Conversational Intolerance, Not Beheadings
In the wake of the surprising success that atheist books like The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris and Breaking the Spell, by Daniel C. Dennet have had, a new phrase was coined to describe these authors and others like them: The New Atheists. Awesome, sounds badass, so far so good. In general, the criticism for these books has been directed not as much towards their actual content (few honest folks could disagree with them on logical or factual grounds), but towards their manner. It’s not the essence, but the style that offended many people. Newsweek, Wired Magazine, The NY Times and others have published columns which object to the vehemence of the books. Granted, the books are unequivocal in calling bullshit bullshit, the authors express their opinions unapologetically and they assert — and then go on to prove — things that most of us would find “intolerant.” It’s right there in the title, God is a delusion. That alone rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Not necessarily the content of the assertion, but the fact that someone actually says it is considered intolerant. Religious views are sacred, they’re not supposed to be attacked or defended, says popular wisdom. Our religious convictions are taboos that no one should break. Douglas Adams describes this better:
If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘Fine, I respect that’.
So that’s conventional wisdom. Most of us feel that way, it’s just not appropriate to say bad things about religion, any religion, in polite company. And I have no idea why. As Dawkins himself mentions, if he would have written a book called The Monetarist Delusion or The Liberal Delusion, the last thing anyone would describe it as would be intolerant. Why is it that we can talk about anything, here in the free world, we can attack anyone’s views on any subject, but when someone says that a guy rose to heaven on a winged horse or that another guy was born of a virgin impregnated by a god, or that there’s a god that takes an interest in football games and he hands out touchdowns to his favorites, the natural reaction (which in my mind can only be “What in the fuck are you talking about, man?”) is considered intolerant? If I were to tell you that your computer has been rigged by the CIA to broadcast subliminal messages, you would not take me seriously, unless I brought evidence of some kind. On the other hand, the New Atheists do take religion seriously. They accord its proponents respect and they treat their views on their merits; taking someone seriously is the ultimate sign of respect, not of intolerance.
The New Atheists never suggested banning religion from society, enforcing atheism or anything remotely related to that. The democratic state after all, as Julian Baggini observes, is not atheistic, but secular. It keeps religion at arm’s length, which is the only way to ensure that people’s views (the religious kind included), are not fucked with in any way and everyone is free to live their lives unhindered by the religious opinions which those in power might hold. Just imagine that Pat Robertson is elected to high office. If Hitler and Ahmadinejad made it, so can he. Would you really want his religious views enforced on you and your kids through legislation? That’s all the New Atheists are asking, keep governments secular, not atheistic. They don’t advocate reprisals against religion, legislating it away or any other forceful reaction to it. So, keeping in mind that all they’re asking for is a conversational intolerance of the “What are you talking about?” sort, an intellectual argument, let’s turn to some of their objections against religion.
So what are some of their points? For instance, they argue that there’s no reason to suspect that God — or any other god — exists. That religion appears to give comfort, personal and social well-being to people but science does it much better. Religion stifles progress and personal freedom and is sometimes downright genocidal by way of its opposition to things like stem-cell research, contraception and others. They also maintain that most sacred texts are immoral and destructive and they say religion takes time and effort which could be better employed elsewhere. Then there are the more obvious points. Says Dawkins:
Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/ Croat/ Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles,’’no ‘honor killings,’no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money.
These are some of the points the New Atheists are making. So what’s inaccurate? I find it odd that they are are considered controversial, and I find it amazing that they’re considered intolerant. In a society like the Western one, where communication, respect and reason are prized assets, why do we discard them almost automatically when we happen to talk about religion? We have enough respect for our peers to challenge and debate them on politics, hockey and farming practices, but when it comes to religion we insult them by nodding approvingly when they say the weirdest things. That’s not tolerant, it’s condescending. And, talk about morality, since when is compromising on truth — as one happens to see it — for the sake of comfort an ethical thing to do? If we don’t agree with something, shouldn’t we say so?
Leave a Comment