A Godless Proposal: A Kinder, Gentler Atheist

























Maybe we can get some work done while we're at it.


  1. Great post! One that I will have to share with some folks I know that may learn a thing or two. I sure did.


  2. I would allow my inner Hitchens to respond to this, but I just can't summon the vitriol right now (Damn it!), and besides, it's almost Christmas. Well said, good sir.

  3. Well said, Shep.

    I do, however, detect a weak thread.

    You speak of "antagonistic nature of some of the campaigns," and I agree with you. As do many secularists and atheists. The problem is we don't all agree on what's antagonistic and what isn't.

    I thought it was interesting that you included that comic at the top, which to me makes this point (sort of): one person's reasoned argument is another person's antagonism.

    You of course address this later, where you say there is a place for the angry atheist -- provided they're actually good at it. Once again, I agree, as do many; but we won't always agree on who is good at it.

    It reminds me of a youtube debate I watched between a priest and an atheist. The atheist was TERRIBLE, and I cringed as he "made us" look terrible and I wanted to cry cry and I wanted him to stop.... except I didn't really want him to stop.

    I want reason popping up everywhere. I want to hear reason argued in every venue possible, showing up in the most surprising places. And the idea that that might happen, and that I would also agree with every one of the arguments is just, well, unrealistic.

    And finally, regarding "The best way to convince..." well, it's not necessarily true. While I've watched the arguments between the nice atheists and the mean atheists (a stupid shorthand, sorry), I've seen both sides trot out decent evidence to support their side. For myself, an evidence-dirven person, I'm currently thinking that there isn't one way. There are different kinds of arguments, different kinds of reactions, and different paths to personal change.

    To be clear, in my day-to-day dealings I'm on board with you. I don't like antagonism. I like people.

    But I think one of the strengths of the reason movement right now is the tremendous variety of approaches, and I think this variety should be encouraged-- even though that may mean cringing at the occasional atheist asshole.

    (Oh I have gone on. I should've made this a post on my blog, instead of filling up yours. Sorry about that...)

  4. Hey Matt, all valid points. (And you 'go on' as long as you want, as far as I'm concerned.)

    I do hear you on each point. I think, at the end of the day, what I am trying to say is, 'hey, let's not be such dicks.'

    It's hard to put into words exactly who needs to be called out, and who needs to keep it up. It's like pornography -- i know it when I see it. Difficult to put a finger on exactly what it is that makes one individual or group's approach more valid than another's -- or why Dawkins being uncompromising and in-your-face is more acceptable than somebody's atheist uncle on Facebook.

    Your point above (about one person's antagonism is another person's argument) was made very clear to me last night. I had tweeted a link to this post earlier in the day. And then later, I had tweeted a link to a story by Christian writer John Shore (mentioned above) in which he relayed a story about a pastor who told a girl who was raped that if she had died during the attack then at least she would have died a virgin. An acquaintance saw my tweeting this link as being hypocritical after writing the above blog post that same day. So, even though I felt that the John Shore post was simply a very good Christian perspective on some of the misguided applications of religious ideology, someone else saw it as an antagonistic tweet making generalizations about religious people.

    So, yes. This is a problem, and it was certainly one of the reasons why I included the cartoon.

    I'm not quite sure what to do about that problem, other than to try to be consistent. I *try* (I am very often not successful) to attack the aspects of religion that bother me (or, rather, harmful applications of religious ideology) instead of attacking religion.

    That's more or less what I am speaking to in the above piece -- the wish that more atheists/humanists could perhaps narrow their focus and combat the things that even our progressive Christian friends agree deserve ridicule, rather than just taking a sledge hammer to religion as a whole.

    I realize that many, including Dawkins and Harris, believe that moderate religion is just as much of a problem in that it it leads us to respect and "cherish the idea that certain fantastic propositions can be believed without evidence." (to quote Harris)

    I tend to disagree. And maybe this is, in part, due to the fact that I don't like offending family members and friends who are devout, and who are awesome people. But these people, at least the ones I know, are not part of the problem, in my view. I see them as wise folks who can be instrumental in leading many fundamentalists and scriptural literalists into a more rational religious approach, one that embraces science, evolution, equality, pacifism, empathy, etc.

    Certainly a topic that deserves more than just a single blog post.

  5. Squidocto, Reason is a practice, not a worldview. Eric, you are a plurationalist, along with other atheists, theists, conservatives and liberals who believe in using reason as the interface between their personal worldviews and the society in which they live:
    Plurationalsim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_of_Reason
    Society for Plurationalism: www.circleofreason.org