Atheism under attack
Posted: May 30, 2009 Filed under: Politics | Tags: Agnostic, Atheism, Charlotte Allen, Guardian, Religion, Richard Dawkins 4 Comments »I don’t know if Charlotte Allen is being deliberately patronising and dismissive in her Guardian column, but one thing’s for sure – she’s talking bollocks.
Atheists are attacked for feeling like they are getting a rough deal, as Allen scathed:
My problem with atheists is their tiresome – and way old – insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What – did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?
Some of our behinds weren’t being flogged by religious preachers, some may have been used for something else.
Allen seems to blatantly ignore the intolerance shown towards atheists around the globe. In America, it’s incredibly hard for an atheist to become an elected representative. Actually, you have to promote your religious foundations in order to even be considered as a serious candidate. Pete Stark ‘came out’, so to speak, as the first openly atheist American congressman, in 2007.
The home of an atheist activist in America was attacked after his daughter challenged whether God Bless America was an appropriate song to be sung at school. The Boy Scouts of America don’t allow atheists or gays as members. In Iran, atheism isn’t recognised as an option. You must adopt some form of religious belief in order to gain legal rights. Egypt limits expression with one man being prosecuted for a novel he wrote that brought prophets into question. There are many more examples of atheists, or those who question religious fantasy, being discriminated against.
Allen claims that atheists are limited in their arguments against faith:
Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris (The End of Faith) and Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as God Is for Suckers, God Is Imaginary and God Is Pretend), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse – again and again – the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.
Let the theologians, of whom there are a minuscule amount in comparison to everyday subservients of god(s), argue out deep-thinking, and rather futile, debates on interpretation and the like. For me, the promotion of atheism is about trying to encourage day-to-day believers into liberating themselves from the burden of guilt, hellfire and shame. It’s not about “whining” as Allen puts it, it’s about helping victims of the mental persecution religion seeks to use. This is why many atheists are dedicated to debunking the most popular of religious belief.
Homosexuality, fornication etc are all embraced by atheism. There is nothing to be ashamed of. These are elements of human behaviour and existence. We aren’t governed by religion-set laws of who we can and can’t accept in society. We’re all human beings – that’s what counts.
Allen claims that atheists are ignoring that some religious accept evoltion:
Another topic that atheists beat like the hammer on the anvil in the old Anacin commercials is Darwinism versus creationism. Maybe Darwin-o-mania stems from the fact that this year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin‘s birth in 1809, but haven’t atheists heard that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don’t have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God’s way of letting his living creation unfold? Furthermore, even if human nature as we know it is a matter of lucky adaptations, how exactly does that disprove the existence of God?
I disagree. Atheists do accept that some sections of our religious counterparts embrace evolution. What we point out is that it’s easy to take on science and declare it as the work of an almighty deity. It’s convenient for religious expedience. Why try to argue against evolution when it’s near on impossible? All they need to do is work god in somehow and then they can sell it to their flock. Easy peasy. But this still does not counteract that it is more of a leap of faith to believe in a creative deity than a series of random events, free from an all-knowing, all powerful catalyst called god. Scientific discovery after scientific discovery lead us further toward the truth and further away from irrational belief systems.
One former Christian highlights his reasons for leaving the church brilliantly. Read it here.
In her last paragraph of down-talking, Allen sneers:
What atheists don’t seem to realise is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?
Why don’t believers give atheists a level playing field for a change? We have to fight for a voice as we are so under-represented in decision making bodies all over the world. How about giving us a platform to debate on, where it counts – a legislative. Because this is where the religious infection is at its most poisonous. If you really believe that your belief systems can stand up against an atheistic onslaught – let it happen.
For now, we will be left in books, blogs and comment sections of newspapers, desperately seeking the representation we deserve.
[...] It is this freedom of speech that I execute when I respond to the newspaper articles which lie and misrepresent us. I don’t want the articles to be censored, but I want my right to a fair response. The execution of this right was most recently seen when a Op-Ed piece, penned by Charlotte Allen was published in the LA Times (and then republished yesterday in the Guardian) and spread around the blogosphere. I doubt very many atheists would have wanted Allen’s piece obliterated from the newspaper (shame on you if you did), but the sheer amount of responses it generated from both sides of the debate show the level of disagreement. If you want to read a thorough, well-written objection to Allen’s article, then head over to Shane Croucher’s blog. [...]
There may be examples of “intolerance shown towards atheists around the globe”, but the opposite is more often true in this country. I think Charlotte Allen may have a point.
The biggest misconception many atheists have is that the logical weaknesses of religion they are so keen to point out could not possibly have occured to the slow-witted believer. There CAN be a certain smugness associated with atheism – a sense of superiority by default. To be fair, that swings both ways. But it’s not the greatest danger.
Last year, The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, proposed ideas of how best to teach evolution to religious pupils, who may be reluctant to learn. He suggested that allowing pupils to discuss their beliefs in class was the best way to engage them, and to demonstrate why evolution is scientifically viable where creationism is not.
Maybe we disagree with his solutions, but Reiss believes in evolution and has repeatedly pointed out that creationism has no scientific merit. Nonetheless, atheists jumped at the chance to pretend Reiss was proposing the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, and feign suitable outrage.
Eventually the “teaching creationism” line was dropped and The Guardian accused Reiss of merely “lacking the intellectual integrity” to teach science (ie as a believer in God he should be sacked, regardless). Feeble argument maybe, but the damage was done and Reiss was forced to resign.
I wasn’t aware of the Rev Prof Michael Reiss situation. I think that’s awful that he was forced out. If what you’re saying is correct and he was advocating open discussion about the different theories then those forcing him out should be ashamed.
It sounded like a perfectly logical means of teaching evolution to those reluctanct to learn.
Hi Again SC,
I appreciate your response to the article.
One major factor atheists have against them is a lack of any cohesive group – something us religious folk have had a long time to organize across history and society.
But i think more organization is taking place and the prominent ‘spokespersons’ like Dawkins et al are doing a good job of fronting the ’cause’.
All the same atheists are not immune from criticism in the same way that any ideology or position is not immune. Allen is exercising her right of free speech just as you and I are. But that doesn’t mean we have to agree of course.
I certainy disagree with those atheists that use dehumanizing rhetoric and derogatory language – this only creates a circle of hate. Allen is merely joining the fray with this polemic rant.
The tendency to place views in ‘either or’ categories is a major stumbling block to constructive dialogue in any arena. You Shane do not fit into the ‘angry atheist’ category as far as I can see. I don’t consider myself a fire-breathing extremist – I attest that most people do not fall into that category – extremists just tend to be the loudest and excite the media.
Give your take on this POV please:
http://carthuryoung.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/neo-atheists-the-fundamentals/
Thanks! Look forward to more exchanges with you.