it's true, but you can't say that they're wrong. You can say you don't understand a position or argument, but you can't point out the logical fallacy.

The opposite view is that a topic should be approach with the respect it deserves based on reason and evidence. If you claim that you have a flying elephant friend, it should be dismissed and not taken seriously. It doesn't matter if normally people take you seriously, or you think they should. Respect is not something that can be made up or given away unconditionally. It is the result of an rational evaluation. If you present an argument that is plausible and supported by some evidence, I should take it seriously because I can believe you accepted it honestly. Even if I think you are wrong, I can see why you might think that and I may take the time to point out the error in your thinking. Or if I don't know whether it is true, I will take it seriously and consider the possibility.

This kind of respect is not given freely, as a kind of charity. It is given out when it is due, as a form of justice. If the idea merits a serious consideration, then it should get that respect. If it is ridiculous, it shouldn't. Just as if you are tackling an issue with honest and a real attempt to understand, I should treat you with respect and take your attempts seriously. But if you are dismissive of evidence or logic, and are only interested in deluding yourself, I shouldn't.

So we have these two opposing views of respect. One views respect as a proper deference to the majority or default. The other views it as proper only when the subject merits it. Clearly there's going to be big disagreements about tone and religion. Religion does not deserve respect in terms of the quality of the beliefs. But it is the norm and if you disagree with it, you'll make a lot of people unhappy.

A very different reason for the big disagreement is based on the idea of strategy. Some think that if you want to oppose the worst elements of religion, like terrorism, creationism, and bigotry, you have to get many of the religious people to side with you. And you can't do that if you are criticizing religion in general. The thought is that you may be able to win if you can convince the majority of religious people that you aren't opposed to them at all, but are opposed to the small minority that is "extreme".

For people who view this as the proper strategy, anyone who comes in and equates the "moderates" with the "fundamentalists" is going to make it harder to accomplish the goals. So again, we have a case that the actual tone of the person is irrelevant. For this kind of person, it doesn't matter how polite the atheists are, the mere fact that they targeting the majority is viewed as bad for business. And worse, religious people are likely to lump all atheists together. So those who want to pretend to the religious people that there's nothing irrational about their beliefs, just those other people's beliefs, the strident atheists are ruining everything.

Of course, there are opposing views. One view is that the nasty religious elements or people will always hide behind the so-called "moderates". If you try to criticize the Islamic suicide bombers, people will cry that you are against Islam. They know how it works. And those trying to work with the "moderates" will back away for fear of offending their potential allies. It's a strategy that fails because there is no real line you can draw between the different groups.

Another of the opposing views believes that no significant change can happen as long as religion is deemed off limits to discussion. In this view, the most important thing is to change the terms of the debate. Or to even have a debate in the first place. And you can't accomplish this while claiming that most religion is still off the table for discussion. To create real change in the world, we have to put all of it on the table.

A related view is that the goal is not simply to eliminate the very worst elements of religion. The goal should be to spread reason and to topple its arch-enemy, faith. People can continue to believe whatever they want, but they shouldn't have the support of others telling them that their irrational beliefs and methods are just fine.

So when I find atheists criticizing other atheists for being too strident, I have to wonder what's the real meaning of the complaint. For some, religion is accepted as a value and any criticism at all, no matter how polite, would be viewed as in appropriate. A different source of disagreement is on what the default level of respect should be. Should it be based on the seriousness of the ideas? Or by the expectations of the majority? And then some disagreements will be based on views of good strategy and whether a criticism will alienate too many people.

Of course, there's also the possibility that a writer really was too strident. In the case of Richard Dawkins, I don't think that is a reasonable possibility. It seems clear that the widely different views are based on these other factors, and not his actual tone.

Discuss this Article (3 messages)