I managed to catch the program on Sunday night and while not earth shattering it was refreshing to see 4 rather normal Atheists presented on Australian National Television.
It’s a nice even handed presentation, hopefully people come away from it thinking, maybe changing their attitudes about atheists, maybe even gathering up the courage to make that last step toward admitting their unbelief.
The Atheists were Michael Shermer, Phillip Adams, Inga Clendinnen and John Gray. I certainly didn’t agree with everything they said, specifically Shermer’s criticism of Dawkins and Harris on their outspokenness. I tend to think that Dawkins and Harris vocal approach has resulted in a boon for both skepticism and atheism.
You need people drawing attention to idiocy, to cause people to sit up and think, and sometimes you need to be upfront. Now of course the nutbags and the woo worshipers “ain’t gonna change their minds” but those who are undecided or apathetic might – as Dawkins says, he intends to be consciousness raising.
What I think Shermer was getting at was avoiding a war that will get us nowhere, he sees no value in antogonism, that you don’t change minds by antagonising people. I don’t think Dawkins does set out to be antagonistic, he is however perceived that way by some Christians.
It is rumoured that the ABC got Dawkins to offer comment on the show which should be available in the next 24 hours. It will be interesting to hear his views
The comments section as you can expect is a mix of Atheists discussing the show and the religious nutbags quoting scripture and prophecy.
You can download the show here ( roughly 120mb).
Some questions for my readers
- What if any is your approach to theists on the subject of your atheism- in your face/ upfront or a soft /indirect?
- Does this approach vary from online to off?
Related posts:
- Atheists in the Mainstream Media This Sunday night will see Compass, the Australian National Broadcaster’s...
- "Neo-atheists" I have begun to hear this term thrown around...
- I Don’t believe in Atheists… Is the title of a book by Chris Hedges. ...
Loading ...
What if any is your approach to theists on the subject of your atheism- in your face/ upfront or a soft /indirect? Does this approach vary from online to off?
"On the subject of my atheism," I tend to be aloof in person, preferring to ask questions of others, revealing little. A lot of theists assume I'm in just one of the many branches of Christianity, and even ask me: "So, you're Catholic?" (or whatever they think my behavior most closely mimics). Sometimes I'll say, "My family is Methodist" or, "I was raised Methodist." True statements. I don't like lying. But I don't feel it's very important in a personal setting to reveal my atheism. It's just not commonplace enough to ensure my safety, and I do harbor fears of retaliation at work and elsewhere if I am so revealed.
Online, however, assuming I'm using one of my many alternate identities, I am free to say what I really think. The Internet has been a great boon to atheists. Our numbers can grow through anonymous contact with closet-dwellers, and we can better count our numbers. Unfortunately, this still doesn't translate well into extra-Internet life, where it's important and necessary to have proper representation. There are so many others like me who probably could make a difference, but who would almost certainly have to give up any semblance of protection by anonymity, and might have to sacrifice a paycheck. I don't feel as if I'm currently in a position to be able to do that realistically, and I know my family would suffer as a result. As much as I would like to be at the forefront of change and progress, I must relegate myself to do what I can, for now, with the protection that the Internet affords me.
I fully support, though, anyone who is willing and able to stand up for atheists and other rational thinkers, and my support is backed through donations, blog citations, and, when possible, my vote.
That is something that is quite different where I live ie the degree of safety to which I can b openly atheist, walk around town with Atheist literally plastered on my chest. I am open at my work – and have been at my other 2 previous jobs. I have even had an evolution vs creation debate in the office that ended amicably.
It is ironic that you live in the land of the free and have a bill of rights yet I can be more open in a country that has a religious head of state and no protection in the form of bill of citizens rights
Note that the download is apparently only available to Australians due to copyright issues.
It was as I feared. That is a shame because it was a nice documentary. I suppose some bright spark will find a way to get around that.:D
Somebody mentioned the words hot spot sheild B)
Dear Sean,
My position tends to be perceived by religious people as confrontational, whether or not I actually am. People think I'm deeply anti-religious, whereas in reality most of the time I wish religion was true, so long as it was a liberal vision of religion (like Christian or old-style Unitarian Universalism). It's something I really struggle with, how open to be. Next month, I'm going to be giving a presentation in a college course on "Alternative Fictions of Christ", which may lead to a future course next year ("Queer Eye for the Jesus Guy"). I'm not trying to tear down anyone's construct of Christ, neccessarily, but the mere suggestion that Jesus may have been sexual, might have possessed testicles, and might have occassionally been aroused, infuriates many people. I just don't know how to be agnosticatheist without offending people. It seems to be my lot in life (boo hoo, lol).
Queer eye for the Jesus guy sounds like a hoot.
In some places our mere existence is probably considered offensive. You can try being polite and calm but when you point out or point to the idiocy of someones belief I suppose it would get them riled up:D
I actually thought of a more sacreligious think than Queer Eye for the Jesus Guy, which is Transhuman Eye for the Jesus Guy. Can you imagine some novelist writing about the genetic manipulation of Jesus's cells, so that his spermcells were crossed with that of an animal (a goat, a sheep, or a pig would probably be the candidates). I shudder to think of the protests that would happen there. I'm thinking of bringing up the Transhuman Jesus in class, but I'm not sure if I want to die at 29.
Yes err on the side of caution there
I take Dawkins very seriously, but I tend to view Harris as a bit of a joke. And frankly, personally, I find Hitchens far more persuasive. Dawkins knows a lot about theology and biology, but not about the history of religious fundamentalism. Hitchens, by contrast, knows a lot about practically freaking everything, and I appreciate his gratitious desire to offend EVERYONE, not just people with religious views. I don't think I've ever seen a more honest public figure in my life.
Probably they'll crucify him.
Best wishes,
John
I tend to think that Dawkins and Harris vocal approach has resulted in a boon for both skepticism and atheism.
I happen to like Shermer a lot. I like Dawkins as well. What I think has been a boon is the very fact that many people are openly discussing non-belief in public forums now. Prior to just a decade ago, you didn't hear it much. But I have to say that it is Dawkins and Hitchens that are really moving the debate. They (and others like them) force the debate to happen, then the rest of us can come in at whatever level of vociferousness we choose – that which feels right and works best in our lives. I'm probably somewhere between Shermer and Dawkins. I think it's a good idea in all matters short of life and death, to keep an open dialogue going. Then again, if the person or people you are addressing are buffoons, treating them as such can have great results!
Well, I generally don't confront theists, because I don't confront people in general without good reason. So my approach is pretty live and let live. I just gnash my teeth and complain in private. Online IS different, but not so much because I want to be confrontational online, but because online people tend to preach at me in a way I don't encounter in real life, and because online one tends to make more declarative statements about one's beliefs. A blog is where you can write a post titled "What I believe", but you don't do that in conversation.
A confrontation with a intellectually dishonest preacher ( a leader of a Church in town) is what spurred me on, that really made me choose to examine and make a stand.
I letter write usually at easter and take this piss out of the easter messages – I think the editor of the local paper likes controversy:D
But yes overall I don't broach the subject unless someone is making stupid comments in conversation
Good blog topic provoking thought! I am always curious how people interact offline in the real world.
At work, I have an obvious need to tread lightly even though I would say 75% of my coworkers are atheist (US govt org well known for our "intellectual" prowess and advanced degrees lol). Sadly, my boss is a hardcore fundy with a Masters in Counseling from some Baptist College (one of his many degrees) so I pretty much just let him talk and I simply play stupid as if I have never given religion or atheism a thought in the world (pretty much the "apathetic card"). This is safe for me as he is solely responsible for my promotions, reviews, and future assignment. It works really well to keep the peace, but it does force me into being mindful of who I am which pisses me off. I don't hide my atheism though…just the degree of it. I often make a point to remind people I am "not Christian" as that usually defines my position in no uncertain terms.
Among family and friends, I don't tread lightly in the least. It offends some and encourages others, but I don't care. My best friend (and blogmate) is pretty deep in his faith so it obviously isn't a deal breaker for our relationship. On my blog I don't hide my views and it is open to all my friends.
It funny I knew a guy who was a fundamentalist who worked for USG in a supervisory position. He was an okay guy, the rest of his crew thought he was an idiot though
Had the whole set of those wacky fundamentalist apocalyptic books, home schooled their 5 kids, drove a car with Real men love Jesus on it.
At the time I was a buddhist of sorts and not really aware of the battle between creationism and science so there was no confrontation of any sort.
A degree in counseling from a Baptist college is no degree at all. It's probably some freaking degree mill, or alternatively a degree with an emphasis on biblical counseling. These schools drive me nuts. One of my smartest former students is going to a third-rate Baptist seminary, when he should be going to an elite school, or at least an elite seminary.
Ya, it's a hack degree. In fairness, he does have two real degrees (BA and MBA) from very prominent Universities which is how he got his job, but this Baptist one happens to be the one that is obviously cherished. It certainly looks weird in a building where everyone (except me, of course) has a PhD in crap I can't even comprehend!
Hopefully he wakes up to himself. Maybe he just wants to kick back and relax for awhile:S
I don't mind Dawkins in movies and the God delusion was okay but reading his scientific books requires lot of concentration perhaps this is because I don't come from a scientific background. Harris was good in "A letter …" but i don't think I finished "The End of Faith". Hitchens I admire for the same reasons as you, don't always agree with him but admire him nonetheless.
I am seeing the front of Time magazine with a picture of Hitchens crucified.
Good point, Dawkins and Hitchens swing the hammer and Shermer comes in as the affable atheist (oops sorry Agnostic atheist).
On keeping debate open I do try with cristians who can think, there are some for whom even an ad hominem attack is a waste of my resources
[...] The Atheists – A short review (seantheblogonaut.com) [...]
[...] The Atheists – A short review (seantheblogonaut.com) [...]
I don’t think Dawkins does set out to be antagonistic, he is however perceived that way by some Christians.
I think you're right on both counts. Dawkins speaks directly and clearly and does not apologize for his views. That is not necessarily antagonistic.
The fact that he will not pander to religious ideas and grant them immunity from examination is why religious people think he's aggressive and antagonistic. They don't like being having their privileged position – which they view as normative and "the way things should be" – challenged. They're not used to having to justify themselves in terms that actually make sense in other-than-religious or other-than-cowed-by-the-religious contexts.
Moreover, there are some subsets of Christians that need to feel persecuted and need scapegoats to blame for their troubles. Fewer people coming to your church? Blame it on those damned atheists enticing our kids away from God…..
I think that some Christians view Dawkins very presence an affront much the same way a black man walking into a white bar would have been met with indignation
Moreover, there are some subsets of Christians that need to feel persecuted and need scapegoats to blame for their troubles
not necessarily just christians either:D
Fuck – correction needed:
They don't like having their privileged position – which they view as normative and "the way things should be" – challenged….
the Chaplian said fuck
You said, " I tend to think that Dawkins and Harris vocal approach has resulted in a boon for both skepticism and atheism."
Sure, but at what cost? I'm a "quality over quantity" type of guy. My problem with Dawkins isn't so much his style, but the substance of his arguments. High-school oversights from Ph.D scholars raise valid concerns and I wish he would stick to writing on his area of expertise.
To years ago I wasn't hearing a peep about Creationism/Atheism so the the proponents of quality obviously weren't being vocal enough.
At least people are talking, hearing listening. I think the cost is negligible.
I've been reading quality critiques of Creationism for over two decades now. Perhaps the mainstream just wasn't searching diligently enough? I'm just discouraged that a significant subset of atheists have become apologists for Dawkins.
Can you give me an example of what you are talking about. I far degree of criticism of Dawkins I have run across has been criticism of what people have thought he has said, or they put forward strawman arguments – Alister McGrath has been guilty of this.
You should as though you might have come across some more indepth, valid criticism, would appreciate if you would share
reminds me a bit of a Hudson River School piece..the colors and reflection so soft and warm. Lovely.