About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Atheists challenge the religious right

By Jane Lampman for The Christian Science Monitor

January 04, 2007

For some time, the religious right has decried "secular humanism," a philosophy that rejects the supernatural or spiritual as a basis for moral decision making. But now, non-believers are vigorously fighting back. Only a small percentage of Americans admit to being non-theists (between 2 and 9 percent, depending on the poll), but that equates to many millions. And religionists' role in debates over stem-cell research and evolution vs. intelligent design - as well as radical religion in world conflicts - have galvanized some atheists to mount a counteroffensive.

In bestselling books, on websites, and with a national lobbying effort, atheists and other non-theists are challenging the growing religious influence in government and public life. Some are attacking the foundations of religion itself. Two particularly provocative books, in fact, hit the top of Publishers Weekly's religion bestseller list in December. No. 1, "The God Delusion," by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, and No. 2, "Letter to a Christian Nation," by writer Sam Harris, are no-holds-barred, anti-religion polemics that call for the eradication of all manifestations of faith. "I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented," declares Dr. Dawkins, the famed Oxford professor who wrote "The Selfish Gene." These offerings are so intolerant of religion of any kind - liberal, moderate, or fundamentalist - that some scientists and secularists have critiqued their peers for oversimplification and for a secular fundamentalism. "They undermine their own case by writing in a language that suffers from many things they say are true of believers - intolerance, disrespect, extremism," says Alan Wolfe, a professor of religion at Boston College, who is a secularist and author of several books on American religious perspectives.

Yet the authors are anything but modest about their efforts to supplant faith with pure scientific rationality. While critics point out that religion is a genuine reflection of people's experience and will always exist, Mr. Harris suggests it could be equated with slavery, which once was widely acceptable, but eventually was looked upon with horror. He sees it as responsible for many of life's tragedies. Harris first hit the bestseller bull's-eye in 2004 with "The End of Faith," and he says the responses to that book, particularly those from Christians, spurred his latest epistle. A mere 96 pages, "Letter" may be dismissed by many for its condescending tone or overheated rhetoric. Yet its bold arguments offer a useful window into non-theist perspectives and could also startle some complacent religionists into a rethinking and refining of perceptions.

Many non-theists don't share this militant perspective, but have decided that keeping silent in religious America no longer makes sense. They are astonished that a majority of Americans question evolution and support teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. They are distressed over polls that show that at least half of Americans are unwilling to vote for an atheist despite the Constitution's requirement that there be no religious test for public office. And they contend that in recent years, Congress has passed bills and the president has issued executive orders that have privileged religion in inappropriate and unconstitutional ways. As a result, seven organizations of non-theists including atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and agnostics began the Secular Coalition for America (SCA), a lobby seeking to increase the visibility and respectability of non-theistic viewpoints in the United States.

"In some parts of the country, children are ostracized if someone finds out their families are atheists," says Lori Lipman Brown, SCA director. "We need to educate the public that people who don't have a god belief can be good neighbors and friends and moral and ethical people." They also intend to stand up vigorously for their rights. "Some people want to go back to a time when religion was imposed, such as official prayer in public schools," she adds. "For someone to say they can't practice their religion appropriately if all schoolchildren are not required to recite a public prayer is very disturbing." The SCA intends to lobby the new Congress to override a presidential veto on stem-cell research and to repeal land-use legislation and other laws seen as "privileging one religion over other religions or over those who don't follow religion."

Still, the group makes clear on its website that while it promotes reason and science as the bases for policymaking, it also supports religious tolerance. "I have absolutely no problem with anyone believing differently than I believe, as long as they don't impose their religion on me or my government," says Ms. Brown, a former Nevada state senator. To spotlight the prejudice against atheists holding public office - and to encourage atheists to "come out of the closet," SCA is sponsoring a contest to identify the highest US official who acknowledges being a non-believer. They expect to announce contest results in February. Internet-based groups are also seeking to spread the atheist message, particularly among young adults. The Rational Response Squad (RRS) has chosen a provocative mode using the popular website YouTube. Their "blasphemy challenge" calls on young non-believers to create videos in which they renounce belief in the "sky God of Christianity" and upload it on the site; in return they'll receive a free documentary DVD, "The God Who Wasn't There," which includes interviews with Dawkins, Harris, and others. RRS is publicizing its campaign on 25 popular teen websites.

"We wanted to strike up more of a conversation about religion, and this was a way for people to show their non-belief and encourage others to come out," says Brian Sapient, RRS cofounder. Mr. Sapient says he was raised Catholic and then a born-again Christian, but later learned that many things he was taught were fictional. RRS now has some 20,000 people on message boards, with about 5,000 actively engaged in debunking religious claims, passing out fliers, and placing DVDs in churches. As for the blasphemy challenge, "there's about 490 response videos so far, and 85,000 views on our trailer video," he says. Sapient acknowledges this approach may not persuade religious youths. "There are people with a more palatable approach to talking about religion," he says, "but I wonder if those people would be as effective if it weren't for us or Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins shaking up the group a bit." He also insists that you don't really respect people unless you speak up when you think their beliefs are wrong. It's OK with him, he adds, if religious people try to convince him they are right.

Harris and Dawkins make it clear that they think faith has gotten off too easy for too long. Their books have spurred widespread commentary, much of it a strong critique of their arguments and lack of religious knowledge. But in a culture immersed in combativeness in politics and the media, the intemperate books are selling well. Yet one critic, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, calls for a truce: "We've suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance."

[It would appear that there’s an atheist backlash – long overdue I feel.]

7 comments:

dbackdad said...

Silence is too often mistaken for acquiescence. I'm all for people like Dawkins and Harris giving 'em hell.

If people of faith are secure in their beliefs, an open forum should not threaten them. We've suffered long enough getting only one side of the story.

CyberKitten said...

Uberchap said: Athiest backlash ? Long overdue ? Off you go then !

Thanks. I have and will continue to do so. Not that I feel the need to hide my atheism ‘under a bushel’ or anything, neither here on my Blog or out there in the Real World – unlike some of my American Blog buddies.

uberchap said: But don't expect the smug, chippy and increasingly desperate whining of someone like Dawkins to carry much weight amongst those who have a faith.

Oh, I don’t expect people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett or any other atheist to have much (if any impact) on those who have anything approaching a faith position. I’m sure that I, for example, could provide many arguments against the existence of God and it wouldn’t change your system of belief in the least. Likewise I’m sure you could provide me with arguments for the existence of God that would fail to move my position at all. What I do think will happen is that people who have little faith may decide that their position is untenable and that fellow atheists will be emboldened to come ‘out of the closet’.

uberchap said: His desire to stamp out faith as stated in the article display the kind of intolerance he claims only exists amongst the basest of religious fundamentalists.

Dawkins is a bit strident isn’t he? He can even make me cringe sometimes and I’m a fan of his. I think that his approach stems from his frustration that theists just don’t ‘get it’. After several exchanges with various theists on some of the Blog sites I visit I can understand his frustration. I do actually think that if he toned down things just a little he’d improve the chances of getting his message across though. I’m planning to read his new book ‘The God Delusion’ over the summer. I’ll post my review of it then.

uberchap said: I am very happy for Dawkins to believe what he does, no matter how much of a joke he makes of himself in the process, but why can't he just belt up and leave people of faith alone. Live and let live.

If *only* theists would ‘live and let live’….! Personally I don’t care what beliefs people hold in their own heads. What I do care about is when Christians (and strangely ONLY Christians) knock at my door and try and persuade me to think and believe like they do. What I care about is being lectured to about how I am ‘rebelling’ against God and putting my immortal soul at risk because of it. What I care about is theists in general attempting to influence public policy decisions to reflect their particular prejudices. If theists had an ideology even approximating ‘live and let live’ the world would be a better and a safer place to live.

Oh... Welcome back BTW. I thought for a while that you'd given up on this Blogging lark.

dbackdad said: Silence is too often mistaken for acquiescence. I'm all for people like Dawkins and Harris giving 'em hell.

That’s very true. Staying silent about issues just reinforces the theist belief that everyone else agrees with them. I think that’s why the latest batch of books questioning the existence God has come as a bit of a shock to some people.

dbackdad said: If people of faith are secure in their beliefs, an open forum should not threaten them. We've suffered long enough getting only one side of the story.

Indeed. As I said to Uberchap, a confident theist will not be affected at all by the works of Dawkins, Harris and Dennett. Only those with a tenuous understanding of their own faith position will be frightened (and probably angered) by the arguments ranged against the belief in the existence of God.

Aginoth said...

ummmmm SCA? Secular Coalition for America....I don't think so

Someone should tell the Society for Creative Anachronism that another body has stolen their acronym that they have been using for decades and is known worldwide.

Ken Comer said...

I'm putting together a video (if I ever get it finished!) for YouTube asking the question, "Are there issues upon which all alotrists share a consensus position?" Of course there are.

I am trying to get people to explore the idea of putting together an information/action site on such issues. What I have in mind is that a few volunteers would act as "filters", keeping track of everything going on with their particular topic of interest and noting "action alerts" (on-line petitions, meetings, marches, phone campaigns, etc.) and major events, then blog these (and/or wiki them) for alotrists to see. Perhaps they could have a mailing-list per issue where people who track things could vote on what constitutes a "major issue" and what constitutes an action that would likely be an alotrist consensus position.

Don't know what an alotrist is? It's a neologism I stole from the Feedback column of New Scientist (my favorite magazine). It means "without worship", and I have declared with my omnipotent and omniscient authority that it is an affirmative "a person who consciously rejects religion", thereby becoming an umbrella term for all agnostics, atheists, free-thinkers, non-deists, etc.

I'll let you know when I put it on-line... Maybe I'll earn a mention in your blog!

By the way: as much as I admire Dawkins for his numerous writings on science and philosophy, I think he does us a disservice by not practicing what I feel an alotrist should preach: tolerance of any lifestyle outside of government sponsorship. I also think that the "Bright" movement is pretty arrogant. Yes, alotrists tend to be better educated and, well, ethical (don't jump on me for that--the statistics are beyond question--you can read about it yourself if you take twenty minutes). We generally have the right to be proud of ourselves and of our fellow travelers. It isn't the concept of alotrists joining together that bothers me so much as the conceit of the name. That's part of why I came up with my definition of alotrist and am trying to promote it.

CyberKitten said...

Hi Ken and welcome back.

Interesting idea you have there and an interesting word too.. "Alotrist".. it kinda has a ring to it doesn't it?

KC said: I'll let you know when I put it on-line... Maybe I'll earn a mention in your blog!

Maybe you will Ken, maybe you will [grin]. Good luck with the project!

Skywolf said...

I think it's great that at last there are people lashing back against certain forms of religion. The religious state of the world today has me very worried, and while I don't think 'fundamentalist' atheists like Dawkins necessarily do themselves any favours through their outspoken hatred of religion, I do believe it's high time those of us who aren't bound by a religion started making it clear that our views, opinions, and moral standing are just as (if not more) valid. I'm just glad religious factions in the UK don't have as frightening a hold on Governmental issues as they do in the US. Everything about that current situation is wrong. And what with the potential global power the United States has, it's high time that level of intolerance and religious fanaticism was nipped in the bud.

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want to believe, as long as it's not harming anyone. But, like so many others, I cannot abide other people's beliefs being forced down my throat along with the arrogant and insulting claim that my own beliefs have no merit.

CyberKitten said...

I agree with pretty much everything you say skywolf.