Tweet
First things first, let me preface this by saying I am not a religious person, despite my marriage to Kheldarson, who is a devout Catholic. Hell, I can only remember how to cross myself properly because it goes in the same pattern as the Konami Code (up down left right). I like the concept of faith, and I can't accept that death brings the end of consciousness, though I freely admit that this may simply be the result of human ego. However, I don't describe myself as a believer because I don't feel that a supreme being necessarily follows logically from my experiences, nor can I make the leap of faith needed to accept belief despite that fact. However, nor do I feel that it's an impossibility, nor that a logical, scientific understanding of reality precludes belief in a supreme being.
But having established that I'm not approaching this from a deep-felt religious perspective, let's address the topic at hand. And to clarify, I'm using "you" ina generic sense to refer to the movement as a whole and trying to address the tactics I generally see used in it, not aiming this at any particular posters here.
I have four main problems with the evangelical atheist movement, which, to my understanding, intends to forcefully present anti-theist arguments and reject theist beliefs just as strongly as theist (particularly Christian) evangelicals promote their own beliefs, in an attempt to "convert" people away from religion, which the movement sees as harmful to humanity as a whole. One concerns the basic position taken here, while the others are more about the methods used.
The first point (which I think, in the long run, is actually the least important, but simply fits better at the front) is that I don't truly feel the movement is necessary, nor that religion is honestly harmful to the world. While a number of terrible events have been laid at the feet of the churches and mosques of the world (and let's be honest here, those are the only two we're ever really concerned about), and I don't wish to trivialize those in any way, I think that these events would be better attributed to small-minded, hateful people who use their religion as an excuse and justification to themselves. Does that leave their belief system at fault? No. Humans are tribal creatures, and the small-minded among us will always find a way to say that their people are Good and Justified, and that the other deserves their scorn. It doesn't matter if it's theism against atheism, one color of skin against another, or one nation against another, an excuse will be found. Religion has only provided an excuse for their behavior. Stomping out religion will not resolve the problem at it's source any more than banning violent video games would stop school violence, to use a popular meme from a few years ago.
On to the important part, the methods. This comes in two parts, because I see two issues here. The first is that the movement, at it's heart, seems to be about lowering yourself to your opponent's level and trying to beat them at their own game. To be more specific, giving up the usual logical arguments to instead debate on an emotional level, which is what faith generally resonates with. I simply ask, why? Why would you give up the high ground, here? I can't even begin to comprehend why, faced with a belief system founded entirely upon years and even generations of emotional attachment, you would rather attack this massive wall of emotion rather than attempting to strike at the foundations of weak logic. Isn't this just taking the most difficult route to your goal? To be extremely nerdy, Saruman's orcs didn't try to cut a path through the wall around Helm's Deep, they instead attacked the weakest point at the wall's foundation.
The second issue with the methodology seems to again come from this idea of lowering yourself to your opponent's level, and that is the tendency to turn any debate into a childish battle of insults and mockery, simply doing everything possible to offend the theist side of the argument. At what point did anyone think this was a good idea? Not only have you given the high ground yet again, but it does nothing to convince the other side. And yes, this has once again ceded high ground. Pathos is just as much a part of debate as Logos, however those in the debate may feel about that, and engaging in this sort of behavior at best makes you look just as bad as the xenophobic, offensive evangelical theists you seem to be trying to counteract. If your theist opposition instead decides to be the better people and plead for understanding and coexistence, then you are the ones who appear to be angry, small-minded, and hateful - the exact traits you claim to despise in religion.
This leads easily into my final point. This movement, as a whole, is counterproductive. If your intent is to drive people away from religion, this is possibly the single worst way to go about doing it. From basically every angle. You aren't engaging in any real debate, so you look like you have no stronger foundation for your claims as the other (and while yes, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, just pointing that out in an argument comes off just as strongly as "nuh-uh, you do"). You're trying to attack an emotional bond by disparaging it, which isn't going to convince anyone. Ever managed to get a girl to break up with a guy by insulting him? It's not terribly effective. Pushing an emotional attack this way is just going to put people on the defensive, and encourage them to rally around and further protect their beliefs. And finally, like I said in the last paragraph, it makes you look no better than the ones you're supposed to be arguing against. You don't come off as rational people pointing out the flaws of a belief system. You look like everything theists fear about atheists. In fact, you're actually demonstrating one of my previous points - that all the bad things being chalked up to religion are hardly exclusive to it.
But having established that I'm not approaching this from a deep-felt religious perspective, let's address the topic at hand. And to clarify, I'm using "you" ina generic sense to refer to the movement as a whole and trying to address the tactics I generally see used in it, not aiming this at any particular posters here.
I have four main problems with the evangelical atheist movement, which, to my understanding, intends to forcefully present anti-theist arguments and reject theist beliefs just as strongly as theist (particularly Christian) evangelicals promote their own beliefs, in an attempt to "convert" people away from religion, which the movement sees as harmful to humanity as a whole. One concerns the basic position taken here, while the others are more about the methods used.
The first point (which I think, in the long run, is actually the least important, but simply fits better at the front) is that I don't truly feel the movement is necessary, nor that religion is honestly harmful to the world. While a number of terrible events have been laid at the feet of the churches and mosques of the world (and let's be honest here, those are the only two we're ever really concerned about), and I don't wish to trivialize those in any way, I think that these events would be better attributed to small-minded, hateful people who use their religion as an excuse and justification to themselves. Does that leave their belief system at fault? No. Humans are tribal creatures, and the small-minded among us will always find a way to say that their people are Good and Justified, and that the other deserves their scorn. It doesn't matter if it's theism against atheism, one color of skin against another, or one nation against another, an excuse will be found. Religion has only provided an excuse for their behavior. Stomping out religion will not resolve the problem at it's source any more than banning violent video games would stop school violence, to use a popular meme from a few years ago.
On to the important part, the methods. This comes in two parts, because I see two issues here. The first is that the movement, at it's heart, seems to be about lowering yourself to your opponent's level and trying to beat them at their own game. To be more specific, giving up the usual logical arguments to instead debate on an emotional level, which is what faith generally resonates with. I simply ask, why? Why would you give up the high ground, here? I can't even begin to comprehend why, faced with a belief system founded entirely upon years and even generations of emotional attachment, you would rather attack this massive wall of emotion rather than attempting to strike at the foundations of weak logic. Isn't this just taking the most difficult route to your goal? To be extremely nerdy, Saruman's orcs didn't try to cut a path through the wall around Helm's Deep, they instead attacked the weakest point at the wall's foundation.
The second issue with the methodology seems to again come from this idea of lowering yourself to your opponent's level, and that is the tendency to turn any debate into a childish battle of insults and mockery, simply doing everything possible to offend the theist side of the argument. At what point did anyone think this was a good idea? Not only have you given the high ground yet again, but it does nothing to convince the other side. And yes, this has once again ceded high ground. Pathos is just as much a part of debate as Logos, however those in the debate may feel about that, and engaging in this sort of behavior at best makes you look just as bad as the xenophobic, offensive evangelical theists you seem to be trying to counteract. If your theist opposition instead decides to be the better people and plead for understanding and coexistence, then you are the ones who appear to be angry, small-minded, and hateful - the exact traits you claim to despise in religion.
This leads easily into my final point. This movement, as a whole, is counterproductive. If your intent is to drive people away from religion, this is possibly the single worst way to go about doing it. From basically every angle. You aren't engaging in any real debate, so you look like you have no stronger foundation for your claims as the other (and while yes, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, just pointing that out in an argument comes off just as strongly as "nuh-uh, you do"). You're trying to attack an emotional bond by disparaging it, which isn't going to convince anyone. Ever managed to get a girl to break up with a guy by insulting him? It's not terribly effective. Pushing an emotional attack this way is just going to put people on the defensive, and encourage them to rally around and further protect their beliefs. And finally, like I said in the last paragraph, it makes you look no better than the ones you're supposed to be arguing against. You don't come off as rational people pointing out the flaws of a belief system. You look like everything theists fear about atheists. In fact, you're actually demonstrating one of my previous points - that all the bad things being chalked up to religion are hardly exclusive to it.
Comment