How to Deal With New Atheists, or What's the Difference Between Richard Dawkins and Ayn Rand? The Accent

Last year I visited my parents for Christmas, and while I was there, my Italian mother (gifted with the Italian ability to guilt just about anyone into doing just about anything) talked me into going to church with her and my father. I hadn’t been in a church of any sort in more than a decade, and I’d never been in the sort of church they attend, a small, non-denominational church attended mostly by ex-Presbyterians, so I wasn’t sure quite what to expect. And nothing in my Catholic background could have prepared me for what I witnessed that Sunday morning: the service was basically a conversation, with the pastor talking to us like we were children (even speaking in that voice that most adults reserve for toddlers when explaining something difficult about the adult world); during musical interludes, the musicians (both of them) gave us mini-sermons on the meanings of the songs they were about to sing, using language that, to me at least, was only slightly distinguishable from Jabberwockian nonsense; and either before or after the service, almost ever person in attendance came up to me and offered to pray either for or with me.

What struck me the most about the experience, though, was not the service itself, but the “class” that took place before the service. This “class,” attended by most of the adults in the congregation, was supposed to be a sort of Bible study, headed by the pastor, but since it was the end of the year, the pastor spent most of the class issuing a challenge for the new year, and then opening the floor for discussion of the challenge. The challenge he gave them was to bring one person into the fold in the year to come. It wasn’t clear to me whether he meant one non-Christian or one non-believer, but it quickly became clear how the members of the congregation interpreted the challenge. Those who spoke up during the discussion all said they knew exactly who they were going to target, and not one of them mentioned a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or otherwise non-Christian but religious acquaintance. They all spoke of atheists. So the discussion was almost entirely about how to speak to atheists about Christ.

During this discussion it became obvious that these people had little or no experience talking to atheists, about religion or anything else. A few days later, I mentioned this to my mother, and she suggested that I write an email to the pastor giving him ideas about how to speak to non-believers. For some reason, I took this quite seriously, and started thinking about what to include in the email. I knew up front that there is no one way to talk to atheists, because there is no one sort of atheist, so I decided focused my efforts on explaining how to talk to the most visible sort of atheist, the sort that most Christians now seem to associate with atheism in general, the “New Atheists.” The only problem was, in trying to explain how to talk to this sort of atheist, I came to the realization that I myself have no idea how to talk to them.

I had tried talking to new atheists in the past. My first instinct, as is often the case, was to try to talk to them philosophically. That is, I would want to talk about epistemology and metaphysics, pointing out that the “vulgar positivism,” as someone recently referred to it, that they espouse was deeply problematic philosophically, and that while they frequently claim to believe in nothing that is not verifiable by science, in doing so they were committing themselves to epistemological and metaphysical positions that are, by their very nature, not verifiable by science. What’s more, without at least some of those assumptions, nothing at all would be verifiable by science. In other words, the science upon which they are grounding all belief was itself grounded on metaphysical and epistemological assumptions that they were, if not simply ignorant of, then at least eliding entirely.

The philosophical approach, however, had been worse than fruitless. In fact, I had usually been met with ridicule, with the new atheists telling me that I was trying to sell them quasi-religious nonsense. When I was engaged, it was usually with platitudes and silly clichés about how there is no evidence for theism, therefore atheism is one of if not the most proven positions in the history of science, nay, in the history of the world! How does one answer that claim? Other than shaking one’s head in disbelief, I have no idea. So instead I abandoned philosophical approaches, and I tried to discuss with them the psychology of religious (or at least theistic) belief, the social and cultural aspects of religion, the history of religion, the primacy of morality over metaphysics in religion, etc., but again, to no avail. Intellectual arguments were obviously pointless. The atheists of my youth, who were intellectually curious and open-minded to a fault, were nowhere to be found among these new atheists.

It was clear that I needed a different approach, then, so next I tried practical arguments. I pointed out that new atheism, with its focus on attacking religion and its strong association between science and atheism, was doing a disservice both to atheism and to science. New atheists were playing right into the hands of the American Religious Right by confirming widely held stereotypes of atheists and deeply felt mistrust of them among many evangelicals and fundamentalists (see e.g. this video). If atheists are seen as arrogant, elitist, and out to get Christians and Christianity, as many Christians believe they are, then having someone like Dawkins, who is nothing if not arrogant and elitist, and whose rhetoric can easily be interpreted as showing that he and those who follow him really are out to get Christianity and Christians (whether they are or not), can only aid those leaders on the Religious Right who seek to exploit fear of atheism and secularism to further their agenda of intolerance and anti-science. Myers, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens are little better, and in some cases, even worse. What’s more, by turning science into a religious issue, they are providing fuel for the creationists in their Intelligent Design disguise. How can those fighting against attempts to put creationism in the science classroom argue that it should be excluded on religious ground when Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, and their many, many followers are arguing that evolution leads directly to atheism (without passing Go or collecting $200)? How can we hope to educate those who have been duped by creationist “intellectuals” and public figures, if we begin by attacking their most cherished beliefs? We can’t, and we won’t, and it’s not a coincidence that the Intelligent Design movement has gained momentum, and followers, as new atheists have become more and more the public face of atheism.

Again I was met with nothing but ridicule. I was labeled a “Neville Chamberlain” atheist, an appeaser on par with the appeasers of Hitler, and told that I was more concerned about the feelings of the religious majority than I was about the Truth. During one encounter with a Dawkins/Myers acolyte (at Netroots Nation '08), I was told, after stating my position that Dawkins and Myers were harmful to atheists, that my appeasing of the religious made him sick, and that he couldn't even look at me, much less discuss the issue any further. And at that point I was out of ideas. If neither intellectual nor practical arguments cant even spark discussion with, much less reflection in, new atheists, then my arsenal is bare.

Then a thought struck me: where had I seen something like this before? Where had I seen a complete lack of intellectual curiosity coupled with a blind certainty and hostility to even the slightest dissent? Among the Randians, of course! For a Randian, there is only one correct conclusion, only one correct world-view, and any other possible viewpoint is to be ridiculed or ignored. Dissent, even among those who hold similar viewpoints (not simply other libertarians, but even Randians who dare to question one or more aspect of the Objectivist orthodoxy), cannot be tolerated. And there are deeper similarities between the Randians and the new atheists. They also share a seemingly willful philosophical naiveté, a distrust of anything even remotely speculative, a blind commitment to Reason (as embodied in the scientific method, for the new atheists) and objectivism broadly construed (in both cases, in the form of a strange rationalist-empiricist admixture), and a complete disinterest in history, either intellectual or cultural, except to the extent that it confirms their prejudices (e.g. there have been religious wars, therefore religion kills people). And I should have seen these similarities before, too, because there are more than a few fans of Rand among the new atheists.

Once I saw this obvious analogy between the New Atheists and Randians, I knew exactly how to deal with the New Atheists: ignore them. You can’t talk to a Randian. Talking to a Randian is like talking to a brick wall, only brick walls can produce an echo so that you at least know that it received the sound of your voice. When talking to a Randian, even that is too much to ask. And you certainly can’t convince him (they’re almost all male) that anything he believes is wrong, so the best way to deal with him is to simply ignore what him. This, then, is the best way to deal with the new atheists as well: ignore them. Granted, individually ignoring them doesn’t solve the problem of them being in the public eye. That is a different sort of problem. As long as their message is one designed to be maximally controversial, they will get media attention, their books will sell, they will attract followers among the Randian-type social and cultural malcontents, and they will be seen as the spokespeople for atheism, regardless of whether they are being engaged directly. This means that we, those atheists who find their message as appalling as those of the most intolerant religious zealots, shouldn’t stop publicly engaging their message -- it’s up to us to counteract its influence, and to clean up its mess -- but we should engage the ideas, not the people, because engaging the purveyors of the ideas is pointless, utterly so. They will simply shout us down with insults and frame us as traitors to our own cause. Pithy insults and fiery rhetoric will always beat out careful reasoning and thoughtful discussion in a world of sound-bites and short attention spans. So we should create an atmosphere in which the new atheists are essentially talking to themselves, either in the form of other new atheists, or in the form of the fundamentalists on the other side of the religious spectrum.

And this goes for those among the religious whose reaction to the new atheists is not simply a knee-jerk “Ooh, atheists are evil!” as well. They should feel, for the sake of dialogue between the religious and the a-religious, and for the sake of the promotion of science and science education, that the new atheists’ message must be engaged. But they shouldn’t feel the least bit compelled to engage it by engaging new atheists themselves, because doing so is as pointless for them as it is for us.

So when I finally wrote that letter to my parents’ pastor, it was short and sweet. I told him that he must recognize that “atheist” is not a homogenous category, and that there is therefore no one way to talk to us about religion or any other topic. I told him that he and his congregation should treat us like adult human beings, respecting us by engaging us in dialogue, rather than preaching or lecturing us about the wonders of Christ. Who knows, in actually discussing religion with us, they might learn something, and their minds might be changed too. But, I warned, if you or one of your parishioners should come across an atheist who answers anything you say with ridicule, the best thing you can do is move on to the next one, because with this sort of person, no meaningful dialogue is possible, no learning will take place on either side, and everyone’s time will be wasted.

Did You Mean Intolerant Atheists?

Someone arrived at this blog earlier from Google, using the search terms "tolerant atheists." So I figured I'd try the search myself, and when I did, something both funny and sad happened. Here's a screen shot:


Don't believe me? Try the search yourself. Clearly atheists have a public perception problem, or at least a Google perception problem.

Tolerant and Activist Atheists

The labels used to describe the positions in the abortion debate aren't really helpful. There's "pro-life," a position dominated by people who are in favor of the death penalty (except the Catholic pro-lifers, of course), and "pro-choice," which basically says, "people who like not being forced to do things they don't want to do." In other words, the labels are either inaccurate or overly broad; they're not exactly overflowing with information about those to whom they're applied.

And as far as I can tell, this is pretty much how labels work in our society. At first, there may be some value to framing a debate in a certain way by force-feeding your audience the labels you've chosen. Thus, for a very short time, "pro-life" might have implied that your opponents were "anti-life," and "pro-choice" might have implied that your opponents like slavery or something, but these days, unless you're a true believer already, it's unlikely the labels have such connotations for you. You just use them the same way you use the word "tiger" to refer to those big, striped cats in the zoo: you don't really pay attention to the origins of the label or its potential meanings, you just point at the thing and say, "tiger."

Which makes PZ Myers' obvious chagrin at the use of the term "tolerant atheist" somewhat amusing. The "tolerant atheist" label comes from this post by some Australian dude who has the temerity, nay, the gall! to give a positive label to an atheist temperament with which Dr. Myers disagrees. In essence, the Australian dude argues that atheists should promote more tolerant religion. This view he labels "tolerant atheism." Like a true adult, PZ goes all I'm-rubber-your-glue on dude's ass, and calls the Australian dude's atheism "do-nothing atheism." Because, you see, if that kind of atheism is "tolerant atheism," then any other form of atheism must be "intolerant atheism," just like anyone who's not "pro-life" is "anti-life," and any cat that's not a "tiger" is "anti-tiger" (oh, it just got all Hegelian up in this hizzy!). No one who knows Myers deep in his soul has ever accused him of being intolerant, so why is Australian dude so mean to damn him by implication? But wait, he may not be intolerant, but PZ does do stuff (or say stuff, at least). So PZ gives us a "snap, snap, oh no he didn't!" then lectures us on the active and the passive (channeling his inner Nietzsche), and replaces "tolerant" with "do-nothing," and "intolerant" with "activist." In your face Australian dude! That's how we do serious intellectual discussions in the United States of Friggin' America!

It is, of course, irrelevant at this point that the Australian dude was arguing for a position that involved doing something, namely promoting tolerant religion (it's doubly irrelevant that the Australian guy never called any other atheists intolerant). This is, in fact, asking atheists to do quite a lot, because intolerant religion seems to be gaining a bigger and bigger foothold in many parts of the world, including the U.S. (I don't know about Australia). But like I said, that's irrelevant, because the labels aren't really going to mean anything to anybody but the choir, should they stick. They won't stick, because they're stupid, but if they did, no one would think that PZ was an "intolerant atheist" because he wasn't a "tolerant atheist," and no one would think that Australian dude was a "do-nothing atheist" because he wasn't an "activist atheist." That's just not the way these things work.

By the way, more accurate labels for the two might be "adolescent atheists," which anyone who reads PZ's post will agree is an accurate description of his brand, and "tilting at windmills atheists," because that's pretty much what trying to have a conversation with adolescent atheists is like. But since labels end up being meaningless, better that they not start out as accurate anyway, right?

The Use and Abuse of Richard Dawkins

Brandon of the excellent blog Siris links to a post at the Intelligent Design blog Uncommon Descent, which presents the following argument (as laid out by Brandon):

(1) Atheistic naturalism is true. (assumption)
(2) One can’t infer an "ought" from an "is." (assumption)
(3) All that is is the natural world, and the natural world is all there is. (from 1)
(4) There is nothing in the natural world from which we can infer an "ought." (from 2 and 3)
(5) For any action, there is nothing from which one can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (from 4 and 3)
(6) For any action, it is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (assumption)
(7) For any action, it’s permissible to perform that action. (from 5 and 6)

Brandon and his commenters do a fine job of showing what's wrong with this argument, but I was intrigued by something else in the U.D. post (emphasis mine):

(1) That atheistic naturalism is true.

(2) One can’t infer an “ought” from an “is.” Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.

Richard Dawkins is a biologist. Anyone who's read his non-biological writings knows that he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a philosopher. So building an argument based on a philosophical position espoused by Dawkins, whatever the ultimate validity of that argument, seems like cheating, doesn't it? Why not begin with assumptions that atheists who've actually read Hume might (should? should seems ironic given the content of the argument) make?

To be fair to the U.D. poster, Barry Arrington (himself a lawyer, and not a philosopher), atheists seem to have propped Dawkins up as their spokesperson on all matters, be they biological, theological, sociological, psychological, or philosophical (the cultish Dawkins worshiping is somewhat disturbing, in fact), so I suppose they're getting what they deserve.