Introduction: You're too nice

MadArchitect · Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject:

Some say, someone should take a long, hard look at the collected works of Stan Lee, and write a book about the view of America that filtered through his characters and iconography. He's probably had as much influence on the late 20th and early 21st centuries as any other single writer or artist, but that's something few people seem willing to recognize.

Oh, and I really do wish that some atheist BookTalk regulars would read "Godless in America" and make some comments here. I imagine it must be fairly discouraging to George to have Niall and I as the only other points of reference in the discussion. Particularly given that we're technically still minority points of view in the context of BookTalk as a whole.

George Ricker · Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject:

Niall: I understand the "cosmic super critter" is off-putting to some. Maybe I overused the phrase. However, I refer you to what I said to Mad on the subject. As to teapots and unicorns, I didn't use them.

Mad: You've expressed the concern before over the danger of some sort of cabal of atheists going after religious people. Here you talk about a group of "movement atheists" analogous to the Black Panthers.

I'm not sure where those "movement" atheists would come from, and I really don't see anything in atheism qua atheism that should lead anyone to take action against anyone else. I've said before, there is nothing in the statement "I don't believe in a god" or even "I believe no gods exist" that ought to lead anyone to harm anyone.

Although I don't see any evidence of any such tendency on the part of atheists in the United States or anywhere else for that matter, I suppose it might be possible for a group of people who were anti-religious to indulge in such behavior. But even among the most strident atheists today, I see no evidence of any such intention. There's a good bit of rhetoric and hyperbole flying around, but I think that may simply reflect a necessity to clear the air before we can move into more constructive forms of dialogue. The overwhelming consensus among most atheists is that we aren't bothered by religion unless someone is bothering us with it.

For what it's worth, should such an action ever take place, you can rest assured I would be on your side in the trenches fighting against it.

Incidentally, in case you hadn't noticed, my book came out well ahead of Dawkins' The God Delusion, Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. Godless in America came out in April 2006. The others came out in fall of that year.

One last note, on the matter of writing for an audience. I think you may have misconstrued something. I did say I hoped to explain my view of what atheism really is, as opposed to common caricatures of it, and to explain how I came to become one. And I said I hoped to attract believers and nonbelievers alike. I used the phrase "open a dialogue" and that probably was a poor choice of words, since you really can't do that in a book, except to the extent you talk to people about it, as we are doing here, after the fact. However, I thought I also made it clear in the introduction that I intended to be candid about my view of gods and religions and cautioned that I understood believers might be offended by my criticism of their beliefs because they intend to view such things as attacks on them. Honestly, I thought my choice of a title, and the summary of the book's contents that appears on the cover, would give all readers fair warning about the tone of the writing inside.

As I noted in my earlier response. I didn't go out of my way to offend people, but I also didn't soft-pedal my opinions so as to avoid offending anyone.

George

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject:

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject:

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject:

I suppose the questions that a lot of my comments are leading towards are, What did you intend for the book to achieve? and, How do you see the book that you've written achieve that goal? Is it intended to make a dent in the public debate over religion's role in government? Is it supposed to encourage fundamentalists to be more reasonable? It seems to me that there are several agendas in the book, all competing to express themselves, and I'm not at all sure which you see as the most central.

Niall001 · Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:49 am Post subject:

In relation to Albania, my knowledge is based on a lecture I had five years ago and a handful of articles and copies of original documents. I'll have a look around and see if I can dig them up.

Here's a link to an article on the subject that gives an overview. It doesn't seem to contradict anything I remember, but that's about all I can say.

http://countrystudies.us/albania/56.htm

irishrose · Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject:

George Ricker · Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject:

Mad and Niall:

I hope you guys will forgive me, but I'm in the midst of submitting a new book to my publisher and the process has heated up a bit, nothing negative just more activity. So I'll probably be scarce around here for a few days. Rest assured I'll try to get back and address the points you've raised as soon as I can.

In case I haven't mentioned it already, I'll really do appreciate the input. So thanks for that. I'm not at all put off by criticism, especially not when it's in the form of conversation.

George

Niall001 · Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject:

George you've gone to the trouble of addressing almost every post made in this sub-forum. You're allowed a break! Hopefully things go well with your publishing. What's the book about?

MadArchitect · Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2007 2:06 pm Post subject:

[quote="rose]But I think it's clear that the atheist writers you have mentioned are not promoting violence.[/quote]

Just to be clear, on a couple of things:
1) I'm not suggesting that Dawkins et al are promoting violence. But I do think that their books have introduced some suggestions that could lead to other people adopting violent tactics. It certainly wouldn't be the first time writers interested in the dissemination of peace had inspired activists who worked by violent means;
2) It isn't really wide-scale violence I'm worried about. I'm not suggesting that there's likely to an atheist Third Reich, or anything of that sort. But American history (and beyond that, Twentieth century Industrialized history) is peppered with instances of small-scale groups that have resorted to violent means as a way of progressing a political or cultural agenda. The Black Panthers in the 60s and 70s, the Skinheads in the 80s and 90s, various anarchist groups throughout, and anti-abortion religious groups in the last few decades all spring to mind; and
3) Most of the groups I've mentioned above have resorted to violence as a way of addressing what they regarded as moral or social injustices. So it certainly isn't historically inconsistent to suggest that violent activism could coalesce around writers who have tried to progress a peaceful agenda. And I think that Dawkins et al. have provided some fodder for such groups by painting religious belief as the root cause of major political and social conflicts, as antithetical to the values of a just , democratic society, or as mired in moral injustices (ie. calling religious indoctrination "child abuse"), and by suggesting that secular intervention (like screening who can and cannot have religious affiliation) is called for.

And George, good luck with the new book!

irishrose · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject:

Mad, I don’t mean to suggest that you had suggested that Dawkins, et al. were promoting violence. But you seem to think that their books could be used as a catalyst for violent acts, regardless of the authors’ intentions. Combine that with the placement of your reservations, which I know wasn’t meant as any definite statement, in Ricker’s book discussion, and I have to ask where are you going with this? Do you think that atheists should stop producing texts merely because those texts might be used to justify violence? Or do you think atheist authors are responsible in clarifying their texts don’t support atheistic violence? I'm not saying either of these are your intentions, they're just guesses. I'm really not sure what you are getting at.

I understand that marginalized groups, often feeling as though there is no other recourse, have turned to violence as a response to that feeling of impotency. I just don’t think the current system we have supports such violent tendencies. Have we become too docile as a nation, too apathetic? I don’t know; it just seems to me very few people are willing to cross that line into organized violence, contemporarily. Look at the recent demonstrations with regard to the Jena 6; was there ever any real threat of violence? Finally, large, organized groups demonstrating against institutionalized injustices in the legal system. If there was ever a moment for impotence-related violence, I could see that being one. But I walked out of my office, a very recognizable city building, wearing my city i.d. tag, in my court apparel through a crowd of demonstrators, outfitted in black and raging against the very system I work for. Outside of my gender, I couldn’t possibly more represent “whitey” to this crowd of demonstrators, and I didn’t feel a moment’s hesitation, nor was any aggression directed my way. I also never heard of any violent, aggressive act among any of the other demonstrations. The context of this demonstration would surely have led to violent outbursts not twenty years ago. It seems to me that organized violence (hell, I’d say organized anything but…) no longer holds sway among the marginalized in this country. Now that’s not to say that some event couldn’t change that.

Which takes me to what I referenced above. Just because a book, an ideology, even a person might be manipulated and used for violence, does not justify protecting against that book, etc. I’ve seen discussions on this forum about how religious texts are used to justify violence. And I’d argue that some of those religious texts are used a hell of a lot more justifiably with regard to violent acts, than say Dawkins, for all his vitriol, could be used to justify atheistic violence. Certainly moreso than Ricker's book, which is the topic of this thread, could be interpreted as inciting violent reactions. Regardless, I think it has been rightfully argued that people, and not the texts they read, are responsible for their own violent acts. That Dawkins, Ricker, etc., might make their atheist readers more aware of how marginalized they really are, I will not deny. But I do not think it makes their books worthy of censure, merely based on the fear that atheists might used this newfound realization to commit violent acts. Nor do I think it the responsibility of the authors to necessarily address the violent possibilities you seem concerned about.

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject:

Niall001 · Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject:

What I find a little disturbing about a lot of the New Atheist texts (I've decided to label George's book as an Old Atheist text) is that their tendency to talk about religionists or theists as a unified group. They create a sense of guilt by association whereby even peaceful theists who have liberal and secular views are spoken of as enablers of terrorism and totalitarianism.

In this day and age, this is very unfortunate. Even George Bush goes out of his way to differentiate between ordinary Muslims and Islamic terrorists in his speeches, because experience has taught us that when members of a group commit an atrocity those who share their labels are often the targets of unjustified violence. Dawkins and co. turn in the opposite direction, instead claiming that not only are all Muslims responsible for Islamic terrorists, but all theists.

Oh and for better or worse, I thought I'd point out that Fiske - who was an atheist - was very critical of The God Delusion, and several less high-profile atheist philosophers and scientists have criticised New Atheism. So no need to run for the bunker just yet Mad! .


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT