The demonising of Atheists continues but why, for what and how to treat it?

It’s all getting a bit old really this culture war business, at least in as far as theism versus atheism, and sectarian versus secular is concerned.

There’s the little things like the religious trolls who have carbon copied propaganda ad nauseum, giving a never ending supply of red herrings. The pseudo-skeptic atheists who loiter around popular skeptics are a bit of a nuisance as well, especially when they try to out-bright you (and it becomes obvious they haven’t read nearly enough enlightenment philosophy to be lecturing anyone on the topic).

The ex-fundie atheists can be a pain as well if they’ve kept their epistemological baggage from their non-free-thought days.

But the worst part I’d have to say, still comes from the theism side of the divide. At least, from people of stature within religious institutions.

The closest think I can really think of to a nasty atheist leader (who’s leadership stems from their atheism rather than them being a leader who happens to be an atheist – a few dictatorships have the latter) would be Christopher Hitchens. Of course, unlike on the theist side of things (theology schools and churches), Hitchens is more or less self-appointed.

The rational response squad, who can be entertaining <i>at times</i> and supportive of atheists subject to discrimination by theists, don’t speak for anyone other than themselves. They simply aren’t exemplars of atheism.

There simply isn’t anyone within the world atheist population that speaks with representative authority on atheism the way a Pope, or a Cardinal, or a Mufti can about theism. In academia, you have theology majors (dominated by theists) but not atheology majors (which given the negative position wouldn’t have much content – I’m not asking for such a major to be introduced).

Like him or loathe him, Richard Dawkins isn’t an atheologist. He’s just an atheist who happens to have an high academic profile.

There is no institution nor group motivation driving atheism in general, nor the supposed “new atheism”.

In lies the problem of the justification for the demonization of atheists for the past few years.

The general justification goes that a somehow instantly motivated “new atheism” is on the attack against religion. Somehow, the motive and the necessary organisation to conspire just arose from an entirely disorganised and generally unmotivated group of people.

There are specific variations of course. Anything between it being a movement seeking to overturn the Church’s sense of entitlement to taxpayer largess (a version conspicuously ignoring the fact that many theists campaign for this themselves – see Americans United) to Atheists wanting to control the government to oppress theists and make Atheism a state religion.

At the most moderate, this justification is an extreme conspiracy theory.

What has really happened? Basically, the sectarian politics that has always been around since day squat, got a whole lot more organized back in the 1960s (with the initial campaign for state support of creationism in schools as well as teacher-led prayer in school) and again in the 1980s until now with greater ties to conservative political parties (including the importation of the political technique and much of the policy in Howard’s Australia).

In the UK, things were a bit different. The UK has less of a constitutional separation between church and state than in Australia, and much less so than the US. During the founding of both the US and Australia, sectarian divisiveness and deprivation of liberty seen in old Europe were taken into consideration when constitutions were drafted (more so in the case of the US).

Political sectarianism therefore could just walk in the door in the UK, which is how the current faith schools (far more innately discriminatory than your worst-case, run of the mill, old-school theist private school) managed to get implemented without the culture warfare. Tony Blair is responsible for a good part of this initiative.

This has ticked off quite a few theists, either discriminating against them or at least offending their principals. Atheists naturally have been somewhat more affected by this.

There is also the great big elephant in the room. The religious nutters who flew planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in 2001 and particularly their sectarian motivations have caused people concern. Sure, there has been much in the way of Islamophobic paranoia, attributing these motives generally to Muslims, but all the same, there is a legitimate topic of discussion here.

Sectarianism of all colours for some reason (I suspect to be something along the lines of the suspension of existential reasoning) has been fertile ground for violence.

I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify something that I think is an important point. Much is made of the “atheistic” atrocities of Mao and Stalin and I take issue with two things. Firstly, the attrocities didn’t follow from the atheism, the atheism was an ad hoc justification for pre-meditated acts.

Secondly, I object to these regimes being called either secular or “secular fundamentalist” or some variation of “secular”. They weren’t secular. These regimes had no respect for the separation of church and state, evidenced through their total deprivation of the liberty of the church.

Indeed, Soviet Russia was sectarian. The only substantive difference between their sectarian nature and that of any other sectarian regime is that they discriminated against one more sect.

This however, is a far cry from the worst published by Dawkins, Hitchens or Ayaan Hirsi Ali – none of these authors are as extreme nor as representative of the phenomena surrounding their beliefs (Stalin can speak for Soviets on Soviet dogma with far more authority than Dawkins can for atheists on atheism). These kinds of associations are profoundly hyperbolic, yet they still persist in popular, exemplar theist tracts.

As are the shrill cries about the existence of a “new atheist” menace to religion.

The “rise” of this threat is nothing more than an understandable interest in critiques of both theism and sectarianism. An interest sparked by the advance of political sectarianism in the second half of the 20th century, stamped with a great sectarian exclamation mark on 9/11/2001.

Books have been sold and Internet forums abuzz. This is all quite reasonable to expect without recourse to paranoid delusions about some imaginary “new atheism” bogeyman.

Only two things have changed substantially. People are interested in criticisms of religion far more than they once were and secondly, it’s no longer considered as impolite to do so as it once was.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is seen more often as a respectable and valid reductio, not as a slur against religion. Even amongst more than a few theists.

Yet, I’ve seen one prominent and respected moderate theist (I can’t quite recall the exact details so please forgive me) refuse to enter into debate unless flying teapots, invisible pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters aren’t mentioned on the (supposed) grounds that they are disrespectful. Or in other words, “I won’t debate with you if you are going to use valid reductios”.

The implication was that in debate, said theist and his beliefs was entitled to not be subjected to these lines of argumentation. This is what the fear of the “new atheism” boils down to I think; rather than an actual rising threat (which the accusers have had great detail in substantiating), the accusers feel threatened through a loss of undeserved privilege they wrongly mistook as entitlement.

It’s probably not the kind of thing that a theist taking this line would want to dwell on, if only because of its embarrassing allusion to a weakness of character. But that’s not all it entails, I think.

From this self-inflicted state of threat, intellectual impotence and loss comes an understandable ressentiment. The obvious external agent of evil being the “new atheism” and atheists in general, or at least coming from that general direction.

Speaking of Father Jeremy Davies, author of Exorcism: Understanding Exorcism in Scripture and Practice and personal exorcist to the Archbishop of Westminster (boss cleric over Catholics in England and Wales – hardly a marginal theist), The National Secular Society Reports (HT: AV);

“The priest, who is based in Luton, said that key among the transgressions that have a “special affinity” with Satan was “rebellion against God” — which included the sins of blasphemy, atheism and attacks on Christ and the church — as well as sins against the light, when people resisted God’s grace.”

(Terry Sanderson, 2008 )

He really takes a literal approach on demonising out-groups, doesn’t he!

Apparently the good father is under the misapprehension that Satan has made me (and other Atheists) “hate God”, which makes about just as much sense as if I were to say that Satan has made Davies hate the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that his special affinity with the Devil made him rebel against pirates.

Atheists aren’t rebelling against God. We don’t believe in God so hating or rebelling against he/she/it, is ludicrous.

Whatever interaction we have with theological constructs is through theists, often in debate or discussion which is all fine, but also when said sectarian theists expect the largess of the taxpayer and/or a suspension of free-skeptical-thought in discussion and/or the silencing of dissent. All of which the Archbishop of Westmisnter managed to fit in in one go.

Atheists aren’t rebelling against Gods. When they do rebel (if you can call it that) against the theistic, it’s against overbearing sectarians with inflated views of their own entitlements.

Davies and sectarian theists like him, we are rebelling against you. Invoke your own authority, not that of some nebulous, intangible thing that won’t even front up to second your motions.

Even then it’s not exactly rebellion that we are engaged in if you don’t presuppose the authority of the church (which at least I don’t).

As for attacks on the church, well perhaps the media can be held to account on matters of sensationalism about sex offenders in the clergy, although the Archbishop of Westminster gets no sympathy from me on this count given his active, knowing role in a cover up.

Criticisms of Davies’ type of church when it politically attempts to deprive the liberty of others can’t be characterised as attacks either. This can only be viewed as an attack when one presupposes the authority of the Church to give or deprive liberty. Naturally, discussion of the lack of justification for this authority is also interpreted as an attack!

If the Father Davies (or the World Net Daily types) of the world had their way of course, we wouldn’t even be examining these things. Especially not on public television!

No, we’d be talking about atheists on the warpath and discussing why they hate god, why they are intrinsically angry (because recognising a non-general, extrinsically motivated anger would lead to discussion about causes implicating sectarianism, thus constituting an attack on Davies’ church), why they will lead the world into Mao or Stalinesque atrocity and how they have a close affinity with Satan. The usual mendacious crap atheists have to put up with disturbing regularly.

All predicated on lies, all a whopping great red herring and most of all, a scapegoat for sectarians to blame for problems intrinsic to sectarianism.

This way, sectarians don’t have to look in the mirror and see an authoritarian that can’t justify their calls for the power and perks that they demand. This way, they can look in the mirror and see someone made an intellectual martyr by the rampaging, Satanic, new atheist menace. This way, they can look a little more like Jesus (or Hercules or Thor or which ever trans-substantiated divine that suffers for mortals, arouses their narcissism).

The delusion is almost sub-Wagnarian in character. Perhaps Sigurd would be more appropriate? An explosive mix with the (fortunately not universally) Catholic tradition of Integralism though. Wouldn’t want to risk that happening. Again*. Perhaps that’s why Davies keeps away from the pagan idols.

But I digress.

The problem is, at least as far as us atheists are concerned, is that we have to put up with this rubbish. We really on the receiving end of this and we don’t have a trans-substantiated, divine martyr to live up to.

I’m sick of it. Heartily so.

I don’t want an end to Davies’ freedom of speech, but I don’t think this kind of thing can go unchallenged or without consequence. As a matter of deficient character, hypothetically speaking, he should be barred from entering Australia at least. We’d do it for a Mufti spouting the same kind of rubbish about Christians after all.

I’m not for “no Catholics” signs (which are a blight on Australia’s history) or the like, but people in England should be both free to shun the Archbishop of Westminster himself (as they probably are) but also assured of this right by Government (which given its recent anti-blasphemy considerations people would have reason to be cautious about). By shun, I mean such acts as owners forcibly kicking him out of privately owned establishments.

Neither his, nor his exorcist’s considerable political position should afford them anything in this regard. Their character and good faith should be the measure by which society allows them to interact. Something that clearly hasn’t been the case, otherwise the Archbishop would probably already be in jail going on past performance.

All these remedies are hypothetical and contingent on a plethora of factors, and only then in response to the Archbishop of Westminster and his exorcist. There are others in the religious mainstream of the supposedly religiously moderate UK**, talking up the threat of the “new atheism” and measures to “liberate” their sectarian incursion into public affairs from secular scrutiny.

My guiding light on the matter is still embodied by a Popper quote.

“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”

(Originally from The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), reproduction taken from Wikiquote, 2008 )

I think I’ll leave it at that. Like I said, I’m sick of it.

~ Bruce

* Both were significant, popular cultural influences surrounding Hitler and Goebbels in early life and provided not inconsiderable inspiration to NAZI racialism, propaganda and Aryan narrative. I don’t think that the similarity between the motivations behind fanciful narratives of “New Atheism attacking Davies’ Church” and “The Jew encroaching upon Aryan Europe” is insignificant. The mechanics the mood and the purpose as far as out-grouping is concerned seem meaningful and I see it elsewhere than just the mentioned instance or even just in Christendom.

** Since responses to the “New Atheism” started popping up in the UK, I’ve started doubting the moderate nature of religion in the UK. Some of the outright lies (about atheism or Atheists) that have been peddled by members the mainstream have been less than moderate.