As I understand it, one of the debates going on in the nontheist community is between the New Atheists and the Accommodationists. Basically, it seems the New Atheists argue that all faith based ideas run counter to scientific thought and should be criticized, while the Accommodationalists seem to argue, among other things, that only faith based beliefs that are disruptive or harmful to others should be criticized.
I'm not sure I'm a good fit for either side in this debate. That is, I can see merit in both sides. For instance, I agree with the New Atheist position that beliefs which run counter to a weight of reason and empirical evidence ought to be open to criticism.
Yet, I agree with the Accommodationists in so far as I think that virulent criticism of faith based beliefs is of limited or no usefulness. Specifically, such criticism seems most likely to cause people to double down on their beliefs. And those who disagree with you will double down at least as much as those who actually do agree with you.
Consequently, if you are preaching to your choir, and you wish to get them to double down on their beliefs, then virulent criticism of the other guy's positions might work to your benefit. But it is the odd person out who will convert to your cause because of it. At least, that's my understanding of the current science on the issue.
But unlike both the New Atheists and, apparently, even some of the Accomodationalists, I do not foresee a coming time when religious beliefs -- or more largely, faith based beliefs of any sort -- will be eradicated. I feel human nature runs counter to that suggestion. To me, the question is not whether we will ever get rid of religion, but whether we can "stop burning witches at the stake", so to speak.
That is, whether or not we can ameliorate the harmful effects of religion is, for me, one of the key issues. Moreover, I recognize that task as endless, since I suppose religion is too deeply rooted in human nature to ever be wholly eradicated.
Another key issue, for me, is respect for people. I do not believe that ideas need respect. Even apparently true ideas should not be respected to the extent that they are never intelligently questioned. But people do deserve a certain degree of respect even when their ideas run counter to our own.
It is quite easy to lose respect for people who do not share our ideas or values. But I believe it is a mistake to do so, even though I have at times committed that mistake. So long as we all live in the same society -- or nowadays, so long as we all live in the same interconnected world -- it benefits us to give everyone a certain measure of respect regardless of their ideas and values. After all, it's when we respect ideas and values more than we respect people themselves that we find it all too easy to justify burning people at the stake. The first thing the tyrants and wannabe tyrants of this world try to take from people is their right to be respected. If they manage to achieve that, then they can convince their followers to do anything to you.
That, at least, is my current thinking on the subject. What do you make of the debate between the New Atheists and the Accommodationalists?
What a great little post! The problem I have with the New Atheists is they often come across as the counterparts to the religious fundamentalists.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a great point: "After all, it's when we respect ideas and values more than we respect people themselves that we find it all too easy to justify burning people at the stake."
I choose to respect people and love them despite the various views and opinions they hold which I think might be or are incorrect.
Thanks, Doug! The New Atheists have done a lot of good, I think. Especially in getting atheism out of the closet, and in presenting the case for atheism to a very broad audience. But I sometimes feel that some of the New Atheists mistake all religion for Christian or Islamic fundamentalism. Most are more sophisticated than that, but then some, apparently, aren't.
DeleteLike you, Paul, I can see some value to both sides. I generally fall on the Accommodationalist side of the fence, because I do try to respect people in their individual beliefs. On the other hand, when those beliefs go from the private to the public sphere, and are used to try to impede teaching a scientific perspective or to infringe on the rights of others because of a book tied to the social morals of a couple millennium ago, I get the urge to adopt the more aggressive approach of the New Atheists, at least to some extent, because remaining silent in the face of those false beliefs is not going to change them any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a problem here, because it is not so easy to separate respect of an idea and respect of a person in the case where the ideas are a central component in the identity of the person. That goes equally for scientists and priests, and all of their respective adherents. So challenging a core-identity idea is often interpreted by the person as a form of disrespect.
Yet, sometimes, as history has proven, there is a need to disrespect the beliefs of people in order to show them the greater good. The great crime therein is that all sides think they know what the "greater good" is. Perhaps we should just embrace the contention, however uncomfortable it is, in the hopes that empiricism will lead us all to the truth eventually.
I agree that we quite often define ourselves according to our beliefs. This seems to be more of a Western problem, however, than an Eastern (I'm not sure, for instance, whether many Japanese define themselves according to their beliefs.) I think civilized society requires us to to accept respectful criticism even of our core beliefs. The alternative -- placing some beliefs beyond criticism -- sets a dangerous precedent.
DeleteI do think, however, that the standards you outline are far more likely to be accepted by most people than is my own notion that people should accept criticism of even their harmless core beliefs. Your notion that core beliefs should not be criticized unless they are detrimental to others seems, at the least, to make more intuitive sense than my position.
Interesting post Paul. I see no advantage to either perspective. Those who believe are not going to stop believing because of those who think they should. Those who don't believe have their own reasons. Everyone had a mind to make up. As long as no one tries to enforce their beliefs on others I could care less what an individual thinks about religion. I've been criticized and called a "heathen sinner" for leaving mine but it certainly didn't make me think I was. Only I know for certain what I believe and as long as I find peace with it, the dissenters I ignore knowing for positive they don't know any more than I do about it. :D
ReplyDelete"Only I know for certain what I believe and as long as I find peace with it, the dissenters I ignore knowing for positive they don't know any more than I do about it."
DeleteWise words, Anna Maria. But what do you make of religious beliefs that fuel laws? For instance, the religiously grounded belief that homosexuality is sin leading to laws against same sex marriages?
Paul...I believe what our forefathers believed when they drafted a Declaration Of Independence stating all men are created equal...though it took over 200 years for that wisdom to become a reality not meaning just "white" men.
DeleteSeparation of church and state is law in our Constitution which also assures freedom of religion. "In God We Trust" is on all our money and I suppose that's all right because it leaves us to make up our own mind as to what God we trust. How those who don't believe in any god feel about it, I'm not sure. Supreme Court Laws stating abortion is a woman's decision to make still draws severe criticism from Christians.
I don't believe there should be any laws forbidding same sex marriage because that is also treading on a person's right to make a personal choice that has absolutely no bearing on anyone else.
I cannot foresee any peace being reached on these issues for quite a while, not as long as our nation remains almost evenly divided on what rights we should or should not have regarding sexual orientation and a whole lot of other personal issues fueled by religious beliefs.
Yeah, I wish I could see some resolution of the church state issues in sight, but, like you, I doubt any such resolution is coming soon -- not with the country divided as it is.
DeleteGood post Paul. I would say that most of the accommodationist atheists I have met are not even interested in criticizing only the harmful beliefs of religions. Rather, they may criticize the opposition to say "same-sex marriage", but will not mention religion in the process. It seems to me that they do not want religion brought up at all.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I think that there needs to be multiple approaches to dealing with religious ideas. The New Atheists have had some success "beating people over the head" and leaving their religion. However, that approach certainly does not always work, and may have already reached its peak.
There is certainly a time and a need for "civil discourse" on religion, without the brashness typically associated with New Atheism. I agree with you, that for most theists, this approach will prove to be more successful.
I also agree with you that religion is not exactly in its "death throws". It is going to be around a for a long time yet. However, I am encouraged by the slow and steady growth of people selecting "none" on surveys year after year.
Those are some great points, RB!
DeleteI disagree with the Accommodationists who would never criticize even the most egregious harms supported or condoned by religion. In a way, religion is like gasoline or dynamite: It does everyone good -- religionists and secularists alike -- to be reminded of it's dangers, and it does few people good to whitewash those dangers.
I too am encouraged by the steady growth of "nones". I would like to see a time come when only those people who were genuinely religious professed to be religious, for I think that currently many people profess to be religious who are not very religious at all.
But I notice that a lot of people give up a formal, well established religion, only to shift into some faith based "spiritualism". In itself, there is nothing wrong with that, but it becomes wrong if and when such people fail to recognize that their beliefs are based on faith and, instead, believe they have found something more sure-footed than that. Certainty of belief is potentially dangerous, and should never be taken lightly. If I am certain that viewing the moon is an evil distraction from god, I am far more likely to make a law forbidding your gazing too long at the moon, than I am if I am uncertain viewing the moon is an evil distraction. That is, we should be careful what we're certain of.
" I would like to see a time come when only those people who were genuinely religious professed to be religious, for I think that currently many people profess to be religious who are not very religious at all."
DeleteYes, Paul, starting with the men and women who run for elected office in this land.
Great point, S.W.!
DeleteThanks for the education, Paul. I had never heard of either the New Atheists, nor the Accommodationists. Their criticism has not reached this Christian's ears. So... these whispering critics perhaps need to project their criticism outside of their own ranks, and also to take this sound pearl of wisdom of yours to heart:
ReplyDelete"Yet, I agree with the Accommodationists in so far as I think that virulent criticism of faith based beliefs is of limited or no usefulness. Specifically, such criticism seems most likely to cause people to double down on their beliefs. And those who disagree with you will double down at least as much as those who actually do agree with you."
I have a pearl of wisdom? Me? Garnet, you doth make me blush.
DeleteSeriously, it seems to me that to forget that someone should be respected regardless of their beliefs is to forget their humanity.
As for the New Atheists, you might be familiar with some of the big names in that movement. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennet are among the most prominent.
I agree with you. People's religious beliefs are often silly, as far as I'm concerned, and I would love everyone to believe everything I believe because, well, I believe in it. However, when someone's steadfastly held beliefs are important to them and arguably help them in many ways and those beliefs have little to no affect on me, it seems that we should let them believe in whatever absurdities they choose, so long as their lifestyles continue to have no negative affect on others'.
ReplyDeleteGood point, Joliene! "Live and let live" is an excellent philosophy no matter how cliche. The only caveat that I would place on what you've said -- and you yourself might not subscribe to it -- is that I believe people should be aware of whether or not their beliefs are based on a weight of reason and empirical evidence.
DeleteSo, if a person holds a seemingly harmless belief, but that belief is not well grounded in reason and evidence, then I am willing to point out to them under appropriate circumstances that their belief is faith based. I think that is warranted because it implies they have no right to insist that everyone adopt their belief. However, telling them that they have no right to their belief is not warranted in my view.
I agree with you. Religious beliefs are often absurd and the willingness to believe such things is, in the eyes of the faithful, often a merit. Quite frankly, that seems counter intuitive to me, but if one truly believes in something, such belief should be able to withstand criticism and the accepted reality that the evidence does not support one's beliefs. If one can't believe such things in the face of evidence, then one shouldn't. Personally, I think it is important to test our beliefs. Much of the religious things I once believed I no longer do. Heaven is a really nice idea, but I can't believe it. I also think this extends to whatever other paradigms we might operate within-- say, politics. I have strong political views and I believe that if I am going to believe such things and vote in ways that affect other people, it is my responsibility to test my beliefs by researching ballot measures, politicians, etc.
DeleteI am offended by the phrase "In God We Trust" on our coins and by the references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't believer in a diety and I feel marginalized as somehow less of a citizen because of these things. If we had true separation of Church and state in this country, I would probably see the coin and the Pledge as simply interesting historical preservations.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, S.W. That phrase also makes me feel marginalized.
DeleteReferences to God on our money and Pledge don't offend me because I know a lot of good men and women who lost their lives defending our right to freedom of speech and religion believed in that right. It has nothing to do with my loss of faith in the religion I was raised in by wonderful parents. It has to do with tolerance we all must adhere to for there ever to be peace about any of these issues. If words make you feel "marginalized," you are doing that to yourself...no one else is.
DeleteI guess we'll just need to agree to disagree about this one, Anna Maria. I feel the words are intended to marginalize nontheists. But your mileage may vary.
DeletePhilosophically, I'm more of a new atheist, but realistically, I'm much more of an accomodationist.
ReplyDeleteIt really just depends on what the circumstances are. If you are having a philosophical discussion with someone about the reasons for their belief, and the reasons for your own, then it might make sense to lump all religious sorts of faith together, in contrast to a more empirical worldview.
But, at the end of the day, I don't really care what you believe as long as you aren't trying to enforce it upon me. I'm often fascinated by religious belief, and slightly jealous of the tradition that comes along with it.
Interesting comments, Lemur! What do you find attractive about he tradition that comes along with religious beliefs?
DeleteI am a hybrid. I tend to be an accommodationist when it comes to most religions. However, when it comes to fundamentalist religions like Evangelicalism, I am a new atheist. I have no desire to place nice with them and the world would be a better place if their religion became extinct.
ReplyDeleteWe are many generations away from a religion-free world. Maybe..but not any time soon. Religion serves a purpose and I tend to view it from an economic viewpoint. As long as people get more out of religion than it costs them religion will continue to exist.
I fervently hope for the day that fundamentalism is extinct. I see it as the most threatening type of religiosity on the planet -- whether it is Christian fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism, or Jewish fundamentalism. On my worse days, though, I see it as more of a mental illness than as a religion. And when I see it that way, I think it will be around as depression or schizophrenia.
DeleteI've never thought of looking at religion from an economic standpoint, but I can see how valuable a view that could be. Thanks for bringing that up!
I never felt that religious belief was the kind of thing that could be influenced by argument. But after reading Sam Harris' blog (haven't read his books) I now believe that logical argument can in fact be persuasive. I was kind of on again, off again, with God. But Harris' arguments have really strengthened the skeptic in me.
ReplyDeleteI find Harris pretty persuasive too.
DeleteNothing is beyond reproach, and nothing is beyond being mocked. If something violates logic, human decency, or our high water mark for irony, it should be both criticized and made fun of. Religion is no exception.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I love the term "New (usually spelled "Gnu") Atheists", too. They've been around since the 19th Century, at least, but don't tell anyone.