Missionaries for Unbelief

[Stone Island]

From, "Atheism's Wrong Turn: Mindless argument found in godless books" by Damon Linker, The New Republic, Monday, December 10, 2007:

Atheism has been around for a very long time--presumably as long as belief that gods exist. Beginning with the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece, thinkers in this tradition looked to natural causes to explain phenomena that their fellow citizens interpreted as the work of divine agents. Socrates himself was portrayed as an atheist in Aristophanes's The Clouds--an accusation that likely contributed to his conviction for the capital crimes of impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens.
Socrates may have been the most celebrated martyr to atheism, but many other philosophers and scientists, before and since, have faced political persecution for their insistence on subjecting religious beliefs to skeptical scrutiny. Anaxagoras, Protagoras, Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes, Descartes, Spinoza, Rousseau, and Kant are just a few of the writers who faced hostility, some of it violent. Fear of such persecution led many atheists to express their views with a tentativeness quite unlike the bold declarations of today's unbelievers, who write and think in conditions of political freedom.


But the cautious intellectual style of these atheists did not derive entirely from a concern with self-preservation. It also flowed from the self-limiting character of their skepticism. It has always been possible to demolish this or that claim on behalf of piety--to undermine the veracity of evidence presented in favor of the gods. But, as we know from elementary logic, it is impossible to prove a negative: However thoroughly evidence in favor of divine beings is scrutinized and dismissed, an unbeliever can never be certain that divine beings do not exist.


The most thoughtful atheists--let's call them liberal atheists--have always understood that the impossibility of negative proof is a crack through which the gods, no matter how ruthlessly banished from the human world, forever threaten to return. These atheists--whose ranks include Socrates, Lucretius, Sextus Empiricus, Montaigne, Albert Camus, and Primo Levi--responded to their lack of certitude, to the invariably provisional character of the beliefs by which they oriented their lives, in a supremely philosophical way: with equanimity. Accordingly, they did not go out of their way to act as missionaries for unbelief.

Full article: Atheism's Wrong Turn (subscription required)

 

[Irony]

Let me hazard a guess at to the articles contents before I even read it. It makes the argument that Dawkins et al. are "atheist missionaries" for some reason that amounts to little more than that they criticize religion. It flatly lies about both their intentions and their beliefs. It seperates them from older atheist figures by implying that those figures were less openly critical of religion even though even the slightest bit of digging would blow that notion completely out of the water. The basic point of the article is that atheists should just shut-up and go back into their closet to avoid upsetting the religious extremists. Oh, and it refers to them as "new atheists".

...

Yep.

I missed one point. It actually does mention that there were some vocal atheists, although it does mention with half-hidden glee that some of them were beheaded.

 

[Stone Island]

Let me hazard a guess at to the articles contents before I even read it. It makes the argument that Dawkins et al. are "atheist missionaries" for some reason that amounts to little more than that they criticize religion. It flatly lies about both their intentions and their beliefs. It seperates them from older atheist figures by implying that those figures were less openly critical of religion even though even the slightest bit of digging would blow that notion completely out of the water. The basic point of the article is that atheists should just shut-up and go back into their closet to avoid upsetting the religious extremists. Oh, and it refers to them as "new atheists".

...

Yep.

I missed one point. It actually does mention that there were some vocal atheists, although it does mention with half-hidden glee that some of them were beheaded.

You missed the bit where Linker talks about a liberal preference for secular politics and an illiberal goal of a secular society.

...although I may settle the question of God to my personal satisfaction, it is highly unlikely that all of my fellow citizens will settle it in the same way--that differences in life experience, social class, intelligence, and the capacity for introspection will invariably prevent a free community from reaching unanimity about the fundamental mysteries of human existence, including God. Liberal atheists accept this situation; ideological atheists do not. That, in the end, is what separates the atheism of Socrates from the atheism of the French Revolution.

Linker wants a country that is beholden to "neither dogmatic faith nor dogmatic doubt".

 

[Irony]

You missed the bit where Linker talks about a liberal preference for secular politics and an illiberal goal of a secular society.

Nope, that was included in the "flat out lies about their intentions".

Linker wants a country that is beholden to "neither dogmatic faith nor dogmatic doubt".

As do the people he's ranting against. His mistake is in calling the criticism of religious dogma and the mentioning of the consequences of such dogma "dogmatic". It is not dogma to point out the elephant in the corner, no matter how uncomfortable it makes the people who were pretending it wasn't there.

 

[Stone Island]

Nope, that was included in the "flat out lies about their intentions".



As do the people he's ranting against. His mistake is in calling the criticism of religious dogma and the mentioning of the consequences of such dogma "dogmatic". It is not dogma to point out the elephant in the corner, no matter how uncomfortable it makes the people who were pretending it wasn't there.

Except Linker writes that their illiberality is unintentional. It's a little like Whitaker Chambers writing the Randians/Objectivists out of Conservatism. So, he's not lying.

Linker writes,

To be liberal in the classical sense is to accept intellectual variety--and the social complexity that goes with it--as the ineradicable condition of a free society.

The problem with these so-called New Atheists is that they dogmatically demand a world without religion, instead of demanding a world where they're free to be atheists.

 

[Stone Island]

It's as illiberal and dogmatic to assert that there is no place for religion or the religious is society as it was to assert that atheists were beyond the pale.

 

[Fnord]

It is not dogma to point out the elephant in the corner, no matter how uncomfortable it makes the people who were pretending it wasn't there.

It is, however, dogmatic to declare that any creature in the corner, no matter how small or otherwise insignificant, must be an elephant, no matter how much the people who already know that it's there may choose to ignore it.

 

[Irony]

Except Linker writes that their illiberality is unintentional. It's a little like Whitaker Chambers writing the Randians/Objectivists out of Conservatism. So, he's not lying.

Linker writes,


The problem with these so-called New Atheists is that they dogmatically demand a world without religion, instead of demanding a world where they're free to be atheists.

He quote mines them*, which is not the sort of thing that can be easily done unintentionally. Ergo, he's probably lying. And no, they don't demand a world without religion. They might wish for such a world (as everyone else wishes for a word that more or less conforms to their notions or right and wrong), but I've not known any of them to demand it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but don't quote mine.

It's as illiberal and dogmatic to assert that there is no place for religion or the religious is society as it was to assert that atheists were beyond the pale.

Asserting that being illiberal is wrong is somewhat illiberal, is it not? Anyway, religion obviously has a place in society, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Some might suggest that it does society no benefits, but again, it is not dogma to point out the elephant in the corner.

*"religious readers who open [The God Delusion] will be atheists when they put it down." being the one I noticed immediately. I'll look into the source of the other quotations later, but the existence of one lie makes me suspect the existence of others.

 

[Irony]

It is, however, dogmatic to declare that any creature in the corner, no matter how small or otherwise insignificant, must be an elephant, no matter how much the people who already know that it's there may choose to ignore it.

Of course it is. The non-elephantists are free to provide evidence that it is, in fact, merely a giant long-nosed mouse, or an elephant shaped shadow, or whatever. But until they do so, the elephant theory remains viable.

 

[Stone Island]

He quote mines them*, which is not the sort of thing that can be easily done unintentionally. Ergo, he's probably lying. And no, they don't demand a world without religion. They might wish for such a world (as everyone else wishes for a word that more or less conforms to their notions or right and wrong), but I've not known any of them to demand it. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but don't quote mine.

Asserting that being illiberal is wrong is somewhat illiberal, is it not? Anyway, religion obviously has a place in society, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Some might suggest that it does society no benefits, but again, it is not dogma to point out the elephant in the corner.

*"religious readers who open [The God Delusion] will be atheists when they put it down." being the one I noticed immediately. I'll look into the source of the other quotations later, but the existence of one lie makes me suspect the existence of others.

Keith Burgess-Jackson writes,

A lie, strictly speaking, is the utterance of a falsehood (or what the utterer believes to be false, even if in fact it’s not false) with the intent to deceive. Some progressives use the term “lie” in a broader sense, to mean something like “the utterance of a falsehood.” Obviously, saying something false isn’t the same as lying. For one thing, the utterer may not believe it’s false. There are, after all, innocent mistakes. For another thing, there may be no intent to deceive anyone.

I now think the word “lie” has come to mean something even broader. To progressives, a lie is an utterance with which they disagree, or an utterance by a person whom they consider an enemy and wish to discredit. How often have you heard the expression “Bush lied”? On how many of those occasions was a case made for this outrageous claim? Have progressives lost their decency? Is there any limit to what they will say or do to gain political power? Does the Golden Rule have any authority to them? For surely, they would not like to be called a liar without supporting evidence. What’s next: calling all homicides “murders”? Murder is a special type of homicide, just as lying is a special type of false utterance. Imagine calling all those who kill by accident or mistake, or while defending themselves from lethal force, or while carrying out a capital sentence, or while fighting a just war, “murderers.”


There may be some good that comes of this. If the accusation of lying is made often enough, without supporting evidence, those who make it will eventually lose their credibility among those whose minds are not made up. It’s a case of crying wolf. Let us hope that the loss of credibility, if and when it occurs, is limited to progressives, for they’re the ones who have inflated the concept beyond recognition. That they did so for selfish reasons—the pursuit of power—only makes it worse.

Asserting that being illiberal is wrong is somewhat illiberal, is it not?

Uh, no.

 

[Tanstaafl]

The problem with these so-called New Atheists is that they dogmatically demand a world without religion, instead of demanding a world where they're free to be atheists.

Not true. They demand no such thing. Loudly arguing that such a world would be a better one is not a demand.

 

[Irony]

Keith Burgess-Jackson writes,

Uh, no.

As I said, a quote mine is not something that can easily be done unintentionally. For him to have used that half-sentence he would have actually had to have read the passage itself and would know that he was misrepresenting Dawkins. Deliberate misrepresentation = lie.

I'm not sure exactly where he got the quote from because it's not cited and Dawkins has made that particular statement several times, but the meaning you would get from the full quote, whichever one it is, would be that The God Delusion was written for people questioning their religion and he hopes that the book will convince them to be atheists by the time they finish reading, which is a long way from the dogmatic attempt at forced conversion that Linker portrayed it as.

I suppose he could have gotten the half-quote from another source and is merely credulously repeating a lie, but even if that's the case it still calls the accuracy of his other evidence into question.

And I would say that, while it's up for debate if flatly saying illiberality is wrong is itself illiberal, misrepresenting a persons views to accuse them of it most certainly is.

 

[Stone Island]

As I said, a quote mine is not something that can easily be done unintentionally. For him to have used that half-sentence he would have actually had to have read the passage itself and would know that he was misrepresenting Dawkins. Deliberate misrepresentation = lie.

I'm not sure exactly where he got the quote from because it's not cited and Dawkins has made that particular statement several times, but the meaning you would get from the full quote, whichever one it is, would be that The God Delusion was written for people questioning their religion and he hopes that the book will convince them to be atheists by the time they finish reading, which is a long way from the dogmatic attempt at forced conversion that Linker portrayed it as.

I suppose he could have gotten the half-quote from another source and is merely credulously repeating a lie, but even if that's the case it still calls the accuracy of his other evidence into question.

And I would say that, while it's up for debate if flatly saying illiberality is wrong is itself illiberal, misrepresenting a persons views to accuse them of it most certainly is.

Must we be tolerant of intolerance?

I don't think he has misrepresented their views. I don't think he has lied. Perhaps you can persuade me differently.

 

[Irony]

Must we be tolerant of intolerance?

No. In fact it would be unwise to do so.

I don't think he has misrepresented their views. I don't think he has lied. Perhaps you can persuade me differently.

I already said how he misrepresented Dawkins. Have you read The God Delusion? Even just reading the preface would be enough to know his position is nowhere near what it has been represented as. I would suggest that you do your own digging on this. Anything I say is colored by my own prejudice. Read what these people have actually wrote and said (from their books and speeches, not from half-quotes), and judge based on that whether they have been misrepresented or not.

 

[Fnord]

The problem with these so-called New Atheists is that they dogmatically demand a world without religion, instead of demanding a world where they're free to be atheists.

Not true. They demand no such thing. Loudly arguing that such a world would be a better one is not a demand.

[OPINION]

I think Tanstaffl is defining "Neo-Atheists" as people who demand the abolition of all religion, instead of the "Classical" Atheists who only wish to be free from having religion imposed upon them.

Just as there are different degrees of Christianity -- from name-only to robo-dogmatic to rabid -- so too are there different degrees of Atheism.

[/OPINION]

 

[Foster Zygote]

However thoroughly evidence in favor of divine beings is scrutinized and dismissed, an unbeliever can never be certain that divine beings do not exist.

I'll remember this next time someone tells me that their god is the one true god.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not true. They demand no such thing. Loudly arguing that such a world would be a better one is not a demand.

Quite true. I think that the world would be a much better place without the Ku Klux Klan but I do not think that Klan membership should be outlawed.

 

[Steven Howard]

Linker wants a country that is beholden to "neither dogmatic faith nor dogmatic doubt".

What does he think dogmatic doubt means? Because from where I'm sitting, it sounds like an oxymoron.

 

[Stone Island]

No. In fact it would be unwise to do so.



I already said how he misrepresented Dawkins. Have you read The God Delusion? Even just reading the preface would be enough to know his position is nowhere near what it has been represented as. I would suggest that you do your own digging on this. Anything I say is colored by my own prejudice. Read what these people have actually wrote and said (from their books and speeches, not from half-quotes), and judge based on that whether they have been misrepresented or not.

If I say you're a liar without justification do I get a free pass because that statement is colored by my own prejudices?

 

[Irony]

If I say you're a liar without justification do I get a free pass because that statement is colored by my own prejudices?

No. Now if you said I was a liar based on evidence that I lied (like say...a quote mine) that would be different.


Edit: I would like to add that using an admission of prejudice (which isn't much of an admission as everyone is prejudiced) as a means to say my statements had no justification, while completely ignoring the justification I have provided, is rather troll-like behavior. I'll ignore that once, but not twice.