Do Atheists Belong in the Interfaith Movement?
June 13th, 2011 | Posted by: Chris Stedman
Recently, there’s been a lot of talk in the organized atheist, humanist, skeptic and freethought movements about the potential benefits and drawbacks of interfaith work.
Over at Patheos, the Executive Director of the American Humanist Association, Roy Speckhardt, recently made an excellent case that—while the terminology of “interfaith” may be problematic and there are several other important issues to grapple with—it is worth atheists’ while to get involved. AtFriendly Atheist, Secular Student AllianceCommunications Director Jesse Galef offered a long list of reasons atheists might participate, and how their involvement might improve some of the problems within the interfaith movement. Despite Galef and Speckhardt’s serious concerns and reservations, they have been actively involved in intentionally interfaith efforts, and I suspect their participation has informed their conclusions about the idea.
However, those speaking out against atheist involvement in the interfaith movement are, at the moment, a bit more numerous (just a couple of examples, with several others to follow). As far as I can tell based on what many atheists opposed to interfaith involvement state in their writing, a large percentage of them seem to have kept their distance from interfaith work. I understand their hesitation given the criticisms they offer, but I can’t help but wonder if there is some disconnect when those who criticize the interfaith movement the most also seem to have had little to no actual experience with it. I could be wrong, but I’d be surprised if someone who had been involved in interfaith work would suggest, as prominent atheist blogger P.Z. Myers did, that it “cheerfully and indiscriminately embrace[s] every faith without regard for content.”
Present in almost every atheist blog I’ve read opposed to interfaith work are perhaps the most common critiques I hear from my fellow atheists regarding interfaith work, and they’re directly related: that interfaith leaves no room for religious criticism, and that it by default excludes atheists because atheism isn’t a “faith.” Most atheists I know who reject the idea of participating in interfaith work do so in part because they assume that, in order to participate, everyone must bite his or her tongue and play nice, and that participation in this kind of movement lends our implicit approval to “faith” as a concept and rallying point.
I’d like to explain why I think these concerns may be somewhat overblown; how they might be combated where they exist, and the reality that they actually don’t apply to most situations.
Continue reading at Religion Dispatches, and check out this excellent response post by ScienceBlogs’ Josh Rosenau.
June 13th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
I sometimes wonder if, like other movements, atheism is currently in that stage where the primary focus is upon generating a source of collective pride, using collective anger as a means of mobilizing numbers, and actively giving society the middle finger. This certainly happened with feminism—the social movement I’m most familiar with. Great things can happen during such radical, idealistic, heady times. Uncompromising radicalism can force through an initial wave of change in ways that are unmatched by other avenues.
However, to borrow a theme that I’ve seen repeated here several times, what happens when that initial wave of angry radicalism dies down? It inevitably will. It does for virtually all social movements. Who will carry the movement forward and what direction will it take?
I think voices like yours (and mine too, I suspect) are currently out of synch with where atheism currently is. It’s still very much in the radical, angry, f-you phase. Even though it probably feels like you’re voice is being drowned out by all of the collective anger, I think it is important that you say the things you’ve been saying. Someone has to plant the seeds for the next phase of atheism.
When the anger dies down, and the room goes quiet, quieter voices will be heard.
Anyway, I just figure I’d chime in because several of the more recent threads here at NPS have been so disheartening.
As usual, keep up the great writing!
June 14th, 2011 at 7:31 am
My answer is a resounding no. Why should atheists desire involvement in a program that is defined by the one thing atheists lack – faith? There are plenty of secular organizations through which to find community service opportunities while still mingling with people of other beliefs. We can volunteer without placing our stamp of approval on unconstitutional faith-based initiatives or the error of religious dogma.
June 14th, 2011 at 8:32 am
There are several issues that atheists and religious people can work together to achieve that could come under the category of “interfaith” and which are NOT controversial amongst the gnu community.
One prime example, and probably the best issue that unites even gnus and (some!) religious people, is that of freedom of religious belief (and non belief) and separation of church and state.
I have rarely seen atheists saying anything but praise and appreciation for Barry Lynn, the director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who happens to be an ordained minister.
This matter affects all of us, religious or not and is arguably the issue of highest priority to be addressed by the interfaith movement. The World Atheist atheist movement has recently tackled this issue by issuing a formal statement advocating religious freedom and the separation of church and state.
http://www.atheist.ie/2011/06/dublin-declaration-on-secularism-and-the-place-of-religion-in-public-life/
It is a mystery to me why this matter is rarely even on the radar of many of those who are the strongest advocates for atheist involvement in “interfaith” organizations. Surely it’s the prime issue that “interfaith” organizations need to tackle!
Get the interfaith organizations to back the Dublin declaration on secularism and the place of religion in public life and you’ll gain a lot more support from gnus for the entire interfaith movement.
June 14th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Why is it so difficult to understand that faith-based initiatives like the one being pitched here, are, by definition, not secular or constitutional? Sections 2d,e of said Dublin Declaration state:
(d) Government should be secular. The state should be strictly neutral in matters of religion and its absence, favouring none and discriminating against none.
(e) Religions should have no special financial consideration in public life, such as tax-free status for religious activities, or grants to promote religion or run faith schools.
But in the case of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and its, “Interfaith Challenge,” the government with federal tax dollars has illegally bought and paid for a bureaucracy catering specifically to woo and its profiteers and has included non-believers only as an afterthought in a superficial effort to blunt criticism of the program. This has rightly been called tokenism.
The Ivy League atheists’ faithful championing of the federal faith office has the appearance of little more than an attempt to maintain their own positions of privilege in spite of the glaring contradiction entailed and over the objection of an apparent majority of the secular activist community.
This may or may not be the case, but I feel justified in wondering why I’m being urged to support a program that undermines secular government and permits beneficiaries to discriminate in their hiring and allocation of resources on the basis of such faith-based considerations as sexual orientation. As I’ve said, performing community service and mingling with people of other beliefs does not require our making this drastic compromise of the principles at the very heart of secularism.
June 15th, 2011 at 3:39 am
D. Finney, did you actually read the entire article? This is what lies at the heart of what Chris is proposing:
How, exactly, is that in violation of the separation of church and state? Ending “religiously-based sociological and political exclusivism” is quite the opposite.
Where is there mention of any financial considerations in Chris’ essay? Again, did you actually read the essay? Your response seems completely off the rails.
Let me give my own, rather course representation of what Chris is proposing.
Right now, we have people from a lot of religions and philosophies that are looking at each other and saying the equivalent of “We’ve got the best way of looking at the world/life/universe and any group of people who thinks differently from us is a bunch of evil/immoral/foolish assholes.” This degree of abrasiveness leads to bad outcomes. It leads to the dehumanization of those who are not part of your group. It leads to political and social repression. It leads to prejudice. That’s the kind us vs. them thinking that Chris’ interfaith work is supposed to challenge. It’s supposed to bring people together from disparate belief systems and different ways of life so that they can recognize each other’s humanity and hopefully short circuit the tendency to see the other group as evil personified.
I’ve certainly heard plenty of atheists complain about how they are one of the least trusted groups in the US. I’ve heard plenty of non-believers cry foul when the dominant religious group calls them immoral trouble makers. Well, here’s a chance to meet with others and show them that we are made of the same mettle as them.
How did LGBT people overcome straight people’s fears? We came out to them. We got to know each other and by doing so, others came to realize that we were as human as they were.
Ever hear of gay-straight alliances? They are organizations where LGBT people and straight people band together to understand each other and fight against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender expression. This is essentially what Chris is proposing for atheists and believers. Is that so frightening?
Heaven forbid that we could all sit down together in an effort to see each other as equally human and equally deserving of respect. Or is the desire to denigrate another’s belief system so great that we can never find common ground? What’s more important: recognizing each other’s worth as human beings or proving that the other is a fool? One of those paths will take an act of humility. The other path continues the usual pattern of pride-laden conflict that serves to recreate hatred and mistrust from all sides.
The choice lies before us. The opportunity is there. Who will take it?
June 16th, 2011 at 4:20 am
I am skeptical of the interfaith idea, especially as it pertains to including atheists. If I may, I have a question: In your experience at interfaith gatherings, has any atheist ever stated that they believe faith is delusional?What was the response? If that has never happened that you’ve observed (or even heard about), what do you think would be the result?
I ask because while I can see working with the faithful on matters of common interest, and support that wholeheartedly, I cannot see biting my tongue to pretend that I see faith as a virtue, when I consider it to be vice (sometimes harmless, but still vice). I won’t go into detail of my view on faith here, as over at “Occasionally, I think” I just posted on that issue, but that sums it up: faith is vice, not virtue. How would such an attitude be dealt with in an interfaith setting, even if I’m there to work toward common goals? And for the record, I do think working toward common goals is a positive thing.
June 16th, 2011 at 5:55 am
Of course I read the article. Just because Chris quite understandably doesn’t mention them, doesn’t mean financial considerations don’t come into play. Research the Interfaith Youth Core (sic), and you’ll see that it’s a client of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, to which Chris links on his Facebook page. The faith office was first established under Bush to dole out pork to his religious supporters and it hasn’t changed much under Obama. Organizations receiving federal “faith” funds, then, as now, are free to bar from hiring those who don’t meet their religious test and to withhold social services from people whose, “lifestyles,” they don’t approve. Can you feel the love?
Of course, the government has no business endorsing religion one way or the other, even if it weren’t wasting an undisclosed quantity of tax-dollars in the process – which it is with the White House Office of Faith-Based Bribery and Corruption. How can secular activists effectively stand against state/church entanglement while being the recipients of faith office graft? It’s a fundamental conflict of interest and it undermines our credibility. Instead of committed secularists, we look like favor-seeking opportunists.
I’m all about finding common ground with religious folks, but based on shared priorities, not faith. I’m a volunteer, for instance, with my local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization composed of people of various beliefs who share a conviction that religion should be kept out of government and vice versa. In my work with AU – what do you know – I get to know religious people, I see them as equally human, we find common ground, and all this on equal terms without anyone having to sell out their beliefs or support an illegal government program.
June 16th, 2011 at 9:20 am
Well, I have no problems what so ever with government funding going to an organization whose goal is to lower strife and prejudice between religious/philosophical groups. I don’t care if the money is coming from the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. At least in this case, it’s funding an organization that is doing good and is actively working against discrimination:
(Both quotes taken from the Interfaith Youth Core’s website.)
(Also taken from the Interfaith Youth Core’s website.)
I don’t see favoritism for any kind of religion or philosophical view in those statements. Therefore, I’m not concerned about them receiving public money. While I do have problems with a lot of faith-based funding, if such funding is going to exist, then at least some good can come out of it. While I too would like to see many forms of faith-based funding dry up, this organization actually addresses the key issue that causes me to object to faith-based funding in the first place: prejudice, discrimination, and exclusion.
Furthermore, given that both private and government sources of funding are growing steadily more scarce in harsh economic times I don’t begrudge this group for accepting funding where they can get it. Given that social tensions and prejudice tend to be exacerbated by times of scarcity, I think that such work is even more crucial.
Then again, (in reply to Nathan) I’m also one of those odd atheists who thinks it’s incredibly rude to tell someone they’re deluded simply because the person is religious or they believe in a deity. If someone’s faith or philosophies embrace actively hurting another group of people or promoting prejudice, then I have no problems taking that person to task. However, using insulting language accomplishes little other than shutting down dialog. If that’s the kind of approach that a person is going to take, good luck trying to have a conversation with believers. That will go nowhere rather quickly. Yes, I know that will discredit me in the eyes of a number of atheists, but, c’est la vie.
June 16th, 2011 at 9:21 am
Chris, my last comment is stuck in moderation because it contains hyperlinks. Would you mind posting it? Thank you.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:42 am
A few more thoughts on insulting language…
I’ve been the recipient of insulting statements that were said by religious members of my family both because of my atheism and my being LGBT. Did that make me want to continue communication with them? No. In fact, it served to drive deeper wedges into a series of relationships that were already failing because of prior conflict. To this day, I’m not very close with my family because of this.
For me, my unwillingness to use terms such as “delusional” and various other negative catch phrases that have become so popular amongst atheists comes directly out of this experience. The relationships between non-believers and believers are already tense and laden with high emotion. Stirring preexisting negative feelings with insulting language is probably going to make matters worse. If one truly wishes to establish dialog and establish solid, constructive relationships with folks of other philosophies and faiths, I just don’t see the point.
June 17th, 2011 at 6:29 am
While “delusional” may seem insulting, what other word would you suggest for something that causes a person to believe something that is contrary to evidence? If I were believing something against all evidence (YEC, for example), I think I would actually hope that someone would risk me feeling insulted, rather than take the risk that I won’t get the point.
If there’s a better way, I’m happy to consider it, but it seems that at times being blunt, perhaps even rude, is the only way to get a point across.
June 17th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
Yes, there is a better way. Address the beliefs directly instead of insulting the person you are talking to.
June 17th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
In other words, if you think it is strange to believe in a deity, ask the person why they do so. Then, discuss.
If a person says to you, “I’m a Christian and I believe in God.” and you say, “Your beliefs prove that you have a psychological disorder.”, do you think that person will continue interacting with to you? Or is it more likely the average person will dismiss you as an offensive oaf who says outlandish things and then simply ignore you?
Using language that denigrates the other person is a lazy way of discussing a difficult topic. It’s the verbal equivalent of telling the other person they are inferior and then giving them the finger. It certainly does feel good, but that’s about all that it accomplishes. In the future, the person you just insulted will most likely avoid talking to you about the topics that bring out your offensiveness, or they will avoid talking to you altogether. Furthermore, should this person experience similar encounters with other atheists, there’s an increased likelihood that they will come to view both you and the group you belong to with contempt. If they already felt contempt for your group, then you will simply reinforce their feelings.
So, if your objective is to cause religious people to avoid you and stop talking to you, then this approach is an effective means of accomplishing your goals. If your objective is to foster increasing levels of contempt and prejudice, then this approach will probably be useful. However, if your objective is actual constructive communication, then your likelihood of accomplishing this is slim.
What Chris is proposing is meeting religious people with the goal of having constructive communication. Expecting that it should be OK to dismiss the others around you as having psychological disorders runs contrary to that goal.
June 17th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Oh, and a random thought: when at least 85% of the US populace believes in some kind of god or spirit (and that figure is generous toward atheists), how likely is it that 15% of the populace will convince the 85% that their beliefs are the result of a psychological disorder? Cultures tend to establish the norm of what is considered emotionally and cognitively healthy by using the majority as a base line. So, more to the point, how likely is it that the 85% will look at the 15%, who are a much smaller portion of the populace, and dismiss that 15% as the people who truly have emotional and cognitive problems?
Consider that when asserting to a theist that s/he has psychological issues. The theist has a large group of people—arguably, the bulk of society—who will reinforce the sense that they are completely normal.
June 17th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
“I don’t see favoritism for any kind of religion or philosophical view in those statements. Therefore, I’m not concerned about them receiving public money.”
Oh, you don’t see any favoritism in, “faith-based,” “interfaith,” “multifaith,” “interreligious,” or, “multireligious?” It would seem that when every alternative to the official designation still includes either faith or religion, it might be safe to assume that faith and religion are somewhat central aspects of the program, assurances to the contrary notwithstanding. At very least, I think it’s obnoxious to treat non-believers as though they are the ones being unreasonable by not wanting to champion multifaith, interfaith, polyfaith or any other kind of unconstitutional establishment of religion. You may be okay with it as long as it benefits your favored recipient (which wouldn’t likely be the case in a Republican administration), but don’t be surprised if many in the secular activist community are less cavalier about shrugging off the encroachment of religion in government, the prevention of such being among our central concerns.
June 18th, 2011 at 12:54 am
I’m not an ideological purist. I’m willing to work with what tools are available. That wording would not stop me from working with the organization if they were truly willing to work with someone like me.
I’m tired of seeing the usual bouts of people muttering insulting comments in each other’s general direction from all sides of this issue. You have to start somewhere to shift the current deadlock of heated rhetoric. These organizations are a logical starting point.
Call that cavalier if you will.
June 19th, 2011 at 12:20 am
“If a person says to you, “I’m a Christian and I believe in God.” and you say, “Your beliefs prove that you have a psychological disorder.””
And if I instead respond “Why do you believe in God?” and they say “Because I have faith,” or the discussion leads to them finally putting forth “faith” as their reason for belief in any other way, then what do you suggest as a non-insulting way to point out that faith is a bad reason to believe anything? Because at that point, there isn’t much else to say, so far as I can see, if you don’t get into pointing out faith is a bad reason to believe.
June 19th, 2011 at 12:25 am
I should note that it’s the belief in God per se that I have an issue with, or that I think is delusional, but rather FAITH. Faith not only tries to fill in gaps in knowledge with things for which there is no evidence (god(s), fairies, spirits, whatever), but often goes *contrary* to evidence. While I’m somewhat willing to let the gap-filling pass, when it directly contradicts evidence, now I have a problem with it.
June 19th, 2011 at 12:27 am
…. correction: “I should note that it’s [not] the belief. . . “
June 19th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Nathan said:
I should note that it’s not the belief in God per se that I have an issue with, or that I think is delusional, but rather FAITH. Faith not only tries to fill in gaps in knowledge with things for which there is no evidence (god(s), fairies, spirits, whatever), but often goes *contrary* to evidence. While I’m somewhat willing to let the gap-filling pass, when it directly contradicts evidence, now I have a problem with it.
Nathan, what you wrote above is what you need to say to a theist whom you are trying to explain your position to. You might want to flesh it out a bit more, but I think you have proven that you are perfectly capable of arguing in favor of your take on deities without resorting to derogatory language.
However, I think the crux of the matter here is that atheists have not come to terms with the reality that it is nearly impossible to challenge many people’s sense of faith and that using abrasive language does little to address the underlying issues. Many people, regardless of how much logical discussion or verbal abuse takes place, will not relinquish their belief because that belief serves an important emotional purpose for them. For many people, belief is not based in logic and thus, can not be changed via logic. To make matters worse, when someone is being confronted with abusive language, the first response is usually to throw up a defensive barrier out of a need to protect their emotions. The very part of the person atheists need to influence most—the theist’s emotions—becomes hardened to outside influence. So, unless atheists figure out how to effectively address emotional needs without employing invective, the chance of influencing someone in this situation is nil. Their barriers go up and the window of opportunity is lost.
So far, atheists have been fairly adept at framing issues via logical, empirical approaches but they have proven to be far less skilled at addressing the emotional dimensions surrounding this issue. Being empirically correct but emotionally clueless isn’t going to accomplish much. What is needed to find a solution is a more nuanced sense of empathy. Ironically, it is difficult to find empathy for a group of people one views with open contempt.
Unless atheists change their approach, I predict a continuation of the status quo: two groups of people locked in a cycle of anger, prejudice, and heated rhetoric.
June 19th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
I have somewhat fleshed out my position on faith at my own site, but I didn’t directly address the emotional issue that you’re referring to.
You are absolutely right that people follow emotion more than logic (not exactly what you said, but that is what you’re aiming right?). I used to be a salesman, and as any good salesman knows, emotional investment is what makes you money, not intellect. I’ll admit, that’s one reason I had a hard time in that field, and was unsuccessful. I had a hard time inspiring that emotional response, even though I believed then and now that the product is a good one to have, and could make a very reasonable case for it.
However, in many cases, the target of ridicule is not the mind that someone is trying to change. Sometimes, perhaps even often, it’s the bystander just watching and pondering. Get the bystander to notice the delusional nature of faith (and I know of no other word to describe believing something that’s contra-evidence), and that bystander may become less likely to give in to faith. No one wants to be considered delusional, so that would be as much an emotional as a logical reaction. This can work just as well for the apathetic atheist as it does for the apathetic theist.
Now, assuming that is not the only emotional approach to take, what sort of emotional appeal do you suggest to get someone to even *acknowledge* that faith is something that should not be used as a basis for belief or action?
Wouldn’t that be the best strategy, in the long term, for keeping faith-based decisions out of public policy, to limit religious privilege, and combat prejudice against atheists?
June 19th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Here are some of the emotional needs that must be addressed but are certainly not limited to these alone:
1. Belief in the supernatural can lend a sense of confidence in one’s future in spite of adversity.
2. Commonly held belief systems and their institutions help to form a social foundation that fosters a sense of group identity and community. More specifically, religious institutions provide an extensive network of social connections. They feed people’s need to be around human beings.
3. Belief in the supernatural is used to provide a sense of one’s life having purpose in spite of being surrounded by chaos.
4. Belief in the supernatural appeals to people’s nature as social beings. It rides upon a desire to feel emotionally connected to something much larger than oneself.
5. Belief in the supernatural can appeal to many people’s sense of esthetics. It makes reality seem more wondrous.
6. People who center the emotions of love and caring in their lives see these attributes as representing the essence of the supernatural. To oppose God is to deny love itself.
7. People who miss the sense of a loving parent/child bond that they felt in childhood find a kind of “virtual replacement” in seeking out a bond with the supernatural.
8. The sense of someone watching over you can help to combat a sense of loneliness.
9. Religious institutions provide a sense of security in that they support their members emotionally, socially, and materially during times of need (money, food, etc.).
10. It is highly likely that the desire to connect with that which is defined as “spiritual” is a byproduct of inborn qualities specific to the biological makeup of human beings.
Find a way to provide viable alternatives which addresses these items, and you might very well find that more people will be willing to listen to the arguments that address the logical non-emotional side of the issue.
Or, does the bystander, who has been raised in the dominant faith and has been taught to fear, mistrust, and hate atheists, see a member of a despised minority belligerently attacking a member of his own group? How much progress do you think the LGBT rights movement would have made by now if we had very publicly dismissed all straight people as psychologically damaged idiots in our books, debates, and speeches during the past four decades of activism?
That can be accomplished without dismissing straight people as a mentally/emotionally challenged group of people worthy of contempt and abuse. We’re accomplishing our goals by directly addressing the injustice of prejudice and its effect upon law and social customs. We talk about the ways in which people’s prejudices against LGBT people directly hurt us and our loved ones. We are open about being LGBT so that straight people can learn to see that we are just as human as they are. The positive relationships that we have built with straight people have served to foster a shift in society’s attitudes toward us. This has taken time, but it’s actually working.
I don’t think that shifting our tactics toward telling straight people they are psychologically unstable simpletons would be useful. It might feel great for a short period of time (although, I’d actually feel pretty terrible about insulting the straight people in my life), but that’s all it would accomplish. In fact, this approach sounds emotionally immature to me. During early adulthood, I said some pretty insulting stuff about straight people when I was in the presence of other queer people. I largely grew out of this behavior by the time I left my 20s.
You can easily switch the words around in my reply to apply to atheists. We can address prejudice directly by explaining how religious based bigotry hurts us and others. We can address the ways in which prejudice has warped laws and social customs in directions that hurt atheists and, ironically, other religious/philosophical minorities. We can be open about being atheists and work to form positive relationships with believers, thus challenging their mistrust and fear.
Currently, the most vocal part of the atheist demographic is trying to convince 85% (probably more) of the public that the lion’s share of the country is, on some level, inferior. Remember, that 85% is already convinced that atheists are the ones who are inferior. They have the bulk of their peers and family members to reinforce the notion that we are unworthy, defective, hurtful people. I find it odd that so many of my fellow atheists think that hate and prejudice can be countered with hateful language. Yes, I know that the average atheist will say that they are not coming from a place of hatred, but the rhetoric that is currently being used, best intentions or not, sounds contemptuous and ill-tempered.
I get that atheists are really angry at the injustices that have been done to them and others in the name of religion and supernatural belief. I understand that the degree of ostracism and hurt runs deep and wide. However, there are constructive ways to put anger to good use and destructive ways to release anger. We can turn to the example of other social justice movements as a guide.
As is the case with theists, I strongly suspect that logic has less to do with the issues we’ve been discussing on this thread than emotion. The irony here is that we’re so focused on rationality that I think we’re missing the ways in which emotion is currently influencing our collective behavior.
June 20th, 2011 at 12:01 am
“How much progress do you think the LGBT rights movement would have made by now if we had very publicly dismissed all straight people as psychologically damaged idiots in our books, debates, and speeches during the past four decades of activism?”
This is a misleading comparison. People of whatever orientation are most likely born with their eventual sexualities already in place, so no amount of prodding or persuasion could possibly undo their biology. This is why so-called, “conversion therapy,” is such a joke.
Religious people, on the other hand, are religious because they choose to be, and they are therefore responsible for their decision to embrace delusion and its attendant prejudices. I will not be obliged to sugarcoat reality on their account and I will hold them responsible for refusing to follow where their reason would lead them if they’d let it.
In support of Nathan’s point about bystanders, I’ll say that although I’ve been a skeptic for as long as I can remember, it wasn’t until I read, “The God Delusion,” that I really embraced my atheism. The fact that this has become something of a cliched scenario only further demonstrates that people like to see that others share their frustrations. Before I read Dawkins and got exposed to other outspoken atheist writers and activists, I felt like a loner for holding a conviction that religion is sick and wrong. To find others echoing my complaints was a breath of fresh air, to say the least.
“You have to start somewhere to shift the current deadlock of heated rhetoric.”
The rhetoric may heat up at times, but I don’t see that there’s a deadlock. Churches are hemorrhaging members and the, “nones,” have doubled in the last decade to comprise the second largest feature on the American religious landscape after Christians. I call that progress and I think it’s owing to more and more being less and less shy about pointing out the folly and backwardness of religion.
June 20th, 2011 at 3:11 am
I be blunt. I think the style of rhetoric being used by neo-atheists is nothing short of intolerance and is particularly hypocritical. You are trying to fight prejudice with prejudice.
*shakes head*
I want nothing to do with this version of atheism.
June 20th, 2011 at 6:01 am
Ah, so you can be blunt with us, calling us hypocrites and bigots, but we can’t be blunt with the religious? Who’s a hypocrite? Or can you explain the crucial distinction? And can you provide any definition of bigotry or hypocrisy that couldn’t just as arguably be applied to your, “intolerance,” of, “neo-atheists?”
And on the issue of, “interfaith,” would you be comfortable in an, “inter-straight,” or say, a, “multi-hetero,” program as long as its organizers insisted in full contradiction of the title, that it was open to people of all orientations? If not, why not, and would your reasons be any different than those given by, “neo-atheists,” for declining, “interfaith?”