Social media such as Facebook and Twitter have made public many conversations that were once private. In the early days of the internet we went to forums to dialogue with people who think the same way to enjoy in-group discussions. Now these conversations are open, to be witnessed by everyone. Comments that we sometimes make privately, sometimes for fun, sometimes to reinforce our sense of belonging to a group, can be seen as rude and arrogant when read by non-group members.
One of my gripes is when Christians reinforce their status as group member by denigrating the lives of others. This usually appears in comments claiming that those without Jesus / God lead lives that are empty, meaningless, pathetic, pitiful, [insert other negative adjectives]. I used to get these comments from street evangelists in London who would suddenly approach me telling me my life was empty!
These statements often come from people who do not know their recipients. They are just generalised, rather arrogant comments that suggest only they have the answers and truth about life.
Perhaps the comments are the result of observing people who have no focal point to their lives? But somehow I doubt it. In my experience, those who have labelled themselves atheists, agnostics, non-theists, etc., do so because they have thought through the issues and have arrived at a world view and way of living that is meaningful. I suspect these Christians have never seriously dialogued with non-believers to understand their viewpoint.
Conversely, we also see non-believers making insulting, generalised comments about religious believers based on observations and assumptions of the most ignorant expressions of religious belief.
One of the most common comments is that Christians are stupid because they resort to faith and dogma as opposed to reason. There are certainly people in all walks of life who simply accept what they are told without questioning or thinking but that is not my experience of the Christians I know. Many Catholics do not blindly follow the Pope’s teaching on issues such as birth control and homosexuality – they have thought about it and arrived at their own conclusions. For others, faith does not interfere with reason or the rational decisions they take in their lives. There is a temptation to tar all Christians with the same brush that we use to critique fundamentalism. Many Christians do grapple with the contradictions and difficulties of belief and real life. They do not just accept uncritically what the bible or church leaders say.
The stereotyping of Christians often comes from too many encounters with biblical literalists and fundamentalists – easy targets to spoof. I read writings by theologians and progressive Christians. I’ve stopped reading most atheist materials and following these types of people on twitter because, after the initial euphoria of feeling good about yourself, there’s no one where to take this.
We all like to amuse ourselves which can involve secretly poking fun at the beliefs of others. I also hold my hand up as guilty. It’s just we shouldn’t forget the medium we are using and that others will be listening in and gathering impressions about who we are. Social media is useful for that sudden encouter with views we may never have considered before. We just have to fight our urges, holdback and take the time to understand.
As human beings, we stereotype; i think it is to assert our self-worth.
I find it much better to listen to people about what they think they are as opposed to what people say they are or i think about them.
If they are willing to listen, i say, what you think people should perceive you as, just because you doing certain things, is not always so. We need to listen more.
Great post and very perceptive.
Those who criticize vocal atheists generally make one or more of these basic arguments: 1) that atheists are unaware of more sophisticated and liberal theology (or that we don’t criticize it)… which leads to 2) that we paint all believers with the broad brush of fundamentalism, and therefore our effort is mainly patting ourselves on the back for knocking down strawmen… which means 3) most of our criticism is in the form of insults and internet trolling, rather than reasoned disagreement…. so 4) the main point is about tone, tone, tone, and we should be more respectful, which basically means silent. In the atheist community, this is summed up as “accomodationism,” and I’d like to, politely, point out the flaws in each point, in reverse order.
4) It seems to me that accomodationists have this all backwards when it comes to tone, at least in the public sphere. Largely the gist of your post was the (very true) fact that the internet — with it’s anonymity, distance, and ability to spread a message worldwide in seconds — has led to some rather impolitic statements. People are quick to make strong judgements, insult, use profanity, even threats online they wouldn’t do IRL. This is true but irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with atheism or christianity — trolls are trolls and will manifest in any and every forum. The only thing you can do is require registry, ban abusers, and accept that some rudeness is the price of free speech. I think you conflate that with criticism of religion, though. When someone puts an idea into the public sphere, they are implicitly accepting criticism from other people, many of whom may not be like minded. If someone wants to keep their ideas and beliefs safe from criticism, they need only keep them private. Feel free not to read atheist writings, but if people are going to post, they need to grow a thicker skin.
3) Trolls are everywhere, and I’ve seen plenty of rude atheists, but the vast majority, in my experience at least, are not throwing insults. We aren’t saying “you’re stupid”, we’re saying “you’re wrong.” The “thing” with New Atheism is that religion no longer gets a free pass from analysis. We’re saying “that’s a flawed argument,” or “that’s not logical,” or “there’s no evidence for that.” The fact that many believers *find* that insulting is of no consequence. Sorry, ideas should be able to stand on their own merit, and if they can’t defend their worldview with reason and evidence, it deserves criticism. Again, thicker skin — some people need to grow up a little, and realize they don’t get to define the rules of discourse.
2) This is already tl;dr, so I’ll keep this one brief. Accomodationists vaaastly underestimate the depth of the influence of fundamentalist religion, especially in the US. Look up statistics on belief in the US in biblical literalism, creationism, and listen to leading Republicans speak about their faith. Fundamentalism isn’t a straw man, at all. It is highly influential in US domestic and foreign policy, and does, in fact, need to be engaged.
So finally 1) What about the other side of the coin? The more sophisticated, liberal theologies? Process theology, creation theology (NOT creaionism), etc.? What about Deepak Chopra, The Secret, the Five People you Meet in Heaven? See, our problem with “liberal theology” isn’t that we don’t know it, or understand it, or mistakenly treat it the same as fundamentalism. The problem with this stuff is that it’s utterly vacuous. Without content. Meaningless. God gets redifined out of existence, or at least relevance, and you’re left with people using religious, new-agey, and pseudoscietific terms to describe, well, whatever they feel like. We have read these writings and heard these speakers, and they themselves may be smart (Chopra is an MD). But the paradigm is empty, wishy-washy, feel-good nonsense (at best; the psuedoscience often does lead to very real harm).
And all that is fine, people can believe what they want. But if they stick their ideas into the public sphere, or try to inject them into classrooms or courts, they’re gonna get criticized as well. C’est la vie.
James thanks very much for your contribution which has given me much food for thought. I like your distinction between trolls and serious commentators.
I do accept that strong arguments can be made and have no problem with the tone of Dawkins and the other ‘new atheists’. I hope I didn’t come across as suggesting that criticisms should not be made for fear of offending another? However, I would argue that the assumption can sometimes appear to be made that the religious are, ipso facto, not as clever as everyone else because they have faith. Unless I am reading the wrong people.
My understanding of accommodationism is it’s the belief that there is no conflict between religion and science. Do you have a different understanding of it?
As to progressive theology, I see it as trying to make sense of our lives, using stories from the past as metaphors. In my opinion, this is as ‘true’ as poetry or music. These ancient stories clearly have huge resonance for our species, although I’ve yet to understand why! I have not seen these theologians claim their views are the Truth but are merely embarking on a difficult journey for meaning. I appreciate the argument that these liberal views are the backdoor to fundamentalism but I’m not sure the link is so strong.
Religion is clearly not going away. We have to combat its worst expression and abuses of human rights. But I also ask myself, if we had a progressive Christianity in Ghana (as stated by people such as John Shelby Spong) how would things be?
Thanks for your response, Graham, I think you make some good points. I’m glad I was wrong about my impression of this as an anti-new-atheist post. I can say you might want to be more clear, because I daresay when people read this, Dawkins is exactly what they think. Setting that aside; it is a good point that atheists and skeptics need to refrain from calling people stupid — it is rude, and makes us look like jerks. But more importantly, it isn’t true! There are definitely strong correlations between higher education and secularism — and I think it’s clear they are causal — that doesn’t mean brilliant people can’t believe in God, creationism, or bigfoot. As Michael Shermer explained in his book Why People Believe Weird Things, intelligent people are able to construct vastly more complex arguments and excuses for ideas that may stll be untrue or irrational. Which is where the more persistant conspiracy theories come from, as well as liberal theology. )
If they’d just admit that they are just poets, not talking about a real supernatural being or dimension when asked, I’d have no beef with liberal theologians. Poetry, metaphor, mythology, art — these things make life worth living. In a world made up of Unitarians, things might be peachy. But I think — this is kind of a gut thing, so feel free to criticize — that a world of Unitarians would be unstable. Not like, violent, but it’d either go back to this mix we have now, or just a bunch more Atheism. People that want/need that hellfire and brimstone stuff won’t get what they need from a metaphor, and rationalists would largely perceive it as silly. If the latent fundamentalists were able to, they’d just bring back the Wrath — and if not, I think they’d sooner be secular, if not Atheist.
It’s a lot like… like some crazy wild crush, you’re so nuts about this girl/guy you get sick to your stomach; and then you get told that you’re “just friends.” Liberals may be ok with that; Fundamentalists really, truly, really believe in God, and some poetic, half-real metaphorical deism is as appealing to them as a friendly post-break-up hug.
-jy
(ps– also, if you aren’t talking about Dawkins et al, I’m curious what atheists you have been reading that were calling people stupid.
Thanks for your response James and I wasn’t really thinking about the new atheists when I wrote this but can see how it might play into current accusations about atheists being arrogant.
I think you’re right that some will always need a strict structure to feel comfortable. I’m not sure we can ever change this. As religion is not going away I’d rather encourage a liberal theology as a counter-balance. People like Spong have interesting things to say, in my opinion, which I can relate to. I live in a country where religion mostly has a fundamentalist expression and I wish for a more liberal approach as I think it would positively affect all areas of society.
The rude atheists were people I come across online who seem to make a life out of baiting and laughing at Christians (often fundamentalists). As we are all watching this drama the impression created is not good. I also fear that I may secretly enjoy it! Controlling my ego is hard enough battle so I don’t want to be around things that encourage that particular talking snake!
Once the arguments have been made against the existence of God and the ‘flaws’ in the bible there’s not much else to say. I stopped reading most atheist material for that reason. That’s why books such as the Moral Landscape and The Grand Design attract my interest.