Is Anthony B. Pinn's critisizm valid?

[leo-rcc]

Anthony Pinn attended the AAI convention in Burbank, where Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher (for accepting an award he does not qualify for in my opinion) and several other prominent figures attended. He wrote about it in this article.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... logy/1894/

I was at the convention to give a talk from the perspective of African American Humanism. While there are many things I share with atheists, I disagree with this aggressive (one might even say fundamentalist) dismissal of religion and the mocking of all things religious. I am convinced that extremists (whether theists or non-theists) with their inability for critical self-reflection and critique are not the best champions of healthy life orientations. I remain hopeful that collaboration and partnership will be difficult to achieve but not impossible. I am not calling for a naïve stance marked by blindness—either to the deep dimensions of our differences, or to the great harm that theistic (and atheistic) perspectives can produce when they nurture bad ethics.

I left Burbank thinking it wise to reframe the “A” in Atheism.

The way I see it Pinn downplays the divisiveness of in particular the Abrahamic religions. They are the ones trying to inject their standards into the lawbooks, not the other way around. On one hand you have faith that makes people fly planes into buildings, genitally mutilate young girls, murder abortion doctors (in church), stone adultresses, outlaw certain forms of consensual sex or even just make it impossible to buy beer on Sunday in some countries. On the other hand there is the atheist "faith" that makes people put ads on buses, file frivolous lawsuits against nativity scenes on public property, and the like. Show me what harm in the world an atheist has done in the name of atheism.

[Rum]

Well I think he is plain wrong. The nature of atheist 'aggression' amounts mostly to people like Hitchens and Dawkins speaking their minds. The majority of atheists say little or nothing about the absence of faith in a god. About the only place I ever mention it is here and probably not more than once every couple of months with friends, workmates and family. Evangelical Christians on the other hand are duty bound to preach to the unconverted.

A few signs on buses is nothing compared to the literally thousands of posters, signs and indeed bricks and mortar (churches) out there proclaiming the mightiness of a non-existent fantasy figure.

Atheism probably needs champions right now, but they are voices in the wilderness compared to the mad rantings of those of 'extreme' faith.

Edited: crap splelling

[GenesForLife]

Well I think he is plain wrong. The nature of atheist 'aggression' amounts mostly to people like Hitchens and Dawkins speaking their minds. The majority of atheists say little or nothing about the absence of faith in a god. About the only place I ever mention it is here and probably not more than once every couple of months with friends, workmates and family. Evangelical Christians on the other hand are duty bound to preach to the unconverted.

A few signs on buses is nothing compared to the literally thousands of posters, signs and inded bricks and mortor (churches) out there proclaiming the mightiness of a non-existent fantasy fugure.

Atheism probably needs champions right now, but they are voices in the wilderness compared to the mad rantings of those of 'extreme' faith.

I was reading a blog discussion on Nature Network (It's a nice place if you want to know scientists) and someone very actively pointed out that science is not something you believe in, it is just universal truth , factual truth, now, 'aggression' for the truth is vindicated above all, in fact, I think atheism is too mild, antitheism would be more appropriate, humanity celebrates the anti-apartheid movement, the anti- so many inhuman things brigade , but I find it annoying that we are expected to treat religion kindly, oh yeah, they could all do with help at the asylum...

Ran into someone on a social networking site who was "pissed off" because evolution could not be disproved (because it seemed "statistically improbable" and creationism could not be proved) They all need help, I don't want a bloody nutter with the urge to shag 72 virgins killing me or those I know or those I share a common bond with, strands of human DNA...

[klr]

Well I think he is plain wrong. The nature of atheist 'aggression' amounts mostly to people like Hitchens and Dawkins speaking their minds. The majority of atheists say little or nothing about the absence of faith in a god. About the only place I ever mention it is here and probably not more than once every couple of months with friends, workmates and family. Evangelical Christians on the other hand are duty bound to preach to the unconverted.

A few signs on buses is nothing compared to the literally thousands of posters, signs and inded bricks and mortor (churches) out there proclaiming the mightiness of a non-existent fantasy fugure.

Atheism probably needs champions right now, but they are voices in the wilderness compared to the mad rantings of those of 'extreme' faith.

Exactly. I eventually ran out of patience with my own mother over this one, and she is a very, very long way from the pushiest person I've ever met (let alone seen/heard of) when it comes to bringing religion into things. :pissed:

[Ayaan]

As I have heard said before:

For christians to be considered extremists, they have to murder a doctor who performs abortions. For muslims to be considered extremists, they have to be suicide bombers. For atheists to be considered extremists, they just have to say out loud that they are atheists.

For far too long religion has been given a pass and allowed far too much power in the public square. If pointing out that fact makes me a shrill extremist, then I wear the label with pride.

[Feck]

For christians to be considered extremists, they have to murder a doctor who performs abortions. For muslims to be considered extremists, they have to be suicide bombers. For atheists to be considered extremists, they just have to say out loud that they are atheists.


Wow i am going to remember that Ayaan you will be Quoted lots in RL

[Rum]

As I have heard said before:

For christians to be considered extremists, they have to murder a doctor who performs abortions. For muslims to be considered extremists, they have to be suicide bombers. For atheists to be considered extremists, they just have to say out loud that they are atheists.

For far too long religion has been given a pass and allowed far too much power in the public square. If pointing out that fact makes me a shrill extremist, then I wear the label with pride.

Quite. Some people of religion are more shocked by someone having no faith in a god than in a different one to theirs. I mean FFS!?

[floppit]

To throw my hat into the ring!

I'm inclined to agree with the comment made by Pinn, especially this bit:

I am convinced that extremists (whether theists or non-theists) with their inability for critical self-reflection and critique are not the best champions of healthy life orientations.

I don't think comparing one kind of extremism with another is helpful because it is defined by the norm for that group. As Rumertron points out there's no compulsion for atheist to be vocal and many aren't. What is extreme in regard to atheism is different to what is extreme in regard to religious groups but it's that the extreme no longer represents the norm which makes it extreme.

I still struggle to get my head round the emotive focus religion gains here and elsewhere. Let me be clear, I accept that struggle is about not understanding rather than thinking it's the basis of sound judgement.

So far, it appears to me based on personal pasts, from RD's account of religion in schools to the feelings of supporters but what I still don't understand is the sense of hurt in the first place. I was brought up religious, I believed, wholeheartedly for some years but those years were when I didn't know enough for faith to clash with reality, once it did piece by piece faith lost. I don't remember that as a painful process, I've racked my brains reading the accounts of others trying to remember what I felt but all I can remember is learning about cloning, genetic disorders, genes full stop and a change of my own mind which, frankly, didn't hurt. My exit from religion put me at odds with my family, but then so did my political stance, fashion and just about everything else in teen years, nothing about it stands out - if anything, because I knew my parents view was not even an attempt to use reason we argued less about that than the news! I still know people from churches I knew then, albeit only a few but again the utter pointlessness of arguing about it is part and parcel of what keeps it from being a problem. The bulk of my friendship group is atheist and slightly embarrassed by well known atheists because of the seemingly retained emotional connection to religion.

I lived through the exit from faith and smartly forgot about it until the interweb brought me into contact with people wanting to follow reason, I never expected so much religion and have now become curious as to why it's here - what is it about these events that makes them stand out in one person's life and barely register in another's?

In regard to what works, I think the way that's easiest for me to sum it up is to say that while both David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins are both open about being atheist the former strikes me as more balanced and able to actually influence more people, the latter while highly able to reach those already equally emotionally charged over religion, has a slightly off putting effect for many.

I agree with Pinn, I don't think it does the cause of reason any favours.

[Thinking Aloud]

I lived through the exit from faith and smartly forgot about it until the interweb brought me into contact with people wanting to follow reason, I never expected so much religion and have now become curious as to why it's here - what is it about these events that makes them stand out in one person's life and barely register in another's?

As to why it's here, I think many people who don't subscribe to faith become angry when aspects of religion are forced upon them, or others, by those who do. For example the attempts to insert "creation science" into classrooms in the U.S. and elsewhere; or the slow infiltration of islamic standards into European law; or the attempts to get criticism of religion made an international crime...

[Rum]

There does seem to be a class of 'professional' atheists I agree (kind of what Floppit is saying I think). Dawkins and Hitchens come to mind immediately of course. And I do sometimes get a little concerned that Dawkins uses science in what might be called a propagandist way. It is a relatively minor concern and he has justified why he does it a number of times - not least the very public clash over the matter of evolution.

But there are many public/intellectual figures who never or rarely mention the fact they are atheists - people like Stephen Fry and Jonathan Miller to name but two.

Either way their are far far fewer 'strident' atheist about the place than there are strident religionists.

[klr]

There does seem to be a class of 'professional' atheists I agree (kind of what Floppit is saying I think). Dawkins and Hitchens come to mind immediately of course. And I do sometimes get a little concerned that Dawkins uses science in what might be called a propagandist way. It is a relatively minor concern and he has justified why he does it a number of times - not least the very public clash over the matter of evolution.

But there are many public/intellectual figures who never or rarely mention the fact they are atheists - people like Stephen Fry and Jonathan Miller to name but two.

Either way their are far far fewer 'strident' atheist about the place than there are strident religionists.

Jonathan Miller did a TV series on the history of atheism.

As for Stephen Fry, he's been good cop to The Hitch's bad cop on a few occasions. And then there's that famous line from QI: "Will we never learn? Who knows, religion shit it."

To be sure, they are not as prominent as any of The Four Horsemen. But as regards the latter, what's wrong with having some people prepared to proactively push the issue into the public conciousness? Being seen to exist (and in much greater numbers than a lot of people want to admit) is a big part of the battle IMHO.

[Rum]

Jonathan Miller did a TV series on the history of atheism.

As for Stephen Fry, he's been good cop to The Hitch's bad cop on a few occasions. And then there's that famous line from QI: "Will we never learn? Who knows, religion shit it."

To be sure, they are not as prominent as any of The Four Horsemen. But as regards the latter, what's wrong with having some people prepared to proactively push the issue into the public conciousness? Being seen to exist (and in much greater numbers than a lot of people want to admit) is a big part of the battle IMHO.

Jonathan Miller was on BBC news website doing a 5 minute interview yesterday. He made the point to the interviewer that his atheism was not something he was particularly exercised about and that he tried to put it in the same category as the fact he did not believe in pixies.

The point still stands - rather than being picky about detail. There are far fewer strident and/or 'professional' atheists than religious people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well I think he is plain wrong. The nature of atheist 'aggression' amounts mostly to people like Hitchens and Dawkins speaking their minds. The majority of atheists say little or nothing about the absence of faith in a god. About the only place I ever mention it is here and probably not more than once every couple of months with friends, workmates and family. Evangelical Christians on the other hand are duty bound to preach to the unconverted.

A few signs on buses is nothing compared to the literally thousands of posters, signs and indeed bricks and mortar (churches) out there proclaiming the mightiness of a non-existent fantasy figure.

Atheism probably needs champions right now, but they are voices in the wilderness compared to the mad rantings of those of 'extreme' faith.

Edited: crap splelling

I call this "deflection by reflection", or "You're just as bad as I am" thinking.

[floppit]

The point still stands - rather than being picky about detail. There are far fewer strident and/or 'professional' atheists than religious people.

Something that is, I believe, not entirely unconnected to finding it's existence in atheism a bit embarrassing!

Championing good laws and the separation of church and state is always worthwhile but at the same time decidedly unemotional, in fact it is done better from an unemotional point of view because where law is concerned so is popular opinion.

Regarding being angry at past indoctrination - I simply outgrew something others had not and therefore, while there are many things over which I feel anger, childhood religious teaching I received is not one of them. In fact, as perverse as it may seem religion engaged me in debate long before I had enough knowledge of the natural world, for me personally it was tailor made for my head as a child - one book versus the mindblowing complexity of science. As I got older the real world just stole it's place.