Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.
Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.
1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”
3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”
4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.
5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentI'm not sure how this adds anything to the debate. Consider the following:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Anti-slavery, anyone?
2. Positive assertions are necessary. You already provide an example of this in your quote from Dawkins.
3. Rational is as rational does. I don't enjoy making fun of theists they alarm and depress me. If one is looking for a condescending attitude, try your local church ('you are wrong because my faith tells me I am right').
4. The golden rule is symmetrical. Theists already prejudge us; we are sinners, unclean, non-believers who are on the road to Hell and therefore deserving of pity/hatred/violence. Even with this outrageous provocation, we would be hard pressed to find examples of atheists who do not conduct their struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.
5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. I would have thought that this was an atheistic axiom. Atheists perhaps afford freedom of thought no greater respect. Crucially, however, this respect does not, and should not, extend to supernatural belief systems. Believe in whatever superstitious claptrap you desire, and while I respect your right to do so, don't expect me to respect the belief itself.
This newly assertive muscular atheism is both necessary and welcome.
I completely agree with this writer's position but would like to add that it is not religious belief or the lack of it that causes conflict but the authoritarian imposition of a code of conduct on others rather than concentrating on becoming a better person oneself and having more compassion for one's fellow human beings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBravo Mr Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am currently reading the god delusion and have found it interesting but surprisingly condescending and mean spirited. Dawkins seems to be very angry in his dissection of the irrational belief in god. Since 95 plus percent of people believe the opposite of those of us atheist skeptics, I think Mr. Shermer has made a case for considering a different approach than ridicule or outright disdain of others beliefs. Negative tactics rarely work in any setting.
I have long acted in accordance with the tenets of this article, without the self awareness to articulate it so clearly. Thanks to Michael Shermer for giving me a footnoted list of reasons to support my belief that confrontation with those who don't believe what I do is rarely constructive.
Brian Williams
As I find the arguments for the supernatural and the paranormal sophistical, I desire ever to denigrate them. Science and philosophy alone cannot undo them as it takes the emotions to help to do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClifford Richard Dawkins is ever polite but firm in his rejection of the supernatural.
I take the positive stands of naturalism and rationalism and humanism.
Darwinism is the religion of the 21st century. The new Pharisees. As a true scientist, I can't escape the fact the every theory, article, model, and thought presented on this site has an Intelligent Designer. Escape the Pharisees! The Emperor has no clothes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you truly believe that a true communist can be moral and well adjusted person in society without ANIMOUSITY for opponents of adverse CONVICTIONS or religious beliefs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould you name me one such "communist" atheist ?
I find no science in your Quran, Knowledge seeker . All I see in your post is self delusion, and a revelation of the absurd notions believers will indulge in, to convince themselves and others of the truth of their superstition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe american revolution , in it's rejection of rule by the king of england was to that degree a negative movement, but underlying this necessary casting off of an inferior system of government was a very positive belief in a superior way of governing the affairs of mankind as enumerated in the enlightenment values of the founding fathers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell said!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's utterly stupid. speaking out strongly against religious lunacy does not infringe on anyone's freedom to believe as they will.
@Withnail, item 1, isn't anti-slavery really just pro-freedom, pro-individual rights?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Newrationalist The Egyptian revolution is a negative assertion, a refutation of what they have, so far with nothing to go in it's place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe American Revolution was the birth of the greatest positive replacement of mystical law with rational law.
I want to comment on your statement that theist, "...alarm and depress [you]" and "This newly assertive muscular atheism is both necessary and welcome".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a theist, I understand. There is a part of atheistic, naturalistic philosophy alarms and scares me, but as long as you don't try to kill me, remove me from society, lock me up for believing in a metaphysical reality that does not lend itself to natural, empirical methods, then be assertive in your atheistic approach to life.
Just know that as a theist (the Christian kind), I will strive to respectfully disagree, regardless of how assertive/aggressive you or Dawkins, or Hitchens, or anyone else proves to be.
As a theist, I find it exciting and challenging to live life and interact with those who what my time, money, or loyalty, and I am free to reject or embrace what I will. I respect both your right to not believe and your right to be an aggressive atheist (i.e. to promote "assertive muscular atheism") as long as the playing field is even.