Wednesday, February 28, 2007

"Atheists Need To Shut Up"

Since I started blogging I've had a chance to read a number of blogs written by other atheists which has been illuminating about the differences between the types of non-believers. One thing we all share though is that in America, we are the least trusted minority and most people think its OK to discriminate against us and then tell us to shut up. Here are a few stories from the past few months that I've followed.

1) Atheists are the least trusted minority.

When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively.

The study contains other results, but these are sufficient to underline its gist: Atheists are seen by many Americans (especially conservative Christians) as alien and are, in the words of sociologist Penny Edgell, the study's lead researcher, "a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years."

Edgell also maintains that atheists seem to be outside the limits of American morality, which has largely been defined by religion.

Many of those interviewed saw atheists as cultural elitists, amoral materialists, or given to criminal behavior or drugs. She states, "Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."

Of course, it should go without saying, but won't, that belief in God isn't at all necessary to have a keen ethical concern for others.

I like that line "given to criminal behavior or drugs". Considering atheists make up about 10% of the American population but only 1% of the prison population, we must be really sneaky.

2) CNN Panel Concludes Atheists Need to Shut Up

Here's the scoop: CNN ran a story about how a family of atheists were discriminated against when they tried to stand up for their rights in a situation about prayer in school. Leaving that topic aside right now, CNN then followed the story up with a panel of people to talk about atheism that included no atheists. As the blog I linked to noted:
In summary, what a ridiculous panel. Our great mainstream media can get a panel of people in a room to discuss atheism (none of which are atheists by the way) and agree that we need to shut up.
Rights are important.. unless your an atheist. In that case, just fall in with the majority and shut up. Nice.

EDIT: Its worth noting that after many people complained CNN redid the panel and included an atheist (or two?). But not before the original one aired.

3) Professor: An Atheist Should Not Be President

The blog post by Brent
Still, Steve believes - correctly in my view - that in general the differences between religious believers are less important than the differences between believers and nonbelievers, and that this distinction is and ought to be relevant to political life.

That belief helps explain why, for example, Americans say they are far less likely to vote for an atheist for president than for members of various groups (women, Jews, ethnic minorities) who have been excluded historically from presidential consideration.

Now among liberals, the knee-jerk reaction to such poll data is to condemn the intolerance it represents. Yet I think there are good reasons for refusing to vote for an atheist for president - subject to the caveat that I also believe genuine atheism, like genuinely orthodox religious belief, is actually quite rare.

[...]

Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you.

The latter view is that of the famed biologist Edward O. Wilson, in his new book The Creation. Written in the form of a letter to a pastor of the Southern Baptist faith in which Wilson was brought up, Wilson argues that atheists like him and religious believers ought to agree that preserving biological diversity, and therefore in the long run humanity, is a profound moral imperative.

Wilson is a brilliant man, but this kind of thing has always seemed to me nonsensical on its face. After all, the human race has existed for an eye-blink of cosmological time and will certainly cease to exist in another eye-blink or two.

The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists.

[Emphasis Mine]
You see that? Its OK to refuse to vote for an atheist for president because true atheists don't exist, or if they do, they wouldn't really care about the world around them or anyone in it. That is what we call a strawman argument: define your opponent's views in such a way that its obvious your argument is correct against them. By redefining all (or almost all) atheists as closet theists, he gets around the obvious intolerance of saying he wouldn't vote for an atheist for president.

Of course we are left with the question of what would he do if someone claiming to be an atheist who makes these "ought" statements was running for president (like the current political climate would ever let that happen! HA!).

* * * * *

Why does this climate exist? Simple: many people of faith cannot comprehend of a person without faith having a similar moral compass and ethics as they do. This creates two possibilities: either the atheist is basing their morals on a religious upbringing and are secretly theists, or they are truly amoral people that care for no one but themselves.

The only way to combat this distorted view is to make people aware of the atheists around them and how they are often good caring people with families they love. We are not amoral and are just as likely to have principles and stick to them (or not) as would a theist.

Sigh. We are not evil.

12 comments:

Kirith Kodachi said...

Hmmm, in proof-reading I may have set up a strawman myself in that second last paragraph. Read it as if I'm postulating rather than declaring please and thank you. :)

Andrew said...

Why does this climate exist?

While your answer may hold part of the truth for a close-minded portion of the population, I believe there's probably a larger reason behind the distrust of atheists in mainstream America.

Most prominent athiests seem to go out of their way to publically antagonize and belittle those who believe in God (especially the Christian God). In many arenas atheists push their own (religious) beliefs as hard or harder than many militant feminists push their particular creed.... and you know how irritating a militant feminist can be.

High profile athiest-driven cases based on petty/foolish squabbles - like the banning of Christmas trees from some public offices, or the removal of Christian symbols from public areas (despite the fact that American institutions were founded predominantly by Christians) - do nothing except tarnish the image of all athiests.

Thus, it really comes as very little surprise that atheists have a bad reputation in America. I believe that they have to learn to present their beliefs in a less confrontation and more respectful manner if they are going to overcome the stigma that they have created for themselves.

Respect for religious beliefs - be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, athiest, or something else - is key in a diverse society.

Kirith Kodachi said...

I've seen it argued that some atheists are militant because they live in a country where they are continually discriminated against. Change doesn't come through being silent or not standing up for your rights. :/ But I will agree some take it too far at times.

Andrew said...

There's standing up for your rights, and then there's sneering down your nose and belittling your opposition. I see far more of the latter in the public dialog.... (Or, at least that's what the media picks up on).

Mike said...

Come now Andrew, Richard Dawkins is quite well spoken!

;)

I suspect it is combination of what Andrew said and what you mention Bill. It is also the ignorance that the propaganda produces. I wonder how many of those people who said they would not vote for an Atheist, would vote for Jesse Ventura? Yet he was an atheist, and a popular governor of Minnesota. Or less controversial public persona like Carl Sagan.

Robert McClelland said...

Here's a related post from a Brit blogger on religion's war against atheism.

Anonymous said...

Atheists are boring.

And they wear the same pair of pleated corduroy pants day after day.

It's exhausting.

Peace out.

God

Kim said...

I guess one way to bring out the commenters is to talk about religion...or lack of religion.

I thought of a bunch of stuff I could say but then Andrew went and made some of my points for me. Besides, this is probably not a good area for me to comment on...and yet I shall continue.

I wouldn't vote for a self-acknowledged athiest for government. Maybe that's because I'm a Christian...maybe it's because I think athiests are closed-minded...maybe it's because I believe that they would try to rid the country of the religious freedoms that we have now. Likely it would be for all those reasons and then some.

As a Christian I believe in God...I know that you don't and even though don't understand your viewpoint, you are entitled to it...just as I'm entitled to mine.

In my experience, athiests have a way of disparaging people of faith. If athiests desire the freedom to not believe then why can't they just leave us alone. Having faith is not a sign of weakness or naivety and yet that's what athiests seem to believe.

How could a person of faith feel confident having an athiest run their country? They couldn't.

So, it's not that I just wouldn't vote for an athiest, I couldn't vote for an athiest in good conscience.

My beliefs don't hurt you, but your beliefs could hurt me.

Kim said...

btw, I'm not trying to attack you for your beliefs. Like I said, you have every right to not believe what I do and I accept that.

...just thought I'd add a different opinion.

Kirith Kodachi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kirith Kodachi said...

Kim: Turn that around. How does an atheist know that a theist president would not move to remove their rights and freedoms? According to your logic, an atheist should never vote for someone who believes in god.

Kim said...

no believers I know force their faith on others...yes, many try to share their faith, but they wouldn't force it into public policy. If they tried, it's not like they can force you to believe something that you don't.

Even God gives us a choice.

our country...heck, our world has become morally corrupt. I truly believe that has to do with the movement away from religion/faith. I'm not saying that athiests in general are corrupt and evil though, so don't get defensive.

exactly what rights and freedoms would athiests like yourself be afraid of losing if there were a theist president? would prayer be put back into schools...oh, no...the horror. what harm would that do? you might have to listen to it?

People of faith are more looked down on today then ever...persecuted for their beliefs...often by people like you.