Charlotte Allen is wrong about everything; except this: I'm an Atheist, and I'm angry. Recently, the Los Angeles Times suspended their editorial judgment and ran Allen's bigoted op-ed, an exercise in blatant insecurity and panic. In it, Allen rants angrily for an entire article in an attempt to trivialize the Atheist movement on the basis that we are boring, even if angry, fanatics who whine about being oppressed. Allen is apparently incapable of seeing the irony in beginning her article with the claim that Atheists are "crashing bores," and then fuming about them all throughout her 1,300-word fatwa.
Allen is not inclined to argue her point rationally, resorting repeatedly to the childish schoolyard name-calling she so decries. Apart from the "crashing bores" remark, she characterizes non-believers as unpopular "excruciating snoozes" belonging to the "pity-poor-me" school of atheism and "boohoo victimhood." The entire tirade is a lesson in misrepresentation. It is designed only to appeal to the limbic part of our brains, not to debate a position within the framework of reason, much less honor.
Allen, author of The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus, lest her predilections be unknown, claims that fellow author Terry Eagleton's new book, Faith, Reason, and Revolution, takes Atheists "to task... for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist." I insist, in turn, that we take Charlotte Allen, herself, "to task" for this ridiculous allegation. I challenge Allen to name a single reputable Atheist, or scientist, who makes the claim that because science can't prove something, it does not exist. Just one would suffice, but she will, unsurprisingly, fail to respond to this challenge, for no such reputable person exists. Science is not in the practice of denying things for which there exist no evidence, only explaining phenomenon based on evidence. However, it does not follow to infer that because science cannot disprove the existence of Apollo, the Sun god Ra, the ghost of Elvis Presley, and the "flying spaghetti monster," that we should give credence, not to mention unquestioning respect, to belief in these entities. If Allen finds it acceptable that we do not believe in thousands of other historical (and contemporary) gods and religions, then, as Christopher Hitchens so piercingly puts it, let her defend her God, the Christian god (or any god), as the right one, the superior one; so that the followers of all other creeds may burn in hell for an eternity, for inadvertently picking (or most likely, being born into) the wrong belief.
The title of Allen's critique, "Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining - Superstar atheists are motivated by anger - and boohoo victimhood," exposes her hypocrisy outright. Nowhere does she give an example of an Atheist being motivated by anger, or victimhood. Quite the reverse, she is blind to her own argument as she spews vitriol throughout. The quotes she cites are either taken out of context, with some clever editing, or false altogether. Sam Harris is quoted as saying "that it 'may be ethical to kill people' on the basis of their beliefs." This is a blatant misrepresentation. Harris, in fact, makes plain that only if one believes that the canon they subscribe to is the divine word of god, does it become ethical, or seem reasonable, to kill someone for their religious belief. Suicide bombing anyone?
Just as treacherous is Allen's mockery of what she calls "atheist victimology: Boohoo everybody hates us 'cuz we don't believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics." First of all, the percentage of Atheists within the U.S. has no bearing on our alleged whining about victimization. Second, claiming the contentions Atheists have with the status quo are trivial, simply because our market share is low in comparison to believers is ridiculous. If you take as fact the figures upon which Allen's phony argument relies, mindful that they are based on peoples' admitted beliefs, non-believers would then total 4% of the American population; by comparison, Jews make up 1.3% of the population (ARIS, 2001). Hemant Metha, moderator of Friendly Atheist, points out that no periodical would ever print Allen's argument, if the target were any other subset of the population. He asks what would happen if he wrote, "Here's why I can't stand Jews:
And so on. These are the same logistical constructs that Allen employs, and yet it is clear that no reputable publication would ever print these arguments. Were they ever to be published (substituting any other minority) their author would quickly be labeled a hateful, bigoted ignoramus.
Furthermore, consider Allen's mockery of the oppression Atheists certainly do face. Would she mock the fact that a professed non-believer would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, or Iran; and in other Muslim countries, if not beheaded, certainly jailed or socially ostracized? To be sure, the oppression and subjugation in our great nation is of a far different magnitude, but I can't think of a reasonable person who would deny its existence. Oppression, for millennia, has been the domain of the faithful. Allen actually disputes Sam Harris' observation, that "no person, whatever his qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that... God exists.' The evidence?" she replies, " Antique clauses in the constitutions of six -- count 'em -- states barring atheists from office." Forgive me for being a bit informal and sarcastic here and saying: "Oh my God..." Does she sincerely believe that the judicially overturned clauses in the constitutions of six states are what Sam Harris is referring to? I think not.
"Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God," she snaps. Who, pray tell, is beating the drum? Who, for millennia, has beaten the drum of fear into the hearts of followers, relentlessly, lest they stray from the one true word of god himself? I dare say she cannot find one prominent non-believer, who claims that people who believe in a concept that's been "drummed" into them every day since birth are stupid. One can find the specific belief itself unfounded or misinformed, but that's where it stops. A stupid person can believe in god, but so can a smart one.
Allen then makes a very revealing mistake, in calling the legal wrangling over education what it actually is: "Darwinism vs. Creationism" (F.Y.I. the word is evolution, not Darwinism). Take note that Creationists have long since changed the name of their lobby, having lost their case in the judiciary, to "intelligent design," which they argue, does not have the implicit religious element that "creationism" has. Whether you think it has religious implications or not, it's not science, and there is no controversy over that. To be sure, keeping religion out of the classroom is an issue that Atheists are passionate about. "But haven't atheists heard that many religious people (including Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution" she asks. Well, that may be, but the assault on science in the classroom can't be attributed to anything other than a religious movement. By the way, plenty of believers are passionate about keeping the classroom secular.
Finally, let's take Allen to task for perhaps the most insulting, most egregious offense propagated by her angry complaint: that the arguments which Atheists put forth in support of their belief are the equivalent of "lobbing a few Gaza style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ('if there's a God, why aren't I rich?)" I challenge you, Ms. Allen, for nothing less than the defense of your very credibility, please name one prominent Atheist who claims this as the foundation for their belief. I submit that you can't. By the way, is it just me, or did you just compare us with terrorists? That makes me angry, so I guess I'm one of your "angry atheists" (though I prefer Secular Humanist to that ancient and weighted misnomer).
Don't, please, speak as if you understand non-believers when you haven't represented a single one of us honestly. Don't, please, cleverly quote scientists, and philosophers, and rationalists, and journalists, if you're not going to reflect their actual views with your citations; it's surprisingly easy to read what they've written and be truthful about it. Don't, please, disparage and mock Atheists, or Agnostics, or Secularists, or anyone for that matter, and then go on claiming they should raise no objection to the very treatment, or worse, deny its existence. Don't, please, invoke emotion over reason in support of your argument, and compare us to terrorists. Don't, please, do all these things, and I won't be an angry Atheist. Rational people can only argue with the truth, Ms. Allen, so perhaps that puts us at a disadvantage, but we will argue our point, we will not be disparaged, nor will we be silent any longer. We've just realized, with your help, that we're a massive portion of the voting bloc, and we won't soon forget it.
Follow Landon Ross on Twitter: www.twitter.com/landonross
Ed Gurowitz, Ph.D.: I'm Down With Jesus -- It's Christ That Gives Me Problems
Ross' punctuation mistake, does not a benevolent deity make. What many of you refuse to admit is that he's just plain right. There are no "two sides" here, the two arguments are not equally viable, just as there's no real controversy over climate change, orbital trajectory, or the existence of gravitation.
It's such a simple issue to resolve, if you just let your fears and emotions go... long enough to think intelligently about the matter. There is no "god," unless you define god as nature itself, like the god of Spinoza. And defining "god" as nature is realllyyyy stretching it. Whenever I hear someone make that equivalency, I know I'm speaking to an insincere person.
There is no evidence. Period.
I work in science and have been around it throughout my life. When you learn how the world works, and learn how much we still have to figure out, it is the most empowering, inspiring, yet humbling experience.
Finally, Mr. Ross' most powerful point, in my opinion, is that Ms. Allen's article is abusive towards a significant minority of the American population, simply for the sake of being abusive. Nobody threatened Ms. Allen, nobody came to her door to convert her, nobody condemned her for her beliefs; and even if they had, it wouldn't call for bigotry. The reason she decided to bully and make fun of non-believers is clearly because she is so unsettled, so scared, so paranoid about science, secularists, and the modern world making it clear that her creed is no more credible than Santa Claus or the tooth fairy (there aren't many other explanations for her tone, if you think about it).
Bravo, Mr. Ross.
Arent you glad youre surrounded by people who are always willing to step in and help the punctuationally challenged?
Doesnt it just warm your heart?
Ross asserts: "Sam Harris is quoted as saying "that it 'may be ethical to kill people' on the basis of their beliefs." This is a blatant misrepresentation. Harris, in fact, makes plain that only if one believes that the canon they subscribe to is the divine word of god, does it become ethical, or seem reasonable, to kill someone for their religious belief. Suicide bombing anyone?"
But now Ross is the one misrepresenting Harris, since he seems to suggest that Harris is talking about other people (namely, religious fanatics) doing the killing. If that is what Ross is suggesting, he is wrong per Harris's own words. If not, he agrees that Harris is arguing for an equivalent of the Bush doctrine pre-emptive strike in the name of saving us from dangerous faiths. I will quote from Harris: " If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."
I have not heard you claim that Harris has not made the point in question, I assume this is because you are not adequately familiar with his work, or indeed because you are well aware that he makes this point quite often (synagogue speech - easily found on youtube).
Furthermore, nowhere in the article can you find any endorsement, on my part, for this particular viewpoint. In fact, I oppose Harris on any number of his opinions, at times passionately. My objective was to illuminate Ms. Allen's motives and ways.
More specifically he says: "Some critics have interpreted the second sentence of this passage to mean that I advocate simply killing religious people for their beliefs. Granted, I made the job of misinterpreting me easier than it might have been, but such a reading remains a frank distortion of my views. Read in context, it should be clear that I am not at all ignoring the link between belief and behavior. The fact that belief determines behavior is what makes certain beliefs so dangerous."
Here is the entire interview: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/
Just the standard "Non-Belief as Viewed Through the Lens of the Believer" stuff.
The disconnect is pretty stark, because to the believer, something very obvious and fundamental is being denied. They have no frame of reference to rationally discuss the absence of belief. So you get stuff like Charlotte's nonsense.
I believe it would be more correct to make this into a syllogism in this way:
Oppression has always been the domain of the majority. For millennia, the faithful have been the majority. Therefore, for millennia, oppression has been the domain of the faithful.
Quite a few of us who used to regard organized religion as, at its best, a consolation to people in this naughty old world we live in and, at its worst, just one more way for hucksters to filch money from suckers now see it as repressive and regressive, a blight on all of us. Twenty years of the poisonous mix of religion and politics has been a bad idea for both sides.
.
1) Boast of Galileo as an example of how religion didn't restrict "human endeavor." (I think any one of you can fill in the blank...) Galileo was tyrannized and prosecuted by the Vatican for explaining his scientific observations on the motion of the "heavens." He was forced to recant, twice, then jailed in his house for the rest of his life. This is a very odd example to choose on your part.
2) Gandhi, a religious fundamentalist who supported and owed much to the caste system, encouraged the depravation of life-saving technology and economic development within the Indian subcontinent, added intensity to sectarian violence among religious groups, whose racist and misogynist pronouncements were no example of an enlightened mind, is also a very telling example. It is, of course, shocking to hear this said, because you, like most (including myself before) bought into the standard narrative, where people like Gandhi are often canonized unscrupulously. I think you'll find, with some careful study, that Gandhi and others in his clan, were opponents of science.
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.
I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.
I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.
I accept human mortality.
We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.
I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.
This is atheism, it's a view point not a religion.
And Mr. Ross did an EXCELLENT job of lambasting Ms. Allen's piece. I read part of the op-ed, though I couldn't even finish the first page, so disgusting and pathetic it was. What seemed clear from the parts I managed to get through is that she feels very very defensive about how all those nasty boorish atheists are, in particular, showing how ludicrous and preposterous her particular Christian faith is. Something about "their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?"
I wonder, is it any religion, or just her particular dogma, that Ms. Allen believes is automatically correct?
As I said in an earlier comment, what "set Ms. Allen off", as it were, is the realization of how trivially her own particular faith is revealed as a collection of preposterous inconsistencies backed up by terrorist threats.
"...their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?"
YouMadeMeSayIt.com
It does not suggest a lack of compassion, purpose or a sense of wonder at being alive. But whining about it? This is nonsense.
Unfortunately, historically, socially, and even legally, it doesn't matter if it "makes sense", it is the only choice available.