Disagreeing with someone isn’t being intolerant, folks.
Everybody run! Fundamentalist atheists are roaming the streets, selling their books and giving lectures! The time for tolerance of this behaviour is over!
The Archbishop of Wales seems concerned about the rise of ‘Atheistic fundamentalism’. For the sake of my sanity I’m going to ignore the repeats of the ‘winterval’ and related myths (how I wish bishops and journalists would do the tiniest bit of research) and just point to Oliver Burkeman’s excellent article on the subject here. Let’s move onto those fun fundamentalist atheists.
The archbishop said “atheistic fundamentalism” was a new phenomenon.
Huh, see the trouble with the idea of fundamentalist atheism is that we have nothing to be fundamental about. I don’t have a holy book to assert is fundamentally true and unlike religious fundamentalists, I know exactly what would change my mind: Evidence.
He said it advocated that religion in general and Christianity in particular have no substance, and that some view the faith as “superstitious nonsense”.
Whilst many atheists might not say it so bluntly out of politeness, atheism is the belief in an absence of gods; by definition we see most of religion as untrue and useless superstition. That’s not being an extremist or militant atheist, that’s just being a normal one.
Dr Morgan’s Christmas message comes after the general director of the Evangelical Alliance, the Rev Joel Edwards, compared militant atheists to King Herod in their intolerance of religious faith.
Dr Morgan said: “All of this is what I would call the new “fundamentalism” of our age. It allows no room for disagreement, for doubt, for debate, for discussion.
But he said “virulent, almost irrational” attacks on it were “dangerous” because they refused to allow any contrary viewpoint and also affected the public perception of religion.
King Herod: Slaughterer of infants. Richard Dawkins: Writes books and gives speeches where he tries to persuade people through rational argument. I can see how the two can be confused.
I’m not quite sure these people quite understand what intolerance is, it is not intolerance to disagree with someone publically (you could even say that’s the definition of ‘debate’). The claim that this wave of atheism is closing down debate and disagreement is just plain wrong, doubt and scepticism are key foundations of current atheist thought. The hypocrisy here is evident, Dr Morgan is complaining about atheists shutting down the debate whilst Rev Edwards compares prominent atheists to mass murderers for writing books. This isn’t an isolated example; the Dean of Southwark compared Richard Dawkins to the July 7th suicide bombers on much the same ground. That is what intolerance is- I don’t like your ideas so you’re at bad as Stalin! Or Hitler! Or the evil spawn of the two! I would call these ‘virulent, almost irrational’ attacks, yet they seem to be common, used by seemingly respectable people and journalists don’t seem inclined to question them. If atheists are venomously suppressing dissent, we don’t seem to be that good at it.
In the end there is this fundamental point that the act of disagreement isn’t in itself intolerant; two people can disagree yet respect each other’s right to hold those opinions and to continue existing. I feel perfectly comfortable with the Dr Morgan being out there and disagreeing with me, but from this article I get the impression he doesn’t feel the same. He managed to create a definition of fundamental atheism that would apply to all atheists and describes it as inherently intolerant of the Christian faith for disagreeing with it. Seeing as simply holding atheist views is intolerant and the point of the article is that this intolerance is wrong, the logical conclusion of the definition and argument is that public atheism shouldn’t be allowed to exist - I have to say I’m not feeling too tolerated. Moreover, the article demonstrates that any atheists who step up to the public square to give and defend their arguments will be accused of being exactly as evil and extreme as people who kill babies and innocent civilians. Remind me who’s shutting down debate again?
I “stumbled” upon this page, and will bookmark your blog. It is eminently sensible, unlike the true fundamentalists whose psychological projection you criticize. It is impossible though for me to respect adults who believe in Mother Goose, and believing in the myths of the world’s faiths is the same. It is so shameful, the believers ought to get on with their belief in private, and leave the rest of us untroubled. Even Nick Clegg was forced to defend his atheism by bragging he was indoctrinating his kids in Catholicism. We are heading back into the dark ages. Good luck with you blog, its a good read.
Mike Magee
23 Dec 07 at 1:10 am
Atheists need to stand up to this kind of ad hominem argument.
I’m not sure what the good archbishop means by atheist fundamentalist. I mean, if you’re not sure there is no God, then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist isn’t closed-minded, they simply think your arguments are nonsense.
He might be confusing zealousy with fundamentalism. Most atheists aren’t zealots. Whilst the definition of relgious fundamentalism is very clear (e.g. a very literal interpretation of the Bible), I am very unclear what this term means when applied to atheism.
Maybe the word is used as a non-specific slur, an ad hominem argument, rather than an honest argument?
You will never get an atheist strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up a market. What’s the danger of supposed fundamentalist atheism again??
Atheists have done bad things in the past - not becuase they are atheists, but because they were bad people. But far more blood has been spilled by religion.
Calum
23 Dec 07 at 1:25 am
[...] The reason I decided to talk about this issue was because I stumbled on a blog post by someone called Alex Parsons, an atheist like me, who was dumbfounded by the Bishop’s comments, and the hypocrisy of his statements. [...]
Adrian Hayter’s Blog » Blog Archive » Atheistic Fundamentalism?
23 Dec 07 at 1:26 am
Well said. Describing atheism in the same terms as religion is like calling bald a hair colour.
Simon Poole
23 Dec 07 at 1:26 am
Thank you for writing this blog post. I found it through stumbleupon, and having read the article on BBC News website earlier, decided to write my own blog post about it. The Bishop is clearly anti-secular and a hypocrite.
Adrian Hayter
23 Dec 07 at 1:31 am
Excellent!
Dana
23 Dec 07 at 1:33 am
I have to agree, your cleverly worded relation of Harod and Dawkins is uncanny. The mass populous of the world is opening up to a new age of technology and science, thereby leaving little room for religious leaders to monopolize the overall concept of their given denominations. People such as yourself are taking advantage of the ability to simply speak your mind, and since “It is written” that an uprise of disbelief will come about, they view the honest and out-of-the-box perspective as a threat to their own retrospect. Religion has been the soul purpose of millions of pointless slaughters and wars, and to think… people with enough wit to author a book are condemned… who’da thought!..
Kizzle
23 Dec 07 at 1:37 am
I’m not a Christian, so before a bunch of people swarm and flame me, just know that. I’m Agnostic, in that I don’t really know. In an infinite and infinitely complicated universe like this one, anything seems like it might be possible.
With that out of the way, I now have to regretfully inform you that there is totally such a thing as intolerant, militant atheists. There’s no such thing as “fundamentalist” atheists, that makes no sense. But what the bishop was probably thinking of were the number of super-aggressive, vindictive, rude, and intolerant atheists. These are the ones that I expect to swarm and flame. They only seem to attack Christians. You’re a wiccan? Fine. You’re into Shinto? Cool. You love Jesus? You’re a MORON!!!!!ONE! Lets all gather around and mock, insult and slander you! Let’s blame you, individually, for mistakes of the Pope(who is a catholic and not associated with most branches of Christianity), for the Crusades(which is like blaming any white person alive now for slavery), and any other non-specific “religious” war and/or slaughter ever! Surprise! Just because a person believes in a Judeo-Christian God does not mean they think those things are good or even ok. In fact, if these militant atheists were to actually read the bible they’d realize that Jesus advocated love, tolerance, equality, and peace. To assume that every Christian is into murder and intolerance is like assuming every Muslim is a Jihad-shouting terrorist, or that every atheist is an asshole.
I’m not saying that the Bishop is right, I’m just saying that atheists shouldn’t paint themselves as the picture of blamelessness and tolerance that I often seem to see them claiming.
rora
23 Dec 07 at 3:01 am
What scares me most is the entire debate pits realism against fantasy . If I were to walk up to a random person and told them that a man that lives on the North Pole will truly fly all over the world to give gifts to only deserving children in one night dependent on how good they were in the past year, most people would have me locked up for insanity. Yet, millions believe , fight an kill over a chap who , through making water into wine, random healing and philosophy, is going to somehow save my soul for eternal damnation if I accept his life to be factual. I have yet to meet an atheist that would kill someone for his/her acceptance that there isn’t a iceberg’s chance in Florida that this fantasy is true. Have we fallen back into the Dark ages? I sure hope not.
Gary Dray
23 Dec 07 at 3:09 am
** Atheism is not a religion . . . we need not play along **
>> The word ‘theism’ is an abstraction about an abstraction ‘religion.’
‘Theism’ is an abstract noun which collectively refers to every religion (another abstract noun) which espouses the existence of at least one god, usually one(s) having a personality, interacting meaningfully with human beings.
The set of theistic religions would include: Xianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, ancient Greco-Roman polytheisms. It would not include: Theravada Buddhism or Chinese ancestor worship. These are non-theistic religions.
Theist and atheist alike can agree about which religions are theistic. Religions are reasonably well-defined “objects” (social unit) which can be discriminated and counted. Such agreements, shared by supposedly antithetical camps, are for me “the salt which never loses its savour.”
Atheism is essentially a viewpoint which denies that any god whatsoever exists. For the so-called Big-4 Near Eastern monotheisms, the atheist claims that of God and Yaweh, Ahura Mazda and Allah, not one of them exists. These fictional characters have no greater status as beings than Gilgamesh, Zeus, Sherlock Holmes, or Batman.
Let’s be clear. Theism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion either. (To claim otherwise is to make a howling ‘category mistake.’)
>> A religion is a praxis assuming a play world myth-taken as reality.
One necessary characteristic of ‘religion’ is that it form a recognizable social unit sharing common practices, identifiable from within and without. (Despite its theistic stance, the Boy Scouts is not a religion. It is a voluntary association.)
Atheism embodies no common praxis — it has no creeds, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no outward means of identification. Atheism is not a voluntary association. Of course, there are voluntary associations which do espouse atheism.
>> Speaking clearly about non-existent, but well-known fictional characters.
Having an opinion that gods do not exist cannot mean that one has an opinion “about” gods. There is no so-called ‘god’ in reality, according to the atheist, about which to have an opinion. But, I can talk about an imaginary being. I can use a “play language” as-if there were a being to which I could refer. (See Johan Huizinga, Homo Ludens and Hans Vaihinger, The Philosophy of As-If.)
Certainly, I can have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘Hamlet’ as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘God’ as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’
All I can know about these characters is what I read in primary source(s) directly devoted to them. I can no more find “God” by doing cosmological research than I can disinter “Hamlet’s” bones in a chapel at Elsinore.
No interpretation of Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” makes some character called ‘Hamlet’ more likely to exist. No interpretation of the synoptics of the “New Testament” makes some being called ‘God’ more likely to exist. Theology is merely third-rate fan fiction.
bipolar2
© 2007
bipolar2
23 Dec 07 at 3:22 am
I can understand wanting to defend ones faith, but I wish he would not do so in a way that made said faith look ridiculous. There’s going to be a few extreme examples–these are things to be stopped and gently pointed to when someone starts doing stupid, and this should be done *after* you’re sure it actually happened. Fiction can be a good teaching method, but it works better when you know beforehand that it’s fiction.
Kenny
23 Dec 07 at 3:49 am
** Jesus had no ethics **
You have only to step outside monotheistic thought patterns to understand how much atheists and theists alike operate on a narrow bandwidth of “knowledge”. It’s merely a hangover from imbibing too much xianity. There is no inherent relationship between religion and morals.
If your model of religion is based on the big-4 monotheisms, you won’t even understand truly Western (Roman or Greek) religious beliefs and practices so vigorously suppressed by byzantine jack boots of a near eastern church militant.
Jesus’ “morality” is irrational, otherworldly, and impractical. It promises much, and delivers nothing. His ‘interim ethic’ — “take no thought for tomorrow” — notably in the Sermon on the Mount, foresees the kingdom of god as childlike. The pristine world to come would need no Law, religious or secular.
Jesus thought the world would end soon. So did his immediate followers . . . that’s why Paul has to calm the freaked out first generation of dupes (”believers”) some of whom died before Christ’s vengeance could fall upon their hated enemies.
The world did not come to an end. The dead did not rise to put on their incorruptible bodies. Christ, the vengeful judge and his 10,000 angels failed to put their official stamp on the great unwashed living in the urban slums of the eastern Roman Empire.
Ever since, Pauline intellectual nihilism and sexual puritanism have been the official party line. Read your Bible, 1Cor1.
Jesus was erased by Paul. He really was the persecutor, after all.
bipolar2
23 Dec 07 at 4:04 am
Hmm…I think this all goes back to a fundamental misunderstanding or confusion as to what atheism even IS, both by atheists and theists.
Is it the active belief that gods do not exist and CANNOT exist, along with a concerted effort convince others of this? Or is it merely a LACK of belief that deities do exist (due of course to a lack of evidence), and not really caring what other people believe? Is there even a DIFFERENCE between these two “types” of atheism? Do people like me, who claim to fall into the second category, really just belong to the first category and are just kidding themselves and afraid to take a strong stance out of some desire to be polite or politically correct? I’m honestly asking here, none of this is meant to sound sarcastic or pedantic.
I bring this all up because I think most religious people assume all atheists falls under the first definition I’ve given. They assume we have an active “agenda” and wish to brainwash children with the Golden Compass and so on. Nevermind that these tactics are exactly the same as theists use.
I think there needs to be more debate among atheists about the two “definitions” I’ve given above. I say this because by no means do I mean to say that I understand what atheism is and I’ve decided the be-all end-all definition(s) for it. I’m merely putting those two contrasting “versions” forward as my personal understanding of the kinds of atheists I see day to day online in discussions such as these.
Thank you, sir, for your blog. You are well-spoken and rational.
Matt
23 Dec 07 at 5:01 am
nice blog ,great information
thanks for sharing
bhaktapurgirl
mazzako.blogspot.com
bhaktapurgirl
23 Dec 07 at 5:28 am
Well said. Describing atheism in the same terms as religion is like calling bald a hair colour.thanks for it
jasmine
tech-chek.blogspot.com
jasmine
23 Dec 07 at 5:31 am
Obviously, you’re right, there’s no such thing as fundamentalist atheism. There’s no such thing as an atheist somehow believing slightly that there’s a god. But, I think what the archbishop and others like him mean is that some atheists are a bit militant in their beliefs - like Richard Dawkins, who advocates that there shouldn’t be any religion at all. Of course, “virulent” and “irrational” are very strong words and just shows that he probably, definitely, haven’t thought this completely out.
Jack
23 Dec 07 at 5:45 am
There are plenty of militant atheists out there. I’ve seen them. They’re every bit as obnoxious as religious people who run around trying to convert everyone. I’m agnostic and I’m sig of people trying to shove their beliefs at me, on both sides. I can’t decide who’s more self-righteous and arrogant, a televangelist or a militant atheist.
Roto13
23 Dec 07 at 6:35 am
I too “stumbled upon” this blog. I recognize that the site it is posted on is planet atheism, but for the sake of equal representation, and the need to make minor correction, I wish to post from a Christian perspective.
I cannot say that the Archbishop of Wales has any right to say what he did as it has already been proven false by you who were called as such: “fundamental Athiest”. It seems as though their may be some Christians that need to take the plank from their eye.
On behalf of the Christians that feel the same as I do,and even those that do not, I am sorry. As there are extreme people in all areas of life, some certainly do not express themselves in unity with the rest.
I hope that you might all be open-minded enough to find other representations of modern day Christians to base your information on.
I encourage those that will, to view my blog for a more complete compolation of my thoughts on this topic, as it is rather extensive.
beautifulservant
23 Dec 07 at 7:16 am
http://www.xanga.com/beautifulservant31
beautifulservant
23 Dec 07 at 7:48 am
[...] There was a lot in the comments about militant atheists really existing and I wasn’t denying they do, just that the definition given defined ALL atheists as militant atheists. To be honest I’m not keen on the word ‘militant’ because it’s already loaded with a lot of meanings that don’t necessarily apply. Pretty much the worst excess of ‘new’ atheism is those who are on occasion a tad vocal or annoying, I include this image from Principles of Parsimony to aid with comparison: [...]
Feeding The Fish » Blog Archive » On Militant Atheists
23 Dec 07 at 10:36 pm
Matt: My understanding of the different “versions” of atheism is similar to yours; I think you’ve made the distinction well. What I think has caused “the rise of atheistic fundamentalism” is that, after the recent atrocities of the Islamists, a lot of us evolved from your Type 2 atheists (live and let live attitude) to your Type 1 atheists: such stupidity has gotta stop!
But further, upon transitioning from Type 2 to Type 1 atheists, most people (out of intellectual honesty with themselves) seem to feel obliged to suggest alternatives to any theistic worldview, rather than be nihilistic. Thereby, many (if not most) of us choose secular or scientific humanism, which we then promote; I do so, in my book at http://www.zenofzero.net . Then, too, we no longer accept being defined via negation (viz., “a-theist”) and instead we (at least, those of us who become “militant” scientific humanists) define the theists with negatives: “unscientific antihumans”!
zoro
25 Dec 07 at 11:55 pm
As someone who considers themselves a ‘fundamentalist atheist’ and a ‘born again atheist’ I can assure you that my only agenda is that people look for the truth about all things.
Being open to the truth means adjusting your beliefs and view of life according to the evidence shown.
Christianity, like all religions, has no interest in the truth. they simply seek out evidence that can be manipulated and bent to fit their particular world view.
As such, the truth is a threat to these people.
That is all fine and dandy but until godpods, of all verieties are prepared to admit this, me, and people like me, will opose them every step of the way.
The truth requires an open mind.
Something the religious CHOOSE not to have.
They are fools and should be seen and treated as such.
And numbers are irelevent.
The truth is not democratic. It does not require public subscription in order to exist. It simply is.
The sooner godpods recognise this and shut up the sooner they can get on with their stupidity without bothering inteligent people.
mrcnfox
27 Dec 07 at 12:21 am
Very well said, mrcnfox. Although I do not press people to be atheist, the truth is that religion is a mere list of false explanations invented by “primitives” (I use the word “primitive” lightly, don’t take too much offense) to make them feel like they understood everything. Science however, is developed theories that are thought through, using evidence to either make or break a logical explanation as to why various things occur.
I would have no problem with religion, if it didn’t start wars (crusades, and wars of animosity between two religions), divide the world into groups (I am sure scientists wouldn’t blow the crap out of each other if they disagreed on something), and make people irrational (refer to . This is not a severe attack on religion (it would not matter, because it would be like criticizing a wall), I am just portraying what I think about the whole issue.
Cole Kerr
10 Jan 08 at 3:38 am
oops, at the refer part, I meant to link a website, sorry
http://www.ocellated.com/2006/04/13/bill-nye-in-waco/
Cole Kerr
10 Jan 08 at 3:39 am
And nothing annoys me more then when people say they believe in so-and-so, because how else can so-and-so be explained. If it has not been explained, then that is because we do not have the proper technology to study it or the proper idea to support our own theories of it. An example of this was Alfred Wegener’s Theory of Continental Drift, proposed in 1912, yet it was discarded because of lack of evidence. It wasn’t until the 1960’s that it popped back up with Harry Hess’s Theory of Sea-Floor-Spreading (look it up if you dropped out of high school ;)), that explained how the continents drifted apart. These two theories combined are now known today as the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Plate tectonics are widely accepted because there is plenty of evidence and detail to support it. I just quoted my entire 8th grade science class XD
anyway, ‘nuf said.
Cole Kerr
10 Jan 08 at 3:47 am
Well said. Although my personal perspective when dealing with those who, given the choice between the application of logic on actual evidence or some bronze-age mythological system that rejects evidence, choose the latter, is to point out their self-evident stupidity. I’m sick of showing respect to idiots. It is, of course, their absolute right to believe whatever they choose. As it is mine to point out how asinine they are.
Andrew Perry
12 Jan 08 at 8:43 pm
Honestly, if most of the loud voices proclaiming the virtues of atheism were as reasonable as this, I doubt there’d be as much grumbling among the religious.
In fact, most of the atheists I know -are- eminently reasonable, humble, and kind in real life. Likewise, those who believe deeply in some form of divinity have, in my life, shown themselves to be equally reasonable, equally humble, and equally kind. One sees poetry in the brevity of life, while the other finds deep connection to others through a common thread of Being. In many areas, you could confuse one for the other, were it not for one thing: the question of whether or not there is a Divine Source. What a small difference, indeed!
Our collective awareness, embodied through the media, tends to focus on only the most cartoonish, churlish examples of humanity. It’s no wonder that the mystic and the freethinker both appear as idiots to each other. Not all Christians are as idiotic as Pat Robertson, not all Buddhists are as serene as the Dalai Lama, and not all atheists are as pompous as Christopher Hitchens. We categorize because it’s easier for us to do so. It’s simpler. It requires less intelligence and less compassion to categorize all people who believe “X” as idiots/geniuses.
The anonymity of the Internet makes asses of us all, and all too often those proclaiming either reason or divine love end up convincing the masses that we, as a species, are capable of experiencing neither.
So, rather than preach to the choir (or the lowest common denominator), I would ask the following: what are you doing, personally, to lead by example? The atheists I know who live with love, compassion, and tolerance in their hearts certainly seem to gain more converts than any Christian missionary I’ve known.
Duncan McPherson
15 Jan 08 at 7:01 pm
Why do we argue with the god people? Thinking is not really their best thing, so using reason and logic to convince them of anything is an exercise in futility.
Smile at them. Pat them on the head. Treat them like a sweet but slow child. Your blood pressure will thank you.
kjdamrau
16 Jan 08 at 9:31 am
Interestingly emough, the latter half of the discussion sees to have degenerated into a “militant type atheist” slant. Is this approach necessary? When you address someone as a primitive or a fool, how does that get your message across?
We need to decide, as humanists, if our role is to ridicule and insult, or to educate and enlighten. If it is the latter, then the arrogant, know-it -all attitude has to go.When we behave like that, we are playing right into the hands of those who would like to keep the world in intellectual bondage.
tone-toni
17 Jan 08 at 12:32 am
I’d agree folks, try to keep it somewhat civil. Feel free to call a silly idea silly or a particular idiot an idiot, but let’s avoid the generalizations. They’re too easy to say and too often wrong.
Alex Parsons
17 Jan 08 at 10:07 am
I think Atheism is a result of religion rather than a creator. I believe there’s more than just this material world, but it won’t be found in religion. Religion has given God a bad rap. And before we discuss God we first have to determine our definintion of God. Maybe someday when humanity grows up we will be able to prove the existance of a “Universal Mind” using science. If humanity grows up.
davidholmes
1 Feb 08 at 6:17 pm
I don’t think that calling religion “primitive is in anyway militant atheism. Religion, and certainly christianity it by its very definition primitive. It actually claims to have been written at the beginning of time, and you can’t get any more primitive than that- unless you are talking about cave men. Maybe you feel self-concious about worshiping a (technically) primitive text.
The Ministry of Truth
19 Mar 08 at 12:50 am