Introduction: You're too nice

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! .

George Ricker · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:01 am Post subject:

I guess I need to catch up. I'm not going try to answer every point raised in this discussion, just a few of the more salient one.

Niall: In answer to your question, the new book is titled mere atheism: no gods…no problem! and is a selection of material from my web site. The site gets a good bit of traffic, but there are lots of people who don't like to read essays and the like on the web or who simply prefer to have things put in a book, so this is mainly aimed at them.

As to concerns about atheist authors inspiring violence against religious believers or groups, I have to confess I find all this talk about "New Atheists" and "movement atheists" very misleading. First, because there really isn't anything "new" about atheism at all. Atheism is about not believing in a god or gods. Now whether that's expressed as a lack of belief in gods or the belief there are no gods, it's not a particularly new idea.

It's also not "new" that atheists are speaking out. I doubt there is now or ever has been a more outspoken atheist than Madalyn Murray O'Hair, or one who was more polarizing. I think what most disturbs those who have been so quick to react to and to label the "New Atheism" is that, for possibly the first time ever, atheism is reaching a much broader and much more receptive audience.

I'm also not aware of any atheist author advocating that children should be removed from the homes of religious parents because of their religious beliefs. (I know Dawkins first signed, then retracted his signature, a petition related to that subject. That hardly sounds like advocacy.) Even if one did, I'm quite sure the overwhelming majority of atheists would not support such a notion. Now we don't think parents who physically abuse their children should get a pass because of their religious beliefs but that's a separate issue.

Saying that the brainwashing and religious prosyletizing that goes on in some homes is tantamount to child abuse is doing nothing more than stating what should be obvious to anyone who examines the matter carefully. However, I think the terminology should be clear from the context in which it is used. One of the reasons it gets used that way is to counter the widely held notion that, where children are concerned, exposure to religion is invariably a "good" thing.

At any rate, discussion of this particular aspect of the situation might be better referred to the discussion of the ninth chapter of my book, "Suffer the children."

And, Niall, feel free to call me an "Old Atheist." Anyone who has seen my photo knows that to be the case. Actually, I prefer to think of myself as "older," rather than "old." How about "elder atheist." That has a ring to it.

George

George Ricker · Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:11 am Post subject:


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT