Bless atheists, for they have sinned

[rug]

Emma Teitel on the problem of modern atheism

by Emma Teitel on Friday, November 15, 2013 10:37am

The door-to-door religious proselytizer is, like his secular cousin the Cutco knife peddler, a harmless irritant of modern North American life. If you don’t care for his wares, you say no thanks, shut the door and sometimes roll your eyes. But you rarely, if ever, engage. Portland University philosophy professor and proud atheist Peter Boghossian not only advocates engaging religious fundamentalists in debate, he has written the manual on how to do so.

His new book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, could be called the bible of deconversion. Boghossian has a mission: to rid the world of religion through what he calls “street epistemology”—the act of literally talking someone out of his or her faith. Street epistemologists are essentially evangelists of reason, set on shepherding religious people away from the darkness of supernatural dogma and into the light of logic. Sound familiar? Boghossian has taken one of organized religion’s most invasive and possibly problematic practices—proselytization—and turned it on its head.

“Five per cent of the U.S. population does not believe in God,” he writes. “We have a standing ‘army’ of more than half a million potential street epistemologists ready to let loose to separate people from their faith . . . to deliver millions of micro-inoculations (of reason) to the populace on a daily basis.” A Manual for Creating Atheists is, in a way, an atheist’s attempt at Old Testament-style eye-for-an-eye revenge. What better way to chip away at the already dwindling numbers of most major religions than by recruiting from within? Boghossian’s deconversion methods draw on everything from the rhetorical tactics of ancient Greek philosophy to the works of modern atheist all-stars Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins—whom he refers to as atheism’s “horsemen.” Through street epistemology, he hopes the non-believing will “transform a broken world” into a new society “built on reason, evidence and thought-out positions.”

At worst, Boghossian’s approach might appear tongue-in-cheek and harmless, or, if you’re an atheist, noble and necessary. But it points to an unnerving new trend in the world of the non-believing—one that doesn’t merely personally reject religion with a “No thanks, I’ll pass” attitude, but globally opposes it, with the addendum, “And not for you, either, if I have anything to say about it.” Boghossian’s militant atheism not only attacks religion’s zealous and radical manifestations, but targets its benign and secular ones, too.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/11/15/bless-atheists-for-they-have-sinned/

[enlightenment]

1. What's good for the goose,

as they say . . .

[rug]

2. The problem is the gander not the goose.

“I used to think of atheists as being more upstanding than your average theist, but it’s simply not true,” says Rebecca Watson, a feminist author of the popular blog Skepchick. Like thousands of women active in the online atheist community, Watson has experienced misogyny verging on the deranged. She is regularly called a c–t and receives death threats that cite man’s “superior evolutionary psychology.” (When you can no longer use scripture to subjugate women, why not try science?)

[enlightenment]

3. Well,

pulling one oddly out-of-place statement out of that bizarre and incoherent article is an interesting way to finish the saying, I'll give you that.

Sorry, rug - the article is poor. Not worth debating, for me - but I'm sure someone will be along soon with more to say.

[rug]

4. What? Here?

[enlightenment]

5. :)

[MisterP]

8. maybe someone can turn this into a quiz

http://cgs.illinois.edu/sites/default/files/media/GrayWolfe_SociobiologyAndCreationism.pdf

[rug]

15. I remember all that hubbub around Wilson and sociobiolgy. The conclusion was that he's racist.

Bookmarked for later. Thanks for the link.

[longship]

6. I prefer Dennett's solution.

Not to eliminate religion. Who would even be deluded enough to think that is even possible, let alone a practical solution? Dennett makes it clear that the problem may not reside in religion itself, but on religion's cultural hold on some important issues. Ethics. Right and wrong. Etc. Those things have a common cultural origin outside of religion. That is an inevitable conclusion for any rational human being. But religion has this narrative which portrays itself as the originator of ethics -- the ancient Greek philosophers would undoubtedly disagree.

Dennett's plea is to not rid the world of religion but to help religion to evolve into avirulence. I am not smart enough about collective human psychology to understand how to approach this goal, but I nevertheless think it is one that humans will undoubtedly have to deal with, one way or another. I worry that if it isn't dealt with we may have the devil to pay (so to speak).

On edit: this is why I consider Dennett's landmark opus to be Breaking the Spell and why I often recommend it in this forum.

[rug]

7. I learned a new word.

avirulence: lack of competence of an infectious agent to produce pathologic effects

It's a good word, a good goal, and of widespread application.

[longship]

11. It also applies to politics.

But the GOP seems not to be able separate their religion from their politics. That's a monumental problem for this country, and the world. We ignore this at our peril. And yes, religions are at the forefront of the negative side of this.

I wish there would be somebody who could just snap their fingers and make it all go away. But that would be a god, which I don't believe exists.

[cbayer]

10. I like Dennet's approach much better.

I particularly like the concept of evolution to an avirulent state.

If you take an evolutionary perspective, it would seem that the way to do this would be to remove any advantage in using religion to control the state, government or individuals. That's why separation issues are so important and reversing the inroads the religious right have made so critical.

[cbayer]

9. Ugh. Just like the progressive/liberal believers need to distance

themselves from the RW fundamentalists, atheists need to distance themselves from people like this.

There will be sects and extremism, just like religion.

Trying to deconvert is just as objectionable as trying to convert.

[longship]

12. Can you imagine an atheist knocking on your door at 8AM Sunday morning?

Like a Jehovah Witness. Or a pair of Mormons? (They somehow always come in pairs, just like the Bobbsey twins. They even dress alike, just like the Bobbsey twins.)

I think this an extraordinarily bad idea. It gives comfort to the common narrative that atheists are trying to kill all religion, as if that were possible. All the big name atheists have said so. Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, etc. Dennett sings carols at Christmas every year. Hitchens was well liked by the theists with whom he debated. Dawkins respected prayers at his university. I don't know about Harris or Stenger, but I imagine that they would have similar feelings.

The atheism movement is not about tearing down theism. It's about letting people know that many people all over the world are not theists and that this has been a fact for a very long time. What is causing a problem is that theists do not want to cede their territory, nor their power. That's the problem and why many non-believers are getting pissed off. But at least people aren't getting stoned to death for it... in the USA, at least.

[cbayer]

14. That's what he's proposing.

I would hide just like I do when the others came. Well, like i used to before I lived on a boat. Now no one comes by, lol.

I think the majority of those involved in organized atheist groups would agree with your last paragraph. But, as I said, there will be sects and it should be made clear that sometimes there are those that really aren't true scotsmen.

No one wants to cede their territory. In the end, it all has the potential to become very tribal, doesn't it.

[longship]

19. It's all about live and let live.

Maybe that's why many of us here in the Religion group get along so well. Many of you are my best DU friends, something I cherish, and why I come back here time and again.

I only wish we could come up with solutions to the issues at hand. Regretfully, there are no easy ones short of exposing the madness. One has to take an inevitably adversarial role. That allows our opponents to portray us negatively. It is difficult to find the path.

I try to persevere in spite of it all. I am always kind to my Sunday morning visitors, although I let them know in clear language that I am not interested in their religious snake oil.

[cbayer]

20. Totally agree.

I have many friends in this group and I look forward to talking to them.

But my most favorite group is cooking and baking. Everyone is really nice to each other, in addition to being supportive, appreciative and interested. If you have any interest in cooking (or eating), check it out.

I think we are coming up with solutions.

I envy you your Sunday morning group. The place we are staying right now has a clubhouse for boaters, but nobody really hangs out there. But much information is shared and debated on the docks every day.

It has has been great to get to know you longship. Even though we disagree, and disagree strongly at times, on some issues, you are a joy to talk to.

[longship]

21. When one disagrees, one should do so respectfully.

Why more DUers do not understand this simple maxim, I'll never understand. Passion is important to an intellectual argument. Rudeness and ad hominem are an indication of one who has no argument.

As always.

[cbayer]

23. There are many who could learn from you, longship,

including me at times.

[Promethean]

13. To those who think this is about a guy who wrote a "de-conversion" book.

The writer of the article is just a religious person grinding an axe. That didn't do her research and is misrepresenting Peter Boghossian's book. You can tell this by clicking the link and reading the rest of the article. It immediately segues into calling Atheists misogynists and nazis with half assed justifications. That alone should trigger a skeptical reaction to the first part of the article. Further research would show Mr. Boghossian's book is actually about conversation techniques that are effective when engaging with a religious person. As opposed to them just shutting down and walk away in a huff with nothing accomplished but to trigger their cognitive dissonance.

[rug]

16. The author is not as you describe.

Given a 1000-word national pulpit, it’s of no small interest to see what a twenty-something might do with it. Recently, she ran headlong into the Republican primary, with unfortunately predictable results.

The headline – “Uniting under the Bigotry Umbrella” – pretty much sums it up. These other quotes round out the analysis: (of religious Republicans) “we may worship different gods but don’t worry, we feel the same way about gays, Muslims and the environment”; (who advocate) “wholesale discrimination and the advancement of a religious agenda, to the detriment of civil liberties”. What she called “everyone’s favourite travelling circus” was last week embroiled in the “God-fearing” Palmetto State (sic). She also refers to these Republicans being prejudiced against “the ‘secular liberal agenda’”. The over-used quotation marks imply of course that secular liberalism is some kind of mythical political creature.

It is quite remarkable that someone so young would have assimilated and strung together so many over-used anti-religious and anti-Republican brickbats. The conventional wisdom has long derided conservative Christians’ apparent obsession with the private conduct of others. Ms. Teitel seems to echo the corollary, that morality she disagrees with should be banned from public discourse, or at the least loudly ridiculed. Take that you “God-fearers”.

http://www.drjandmrk.com/?p=3660

Since she writes a column, she says that she can cover mostly whatever she wants. Since she’s “gay, young, female, and Jewish, [she ends] up covering a lot of topics related to things gay, young, female, and Jewish (not necessarily in that order)”. Generally, she loves topics that make her angry and require no statistics.

http://writinganotherchapter.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/an-introduction-to-the-journalistic-work-of-emma-teitel/

[cbayer]

17. I think you make some valid points about the writer's bias, but

the subtitle to his book is "A manual to create atheists".

If that's not "deconversion", I don't know what is.

Other reviewers (friendlier ones) also use the word deconversion.

IMHO, deconversion is no better than conversion as goals go.

[dimbear]

18. Jews have been very unwelcoming to missionaries for many centuries,

for reasons based accurately on history. No reason that wouldn't extend to secular missionaries, if any.

[DreamGypsy]

22. Here is Peter Boghossian's talk on street epistemology, from the conference Imagine No Religion 3...

...which, I maintain, clearly demonstrates that Ms. Teitel's article misrepresents Boghossian's techniques and, to a certain extent, misrepresents his intentions.

The lecture is 57 minutes long but he covers his strategy in the first 25. I found the talk quite intriguing and I expect that many others will as well. If you are on the, uh, faithful side of the debate you may take umbrage at Boghossian's views, but look at it this way - he's letting you know how to detect if the passenger beside you in the airplane is attempting an intervention with you as the subject.

Enjoy.

[rug]

24. Ok, I watched the first 25 minutes. His reasoning is based on several unreliable assumptions.

Watching it, I was reminded of another review of his book.

Try to identify which of the following are Billy Graham quotes, and which are taken from A Manual for Creating Atheists:

1. “…a lot of people feel some religious belief in their hearts, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, people who think the Emperor of Japan is divine. But they can’t all be correct.”

2. “Truth does not differ from one age to another, from one people to another, from one geographical location to another.”

3. The goal of this book is to create a generation…who actively go into the streets, the prisons, the bars, the churches, the schools, and the community…”

4. “It makes me feel awesome…What would it take for you to open yourself up to that gift?”

5. “I feel sorry for the man who has never known the bracing thrill of taking a stand and sticking to it fearlessly. Moral courage has rewards that timidity can never imagine.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/02/atheist-philosopher-peter-boghossian-s-guide-to-converting-believers.html

[DreamGypsy]

26. OK. I got 4 out of 5 correct.

...and I only have the benefit of watching the video, not reading any part of the book. And, fortunately, of having never seen, nor read anything by, Mr. Graham.

The article you cite makes the same mistake as Ms. Teitel's - Mr. Boghossian's approach, as I understand it, is not about 'converting' the believers, but about constraining their paradigms for accepting knowledge, with the possible, hopeful side-effects of eventually getting creationism and its ilk out of our schools, politics, and principles.

I'd appreciate seeing your list of "unreliable assumptions".

Thanks for your response.

[struggle4progress]

25. When the proselytizers come to my door, I try to express some common ground with them

before getting back to things that interest me more: for example, I generally tell the Jehovah's Witnesses that I really like their uncompromising anti-war stand and that I really admire their history of nonconformity in Nazi Germany

There's no upside to being a jerk

[dimbear]

27. That's a good approach with the Mormons too. Congratulate them that they got along so well

with the Third Reich, and didn't suffer the fate of the JWs and the Jews. Should open up an interesting discussion.

Sad truth to tell, it's becoming a little known part of history.

You may open some eyes.

[struggle4progress]

28. Sadly, the keys to survival for regime opponents in the Nazi era

seem to have been either leaving the country or keeping one's head down far enough not to attract attention: it was a totalitarian system, and it did not tolerate dissent

At the start, the regime monopolized media, and they initially picked away at their opponents piecemeal, with careful propaganda to avoid creation of obvious martyrs. So, for example, the arrests of communists occurred immediately under cover of the Reichstag fire, and Jehovah's witnesses who refused to give the Heil simply tended to disappear into "protective custody"

Early in the era, many people believed the Nazis would not last long, were unaware of the growing abuses, and felt that good patriotic citizens should support the government: it is therefore misleading to judge people of the time by what they might have done in (say) 1933 -- and those who did not foresee what was coming in time to make adequate preparations gradually became ever more isolated and terrified with the consolidation of Nazi power

The Mormons, too, have some Nazi martyrs: Helmuth Hübener, 17, was guillotined in 1942, for opposition to the regime. He had, like almost everyone else his age, been a member of the Hitler Youth. Unfortunately, of course, such examples seem relatively rare in almost all sectors of the German society of the time

[dimbear]

29. As it turned out, by keeping their heads down the German Mormons lost essentially no members.

Hubener is the main one remembered, he has a street named in his memory. Since Mormon missionaries are avid to spread truth, giving them back a bit would seem only fair. One might mention the dates that Adolph Hitler and Eva Braun received proxy baptism into their church, for instance, as helpful to their worldview. I say dates purposefully, I believe that occurred several times. There's been a bit of a scandal about the records office not being as forthcoming as it should be on this little datum.

Don't let's any of us forget American Mormons fought fiercely and bravely for our freedom in WWII. This isn't about that.