Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, December 17, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Atheist Chic

by Dan Neil

Thanks to David Guenther for alerting us to this article

Reposted from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-neil51dec17,1,7888798.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

For atheists, Christmas is the most wonderful time of the year. Holy Rudolph, the star of Wal-Mart, the iPod in the manger—yes! Never are the divine mysteries of Advent more mysterious than when they come in a large bag carried by a fat man who is, let's face it, an elf-slaver.

This is an especially exciting time to be a heathen. In the space of two short years and one rather drawn-out midterm election, conservative Christian hegemony has been rolled back, Intelligent Design has been slapped down in court (the Dover case), and the evangelical movement itself is wobbling, unseated by its overreach on issues such as stem cell research, vaccines that prevent cervical cancer, abstinence-based education, the War on Christmas, tombstone-like monuments to the Ten Commandments in courthouses . . . oh, right, only 800 words. Even some of the faithful have grown restive with God's apparent fixation on below-the-belt morality. Late last month, the president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America, the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, resigned after the group resisted his efforts to broaden the group's agenda to include issues such as poverty and global warming.

As for the Rev. Ted Haggard, let's not go there. It's Christmas.

And I wonder why I'm covered in boils.

The revenge of the godless nerds is well underway at your local Barnes & Noble. I'm in the middle of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins' latest work, with the poke-in-the-eye title "The God Delusion." As proof that there is, if not life, then literary receipts after death, Carl Sagan has a new book out, "The Varieties of Scientific Experience," a collection of his 1985 Gifford Lectures that returns to the whetstone he used in "The Demon-Haunted World." Meanwhile, a half-dozen learned ripostes to Creationism occupy the science shelves, a la Leonard Susskind's recent "The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design."

True story: I was in the aisles of the bookstore looking over Dawkins' book when a man came up to me and recommended the Susskind book, and between us passed a look of fellow travelers. He's an atheist too! Had we been early Christians we would have drawn the sign of the fish on the ground with our sandals.

What Wired magazine last month called the "new atheism"—I prefer to think of it as "atheist chic"—has a tripartite thrust: First, what might be thought of as the argument by cosmology of Sagan and Susskind. Second, the argument of evolutionary psychology—faith is a naturally selected faculty and neurophysiological phenomenon arising because it was, in pre-modern societies, advantageous; this hard-wired argument is advanced in Daniel C. Dennett's recent book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." Third, rationalist and textual refutations of the old cases familiar to anybody who took philosophy in college, such as Thomas Aquinas' dusty proofs. These refutations have taken on special urgency because, according to neuroscientist Sam Harris in his new book "Letter to a Christian Nation," religious fundamentalists tend to be crazy and dangerous and a lot of them would be very happy to blow up the world. I'm paraphrasing, but accurately.

Despite the recent gains among free thinkers, atheism is still hugely unpopular. There are no atheists in foxholes or in Congress, even though a Muslim managed to get elected as a congressman and a Socialist as a senator. There are few publicly confessed atheists—the illusionists/debunkers Penn and Teller come to mind. Comedian Bill Maher, though not strictly an atheist, is, let's say, without benefit of clergy. The cadre of the damned —Sagan, Susskind, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, et al.—won't sell a fraction of the books culture warrior Bill O'Reilly will sell this Christmas, which kind of makes sense. Merry Christmas! Your God is a fraud!

I am a white Anglo-Saxon male born in late-20th century America—in other words, one of the most privileged beings to walk the earth. And yet insofar as my godlessness is concerned, I am a member of a despised minority. It's like being gay.

I do appreciate the company, and the ammunition in these books, and the occasional exchanged glance of solidarity in the bookstore. But I'm just slightly alarmed. The new atheism is pretty hard-core, militantly insisting we challenge religiosity wherever we meet it, or else enable its darker extremist tendencies. In other words, the new atheism is on a quest for conversion. Having insisted on tolerance of our non-faith, Dawkins and Harris' take-no-prisoners orthodoxy would have us be intolerant of others' faith. Oh boy, just when I was beginning to enjoy being an atheist.

I can't bring myself to confront others on the truth-data of their religious beliefs, even if they do involve some strange convoluted myth of Old Testament prophesy and Hellenistic blood cults. I was brought up better than that. Believe what you like, insofar as it does not interfere with my lack of belief. Believe in Thor's mighty hammer, for all I care. Tell me Merry Christmas when I'm coming out of Wal-Mart. And happy holidays right back at ya.

Comments 1 - 22 of 22 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #13454 by jefferson on December 17, 2006 at 8:32 pm

"Dawkins and Harris' take-no-prisoners orthodoxy would have us be intolerant of others' faith."

I don't see what's wrong with criticizing peoples' belief.
You would never hear someone calling a Democrat "intolerant" if one were criticizing a Republican.
Nor should an atheist be called "intolerant" while criticizing a religious person.
I would love it if we shattered this taboo.

Other Comments by jefferson

2. Comment #13456 by Yorker on December 17, 2006 at 9:02 pm

 avatarThis is off-topic, I haven't read the article yet but this thought just crossed my mind -- I had to get it down.

(Apologies to Professor Dawkins)

It's the year 2015, a patient is attending his local UnGodding Clinic:

Doctor:
"Well my good man, what seems to be the problem?"

Patient:
"Well doc, for months I've been on these Konner/Woodward pills you recommended but this God-virus just won't go away"

Doctor:
"Hmm…I recommend that medication for mild infections, perhaps you need something stronger. Tell you what: here's a new prescription for Krauss/Weinberg tablets, take one of these each day, but you must come and see me after 10 days, they sometimes have a weird but harmless side-effect."

10 days later…

Doctor:
"Well, how do you feel after 10 days of Krauss/Weinberg medication? "

Patient:
"Well, overall I notice a big improvement: I no longer fall down on my knees every night, I don't feel guilty about non-procreational sex anymore, I even visited the RDF website, but I still have that organ music in my head, I can't resist dressing up on Sundays, and you're right about the side effect."

Doctor:
"Tell me."

Patient:
"I find myself extraordinarily interested in vector calculus and one of my old aunts has taken a strong dislike of me for no apparent reason!"

Doctor:
"Ah yes, I feared that, it's a common problem. Well, I think we must use our strongest medication; it's called the Dawkins/Harris treatment, it doesn't come in pill form, I must inject it, so slip down your pants and we'll have at it.

Patient: (reluctantly)
"Hold on doc…I'm not sure about this…"

Doctor: (reassuringly)
"Now, now, nothing to fear, it won't hurt a bit…" (stab)

Patient:
"Ouch, you said that wouldn't hurt!"

Doctor:
"Well, it was just a tiny prick, how do you feel now?"

Patient:
"Ah…yes, yes…I feel you may be correct my good doctor, indeed, I'm moved to say that you may well be the most effective doctor in all of UnGodding; a charming, witty and sensitive man; full of knowledge and understanding; an intelligent, non-belligerent, atheistic, mellifluous, philanthropic, meticulous, perspicacious, valiant and veracious humanist"

Doctor:
"Aha, excellent, I think we can safely say you're cured!"

Other Comments by Yorker

3. Comment #13457 by Conrad on December 17, 2006 at 9:30 pm

I find the writers description of what Dawkins et al are asking people to do tiresome and false. No one is asking anyone to run around with a sandwich board, talking through a mega-phone castigating religion. Nor does anyone suggest that you should go out of your way to pick fights. That's just the thing. The fundamentalist worldview is everywhere. No one has to go searching for a reason to defend reason. Myraid crimes against reason happen everyday. All you're asked to do is defend it instead of remaining silent. But that doesn't mean when grandma is on her deathbed talking about Jesus or Uncle Jim is saying grace at thanksgiving that you must right then and there speak out. If Uncle Jim tries to tell everyone afterwards at dinner that the world is 6000 years old, then feel free to give some examples of why that isn't true. Otherwise, you're just being a nutter. And no one, Harris, Dawkins, Dennet etc, is asking you to be obnoxious.

They're asking you to be reasonable.

Other Comments by Conrad

4. Comment #13466 by nrvous on December 17, 2006 at 10:07 pm

 avatarI completely agree with you, Conrad (#3) -- I have always found people to be far more willing to take my opinions seriously if I use the soft-sell approach, even if that means bowing my head while someone says grace. I liken it to vegetarianism: nobody likes (or is convinced by) the militant animal-rights crusader who stares icily at the hamburger-eater and hisses "Do you know where that came from?" and then starts reeling off a tirade about the living conditions of factory farm animals.

Choose your moments to speak, and be gracious when you do. It's the last thing people will be expecting from an atheist.

Other Comments by nrvous

5. Comment #13477 by Niels Thorsen on December 17, 2006 at 11:23 pm

This article reflects the malaise that many find themselves in when it comes to confronting the culture of faith. Our society has pursued tolerance for so long that we sometimes (mistakenly) hold it to be as virtuous as others do 'faith'.

Correcting this slide into intellectual oblivion is precisely what Dawkins and Harris are attempting.

I fully agree that selecting the proper moments to speak is the best approach.

Niels

P.S. Yorker, I began to feel nervous just before the needle went in, but afterwards it wasn't as bad as I feared.

Other Comments by Niels Thorsen

6. Comment #13479 by toomanytribbles on December 18, 2006 at 12:30 am

 avatari have never seen dawkins be anything but assertive and gracious.

it's the logic in his arguments that offends because it's right on.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

7. Comment #13480 by John Phillips on December 18, 2006 at 12:46 am

Strange isn't it, even self professed atheists say that we must be nice to the believers when many of those same believers have no problem describing us pejoratively as godless or worse. Such as the US president who stated that atheists should not be considered as citizens or patriots and where atheist veterans have been actively discriminated against by some public officials.

Yet we are constantly told we must be tolerant of the intolerant. Sorry, it doesn't compute and it is long past time that it was made clear that being tolerant of intolerant believers only strengthens their hand and weakens ours if we simply sit in the shadows whispering about the irrationality of it all but afraid to upset the irrational. We need people like RD prepared to shout it from the rooftops so that all can hear, whether they like it or not. As I have heard too many fundamentalist xtians and muslims state that they use our very tolerance as a weapon against us. Though when we are called intolerant it is only because we make a clarion call for rational thought while their intolerance can often be dangerous, either socially or literally, to their perceived enemies.

When they treat us with the same tolerance they demand of us and don't try to affect the way I live by using their influence to promote faith based laws and faith based education in science then I will leave them to their delusions. Until then I will continue to oppose them at every turn, but by rational argument and the ballot box, not by violence as is often their want.

Merry xmas to one and all, even the believers among us, though I would ask that you believers actually live by the tenets of what you so often claim is a peaceful and compassionate religion. If you actually did that you would find that us atheist might tut tut at your irrationality but we would largely let you get on with it.

Other Comments by John Phillips

8. Comment #13481 by Mr. Mark on December 18, 2006 at 1:10 am

So, atheists need to be nice to theists?

Funny, but as a Democrat living in America, I have heard the same kinds of claptrap from Republicans over the past 6 years. Democrats should do this. Democrats shouldn't do that. Democrats better be careful or this (or that) might backfire. Strange how no matter what the circumstance, my Republican friends have always been there to offer advice on how to avoid the pitfalls of gaining power.

I've learned that Republicans offering advice to Democrats is like snakes offering advice to mice on how to avoid being eaten. It looks like the same gambit is evolving - the friendly theists telling atheists how to avoid the pitfalls of offering reason in place of blind faith to the religious...and how to avoid the pitfall of converting more and more theists to the logic of atheism.

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

9. Comment #13486 by Logicel on December 18, 2006 at 1:35 am

 avatar"Despite the recent gains among free thinkers, atheism is still hugely unpopular. There are no atheists in foxholes or in Congress,..."
_______

It has been discussed at this forum that there are atheists in foxholes--I know of a few, myself--and that there are closet atheists in Congress.

Ironically, it is this niceness, this tolerance of the supporters of religious superstitions that is done by these closet atheists, that result in the appearance of their so-called small numbers. If this author wants to be less outnumbered, all he has to do is to encourage atheists of all stripes to speak out in their own manner. Some will be more loud and aggressive than others, while some will be much more selective to whom they speak and in a more gentle manner.

Other Comments by Logicel

10. Comment #13502 by J. on December 18, 2006 at 3:12 am

Um, Yorker? Regarding your heartwarming story (2. Comment #13456 by Yorker on December 17, 2006 at 9:02 pm) - forgive me, but:

'Doctor:
"...it's called the Dawkins/Harris treatment...slip down your pants and we'll have at it.

Patient: (reluctantly)
"Hold on doc…I'm not sure about this…"

...

Doctor:
"Well, it was just a tiny prick, how do you feel now?"'

Just *what* are you suggesting about the 'Dawkins/Harris treatment'...?

Other Comments by J.

11. Comment #13504 by Louis Perry on December 18, 2006 at 3:29 am

Neil was doing great until that penultimate paragraph:

"The new atheism is pretty hard-core, militantly insisting we challenge religiosity wherever we meet it, or else enable its darker extremist tendencies. In other words, the new atheism is on a quest for conversion. Having insisted on tolerance of our non-faith, Dawkins and Harris' take-no-prisoners orthodoxy would have us be intolerant of others' faith."

That's a complete mischaracterization of both Dawkins and Harris.

Other Comments by Louis Perry

12. Comment #13518 by goddogit on December 18, 2006 at 4:23 am

I can't speak for other people, but all I have to do is strive to be an honest, hard-working-and-playing, compassionate human being trying to understand the joy that is a life with human consciousness.
I feel at the moment that these goals pretty much fills my hands.

However, none of this means I have to put up with wanton stupidity, much less baldfaced lying (though I am sure I can do better, and will), and this guy is another of the nearly limitless zombie armies who think they can shout down what they can no longer banish, imprison or kill.

Other Comments by goddogit

13. Comment #13523 by Luthien on December 18, 2006 at 5:00 am

 avatarOh boy, haven't you got the wrong end of the stick!

Tolerance of children being indoctrinated into a religion is directly equivalent to tolerance for slavery. "It's a parent's right to bring up their children that way" (what about a child's right to intellectual independence?). Many people are 'slaves' to their own superstitions, unable to live a full life because they must not do this or that. Many people have been sexually, physically, and / or mentally abused by a religious 'authority' and did not know that they had the right to complain (the abuser played directly on the beliefs that had been instilled in them to ensure their compliance). Many more people have had money extorted from them, or have refused lifesaving treatment for themselves or (worse) for a child in their care on the basis of 'religion' (a relative of mine died because his 'prayer group' decided they could heal him through the 'power of Christ', and made him stop taking medical treatment). The worst case scenarios are the young men (and women) who have been convinced to martyr themselves by flying planes into buildings, or strapping bombs to themselves, killing many innocent people in the process.

We need to speak up on behalf of all these vulnerable children, so they can be allowed to develop intellectually (without being brainwashed by irrational beliefs) and protect themselves from those who would abuse their power.

Other Comments by Luthien

14. Comment #13573 by Yorker on December 18, 2006 at 1:33 pm

 avatar10. Comment #13502 by J.

Yes, I see :)

Well, my joke required some background knowledge of TGD, the Beyond Belief conference and the content of some posts on this site. It would -- with the exception of a single aspect -- zoom over the heads of those unfamiliar with the required precedents. My original intent was to highlight in a humorous way, the different viewpoints arising from the conference. As I wrote, the obvious single aspect naturally evolved from plot progression, i.e. pill, stronger tablet, injection; since it was a joke, I saw no harm in it, do you?

In my opinion, this site is desperately in need of a little humor; perhaps my humor is bad, perhaps I overestimated the background knowledge of visitors, perhaps some are offended, perhaps most here are humorless. I have no way of knowing.

Other Comments by Yorker

15. Comment #13603 by Vardu on December 18, 2006 at 5:24 pm

Yorker: Enjoyed your little piece above immensely.

Give us more!

Other Comments by Vardu

16. Comment #13604 by Yorker on December 18, 2006 at 5:38 pm

 avatarThanks Vardu!

I was beginning to think it wasn't funny.

Other Comments by Yorker

17. Comment #13605 by Yorker on December 18, 2006 at 5:46 pm

 avatar5. Comment #13477 by Niels Thorsen

Yes Niels, I notice your not alone, others seem wary at that point :)

Other Comments by Yorker

18. Comment #14279 by Kimpatsu on December 21, 2006 at 9:55 pm

 avatar"The Cadre of the Damned".
I'm going to have that written on a T-shirt!

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

19. Comment #14832 by jhb90277 on December 25, 2006 at 5:51 pm

 avatarYorker, it was funny, though I am not familiar with the some of the backstory.

I've been a lifelong atheist (born to atheists and raising my own little godless heathens). Today, I gave my dad a copy of TGD and my mother-in-law (fallen Lutheran) gave me a copy of the Blind Watchmaker.

It was a Richard Dawkins "Christmas"!

Anyhow, it was still funny. ;-)

Other Comments by jhb90277

20. Comment #14839 by Tremayne on December 25, 2006 at 7:37 pm

"I have always found people to be far more willing to take my opinions seriously if I use the soft-sell approach..."

"No one has to go searching for a reason to defend reason."

"And no one, Harris, Dawkins, Dennet, etc, is asking you to be obnoxious. They're asking you to be reasonable."


All true, though even positing a non-theist argument or worldview frequently provokes responses that range from indignation through vituperation and rebuke from (devout) religious apologists. It amazes me how often the sociological analog of Newton's Third Law rears its head whenever the discussion or debate turns to evolution versus creationism. Even what begins as a civil debate will too often deteriorate into vitriol, obloquies and ad hominem attacks.




Other Comments by Tremayne

21. Comment #15037 by Chinstrap on December 28, 2006 at 11:21 am

I read this article with a mixture of fascination and awe. As a Canadian peering over the border at what seems to be an increasingly -- and dangerously -- religious (read: Christian) United States, I can't tell you how excited I was just to see that someone might have the cajones to admit in a major newspaper that he was an atheist (even if it was the LA Times and not the Washington Post). On a related note, it's funny that the author's final paragraph is unintentionally contradictory. He says that he can't bring himself to confront others about their religious beliefs and yet it is my experience that religious people view the mere declaration of atheism as an offensive challenge to their beliefs. In other words, by simply stating that he is an atheist, he has already offended the believers and there is now no turning back. I'm sure that at the very least he fell off a few Christmas party invitation lists as a result of his article (say what you will about Christmas, I still enjoy the parties! ;-)).

By the way, my comment about the religiosity of the United States wasn't a bit of anti-Americanism -- not too long ago we elected a religious-right conservative as Prime Minister. Don't worry, though, we'll get rid of him and his band of nutters next time around.

Other Comments by Chinstrap

22. Comment #15376 by ashvetz on December 30, 2006 at 8:38 pm

I think many atheists (Dawkins, etc) may seem militant on the face value of their arguments, but they are certainly well justified. If it were just a simple matter of how people choose to spend their free time on Saturdays/Sundays, or how annual dates were celebrated, that would be a minor thing. Unfortunately (especially here in the U.S.), religion has such a profound effect on public policy, that it is far from harmless.

My brother owns a store that has to close on Sundays because of "Blue Laws." My friend can be arrested, because he has sex with other men. My tax dollars pay to convert prison inmates to a religion other than my own. These are everyday events here, and we need people like Dawkins to take a strong stance against illogical intolerance that has become a way of life.

Other Comments by ashvetz
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: