The Aggressive New Atheism...

[R. S. Martin]

Thus begins an email from the local Roman Catholic Centre Lecture Reminder. I signed up to it because of my interest in religious studies when I was still a Christian. Didn't know if I was still interested or not. But this opening sentence really catches my eye. Here's the entire first paragraph:

 

The aggressive new atheism highlights the desperate need to have an informed dialogue about religion in the public square, religion and culture, and the religious sensibility itself. It is very difficult to have an enlightened discussion when the “creed rules†have been supplanted by the “screed rules.†Both are deplorable. How do we re-introduce sanity and measured opinion into the debate? What is the role of post-secondary education in this irenic undertaking? And, of course, where is the media in this melee?

 

Then starts the boring stuff: Dr. Michael W. Higgins was the first Director of the St. Jerome’s Centre. During his twenty-four years at.....

 

And it never gets around to actually telling the topic of his wonderful lecture. No matter, I got a brochure in the mail, so I open it. What do I find? The exact same words.

 

I guess I'll have to go if I want to know what his lecture is about. Did I mention, this is a college at the school where I did my BA. I understand the set-up is uniquely Canadian so I'll explain. There is a major secular university campus with four affiliated church colleges on campus. St. Jeromes is one of the church colleges and I never actually took a course there but I hung out there with friends, talked to some of the profs, used their library--that sort of thing. Anyway, is that opening paragraph inviting atheist input? If so, I hope they have invited some of the atheist profs from the main campus and I hope the atheists will deem it worth their time to show up.

 

I very seriously doubt that atheists are knowingly invited. QUESTION: Should I go? And if I go, how open should I be with my position? My tendency would be to ask very pertinent questions, just short of actually confessing my position. On the other hand, I want to live long term in this town. I want to be able to do business and walk the streets without having people looking at me as the neighbourhood atheist, friendly or otherwise, because too many people see atheists either as monsters or as targets for evangelization. I want neither. I want to live and let live.

 

I've been debating with myself whether or not to tell the Anglican college (where I did most of my courses) about my website and forums. They sent out a call for stories about alumni and where their lives are at. I'm thinking it would probably be okay to mention it because it's about fundamentalist religion and they are not fundamentalist. (The Catholics and the Mennonites might be, but the Anglicans are not.) But coming out as an atheist in this Catholic school where people know me....

[R. S. Martin]

Now I see the title of that lecture but it's so absurd I can't believe a vetran prof would actually use try to speak on it. Here it is: It's Tough Being God These Days.

 

How on earth can a mere mortal know what it's like being God??? Paul says nobody knows what is in a man but the spirit of a man. If that is true of other humans, I mean, God is supposedly so far above humans that humans can't even comprehend God in all of his entirety.

 

That's a question I will be liable to ask, providing it fits the situation. It's a question I've wanted to ask long before I deconverted so it should be a "safe" question. I am thinking: A god who can't stand up to a Richard Dawkins or two probably isn't worth his divinity. If God is real, and if he has a problem with Richard Dawkins and his blasphemous book God Delusion, God would surely have caused the technology to break down as the book was being printed. And he would have struck Dawkins dead the first time he promoted his book. There have been so many opportunities for him to strike Dawkins dead and to annihilate his book and all connected to it, but he didn't. The god of the OT DOES NOT EXIST. What more evidence do we need???

[Grandpa Harley]

I'd go... but I think that I'd leave at Q&A time, since I'd want to kill them all one by one in various inventive and improbable ways...

 

Doctor Phibes roolz

[R. S. Martin]

I'd go... but I think that I'd leave at Q&A time, since I'd want to kill them all one by one in various inventive and improbable ways...

 

Knowing you..yeah, I can see that

 

Come to think of it, you do have a valid point, even for me. I have an idea that I would like to put to use but it would never be okay to use it in public.

 

Now if it were in a classroom with a batch of classmates and a prof all of whom knew each other very well and all of whom were okay with a bit of banter, I might say:

 

I'm looking at the title of the lecture. I'm looking at the speaker. I'm thinking, he looks like he's human. Am I mistaken??? Paul says only the spirit that is in a man knows what is in a man--or what it's like being that guy. So I guess only the spirit that is in God knows what it's like being God....????

 

[between you and me, *hush, looks around to make sure no xians are listening in* Christians claim to have the spirit of God so maybe they do hae an inside line to God. ]

[mwc]

It's Tough Being God These Days.

Wow. That's a very apologetic title if I ever saw one.

 

Considering more humans today are supposedly believers in their god than there were even 1000 years ago wouldn't it actually be easier being "god" today than it was then? Wouldn't it be easier than at any point in history based on total number of believers? A relatively few people "questioning" and/or "falling away" compared to the massive gains shouldn't be a big deal should it?

 

A better title might be "It's Tough Being a Mouthpiece for a god These Days" since I imagine that's their real complaint.

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

A better title might be "It's Tough Being a Mouthpiece for a god These Days" since I imagine that's their real complaint.

 

mwc

 

I think you nailed it!

 

 

Bu-u-ut...if that's the case, this Catholic guy makes Mr. Phelphs look like a saint. If a Catholic finds it hard being a mouthpiece for god when he's got the largest and richest institution on earth behind him--and Mr. Phelp has nothing but his own clan and he braves the ocean and a hostile public.....I'm musing over these contrasting mouth pieces of the xian god.

 

I think there is supposed to be "informed dialogue about religion in the public square" regarding "aggressive new atheism" but perhaps not between these two mouthpieces???

[Mankey]

All the uppity sinners ( 'new atheists' ) are already handling things and the massah as well as uncle tom ( most of academia ) don't have to worry....dialogue is already happening the way it should be......Who cares about people who are already set in their ways? I don't. There are more open minded people than many atheists think.

 

Eventually, thanks to the uppity atheists there will truly be a place at the table for atheists. Academia should butt out. It can mostly only give apologetics for invisible friends. Academia should just let people talk without bullshit apologetics for 'tolerance'. Sometimes intolerance is very rational. If that were not true then laws would not exist. I am not talking violence here, but speaking ones mind and conscience. We exist. We are entitled to be heard without irrational rhetoric from academia.

 

I do not trust most of academia at all. No reason too. I mean, academia is its own dogmatic church just like school is. I do not trust most liberals in academia.

[R. S. Martin]

Mankey, I don't follow your line of argument here. Academia has given me a second chance at life and when people put it down like this I feel offended. There's rotten apples in academia, I won't argue that, because there's rotten apples in every barrel; academics are human just like people in every insitution.

 

I've been all over the place in this thread. I apologize for that. I'm not terribly proud of some of the stuff I said. I'm on a batch of new medication for a variety of ailments and that's messing with my brain somewhat. That was part of the problem last night. Couldn't concentrate or focus like I wanted to.

 

I've been reading online about this "aggressive new atheism." But when it shows up in my own neighbourhood I felt sort of "how should I react? How should I handle it? This is people I know?" I don't know Dr. Higgins personally but I know the school and some of the people who work and teach there. So I started the thread to get a feel for ideas on how others would handle the situation. Gramps gave some great ideas right off the bat.

[Ro-bear]

I do not trust most of academia at all. No reason too. I mean, academia is its own dogmatic church just like school is. I do not trust most liberals in academia.

 

This "not trusting academia" stuff sounds like O'Reilly railing against the intellectual elite, or "eggheads". I deplore such knee-jerk negative responses to formally educated people. Look at the new atheists whose work you laud, folks like Dawkins and Dennett. Hellooooo! They are academia!

[Mankey]

I do not trust most of academia at all. No reason too. I mean, academia is its own dogmatic church just like school is. I do not trust most liberals in academia.

 

This "not trusting academia" stuff sounds like O'Reilly railing against the intellectual elite, or "eggheads". I deplore such knee-jerk negative responses to formally educated people. Look at the new atheists whose work you laud, folks like Dawkins and Dennett. Hellooooo! They are academia!

Hehe.

 

Yea. I was just angry. I am no longer a conservative. Just a Free Thinker...who is open to any good ideas from any party. Even the Libertarian party. I consider people from academia that are Free Thinkers different. Like Ruby. Free Thinker.

 

I don't trust liberal academia because to me multiculturalism is bullshit. Apologizing for magic and invisible friends is bullshit. Not all liberals do that but a lot do.

 

I hate the label "new atheists" it really rubs me the wrong way. I call myself an antitheist. It isn't a dirty word. ANTITHEIST. Not "new atheist" Atheists criticiszing religion aint nothin new really....so they can stuff their "new atheists" label. Atheist is just atheist. I am an atheist and I am an antitheist.

[Mankey]

Mankey, I don't follow your line of argument here. Academia has given me a second chance at life and when people put it down like this I feel offended. There's rotten apples in academia, I won't argue that, because there's rotten apples in every barrel; academics are human just like people in every insitution.

I am sorry Ruby, I am just frustrated. I think acadamia could do more than they are....but instead it seems most just want to be enablers or apologizers for magic. I should not have said the things I said the way I said them.

 

I've been all over the place in this thread. I apologize for that. I'm not terribly proud of some of the stuff I said. I'm on a batch of new medication for a variety of ailments and that's messing with my brain somewhat. That was part of the problem last night. Couldn't concentrate or focus like I wanted to.

No. I was angry and it effected my reading comprehension in your thread here. hehe.

 

I've been reading online about this "aggressive new atheism." But when it shows up in my own neighbourhood I felt sort of "how should I react? How should I handle it? This is people I know?" I don't know Dr. Higgins personally but I know the school and some of the people who work and teach there. So I started the thread to get a feel for ideas on how others would handle the situation. Gramps gave some great ideas right off the bat.

I think you should do what you need to do to be happy. Life is short. I am one of those "aggressive atheists" even though I am not so worried whether or not some one becomes atheist or not. I think Free Thought has value and it is for everybody...not just atheists.

[Evan]

Have you tried talking to one of your atheist(or agnostic maybe?) professors? Or any ones you know are atheist and get their take on it.

[R. S. Martin]

Have you tried talking to one of your atheist(or agnostic maybe?) professors? Or any ones you know are atheist and get their take on it.

 

Actually, I haven't been around them for some years now since I graduated from that school. I was still a Christian when I knew them, but I got the feeling some of them might be outside orthodox Christianity in the philosophy department. No absolute proof, though. Nor have I talked personally with the sciene profs. I just assume there's some atheists there. I did meet a few in the arts and social sciences.

[pandora]

They'd probably be reluctant to come out themselves at a Christian University.

 

I think you should at least go, Ruby... even if only to observe them from a different perspective.

[mwc]

If a Catholic finds it hard being a mouthpiece for god when he's got the largest and richest institution on earth behind him--and Mr. Phelp has nothing but his own clan and he braves the ocean and a hostile public.....I'm musing over these contrasting mouth pieces of the xian god.

Don't forget that plenty of xians seem to think that they are in the minority no matter what the odds really are.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I hate the label "new atheists" it really rubs me the wrong way. I call myself an antitheist. It isn't a dirty word. ANTITHEIST. Not "new atheist" Atheists criticiszing religion aint nothin new really....so they can stuff their "new atheists" label. Atheist is just atheist. I am an atheist and I am an antitheist.

The problem I have with "antitheist" is that it imposes a will, your will, upon someone else. It's a hypocritical stance if you truly believe in freedom of choice and if you think that what theists do in todays world is wrong (shoving their belief systems in everyone's face whether subtly on money, or through holidays, television shows or coming to your house). An antitheist would basically remove all options for anyone and everyone to express counter beliefs based on some criteria that they (the antitheists) set. So would this end pagan expression? The pentacle for example? It's on jewelry. In games. Many places. But it's also a religious, and possibly theist (depending on the pagan group), symbol. Stay or go? Does it depend on its use? Can it be used religiously in secret? What if the user is "discovered?" Now what about xian symbols? Jewish symbols? Etc., etc.? You get the picture.

 

Now, maybe my definition has been tainted by the few impersonal encounters I've had with some rather "rabid" antitheists. I'm willing to accept that possibility. Maybe you can enlighten me since you seem to be more in-line with what this name actually means that I am?

 

mwc

[R. S. Martin]

I am sorry Ruby, I am just frustrated. I think acadamia could do more than they are....but instead it seems most just want to be enablers or apologizers for magic. I should not have said the things I said the way I said them.

 

I accept your appology. I read the comments here. I still feel like I can't think straight. I'm struggling with the concepts "new atheists," "anti-theist" and just plain "atheist." (If I correctly understand the conversation, it seems the accademia thing has been straightened out. Thanks, Ro-Bear, for your input there.)

 

1. I don't like the word anti-theist. It sounds so militant. Maybe that's just me.

 

2. I do not understand that it is the so-called "new atheists" themselves who came up with that label. I understand it's the scaredy cat Christians who came up with that label. Their god is so teensy-weensy that it can't take a few outspoken atheists.

 

3. I know a lot of Christians think they are in the minority but I've never heard the Catholic Church make that statement. Has anybody else? They'd have to fudge a whole lot of stuff, put on major blinders, and plug their ears and knock out their brains to convince themselves that they were in a minority of any type, wouldn't they? I simply cannot imagine why they are frightened by a few outspoken atheists. It seems ludicrous--more like a scare tactic meant to strengthen the support from their own members or something crazy like that.

[R. S. Martin]

They'd probably be reluctant to come out themselves at a Christian University.

 

I think you should at least go, Ruby... even if only to observe them from a different perspective.

 

Thanks for this support. We'll see what my energy level is like by Friday night. I think it might be worth my time if I have the time and energy to go. This is turning out to be a busy week.

[Mankey]

The problem I have with "antitheist" is that it imposes a will, your will, upon someone else.

antitheist don't have psychic powers. hehe. I know I am being a shitbag here, but I had ta say it. hehe. Even if I did I would not use them like that.....that would be wrong.

It's a hypocritical stance if you truly believe in freedom of choice

Choice is enhanced through options. The more options the more choices. Atheism is a hard sell, as well as Free Thought is. I still feel that its ok to give someone the option through debates or discussions. I see atheism as an option.

and if you think that what theists do in todays world is wrong

They are selling a bogus product through logically fallacious methods. It is a bogus product. That is what I am against. Trading ideas and even debate and discussion as well as selling a product or yourself.....all those.....is a part of the human condition. It is a part of humanity. No person can escape having a philosophy or politic in life and it is to everyones benefit to echange ideas, philosophies and politic. There is no escaping this necessity.

(shoving their belief systems in everyone's face whether subtly on money, or through holidays, television shows or coming to your house).

Read above...

An antitheist would basically remove all options for anyone and everyone to express counter beliefs based on some criteria that they (the antitheists) set. So would this end pagan expression? The pentacle for example? It's on jewelry. In games. Many places. But it's also a religious, and possibly theist (depending on the pagan group), symbol. Stay or go? Does it depend on its use? Can it be used religiously in secret? What if the user is "discovered?" Now what about xian symbols? Jewish symbols? Etc., etc.? You get the picture.

This goes against Free Thought. More over, antitheism does not in any way require fascism. I really don't get people when they think that about antitheism.

Now, maybe my definition has been tainted by the few impersonal encounters I've had with some rather "rabid" antitheists. I'm willing to accept that possibility. Maybe you can enlighten me since you seem to be more in-line with what this name actually means that I am?

I can rightly say that they are not Free Thinkers. Selling a philosophy or deconverting is not the same as using fascist tactics that do not work anyways. I have not run into any antitheists like you mention. Free Thinking antitheists would not become mind police. That is what religion does. Debating or discussing....persuading isn't the same as what you are worried about.

[Mankey]

I accept your appology.

Good. Cuz you are the last person I would want to offend Ruby.

I read the comments here. I still feel like I can't think straight. I'm struggling with the concepts "new atheists," "anti-theist" and just plain "atheist." (If I correctly understand the conversation, it seems the accademia thing has been straightened out. Thanks, Ro-Bear, for your input there.)

I was just being a thin skinned moron. hehe. But I think "new atheist" doesn't work either.

1. I don't like the word anti-theist. It sounds so militant. Maybe that's just me.

Yea. It does....but I can't think of any other label that works other than antitheist. New Humanist? This is a mess.

2. I do not understand that it is the so-called "new atheists" themselves who came up with that label. I understand it's the scaredy cat Christians who came up with that label. Their god is so teensy-weensy that it can't take a few outspoken atheists.

It was certain humanists that started that. I am a humanist by the way.

3. I know a lot of Christians think they are in the minority but I've never heard the Catholic Church make that statement. Has anybody else? They'd have to fudge a whole lot of stuff, put on major blinders, and plug their ears and knock out their brains to convince themselves that they were in a minority of any type, wouldn't they? I simply cannot imagine why they are frightened by a few outspoken atheists. It seems ludicrous--more like a scare tactic meant to strengthen the support from their own members or something crazy like that.

I feel stupid for complaining to begin with but there are plently of other atheists that are outspoken who don't like the label "new atheists" or "militant". We aint come near as close to militant. Religion has but not Free Thinking atheists who are out spoken.

[mwc]

I can rightly say that they are not Free Thinkers. Selling a philosophy or deconverting is not the same as using fascist tactics that do not work anyways. I have not run into any antitheists like you mention. Free Thinking antitheists would not become mind police. That is what religion does. Debating or discussing....persuading isn't the same as what you are worried about.

Thanks for the clarification. I have to agree with Ruby that the name has a "militant" feel and perhaps I just had the misfortune to have a run in with was attracted to the name and not the spirit of what it represented?

 

mwc

[Mankey]

I can rightly say that they are not Free Thinkers. Selling a philosophy or deconverting is not the same as using fascist tactics that do not work anyways. I have not run into any antitheists like you mention. Free Thinking antitheists would not become mind police. That is what religion does. Debating or discussing....persuading isn't the same as what you are worried about.

Thanks for the clarification. I have to agree with Ruby that the name has a "militant" feel and perhaps I just had the misfortune to have a run in with was attracted to the name and not the spirit of what it represented?

 

mwc

I will try to sell atheism....but to me Free Thought is way to valuable......it comes first. And it is an easier sell.

 

Free Thought is way to useful.....it is for everybody.

 

Remember my logic thread?

 

I am an antitheist, but my feelings and attitudes are different than what many fear.

 

[pandora]

They'd probably be reluctant to come out themselves at a Christian University.

 

I think you should at least go, Ruby... even if only to observe them from a different perspective.

 

Thanks for this support. We'll see what my energy level is like by Friday night. I think it might be worth my time if I have the time and energy to go. This is turning out to be a busy week.

 

I just went to a seminar on secularism in Europe at my alma mater last night. It was good to see old professors and get back into that world again for a little bit. It was just plain fun (yeah, my sense of what is fun is a little messed up... I'm a nerd ). If you got to represent atheism in the Q and A session and did it well, it would even be cooler. I have confidence in the fact that you'd be able to do it well. And if there are no atheists on the panel or speaking or anything, perhaps you could suggest to the organizers that they bring some in for balance. If they are serious about their desire for scholarly dialogue, they should do it.

[R. S. Martin]

They'd probably be reluctant to come out themselves at a Christian University.

 

I think you should at least go, Ruby... even if only to observe them from a different perspective.

 

Thanks for this support. We'll see what my energy level is like by Friday night. I think it might be worth my time if I have the time and energy to go. This is turning out to be a busy week.

 

I just went to a seminar on secularism in Europe at my alma mater last night. It was good to see old professors and get back into that world again for a little bit. It was just plain fun (yeah, my sense of what is fun is a little messed up... I'm a nerd ).

 

Hey pandora, you're okay. If your idea of fun is messed up then so is mine. We just might be cut from the same cloth but I wouldn't guarantee anything. With me ya never know for sure....If I want a good time I attend a lecture while more normal people actually go to parties and that sort of thing.

 

If you got to represent atheism in the Q and A session and did it well, it would even be cooler. I have confidence in the fact that you'd be able to do it well. And if there are no atheists on the panel or speaking or anything, perhaps you could suggest to the organizers that they bring some in for balance. If they are serious about their desire for scholarly dialogue, they should do it.

 

You've got some good ideas here. I don't think I carry that much weight in this particular situation. But you can be sure I'd enjoy that kind of panel discussion. It has occurred to me to look up the philosophy department. They might be more open to such debates. Dunno. There's too many interesting things to do and only so many hours in a day...

[R. S. Martin]

I guess the lecture's over by now. It's way past ten o'clock pm here. I managed to sprain an ankle so I'm pretty much stuck behind my computer. At least we had a nice discussion here. Thanks for participating.