Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion—it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious beliefs. Militant atheists tend to make one or both of two claims that atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful.
Apparently pointing out the falsity of God-belief within a ritualistic scheme…for an atheist…is somehow…wrong. I am uncertain how one manages to avoid lying if they hold God-belief is incorrect, but must say the opposite; apparently that is one requirement to avoid the label of “militant atheist.”
Secondly, we must be silent as to people flying planes into buildings, or beating your child with a stick or starving a one-year-old to death for not saying “Amen.” We should keep quiet regarding the misogyny, homophobia and intolerance for differing ideas that has historically pervaded religions.
If this is “Militant Atheism”—it would seem the solution is simple: Demonstrate God-based religion is true or show that it is usually beneficial, and there would be no need for militant atheists. *snickers* Good luck with that!
But I don’t want to focus solely on what militant atheism is, nor what it should be, nor whether it shouldn’t be. I wanted to explain why I am…well…I dare say a militant atheist.
There is an oft-told practical joke where an office group picks one particular victim, and for the entire morning, no matter what he says, the people react as if he is being outrageously angry.
Victim: Good Morning!
Prankster1: Easy…calm down, Victim.
Victim shrugs: How’s the coffee?
Prankster2: Hey, don’t yell, simmer down.
Victim: But I’m not yelling.
Prankster2: [backs away] I didn’t mean to get you so upset.
Of course inevitably this becomes self-fulfilling when the Victim really does become angry because no one believes he is not angry, yet he keeps being told he is angry.
Haven’t we entered the same routine?
Christian: Why did you become an atheist?
Me: Because the evidence fails to persuade God exists.
Christian: Nope—because you want to sin.
Me: No—really! I looked at this argument and those proofs and I am not convinced.
Christian: Nope. Sinner.
Me: O.K., then—what sin is it you are claiming I am doing?
Christian: Oh, I don’t know THAT. It must be some secret sin.
Like the victim in our office prank, I am baffled by the opposite reaction to what I am saying. Over and over we hear the same tired canards:
“Evolution is just a theory.”
“Darwin recanted on his death bed.”
“Somebody somewhere once said Hittites didn’t exist, and it turns out they did, so we can’t trust archeology when it fails to support what I want to hear.”
“The fool says there is no God.”
And for every Christian we patiently explain the problem, the next day a new Christian joins in and says, “It must be true ‘cause the Disciples wouldn’t die for a lie.” And we go through it all over again. Only to hear Steven Baldwin say, “If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?”
At some point we must look at the whole system and speak out. Look, if a local school was failing the vast majority of students, we would immediately think, “There is a problem here. Something must be wrong; this situation needs to be addressed.” Yet it is as if those questioning militant atheism proclaim, “Hey! Here is a student who obtained all A’s and here is a student who received a B or two. You cannot incriminate the entire system when we have these few standouts.”
Yes…Yes, I can. The vast majority of Christians I associate with do not study opposing views. They hardly study their own beyond what they learn in Sunday School. They don’t read books on evolution. They don’t read books on Textual Criticism. They don’t read cosmology, archeology, botany, geology… they read Bibles, Bible study guides and books giving advice based on the Bible.
And they sure haven’t read Baggini’s Short Introduction to Atheism.
Is the appropriate approach to be silent in the hopes of an anomalous Christian who has studied evolution? Or should I point out the errors? See, I may appear militant against the vast majority of Christians I interact with, because I respond to the errors given by this majority!
Further, I also see a great deal of harm within religions. When I point out the Pat Robertson’s—I am told, “He doesn’t speak for my belief.” I cringe at tales of cover-ups regarding Priest and Pastor indiscretions. “They aren’t true Christians.” I am horrified by the practice of Sharia Law in many countries. By the infighting between Christians and Hindus and Muslims in India.
Yet I don’t have to listen to the evening news to see the offenses of religions. I watched the back-biting and in-fighting growing up. I saw the use of belief as a weapon to diminish others. Watched terrible behavior excused as “wrestling with sinful nature” if the person is part of the accepted crowd, yet other people demonized for less because they were not.
I’ve watched families, friends and relationships torn apart over religious differences. Where each justifies and rationalizes ostracizing the other. Where the poor are only helped upon receiving the appropriate recriminations. Where the sinner must cry and beg and demonstrate how truly terrible they are to make the Christian feel self-righteous before handing out pittance charity.
If churches are so beneficial—why is it the LAST place people want to go for assistance?
Shouldn’t we be speaking out against such things? We should be addressing the wrongs committed in the name of religion. We must point out the errors in knowledge, the lack of study in those professing to hold truth in the form of a God.
And we are told by many theists, “Oh…that isn’t MY church. That isn’t MY religion. Those aren’t true Christians.” Yet this is exactly the problem. Because they have no means to explain who IS a true Christian, or method to verify which is the correct God, all they can do is cluck their tongue and say, “Tsk, tsk.” They think it’s wrong…sure…but their God is silent as what to do. They don’t want to say they hate it—that language seems so strong in the face of God’s stillness in action.
Blame the atheist for daring to say, “I dislike that. I dislike that a lot! In fact—I hate it.”
I am wrong for being “on the verge of hatred” for these actions? Really? Well…if that makes me a militant atheist, I proudly wear the label.
Great post Dagwood. Nothing to add, but great post.
ReplyDeleteJulian Baggini is a horse's ass.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the "militant" atheists and militant fundamentalist religious is that the fundamentalist religious are eliminationist: they want to wipe out not just "heresy" and "infidelity"; they want to actually kill the heretics and infidels en masse or threaten them into submission.
Not even the caricatures of "totalitarian" atheists (e.g. Stalin) were eliminationist towards the religious.
BTW: If you want, I'll use this entry for CotG.
You don't say it explicitly, but I will: Julian Baggini is a horse's ass.
Baggini essentially claims that religions are false, but NOT false under a theist’s system of rationality, therefore we should not be dogmatic against it. Of course, using the concept we cannot dogmatically inform the insane they are Napoleon, because under THEIR system of rationality, they could be.
ReplyDeleteHe then claims we cannot look at the harm of religion for the same reason, because it is not false under their belief. So if slavery is acceptable under my rationality…
I’m not sure where the line crosses from “atheist” to “militant atheist”…but if this is it, I am quite sure I am on the “militant atheist” side. I would suspect the majority of non-theists are.
Baggini essentially claims that religions are false, but NOT false under a theist’s system of rationality...
ReplyDeleteSound like Plantinga. But I don't get that sense just from the quotation; are you referring to more of his work? It's been a while since I've read the jackass.
I would suspect the majority of non-theists are [militant].
I dunno. The accommodationists seem to have substantial popularity, and of course the "moderate" religious are pushing the accommodation theme big time (e.g. the Templeton Foundation).
Yes, I read the chapter in “A Very Short Introduction to Atheism” to make sure the quote was in context.
ReplyDeleteYes, I read the chapter in “A Very Short Introduction to Atheism” to make sure the quote was in context.
ReplyDeleteGroovy. Any juicy quotations on systems (!) of rationality?
Sadly, it's not at all difficult to believe a professional atheist philosopher would embrace such a jackassed concept. There is one and only one system of rationality. We can change it as we learn more, but we can't have two.
A militant muslim will blow himself up for his religion. A militant christian will murder for his religion. A militant atheist will express his opinion on a point of view and admit he doesn't know everything but finds your philosophical points invalid and your pseudoscience unpersuasive.
ReplyDeleteObviously they all belong in the same group! Why? Because liberty is dangerous and could bring god's wrath upon us! That's even WORSE than a suicide bomber or a clinic bomber, etc. Muslims might blow up buildings and Christians might blow up clinics, but militant atheists cause every bad thing ever by asking for the "loving god"/"prince of peace"'s wrath!
It all makes perfect sense if you have no sense. Why can't you infidels just trust us to institute theocracy? You just deny the truth!
[/painfully close to reality mockery]
Many good points here. Let me say though that in fairness a pretty good case can be made that the Roman Catholic Church took courageous stances throughout Latin America during the Cold War years and faced some pretty serious persecution of their own for it. Oscar Romero is one example of dozens of priests executed for standing against the puppet right wing regimes imposed by the United States on Latin America.
ReplyDeleteIn the states though militant atheism is more warranted. Take Bob Dutko. Doesn't read opposing viewpoints, spouts ignorance very day demonizing people that think like me. Couple this with the fact that I have never once seen a case of state sponsored violence from our government that he didn't approve of. The combination is scary.
[A] pretty good case can be made that the Roman Catholic Church took courageous stances throughout Latin America during the Cold War years and faced some pretty serious persecution of their own for it.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that you can make a good case for the Church; I think at best you can make a case for some particular priests.
More importantly: did they do good because of their religion, without regard to their religion, or in spite of their religion?
Religion is, of course, a human construct, and exhibits the full range of human strength and frailty. The moral case against religion is not that there is good the religious cannot do, but rather that there is evil that only the religious can do.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteI agree religious people can do beneficial things. That doesn’t make the religion itself beneficial.
Curious, isn’t it, how we point out priests who molest children because they are placed in position of power. And then the Roman Catholic church covers it up. And we are informed they aren’t “true” Roman Catholics…that they aren’t practicing the “correct” religion. But when we point out good, helpful people, all of a sudden, they are included.
Yet each is being influenced by their religion. We have to take the good with the bad. Sure, Roman Catholicism, as a religion, can result in providing food for the poor. Yet the same religious belief is depriving condoms. It is killing people with the same hands it is helping them for the same reason—religious belief.
We look at the religion as a whole. Catholicism has its beneficial adherents, sure. It also has its Mother Teresa’s. It involves a belief priests (and bishops and cardinals and popes) cannot have sexual relations, resulting in sexual frustration, guilt, self-flagellation, etc. It has billions and billions and billions of dollars—and asks its congregations to give more for new pipe organ. It ostracizes, divides, battles, and politicizes through pontification. It suppresses opposition through fear.
I know you are trying to show some balance…and I appreciate it…but if we can’t look at the “bad Catholics” as part of the equation, why must we look to the “good ones”?
Baggini seems to be an advocate for the Rodney King denomination of Atheism. I think I understand his sentiment, I think he wants to practice detente with Theists vs. waging jihad as a fundamental Atheist.
ReplyDeleteI think his challenge is that he is not separating the believer from the belief. Maybe he needs to learn how to love the religious and hate the religion.
I think he wants to practice detente with Theists vs. waging jihad as a fundamental Atheist.
ReplyDeleteThat's a tendentious way of framing the question. There's just no possible way the "militant" atheist movement can be accurately described as a "jihad" in the ordinary Western understanding of the word. (In the sense that jihad just means "struggle", there's no reason why atheists shouldn't struggle with theism.)
Furthermore, "fundamental atheism" is an oxymoron and the concept nonsensical. Perhaps you might mean "extremist", which would at least be meaninful, albeit completely incorrect: atheists just don't go to the extremes of killing people or intimidating them with violence and threats of violence.
I think his challenge is that he is not separating the believer from the belief.
Perhaps, but I think Baggini challenge is that he's an accommodationist jackass.
Hi Barefoot Bum,
ReplyDeleteI wasn't framing a question of Theism vs. Atheism, I was giving my take on Baggini as an individual. I was speaking of a particular "ist" not an "ism." I confess to indulging in hyperbole with my quip: "fundamental atheist." The notion of "fundamental atheism" is nonsensical.
My read on Baggini is that he wants to dialogue with Theists vs. go to war with them, and I was playing with the word "jihad" ( the "Western understanding" as a 'holy war') tongue in cheek. Baggini seems to me to feel guilty about being an atheist.
as to your comment:
"atheists just don't go to the extremes of killing people or intimidating them with violence and threats of violence."
Ceausecu comes to mind as an atheist who exercised and advocated violence against theists. But again, I make a distinction between the believer and the belief, the ism and the ist.
Don't both Theism and Atheism require the animation of a person to qualify as "militant?"
I wasn't framing a question of Theism vs. Atheism, I was giving my take on Baggini as an individual.
ReplyDeleteI understand. The problem, though is he's setting up the choices irrationally in the first place.
My read on Baggini is that he wants to dialogue with Theists vs. go to war with them...
I am, you know, capable of reading English. I know what you're saying, I know what Baggini is saying, and you're both not correct.
No one is saying Baggini ought to go to jail or be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. He's just wrong, and rather stupidly wrong at that; his intent is irrelevant. You don't have to defend him unless you want to convince us he's actually correct.
We already know that Baggini is drawing an ethical distinction between the "good" way atheists should talk to theists and the "bad" way we shouldn't talk to theists. Simply substituting synonyms to restate that Baggini is making an ethical distinction is not at all helpful... we are all capable of using a thesaurus, and leads us to believe you are trying to bullshit us (and yourself) in the same way that Baggini is trying to bullshit us (and himself).
Mr. Bum, :)
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not trying to defend Baggini or BS you. I count Dagoods as a friend and also have a great deal of respect for you. I don't think I would get away with it even if I were inclined to do so. You guys are better and much more well informed debaters than I am on this topic. I wander over to this blog because I appreciate what Dagoods is doing, I think he does a real service. My participation, such as it is, is my way of trying to stay connected.
Maybe I should state that I agree with what Dagoods wrote and find myself concluding as did he:
"Apparently pointing out the falsity of God-belief within a ritualistic scheme…for an atheist…is somehow…wrong. I am uncertain how one manages to avoid lying if they hold God-belief is incorrect, but must say the opposite;..."
I also find myself wondering if Baggini, as a former Christian, find's himself in similar straits as myself. I am non-theist, a deconvert. But I have a former wife and two sons who are still fundamentalist Christian. I still care about these people very deeply and find myself looking for ways to connect. With two of my family members it's a non issue, they refuse to have any contact with me as long as I am an infidel, their choice. One son does still speak with me. He reminds me regularly that I am going to hell because of my unbelief, but it isn't constant and when I can get him off topic we get along well. I guess I am accommodating him, but to me there is at least hope in the continued contact. I have a great deal of faith in the rational and hope at some point he will see his way clear of theism.
It may not be relevant to the conversation and I am probably transferring a bit onto Baggini, but I think I get why he is accommodating to theists.
First, Paul, when I talk about bullshitting, I'm not trying to be insulting or rude. I'm an admirer of Richard Feynman, who notes, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool." Or as Orwell observed, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
ReplyDeleteIn my considered opinion, Baggini is not just mistaken, he is actually fooling himself. As both Feynman and Orwell note, it is very difficult not to fool oneself, so one cannot say that Baggini is himself "evil" for doing so. On the other hand, he represents himself as a public intellectual and professional philosopher, so one can neither excuse him from his self-chosen professional obligations, even if we can understand the reasons why he's fooling himself.
Similarly, brain surgery is very difficult, and it's no shame if some particular person can't do it. But if someone can't do it, he shouldn't actually do it, or walk around saying he can... even if we know that he was enormously pressured by his parents to be a brain surgeon.
I am non-theist, a deconvert. But I have a former wife and two sons who are still fundamentalist Christian. I still care about these people very deeply and find myself looking for ways to connect.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what that's like, but I imagine it's tremendously difficult and painful.
I have nothing at all critical to say about you (or Baggini) doing whatever you can to connect with whomever you want to connect with (at least so long as you're not lying outright). But that's not the issue here.
Neither Dagood nor I criticize or condemn Baggini at all for wanting to connect with theists in whatever way he feels is correct.
There are people whose opinions about matters of fact are indeed so egregiously and obviously wrong — e.g. racists, sexists, homophobes — that moral condemnation is warranted rather than reasoned dialogue. Anyone who is a racist in the 21st century is not just mistaken, they are at best willfully ignorant; it's pointless to try to reason with the willfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
Baggini implies in the quoted passage that "militant" atheists are in this same category of unreasoning bigotry. And your comments indicated to me that you make some similar distinction (although perhaps not on the same criteria as Baggini).
Racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of "bigotry" aren't "inherently" wrong, they're wrong because it's a matter of established scientific truth that people of any race are not superior or inferior (in any way that matters to a civilized person) to people of any other race. It's a matter of established scientific truth that men are not inferior or superior to women. It's a matter of established scientific truth that homosexuals are not inferior or superior to heterosexuals. These beliefs are wrong because they are known — extremely well known — to be simply false.
As far as I'm concerned, the beliefs Baggini cites are not just true, but obviously true. But at the very least, the beliefs are sufficiently controversial that to label them as obviously wrong is not just an honest mistake, but willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty, all the more reprehensible from someone who represents himself as a professional philosopher.
In a similar vein, to divide up the atheist movement into those who want to "dialogue" (good) and those who want to "go to war" (bad) implicitly accepts some sort of division similar to Baggini's. There is a subset of atheists substantial and organized enough to warrant criticism as a group who are so obviously wrong that their position deserves the pejorative "go to war".
But this is simply false: there is no substantial, organized subset of atheists who want to "go to war" in even the metaphorical sense, and who deserve this kind of condemnation. It's especially insulting and infuriating since there is a substantial subset of the religious who are literally at war: they are literally killing people openly and explicitly because of their religious beliefs.
er... As far as I'm concerned, the beliefs Baggini condemns as false are not just true...
ReplyDeleteThe Barefoot Bum,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to explain your use of the term "bullshitting," I appreciate the comments of both Feynmen and Orwell that you quote, and your own take on bs as well. And with your explanation I can see why you called me out on this. I am clearly not informed enough to be making the comments I did regarding Baggini, they were speculative at best.
Further, I understand and agree that when someone sets there self up as an authority ("professional philosopher") that they are fair game for criticism, and should be. Criticism is an important component of discovery, or at least of removing the BS and should be embraced as part of the process of 'seeing.'
I do have a question. You stated early on that "not even caricatures of "totalitarian" atheists (e.g. Stalin) were eliminationist towards the religious." And I mentioned Ceausescu. Given their history of imprisoning, torturing and killing theists, why don't you think they would qualify as examples of militant atheists? Is it because they would be more accurately described as militant communist? Or why? I am more familiar with Ceausescu than Stalin. Particularly Richard Wurmbrand's testimony before the U.S. Senate in the late 60's regarding religious persecution under his regime.
What I have read of Wurmbrand and others experience under these regimes seems like a concerted effort to wipe out theism. They did kill religious people and try to threaten them into submission.
Given their history of imprisoning, torturing and killing theists, why don't you think they would qualify as examples of militant atheists?
ReplyDeleteI refer you to this essay: Was atheism the cause of 20th century atrocities?
We have to distinguish between people who happen to be atheists who kill a lot of people for various reasons, and atheists who have the intent of killing religious people specifically because they are religious.
Pretty much any time you're talking about communists, you're talking about people who have a deep and profound hostility to the property-owning feudal (19th century) and capitalist (19th & 20th century) ruling classes and the institutions that support these classes. Communists are hostile to religion to the extent that religious institutions serve the ruling classes... and they very often do.
(Note that hostility, a precondition to eliminationism, is not itself eliminationist. As a communist, I myself am definitely hostile to the capitalist ruling class, but I do not want to actually eliminate them. They are not bad people; they are ordinary who have bad ideas. I am hostile to the capitalist ruling class only to the extent that I expect to have to defend myself against them when and if the people decide to take the power they deserve over their own political and economic lives.)
It's also important to note that Western atheists typically do not consider 20th century Asian, Russian and Eastern European communists to be part of their community. Atheism is at best a small commonality swimming in a sea of enormous cultural, political and economic differences between East and West.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the specific character of the evils of the East, the atheist community in the West is not in the least bit eliminationist; our "hostility" to religion is firmly nonviolent at every identifiable institutional and cultural level i.e. barring the odd nutjob who is decisively repudiated by the community.
The Barefoot Bum,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the article, I have printed it and plan to read it this weekend.
Re: western vs. eastern communism. That's an interesting point and distinction. Before I deconverted, I wrote to many people looking for input. I wrote several theologians with reputations looking for answers. Not one ever answered any of my letters (so much for the "one lost sheep")
I also wrote a few atheists of repute. Each responded. In particular, I wrote to Noam Chomsky over a period of a few months. He responded each and every time. I was both floored and touched by his warmth, humility and humanity.
Another, who has become one of my best friends, is also a feminist communist who started an intentional commune for several years, is one of the warmest, kindest people I know.
Both are a far cry from being "caricatures of "totalitarian atheists."
What a dumb comment if there is no God then quit wasting your time on here....talk about cars, boats, guns, but no you spend your time talking about God and defending mass murdering schizophrenic lunatic maniacs who have committed largest acts of genocide in the history of humanity.....God's judgement will b swift.....
ReplyDeleteYou want proof for God?
Atheism sought to wipe out Christianity in Russia, Romania, China, France, German Reich's, Cambodia....yet all failed, were wiped off the face of this Earth....
When you are cold, wet, hungry and tired and your children are suffering raise your hands to the sky and praise God for His justice :)
Later