My disappointment, disagreement and disgust with the militant atheist movement

As a proud, happy and determined atheistic thinker, I am quick to confront the illogical fallacies embedded within the arguments of my opponents. As an increasing tendency of this principle I hold dear, is my DISAPPOINTMENT, DISAGREEMENT and quite often DISGUST in regards to the ‘militant atheist’ movement that has emerged in recent years. Leaders of this movement are individuals such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and, of concern here, Richard Dawkins. In many ways I actually hold many of the sentiments expressed by Noam Chomsky on the subject, which can be read here:
http://www.myspace.com/chomsky/blog/395413368

But aside from the seemingly pointless aims of the movement, which other than unity of the irreligious and more vocal expression of the rise of irreligiousity and the need for more rational social thought (most of which seems lacking in the militant side of the atheist world), there are a number of aspects within its process and action that really annoy me. In many ways the militant wing of the atheist human collective is proving to be more of a hindrance to its own initial goals than an enhancer.

This is an example of the kind of blind anger which does far more to stifle, impair and corrode the movement of rationalism against religion.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaJelU29jeI&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaJelU29jeI&feature=related[/ame]

Dawkins refers to an assertion of Martin Amos’ that essentially was – a religious nut shouts ‘god is great’ when he commits his atrocities, but what does a secular (presumably atheist – since the guy obviously didn’t realize you can be religious, in this case Muslim and also secular) shout? His point was to be rhetorical, but Dawkin’s finds one zealous response that says – Heil Hitler! Well aside from the fact Hitler wasn’t secular, and most of Germany was Christian, there are plenty of answers to this childish question of Amos’ – here are the ones that jumped into my mind when I first heard the question: ‘For King and Country’ – ‘Long live the revolution’ – ‘For liberty’ – ‘for peace’ – ‘for Troy’ yadda yadda. The only thing his question and these responses show, which I have made clear, is that the only thing similar in any of these is the invocation of ANYTHING to justify their acts. It doesn’t matter if they scream ‘god is great’ because they can just as easily shout ‘long live the king’. The point is a higher purpose is invocated simply for justification – NOT for the sake of the invocation itself.
But Dawkin’s responds to this rhetorical question, and its poor review that gives the Hitler answer, with an entirely different and ENTIRELY CONTRADICTORY, SELF-DEFEATING response.
He contends, and I’m paraphrasing so excuse me if I’m not entirely accurate:
‘If you believe that your God has told you to kill those of another faith then you are doing a righteous act and you’re a good person because you are doing what is divine. You are right because you are following your religious morality.’

Now the problem with Dawkins’ reasoning is rather obvious. The problem here is not religion the problem is what is believed. You see religion, like any ideology, can be interpreted in such a way as to teach that God tells you to kill, or it can be interpreted that religion in fact tells one to believe God wants you to love. EVERY major religion has extremist trends than condone practically any atrocities – but ALL OF THEM they also have trends that are COMPLETELY pacifist.

In this way, Dawkins performs an amazing act of completely contradictory rebuttal. He begins with the standard and CORRECT argument that no valid conclusion can be drawn by the singling out of a certain example – in this case, you can’t say secularism leads to violence and brutality because of one example (Hitler wasn’t secular, so it was a crap example, but there are plenty of other valid ones: how about the obvious - the USSR). He is correct in his analysis; no such conclusion pertaining to the nature of all adherents can be drawn from the actions of a few, often a minority. In just about every other example that could be conceived, the source stems from something else other than secular concepts and no responsible conclusion can be drawn daming all secular thinking. Taking my example, in Soviet Russia, repression of existing Church institutions was done as a means of dispersing the rule of church leadership and its anti-Soviet politics, as well as for other specific conditions of Russian society at the time. Later on it was a means of national identity and institutionalized totalitarianism, although many Russians retained their faith through the history of the USSR. This movement had very little to do with the values of secular rule, and atheistic thought.
The fact is, like secularism, in fact like any ideological concept, religion is utilized by society for WHATEVER ends it desires. If society wants unity through homogeneous identity, it will advocate ethnic cleansing. If people are being persecuted and want distance between them and their oppressors, they might pursue pacifist tendencies for reciprocal political progress – so on and so forth.

HOWEVER, whilst Dawkins’ response is entirely correct in his initial response to the Hitler answer and its implications, and this is where Dawkins really annoys me, he then proceeds to apply EXACTLY THE SAME LOGIC to religion and yet obtains an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANSWER. He fails to drop the intrinsically flawed logical of Amos’ comment to begin with. Dawkins is a complete HYPOCRITE to say that secularism cannot be summarized by the crimes of a couple of secularists and yet turn around and say the COMPLETE OPPOSITE about religion.
He goes on; ‘there is no logical pathway leading from atheism or secularism to such atrocious act’.

And he is wrong also, or to be more precise he is correct in so far as the most logical and rational analysis of such concepts does not readily beget such acts, but he is wrong in his obvious premise that there can be no such logical link made between atrocity and godlessness (politically and otherwise). And the evidence for this is actually quite clear in his OWN SLIDESHOW!
He begins (within the video) by saying (again paraphrase here):

‘I’m offended by some things, like gum and backwards pointing baseball caps. But (and here’s the crucial part) I don’t try to get blasphemy law passed to prevent people chewing their gum, or reversing their caps around. So what if I’m offended? So what if my feelings are hurt? Does that give me the right to prevent others from expressing their opinions?’
(I assume he was going to say NO, but forgot and then asked furthermore)
‘however, is there a time when it ok to be offended?'
(he goes through some slides where he says Yes to things like)
‘a strictly religious education, telling your kids about hellfire and scaring the crap out of them, when scientific research is compromised’
and here is the important part;
‘when voodoo is given equal weight to science’ and wearing the burqa which he describes as ‘hymen reconstruction surgery’ and ‘female circumcision’.
WHAT AN IDIOT! Let’s consider them individually, these last three. I’ll start with the most important – female circumcision. Now of course, female circumcision is wrong – if you don’t consent. But what if you do (as unlikely as this sounds) do want such a procedure and you consent? What should stop you? If you are off full control of your faculties (obviously at the designated age of consent, 16-18 or above, whatever) what should stop you? Dawkins? BECAUSE HE’S OFFENDED?! How is that any different to being force to do it?! IT ISNT! Next point; ‘when voodoo is given equal weight to science’ well what is wrong with that? If it is openly, rationally discussed, we have no fear of voodoo, let alone its recognition over standard science. Why should Dawkins’ be offended? If I was him I would laugh at such a proposition, and rightly so.

But the last, and by far the most important, is the burqa slide. In this he finds offense in what is fundamentally an expression of someone’s religion. Abstaining from the possibility of the women involved being forced to wear it, wear does Dawkins gain the authority to say his offense in the burqa (I don’t know what offense you would find as long as the women wants to wear it) should see it removed form society, which he is clearly implying? How completely and outstandingly hypocritical of him to begin his slide show with a pro-liberty display in denouncing the right for one to force their taste of fashion and their childish annoyances as examples) into preventative law over the public and then propose exactly that by the end?!

If Dawkins’ stands for freedom within the personal and public arena, why does this freedom stop at religious expression and religious opinion? As Noam Chomsky again so eloquently puts it; ‘If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.’
http://www.finestquotes.com/author_quotes-author-Noam Chomsky-page-0.htm#ixzz1YOLLE5uP

As he says, he’s not offended by backward caps, he offended by other forms of apparel BUT for some reason when that apparel is the burqa his principle changes and its ok to strike out public liberty. TOTAL HYPOCRISY – TOTAL DELUSION. In this way, Dawkins’ does indeed answer the question of Amos – ‘because I find it offensive’. Not only this, he even goes far enough to dance with the answer of Heil Hitler, since he clearly, in the same manner as Goebbels, is entirely in favor of free speech – for the views he likes.


I think this example provides a good point of my opinion on this topic. In many ways the militant atheist movement, whilst its goals are quite noble and I very much encourage and support them myself, its means and method are totally self-defeating and in many ways are a betrayal of its own aspirations.

 

I should have written this, but I'll post it here:
To be fair there is a path of mental exercise that allows for such conclusions that he makes in regards to his conclusions of religion stated earlier on. One begins with their chief criticism or thought and then increasingly extends this in a more general way to their evaluation of the subject at hand – in this case religion. Eventually, both by laziness, but also by other means, the individual’s initial criticism, which is often based on a valid, but limited set of evidence, is fragmented into a generalized, irrational and in Dawkins’ case, self0defeating argument.
This kind of non-sequitur argument isn’t particular to anybody – every side of the theist vs atheist debate uses it at some stage and almost all of us have this general tendency to generalize at some stage of thought. I’m not trying to excuse it, I merely make reference to the fact Dawkins is by no means the only utilizer of such logical fallacies.

btw sorry for the length, but the topic needed it.

 

An interesting post. As a Christian I am of course at odds with Dawkins but in some ways I appreciate Dawkins for saying what he and many atheists really believe. Such a militant anti-god atheism has done much for the Church in forcing Her back to the Scriptures in providing answers and defense.

There is an interesting book out called 'The Dawkins Delusion' by Alister Mcgrath. Though I don't share all the views of the author concerning Christianity, it is some what similar to what you are discussing.

Quantrill

 

Interesting, I'll look it up.

 

Just to check... what part of Scripture has ever given answer and defense to Dawkin's main points on Christianity specifically?

 

None that would satisfy an atheist. But that is really immaterial to the Christian. When questions arise of our faith, then the Christian looks to answers from the Bible for their saisfaction, not the atheists.

The atheist will never be satisfied as he is not looking for answers to his questions. He is looking to disprove God and the Bible. To cast doubt on the Bible. To leave the Christian doubting his faith.

Quantrill

 

Personally I never read Dawkin* because I assumed - quite like the nice little article you've linked - that all I'd find would be an old hat. All secondary stuff I read on him so far asserts that assumption.

I can answer Chomsky's answer to the possible audience though: people who due to their mental age feel the teenage-need to rebel against some form of authority and who are not up to date enough to realize that it's decades ago that the Church was a worthwhile target and that the arguments, they chew again and again, were new and revolutionary.

*I have to admit that neither did I read all of your OP, sorry.

 

Although Sam Harris is friends with Dawkins and Hitchens, I wouldn't put him in the same boat.

Harris is actually pretty laid back in his approach to atheism. If anything, he's probably the best atheist for a theist to read or listen to for the sake of provoking thought.

He's much more diplomatic than the other 2.

 

Harris is far more intellectual in my opinion, I very much reading Harris's books and listening to his lectures.

 

Well, anyone who gets aggressive or angry is going to come off as tossers by their "enemy" (and frankly, also by some who weren't their enemies before they were angry).

 

Well, I for one am offended by hymen reconstruction surgery.

 

I don't like it either, but what does that have to to with the OP or with being a Theist/Atheist?

 

But then what you're saying is, a Christian doesn't look to reality, just to self assuring notions from a book.

Well, I'm agnostic, but I cna assure you most atheists, Dawkins included, have said they very much would recognize God if he's existence, or a reason to believe in it, were given.

No, that assumes its already been proved. He is, in regards to God, simply pointing out the reality of the fact there is no proof or reason to beleive or follow him. Religion is another story.

That is certainly not hard to do.

 

Exactly.

That's ok, it was mostly a dissection of his argumentation. Chomsky best summarizes my position generally anyway.

 

I haven't read much of Harris, although I did see him in a discussion with Reza Aslan (a Muslim author I very much like) and he wasn't that impressive, in so far as he didnt have much of an idea about Islam, although he views about atheism and theism generally were good. I hear also he's quite pro-Israel, which also annoys me but that is rather irrelevant to the religious writing he sells.

 

No. The Christian does look to reality and finds answers of it in the Bible.

Reasons are given, but they do not satisfy the atheist. Because he has concluded there is no God.

No, it assumes nothing. God has been proved to the Christian. We know He exists. The atheists are not seeking God but are seeking to disprove the God that Christians know exists.

Really? I haven't witnessed it happening.

Quantrill

 

They dont do a good job. LOL

Because the reasons are flawed and petty.

I have made no such conclusion - yet I find the reasons given are quite bs.

No it hasn't been proven to the Christian - the Christian has merely told himself that and convinced himself of it even though it has not been proven.

Know, we dont.

...?... No (most) atheists question the claims of Christians because Christians have no reason or evidence for their claims.

Then you need to get out more.

 

Here's a good summary of Harris's view on Islam. I think it's pretty accurate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

Harris despises the political correctness that we employ when discussing Islam's connections to fanaticism.

As for his views on Israel, I'm honestly not that familiar with them.

I'm not exactly a huge fan of Israel myself, but I don't like the Palestinians either. I think that whole region would be better off without religion, but I guess that's another discussion altogether.

 

Thanks for that.

I agree with him on that point. My problem, stemming from the debate I mentioned before, was that he viewed Islamic extremism as core to the religion, which I disagreed with.

He's quite a zionist. I think his family is Israeli.

LOL Yeah, best leave it for another forum.

 

Personally, I support Israel's right to exist, so in that respect, I'm a Zionist as well. However, I also support the two state solution being put forth. I think Palestine should have its own state.

That being said, I would hope Harris also supports a two-state solution, but I wasn't aware of his personal connections to Israel.

I think it's fair to say that a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam leads to fanaticism in the same way that a fundamentalist interpretation of Christianity can. The Quran does seem more militant than the New Testament in general.

Granted, I realize that the average Muslim is probably no more militant than the average Christian. I think the average Muslim is like the average Christian in that most of them don't take a particularly fundamentalist view on things.

 

Did you watch the Dawkins video?

 

If you want to look at it that way I'm a zionist also.

Or fundementalist Judaism, but yes I agree.

Yeah, but then you can also say the first half of the Quran is far and away less violent than the whole Bible and you'd also be correct.

I agree. Religion, generally, is utilized, applied and shaped in relation to socio-political conditions.

 

Sure they do.

Because its not the reason your looking for.

Because the atheist has concluded there is no God. Because the agnostic has conclulded he can't know. Because the reasons are not what you want.

No. God is proven to the Christian. Trust me.

You're not part ot the 'we'. We know God exists. You don't.

Atheists question the Christians claim because they want to disprove that the God the Chrilstians know, exists.

I do. Point out where any have caused the Christian to doubt their faith.

Quantrill

 

LOL They do a terrible job. If they didnt I would still be a Christian.

Yes it is - the problem is the reason is bs.

I want ANY reason that is valid. Christian reasons arent valid. But you wouldnt understand this.

No, God isnt proven to anyone. I cant trust you.

You dont know God exists at all. And yes I am part of the 'we'.

But they dont know God exists - all they have is faith - blind hope.

You are speaking to such evidence. Dawkins himself was once Christian.

 

No, they do a great job. You never were a Christian. There is no such thing as a 'used to be' Christian.

No, the problem is its not the reason your looking for.

See. You have already concluded a Christians reasons are not valid. So, no matter the reason a Christian gives, it is not valid. In other words, they give reasons. But its not what you want to hear. And because they are Christian, then it is not valid.

God is proven to me. And you don't know.

No you are not Christian. Thus you are not part of the 'we'. Sorry. And we (Christians, not you) know God exists.

No, the Christian knows God exists. Our faith is not blind just because you cannot see. Indeed, it is you who are blind.

Sorry again, there are no used to be Christians. Dawkins never was a Christian.

Quantrill