The "Little People Argument"

[trotsky]

I've long felt those who admonish other atheists from being too critical of religion are essentially showing condescension toward believers. I did not know there is a name for it - the "Little People Argument."

This, from a blog post by Jerry Coyne, explains it in a nutshell:

Atheism is not just for the wealthy. In fact, it’s probably most useful, as Marx realized, for the downtrodden. Arnade is doing what we see so often: arguing that although religion is a delusion, and he doesn’t accept it, we must let the “little people”—in this case the poor and homeless—have their delusions. That is an unforgivably condescending attitude, and another sad and gratuitous swipe at New Atheism, instantiated, as always, by Dawkins. There are many atheists on this planet, and not all of them have “done well.”

Also explained very well (in conjunction with the "Dying Grandmother Gambit&quot in a comment (#33) on a post by PZ Myers:

Although they’re both designed to shut the atheist up, the Dying Grandmother Gambit is slightly different than the Little People Argument. As PZ describes it,

Here’s how it works. An atheist says something assertive about religion; religious sympathizer retorts, “Would you say that to your dying grandmother? You atheists can’t give any consolation to the dying or grieving, and all you can do is flip a finger at believers.” There is usually a tone of high moral indignation, as well, and a smug expression of superiority that the faithful have over the godless.

A Little People Argument pleads that atheists hold back on religious criticism because religious folks — the ‘Little People’ — just can’t handle the truth like the/we atheists can. They need the comfort; they depend on the familiar; they can’t reason their way to meaning, morals, or merriment in a world without God. It’s their identity. It’s their culture. It’s their crutch. Leave them alone and let them believe what they want as long as they, specifically, aren’t bothering you. The dear little things.

The first one focuses on the ‘comfort’ atheists can’t provide; the second one focuses on the ‘comfort’ the theists can’t do without. I think both tactics are demeaning to the believer — who is, apparently, oblivious to the insult as long as the agreement is to hold off on intellectual challenge to faith. The religious/spiritual can just re-translate both the Dying Grandmother Gambit and the Little People Argument as signs that the Good Atheist cares about them. Forbearance for the weak will pass as respect for faith — if you’re desperate enough, I guess.

[cleanhippie]

1. We hear this quite often from our "I'm agnostic not atheist" clique

As well as the "I'm a tolerant atheist, not an anti-theist" cohort. They use the very same "what do you care if it gives them comfort" drivel, not realizing how condescending, arrogant, and elitist it really is.

We also hear this come from many believers as a defense for their beliefs.

Thanks for posting this. Interesting.

[Warpy]

2. When I'm in a particularly bad mood

I might ask the smug theist in question how he feels when he thinks of his granny in hell for eternity because his god is capricious enough to have sent her there. I point out that hell is the more likely destination for all people, including believers, and reading the bible through would confirm that.

Jesus might have guaranteed his followers an afterlife but he was incapable of guaranteeing them a pleasant one.

Most people are quite aware that I am not religious and have better sense than to try to bully me into giving lip service to their beliefs. We get along just fine without it.

[Goblinmonger]

3. At least one regular poster in Religion has overtly admited

that they wish they were more like the little people because it is such a burden being awesome.

Unfortunately, their privilege will certainly stop them from seeing how spot on this is.

[trotsky]

4. I found it eerie just how much it described the attitudes of some. n/t

[mr blur]

5. Wow. (nt)

[NeoGreen]

9. (in my best Capt. Kirk voice) ...must...resist...

...meta..posting...

not...my...group

[Warren Stupidity]

6. My half-demented 88 year old mom and I discuss death all the time.

She's my kid's dying grandmother, and we are all fine with death without fairy tales. When your brain is rotted out and your legs don't work and your life is reduced to a bed with a window and really bad tv, death is a release from tedium.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. An argument from stupidity.

And some audiences wonder why 'we' are always so grumpy when they talk to us. They don't even see it. It's invisible to them. Beyond their capacity to grasp how some utter bollocks like that could hurt or anger another person.

Like I haven't had the experience of comforting the dying. Like *i'm* the ignorant, vicious little shit in the conversation. Yup. It's me.

As you can imagine, the 'dying grandmother' argument doesn't have much pull with me. I don't lie to people. Not even to make them feel better.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. While I do agree with these examples of condescension,

I still do not believe that some of the "being too critical" that I see and hear is appropriate. Being critical does not have to be abrasive. I think that often, when there is criticism of atheists and the way that they discuss religion, it is because of a corrosive attitude more than the argument they are making. Pissing everyone off is not going to win the argument.

I do not hide my atheism, but I also know that I will not convert believers with criticism (nor do I care to). I would not say that the "little people" need their religion. But if a believing grandmother is dying, or a believer lost their mother, I think it is poor taste to bring the subject of religious delusion up at all. I have actually tried to console a very religious friend whose husband died by telling her to lean on her faith. I don't think I was wrong to do that, even though she knew that I did not believe in God.

However, if it is just a discussion on the existence of God, and someone were to use the "would you say that to.....", I would let them know that was a low blow. But I wouldn't tell them they were an asshole for bringing that to the debate.

[AlbertCat]

10. Pissing everyone off is not going to win the argument.

But some of the most neutral of statements piss everyone off. Some enter the "atheists are speaking their mind" scenario with a prefabricated "I hate atheists. They are after ME!"

You get the same thing with homophobes. They "just don't like you" even if you just made their daughter a beautiful wedding dress she is going gooey over....for a greatly reduced price. (could I be speaking from experience here?).


Anyway, religion's so egocentric. It's all about the believer and how they feel, in fact their feelings are so amazing, they ARE reality...for everyone...right? Besides religious people seem to LOVE to be mad at something. I'm always commenting on how Christians.... and Muslims... just seem to be pissed that other people live on the planet. They think they're persecuted in the US!

So in such a volatile aether, how do you know if you're gonna piss off someone or not? You can be as nice and logical as you want but....

As far as people dying. I simply remind the grieving that all the cares and worries, big and small, for the dead are over. I personally don't believe in an afterlife, but one thing you can be sure of, their troubles are over. (fuck hell!)

[Curmudgeoness]

17. Yes, some people will just not like us

for no other reason than that we are atheists. And yes, there are those who will be pissed off at anything we have to say, no matter how polite we are simply because the message is so offensive to them that they cannot see past their feelings. But I am not referring to the polite, or even reasonable and rational posts that stand their ground. We have all seen flamefests get out of hand, and people allow themselves to get too angry, and these are what I am cautioning about. It gets us nowhere. I always think of the other people who are not posting, but who are reading, and how they see the discussions.

[Tobin S.]

11. Religion does comfort people.

I don't think saying that is condescension. It's just an acknowledgement of the way they really feel. It's actually probably what is at the root of all religious belief. Everyone's greatest fear is death. Religion is the promise that life will continue...forever in most religions. People choose to believe that because it is comforting. It's definitely a lot more pleasant than what is the likely reality.

So you can tell people what is really going to happen, but they can't accept that reality. That is what is at the root of all the bickering in the religion group. You can really reduce it all to that. All of the contortions in logic and arguing can be traced to, "I don't want the end to be the end." That frightens people to the point that it actually seems logical to believe in an afterlife.

There's not much I can do about that.

[trotsky]

12. No, there isn't much we can do about that.

Last edited Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)

But it's an unhealthy fear - and I think the point is, people in that position shouldn't be treated like children as if they aren't capable of living without belief. There is nothing wrong in pointing out the flaws in religion, its bad side along with its good. We're all adults, none of us should have to be protected or sheltered from other points of view.

[NeoGreen]

13. In general I agree with your posted POV, but...

... your assertion that "Everyone's greatest fear is death" is not necessarily true.



I do not fear death, I may have some trepidation about the process to which I will be subject to, but not the part about "not being".

I "wasn't" for over 12 billion years and it didn't really hurt me and I "won't be" for no one will know for how long, and I am fine with that. People have been doing it for a few million years, and no one has come back to complain.

We should do our best to enjoy our time here and help others do the same.

[onager]

14. Hey, at least we all get one of these...

[deucemagnet]

15. Window seat?

Well lah-ti-dah Mr. one-percenter! Some of us will be taking a more humble and traditional conveyance to hell.

[onager]

16. Yes but, check out that in-flight movie.

"Glittter," a/k/a "Shitter." Perfect entertainment for our trip to perdition.

The only thing worse/better might be "Showgirls." One of those rare movies where you keep asking yourself, "Can this thing possibly get any worse?" And the answer is always "YES!!!" Elizabeth Berkley looks like she sort of wandered onto the movie set, fresh from her performance as Tree #2 in the third-grade school play. Gina Gershon isn't exactly Judi Dench, but she steals every scene they're in together. Which in this case, is admittedly very petty larceny.