Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Myth: Atheists are Making a Tactical Mistake by Insulting Religious Theists

Myth: Atheists are Making a Tactical Mistake by Insulting Religious Theists
Should Atheist Try to be More Polite, Less Impolite to Religious Theists?

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide

Myth:
Atheists would be better off not insulting religious believers and theists with their criticisms and attacks on religion, religious beliefs, and theism. Atheists should moderate their rhetoric and stop pushing theists away.

Response:
An increasing popular criticism of atheists today is that they are too rude and insulting to religious theists — this typically goes hand-in-hand with the claims that atheists are "intolerant" and should be more "respectful" of religion, religious beliefs, and theism. According to purveyors of this myth, atheists are just hurting themselves and their own causes by being so rude and impolite. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so atheists should try to moderate their tone.

The primary problem with this claim is how the speaker leaves the concept of "insulting" to open. What exactly is meant by "insulting" here, who is doing it, how is it a problem, and what are the recommended alternatives? Without such information, the recommendation that atheists be more "polite" is little more than an invitation to open-ended self-censorship that could lead to all sorts of things not being said in the supposed interest of politeness.

This is not an idle or superficially semantic issue. Critics of the infamous Danish cartoons of Muhammad1 argued that they were rude and insulting, but without specifying exactly how they should be interpreted as "insulting" or what sorts of alternatives should have been chosen. Plays and books have been censored on the claim that they are "insulting" to "religious sensibilities" — indeed, there are some who argue that there should be no free speech right to say, write, or do anything that "insults" these "religious sensibilities."

Is this what people have in mind when they say that atheists shouldn't be "insulting" — that atheists shouldn't say or do anything which insults religious sensibilities? That's far too broad of a claim to be accepted or taken seriously. Atheistic critiques of religion cannot and should not be held hostage to the vague, unknown, and ever-shifting "religious sensibilities" of whomever might listen or read. This is akin to banning "pornography" where "pornography" is defined as anything that offends "local standards" — something that is unknown in advance and which limits a person's expression to the lowest common denominator wherever their material might be seen or read.

A second problem with the claim being made above is how easily it allows people to ignore the difference between criticism of beliefs and criticism of believers. Saying "religious believers are all stupid" certainly seems to qualify as an insult and I doubt that there are many circumstances where it would be appropriate or acceptable. Saying "theism is irrational and shouldn't be adopted" isn't an insult and isn't inappropriate, but it happens far too often that religious believers interpret this latter comment as if it were functionally equivalent to the former.

It is a serious and ongoing problem for atheists that believers take any negative criticism — never mind very sharp criticism or even ridicule — of religious claims and dogmas in a highly personal manner. This can be understandable, given how important these beliefs can be for people, but it's not legitimate to shut down all such commentary on the assertion that it's "insulting" and therefore inappropriate, illegitimate, and out-of-bounds.

There are of course better and worse ways of saying or putting things, but in the end religious believers cannot object to atheistic criticism of religion, religious beliefs, or theism by insisting that atheists stop being "insulting" and "moderate" their rhetoric. If religious believers really do feel that there is a problem with civility, they are obliged to be very specific about what they consider insulting, why, and what they think the reasonable alternatives are.

2 comments:

  1. If someone tells you that Unicorns are real, I cannot imagine how this would be construed as disrespectful to point out the fact that Unicorns are a myth. While Unicorns were first mentioned by Ctesias, who lived in the 5th century BC, this is not adequate "proof" of their existence. In fact, even if a person insists that they "know" that Unicorns are real because they read it in the "Big Book of Unicorns" then one might choose to ignore their superstitious nonsense. On the other hand, it might be helpful to inform them of one of the basics of critical thinking, such as the scientific method, which could help them clarify the difference between reality and myth.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mzsafiya: If you need justification for belief in Unicorns, then just check the Bible. They're mentioned 9 times across multiple books in the King James Version, sometimes even by God himself.

    It's the passages like that we can use as strong firepower in ridiculing the basic beliefs of Christianity. Passages like those are the key to waking up the rational minds that haven't yet been awakened.

    ReplyDelete