On pharyngula’s link to the Dawkins’ new Atheism logo and T-shirt special offer, I was mildly taken aback by his characterisation of the commenters who spoke against the idea on Dawkins site.
One weird thing about this development, though, is that it sure brings out the whiners and concern trolls.
Oh, “so it will have entertaining mad fundy comment rants”, I thought, instantly going there to read them, of course (with the topic of commenting being a recent theme on this blog.)
Hmm. Not so. The comments were generally from sycophants, people with typeface design concerns and people who recognised the similarity to the traditional” Anarchy” logo. Most “anti-“comments seemed pretty rational statements of a slightly different point of view. IMHO,
- T-shirts, atheist web-site identifiers? Nothing wrong with them. No big deal. Good way to generate revenue for RDF. Good way to find fellow atheists’ blogs.
- People who don’t feel that it’s desirable to identify yourself to strangers by your (non)belief in a deity, as if you are showing what football team you support – also a valid point of view.
I do have problems with tendencies of the “New Atheism” to start forming an orthodoxy and dismissing any opposition without thought. Being able to herd cats would be a “Good Thing” then? Don’t sheep usually end up getting slaughtered?
I’ve been struggling with how to say this without causing offence (like arguing about religion with the couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics in my overwhelmingly non-believing workplace) but:
- Atheism is REALLY not a religion. (Just as we all know not collecting stamps is not a hobby.)
- Religion is not just belief in a superpower. That is one small silly lie at the centre of a massive social construction. Organised religion is a social construction.
- Religions start from beliefs and ethics. It’s when we start organising around implementing those beliefs and ethics that human power relations come into play.
The tooth fairy is a pretty innocuous belief only because it doesn’t have a social organisation based round it. Otherwise, we’d be righteously smiting our enemies for their teeth. - Atheism doesn’t have a Pope. Or bishops or arch-bishops or mullahs or people with a closer relationship to unbelief than the rest of us.
- Atheism does need people to expound ideas. To challenge nonsense and to spur other people to thinking. It is very important that there are central forums where people can connect. The “New Atheism” is doing a pretty good job of this.
- But there is always a danger of ascribing too much power to a few central figures. Our tendency to search out venerable white male authority figures to be sycophantic and obedient to them is one of the problems of religion, not the solution.
- Being prepared to argue the toss about what we don’t believe in is surely not just the defining characteristic but also the great strength of atheists.
Religion is not just belief in a superpower. That is one small silly lie at the centre of a massive social construction. Organised religion is a social construction.
Baloney. Organized religion is indeed a social construction, but the superpower is not just a small silly lie pushed off in a cranny, but the heart and soul of this social construction. Remove belief in the superpower and religion qua religion, even as a social construction, collapses.
Religions start from beliefs and ethics.
Half baloney. First of all, religion is a particular kind of belief, and it’s about the irrational justification of particular ethical beliefs. Only irrational ethics require irrational justification, and one must challenge the irrational justification directly to challenge the irrational ethics.
Our tendency to search out venerable white male authority figures to be sycophantic and obedient to them is one of the problems of religion, not the solution.
I’m sick and tired of being accused of sycophancy every time I happen to agree with Myers or Dawkins. Irrational contrarianism is just as irrational as irrational sycophancy.
Thanks for commenting.
Good points in general. I don’t think you can separate ideas and their consequences either. I just don’t think that irrational beliefs do much harm until they get translated into the real world, which involves organsiation
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that agreeing with Dawkns or Myers means that the person who does so is a sycophant. I agree with more or less 99% of what they say myself.
It’s just a general impression that a lot of people want to fawn at their feet. Everyone is talking everything I say so bloody personally today.
I may just have to blog about Bush and achieve some real good….
I think you have taken the comments a little too personally. I would suggest however, that if lots of different people are regularly accusing you of being sycophantic (which is the only conclusion I can draw from what you have said, I am sorry if I am wrong here), then you may want to look at how you are putting yourself across to others.
I doubt any one who has read this blog would say either Heather or myself are “Anti-” Dawkins (or PZ Myers), but there is a definite problem of ascribing greater authority to them than they deserve. Both are respected scientists and I for one would never doubt their authority in the field of biology – however, we need to always be wary of falling for the false authority fallacy. Expertise in one field does not mean de facto brilliance in all others.
This is one of the fundamental flaws of the theist and it does sadden me that many, otherwise “right-thinking,” atheists have a tendency to head down this path.
I am not sure what “Half Baloney” means, especially as nothing you say really falsifies the initial premise. Defining religion as a particular kind of belief is a given, and still encompassed in what Heather wrote. You are arguing against religion by attacking a post which never attempted to defend religion.
I was going to disagree with Heather, but with more thought I think she got it right.
I thought this was wrong, but I was confusing morality with ethics. Ethical thinking is centred around the question “How should I behave?” and that’s the primary issue with religion. You have relationships with the in-group and the out-group and it all gets a bit odd when you decide the weather is conscious and part of your in-group.
I’m far quicker to agree with this. Even if the Christian God did exist that wouldn’t make any of the religions palatable. The problem isn’t the existence of a God, it’s the process of justification. Organised religion builds the social structures which place personal revelation and authority above verifiable evidence. The existence, or lack of it, of gods is a trivial issue as far as my atheism is concerned. It’s someone laying down the law based on their unquestionable personal bigotry and the social systems which enforce this ruling which is the problem.
Someone with a personal hotline to a god with no social support is merely a lunatic (as defined by the rest of society).