Kiss me, I’m an atheist

[rug]

Nonbelievers need a new PR campaign, one that emphasizes their civic engagement

by Matthew Hutson |January 23, 2014

In Pope Francis’ Christmas address, he extended a surprise olive branch to atheists. But the reach was backhanded. “I invite even nonbelievers to desire peace,” he offered. Even nonbelievers? How magnanimous.

Religious tolerance has increased dramatically over the last few decades, at least in the United States. But one group remains behind the pack: atheists. A 2012 Gallup poll asked Americans if they would vote for a well-qualified presidential candidate nominated by their party if the person happened to be “X.” Catholic? Ninety-four percent said yes. Jewish? Ninety-one percent. Mormon? Eighty percent. Muslim? Fifty-eight percent. Trailing them all — and well behind blacks, women, Hispanics, and gays and lesbians — were atheists, at 54 percent.

Dislike of atheists might be surprising, given that we are a small and largely invisible demographic, making up less than 5 percent of the U.S. We are not known for terrorist attacks, secret cabals or any particular pageantry — we are not even a particularly cohesive group. As the comedian Ricky Gervais once wrote, “Saying atheism is a belief system is like saying not going skiing is a hobby.” But recent research has identified the primary source of prejudice against atheists: It is the distrust of those who are not scared of a watchful God. And the research suggests that current attempts to give atheists a PR makeover are severely misguided.

The source of prejudice

A 2006 paper by the sociologist Penny Edgell and her colleagues began to outline the nature of the anti-atheist bias. They found that people associate atheists with either the low end of the social hierarchy (common criminals) or the high end (cultural elitists). What these two groups purportedly share is extreme self-interest and lack of concern for the common good.

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/1/kiss-me-i-m-an-atheist.html

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/71/2/211.abstract

[cbayer]

1. He makes some good points.

The studies to date indicate that trust is the bedrock of the prejudice towards non-believers.

As with other movements, the key would seem to be "normalizing". More celebrities, sport figures, politicians, etc. identifying as atheist or agnostic would help.

Promotion of groups that provide for those in need, whether they be groups that include a variety of believers and non-believers or groups compromised solely of nonbelievers is a positive thing.

Identifying common interests with believers and working together with them is happening more and more. Pursuing 1st amendment enforcement is an area that lends itself to this, as it is in the best interest of believers, non-believers and our government.

As with other movements, there is a need to kick the door open initially. ACT-UP comes to mind.

But there follows a time to be more willing to approach others with a softer touch instead of a boxing glove.

If the numbers reported about distrust of atheists are not changing significantly, it may be time to step back and ask whether a change in tactic might not be such a bad idea.

[pinto]

2. As with perceptions of GLBT communities, once someone you know, admire, are related to, etc.

comes out, perceptions tend to change. Usually, though not always, for the better. I think it could be the same with atheist / agnostic communities.

I love this line from the article - "Empathy does not require belief in God."

[rug]

3. It doesn't but it always seems to be in short supply.

[pinto]

4. Maybe, yet I think empathy is inherent in most people.

Sometimes it just needs a "kick start". Or the room to be expressed. And those willing to help make that room, across the spectrum, for everyone.

Thanks for the post. It was a good read.

[cbayer]

5. While I don't think you need religion to be empathetic, but

I do not agree that it is inherent in most people.

I think there are way to many who for reasons of nature and/or nurture are completely unable to experience empathy.

The ability to place yourself in someone else's shoes and really try to experience what they are experiencing does not come naturally, imo.

[pinto]

7. Do you think it, empathy, can be fostered outside of the nature / nurture situation?

[cbayer]

9. Yes, in some, but there are true sociopaths that are totally incapable

of it and, imo, will never be able to "learn" it.

While I wouldn't apply this label to all republicans, I think there are some in positions of power that may fit this description.

[pinto]

12. While I wouldn't apply this label to all republicans...

Good point.

[Brettongarcia]

6. Atheists "lack concern for the common good"? Though science works for humanity, day after day?

Consider all the atheist scientists working for the good of humanity.

Then add in secular humanism.

Not believing much in god, or an afterlife, in fact often intensifies concern for humanity. Since ... what else is there?

Atheists are superficially cranky and grumpy; but after being burned at the stake for 3,000 years, who wouldn't be?

[rug]

8. Science actually has nothing to do with atheism.

[Brettongarcia]

10. In a way. Though its concern with physical reality, is ipso facto not spiritual

While 40% of scientists, even by conservative PEW estimates, are unbeliever.?

Of course, we can compartmentalize. And be an materialist/scientist one moment, and then a believer with regard to unknowns. But this classic, traditional, massively popular compartmentalism, in my opinion, amounts - metaphorically - to a kind of schizophrenic dualism.

[cbayer]

13. Using the term "schizophrenic" to describe people who are able to embrace both

the scientific and spiritual parts of themselves is wrong on so many levels.

[Brettongarcia]

15. It's 1) true metaphorically; just like "delusion" applied to at least, bad religion

2) Philosophically, me and lots of philosophers, are involved in the attempt to show that any philosophical dualism - especially Mind/Matter, or spirit/matter, or religion/science - is untenable philosophically.

Dualism is destructive in 3) in daily life; it means you are trying to live with two radically different, wildly incommensurate, contradictory, belief systems. Cognitive dissonance is severe.

Metaphorically, it's a double personality. One second you believe in material things and their importance; but next despise them.

[pinto]

26. My partner had schizophrenia. He was very spiritual and very technical. A computer guy.

And, fwiw, a great ping pong contestant. He had an amazing ability to incorporate both. Linear and non-linear. I think we were about 50-50 in our ping pong games. And he had a spiritual sense about things that I admired.

[Brettongarcia]

31. But was he able to comfortably put the two together conceptually? I'm working on that project.

You said he was schizophrenic, after all.

So what caused it? In part, it might be trying to live out two radically different ideas of life: Scientific and spiritual.

You yourself seem to feel the two, science and religion, are hopelessly unrelated; as "linearity" vs. "non-linearity."

My thesis is that the Bible itself resolved that disorienting duality; when it embraced Science, finally. In religious prophetic terms: it reunited Heaven, and Earth; religion and science.

Or insisted that religious folks learn a lot more science. And relate it to their religion.

[cbayer]

34. Er, no. Schizophrenia is not caused by trying to live out two different ideas

of life.

Although the term was originally coined as meaning two minds, we have have come a very, very long way since then and recognize that it is not that at all.

Science left the idea that schizophrenia was some kind of behavioralal disorder behind a long time ago.

[Brettongarcia]

40. Current Psych. tries to fix all mental things with pills. Strangely materialistic

I see some validity in that now-widely-accepted approach.

However? I'm trained in the rational study of Culture; and the conscious mind. Long after Freud, many of us - including religionists - are still interested in, and are still extending, the counter-thesis that many psychiatric disorders are caused by roughly, cognitive confusion. And can be cured just by talking to people, till their thinking is no longer confused.

If pressed on nonconformity to current clinical usage, I supposed I could say that I am using "schizophrenia" metaphorically. And am hoping for a new paradigm in Psychology. One which is similar to some older ideas, but carries them into some new realms; well past Freud's "talking cure."

By the way? Most of Christianity is not based on the idea that taking pills cures mentally ill people; it is based on the idea that giving them some useful new ideas, helps. Most of religion today, arguably all of it, is not based on taking pills to fix minds or spirits.

So how would you reconcile your apparent confidence in psychotropic drugs influencing brain states, vs. your apparent attempts here to disseminate religion by verbal discussion instead?

[cbayer]

42. I think you either need to get some further education in psych

or stick to philosophy.

Current psychiatry uses many tools to address psychiatric illnesses, include pharmaceuticals.

The medications available for schizophrenia have advanced light years in the last 30 years. Many patients would walk through fire to get them and many are able to live relatively normal and happy lives because of them.

But many other illnesses are not well served by medications and are much more amenable to other kinds of treatment. Any professional worth his/her salt will use the multiple tools available to them.

What does christianity have to do with taking medication for psychiatric disorders? While there are certain sects or denominations that reject modern medicine, including psychiatry, most do not. That's a very narrow perspective on your part.

I'm not trying to disseminate religion at all and you totally lose me when you compare treating a mental illness with proselytizing.

Totally.

[Brettongarcia]

46. Much of religion tried to excorcise "demons"; odd second personalities in people.

Or "evil spirits." Which might include say, destructive thoughts and lusts.

To this extent, traditional medicine men and religionists therefore had what we would today call psychological goals.

My point indeed was that seeing many disorders as strictly biological, is not right. So that? It may be that we could explore the hypothesis that schizophrenia could be helped by the "talking cure."

[cbayer]

47. Yes they did and some, most unfortunately, still do.

The RCC has rules that require a medical exam, including a psychiatric exam, prior to exorcism. They recognized long ago that some people with serious psychiatric illnesses were looking for an exorcism, but really needed a doctor.

Some disorders are strictly biological. Some are clearly not. And many are a combination of both.

Schizophrenia is a biological disorder. To try and treat someone with just talk would be malpractice. However, schizophrenics benefit from all kinds of interventions in addition to their medications, including psychotherapy.

Your "hypothesis" does not need exploration. There is a tremendous amount of data that already shows it is not true.

[Brettongarcia]

49. As you reject my approach in your final line, your text constant makes concessions to it.

[pinto]

44. Yes he was. Schizophenic and able to put the two together. Actually, there wasn't a two -

there was one person as a whole. He was a complete individual. I think you're missing that.

[Brettongarcia]

45. Yes, I see that one person did both.

But were they smoothly integrated?

If not, then doing two radically different things, could have contributed to emotional and intellectual instability/"schizophrenia."

I, one person, might say "I love material things," and next say "I hate material things." So there are two opinions in one person. But though they are part of one person, they lead my brain in two radically different directions.

The radical difference, changes of gears, I submit, leads the mind to changing direction from one moment to the next. The mind goes back and forth like, like ...

Like a ping pong ball....

A radical conflict; all played within a single head.

Result?

[pinto]

48. I can't speak for him. But I can speak for myself - I'm sorry I brought it up.

I just get triggered when some of this stuff gets posted. I find your point of view demeaning and the statement "all played within a single head" just heartless.

It's a personal, real life point of view for me. I never should have mentioned my relationship in this discussion, though. So there's that.

[Brettongarcia]

50. Sorry. I work informally with street people; many of whom joke about their own illness.

And with PhD's, who can be quite clinical.

Maybe the general idea of a "mental conflict," would be useful? Maybe this metaphor: trying to juggle too many conflicting ideas at once?

[pinto]

11. I think those burned at the stake were largely deemed "heretics" by the prevailing standards,

not necessarily for atheism. But for violating some established standard of the day. Just a guess on my part, so take that with a grain of salt.

As an aside, I don't often read historical accounts of execution by fire. It horrifies me.

[cbayer]

14. You are correct, and the last one was in the early 1600's.

[Brettongarcia]

16. See the larger pattern: not believing fully in "God" gets you executed.

[cbayer]

17. When exactly is the last time that happened?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Um, June 2013?

A 15-year-old atheist boy was reportedly shot in the face in a brutal execution by Syrian rebels, in a crime revealed by an anti-government monitoring group concerned about the actions of some Islamist fighters.

Coffee seller Mohammad Qataa was allegedly shot in the face and neck a day after being kidnapped by an Islamist group in Aleppo, called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, once previously known as the Nusra Front.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/10/syrian-boy-executed-atheist_n_3413661.html

Carry on.

[cbayer]

22. I know that it happens and it's a tragedy when anyone is murdered for their beliefs or lack

of beliefs.

I hope that you would agree with that.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. So when you said "When exactly is the last time that happened?"

you apparently were not implying that it hasn't happened recently? Odd, I guess I just completely misread that line.

[cbayer]

30. You did misread it.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Its ok to admit you made a mistake.

Really it is.

[cbayer]

57. I admit to mistakes all the time, WS.

I'll ask you again. What's your deal with me? Why the need to find something wrong with every single thing I say?

My read on it is that you are trying desperately to be accepted by a small group who have targeted me as the enemy. I could be wrong about that, but that's sure how it is coming across.

If not that, what exactly is it?

[okasha]

62. Bullseye.

Initiation ritual.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. 1826: last execution for heresy under christianity.

Other religions continue to execute people for heresy at the present time.

[cbayer]

19. Heresy does not equal atheism at all, and that was the statement that was made.

BTW, when do you think the last christian was killed for believing in the wrong god?

I would say it was probably within the last hour or so.

[Brettongarcia]

21. Here, full identity between heresy and atheism is, stipulatively, not herein asserted. As of now.

Just very significant overlap. As in Venn Diagram.

The region of overlap is this: not fully believing in say, "God."

[cbayer]

23. There would be a much larger piece of the Venn Diagram if you included

"believing in the wrong god".

So does every person who is a member of a group that has been persecuted for their beliefs or lack of beliefs have the right to be "cranky and grumpy".

[Brettongarcia]

24. Not necessarily. But if they seem harmless, or even good and productive; like atheist cosmologists?

In any case, atheists and agnostics - and for that matter Protestants - have a right to be at least grumpy about having been historically discriminated against, jailed, silenced, and often literally tortured to death. (Cf. Bruno, in Italy?).

[Manifestor_of_Light]

52. John Calvin barbecued the first Unitarian in Geneva.

Michael Servetus was a Unitarian and against infant baptism. He was also a physician and wrote about the circulation of the blood long before William Harvey. Condemned by both protestants and Catholics.
He was barbecued for heresy in 1553. He rejected predestination, stated that people condemned themselves to hell, by thought, word or deed, not God.

He is considered a role model for Unitarian-Universalists. Sometimes the singles group at a UU church is called the Servetus Club.

Galileo was forced to renounce his beliefs and kept under house arrest.

And Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake.

Kepler's mother was jailed as a witch for telling her son tales of going to the moon, for 14 months in 1620. He was expelled from Graz in 1600 for refusing to convert to Catholicism. He was a Lutheran. In Linz he was prevented from taking the Eucharist in his Lutheran church due to his theological scruples.

Kepler's laws of motion got the whole heliocentric cosmology idea going. See the third episode of COSMOS by Carl Sagan.

[Brettongarcia]

66. William Tyndale translated the Bible into English - and was strangled & burned for it by the Church

By the Church 1536. Some say he was still alive when they burned him.

Today the same Church that killed him now authorizes English translations of course.

[By the way? It is sometimes said that numbers that repeat - like say 3333, and so forth - are bad. In fact it often happens that in the Bible, when we see that a verse number matches a chapter number, that passage is a warning about bad things within our holy men: bad things in apostles, priests, prophets.]

[pinto]

28. (aside) I grew up in a town down the street from N. Hawthorne's home town.

His 'Scarlet Letter' and Melville's dreaded 'Moby Dick' was on every English class reading list. Though neither had an execution, per se, both spoke to intolerance and extremism. Good lessons.

[cbayer]

32. Those were indeed some very dark days.

I remember first reading about the Salem Witch Trials as a kid and being terrified.

[ZombieHorde]

27. This is going over much better than the first version:

Eat out my ass, I hate Christ

A lot of people found that distasteful for one reason or another.

[rug]

29. I think I saw that on a bumper sticker.

[ZombieHorde]

33. The children's clothing line didn't go over too well.

The new slogan should work better.

[Brettongarcia]

39. In a line, right after Providence RI, then New Bedford MA, is ... Martha's Vinyard

Where such phrases might be considered a friendly invitation?

I'm straight, myself.

[cbayer]

35. Lol! did you actually see that somewhere?

[ZombieHorde]

36. No, I'm just in a smart ass mood.

My coworkers should have fun with me today.

[cbayer]

37. You certainly are!

Hope they are in a complementary mood.

[ZombieHorde]

38. Me too! nt

[pinto]

41. Was gifted some premium sausage today from Pat La Frieda - here's their signature clothing line -

[ZombieHorde]

43. Nice! nt

[HockeyMom]

51. Don't Trust Pope Francis

as a former Catholic, I most certainly don't. After 12 years of Catholic school, I know the dogma of the church. "kinder, gentler church" won't change that, anymore than the former changed the Repuke Party.

[rug]

53. Good for you but that's not really what the article is about.

[eomer]

54. I invite even Christians to desire peace.

All the war mongers in my life are Christians. All the atheists in my life are peace advocates.

Of course, some of the Christians in my life are peace advocates (my wife for one) so I want to clarify that my response above is a tongue-in-cheek mimicking of the thoughtless slap in the face that the Pope just gave us atheists.

[rug]

55. Point taken.

[okasha]

63. How about the warmongers on your bookshelf?

Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.

[Rob H.]

64. So you know what books are on eomer's bookshelf?

That's an odd thing to say.

[eomer]

65. They're not on my bookshelf but, yes, good point.

There are atheists who are warmongers.

And that's consistent with the point I was making, which is that saying either one, "even atheists" or "even Christians", is to smear a broad category of people for the sins of some subset of that grouping. That seems to me a form of bigotry. I think what the Pope said was bigotry and I criticize both what he said and also any flip side or other instance of doing what he did. But to be clear, no one said the flip side, except as sarcasm.

[Jim__]

58. Does anyone speak Italian?

I think the pope is speaking Italian on this short video. About 30 - 40 seconds in is where he makes the statement about non-believers. He may be using the word anche which could be translated as also. But, I don't speak Italian and I'm not sure I'm picking out the right word.

[rug]

59. I think this is it in English.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/messages/urbi/documents/papa-francesco_20131225_urbi-et-orbi-natale_en.html


Here's the Italian.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/messages/urbi/documents/papa-francesco_20131225_urbi-et-orbi-natale_it.html

[Jim__]

60. Thanks. It looks like the reach may not have been so backhanded.

From the article cited in the OP:

In Pope Francis’ Christmas address, he extended a surprise olive branch to atheists. But the reach was backhanded. “I invite even nonbelievers to desire peace,” he offered. Even nonbelievers? How magnanimous.

And, from the translation you just cited:

And I also invite non-believers to desire peace with that yearning that makes the heart grow: all united, either by prayer or by desire. But all of us, for peace.

Citing a translated word as any type of provocation sounded like a quibble to me.

[rug]

61. Agreed. Good catch.

[goldent]

67. People get off on outrage