Since threads have gotten crossed, I wanted to include my post HERE as a response to the discussion on this thread.

Thomas Donnelly - 27 December 2007 03:05 PM

D.J. was interviewed by Derek Colanduno over at Skepticality for their Christmas episode on the topic of how skeptics and atheists may or may not participate in the holiday season.  While it appears that Skepticality was unable to run the interview, you can find the recording from our end below.  D.J. disagress with Tom Flynn on a number of points which some of you may find interesting.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/dj_grothe_skepticality.mp3

Thanks for uploading this. I also like the Skepticality podcasts.

I think that Christmas is gradually getting merged into a general end-of-the-year celebration. In our neighborhood ‘secular’ displays of lights and non-religious characters (including Snoopy, Winnie-the-Pooh, and snowmen) dominate anything with manger scenes, but this probably varies around the country.

Also in this episode, Free Inquiry magazine editor Tom Flynn explores the “reason for the season” as a secular humanist.

I would like to comment that Tom Flynn’s references to Republicans rubbed me the wrong way.  I don’t think there is a benefit to such stereotyping.

Jackson wrote:
I find this similar to Sam Harris’ unrealistic suggestion that we not use the word atheist. It’s remarkably unrealistic coming from a group whose ads ask us to join the ‘reality-based community’.

Actually, I think Sam Harris’ suggestion that we not use the term “atheist” is right-on. But I agree with you that it’s probably not realistic to think we will stop using the term. Tom Flynn’s assertion that we should not participate in traditionally religious celebrations is probably unrealistic too, yes, but more importantly in my opinion it’s not a good idea (strategically speaking) to begin with.

Sam is right to note that the secular movement is hindered by use of the term “atheist”. Continued use of the term is especially dangerous because “atheism” has as a result become identified as a world view for many people. When a lead figure declares: “religion poisons everything” under the banner of atheism, atheism ceases to be simply a position concerning the existence of a god, and that’s a problem we should be concerned about. Because of people like Christopher Hitchens, I can no longer deny a comparison between the atheism movement and the late Bolshevik Soviets.  The Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin’s rule abused a great number of religious people explicitly in the name of a similar world-view claim concerning religion.

Riley,

I am quite refreshed to hear another voice in support of not using the term “atheist.” Although, I’m not sure how you equate Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin with the rantings of Christopher Hitchens.  Hitchens talks firmly and questionably offensively, but I have never seen him call for any sort of violent action with regards to religion or atheism.  On the contrary, I have heard him speak at length against violence- condemning religion for it.

Riley - 03 January 2008 08:49 AM

The Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin’s rule abused a great number of religious people explicitly in the name of a similar world-view claim concerning religion.

In the name of what? In the name of Communism, an idea based on faith and greed just like any other religion. A war between two gods: Marx and Jehovah.

<>

George, to associate the idealistic egalitarian idea of communism with greed - the hallmark of winner takes all capitalism - is idiotic. That is not an insult but simply factual.

As for the atheism argument: there’s the marketing aspect, and then there’s the truth part.
Fact is: religions have no privileged way of knowing stuff. Their alleged “knowledge” derives from positively unreliable sources and come down to hearsay and dubious claims of personal revelation. In other words, the truth status of their professions is individualistic and arbitrary at best, but false, misleading, unfounded, and poisonous by design and in actual practice.
At some point a thinking person will notice. As they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. Why not dispense with the lipstick and go straight to the heart of the matter?

One approach to wean people off religion is to display the options:
Suppose you were a female alien stuck on earth for good, and your visa requirement was to select a “spiritual association”.
Would you select Muslim Wahabism over Paganism? Calvinism over The Church of John Coltrane? Hinduism over Aboriginal tribal religion?
They’re all waiting to be chosen - would you really pick a cruel, coercive bunch of mythological junk over, say, the life affirming, tolerant, and dogma free humanistic principles of the Unitarian Universalists ( http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml ) or the Secular Humanists, or other happy atheist heretics?
Sure, the pig with lipstick works for many people (the Muppet Show was a hit, after all).
But given the non-toxic alternatives, why stick with the pig?
I’d rather have a roast!

<>

erasmusinfinity - 03 January 2008 09:27 AM

I’m not sure how you equate Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin with the rantings of Christopher Hitchens.  Hitchens talks firmly and questionably offensively, but I have never seen him call for any sort of violent action with regards to religion or atheism. On the contrary, I have heard him speak at length against violence- condemning religion for it.

All I mean to say is that a justifiable comparison can be made between the Soviet Bolsheviks and those atheists now preaching “religion poisons everything”; the two groups made and are making similar claims. Of course, there are also important distinctions to be made as well, as you have correctly pointed out. Similarly, to be fair in a way that Hitchens seem unwilling to acknowledge, the same type of justifiable comparisons and important distinctions are there to be made between Muslims who in the name of their religion advocate the murder of apostates and the multitude of other religious people (Muslims included) who speak at length against violence - also in the name of their religion.

For the record, I don’t advocate such comparisons at all. They don’t support any arguments for or against religious claims, and worse they contribute to bigotry and group allegiance.

George - 03 January 2008 10:06 AM

Riley - 03 January 2008 08:49 AM

The Bolshevik Soviets under Stalin’s rule abused a great number of religious people explicitly in the name of a similar world-view claim concerning religion.

In the name of what?

in the name that:
Religion is a tool used for the “exploitation and the stupefaction” of the masses.

It was in the name of this claim concerning the negative impact of religion on society (which is not unlike the claim that “religion poisons everything") that the Soviet Bolsheviks oppressed and murdered many religious people. Yes, they also killed and oppressed a lot of people for a lot of other reasons too. It’s complex.

An even closer comparison could be made between the approach taken by the “religion poisons everything” atheist crowd and the approach of the Soviet Bolshevik “League of the Militant Godless”. The League was a movement that encouraged ridicule and harassment of all religious believers. Like the “religion poisons everything” atheist crowd today, the League did not advocate violence, and yet their approach created a culture of bigotry which dehumanized religious people; an important enabling component of the oppressive Soviet regime.

Of course, again, I’m not saying there aren’t important distinctions to be made as well. Very important distinctions. But the comparisons are certainly there to be made by defensive religious people - and justifiably so. I’m not sure what argument such comparisons could support, but the comparisons are there.

My larger point is that it would be a lot easier to spread awareness concerning the flaws of bad claims (e.g. god, the bible, etc) if we weren’t bogged down by difficult-to-defend “Atheist Movement” world-view claims (e.g. “religion poisons everything"). Such claims are counterproductive distractions.

I remember hearing a podcast from the Humanist Network News where that question raised by Harris was specifically put to Dawkins. I dimly remember that he said that he pays close attention when high profile advocates alert him that what he does can be counterproductive. I think he responded that he’ll is aware that he not always manages to heed their advice, partly because he disagrees with their analysis, and partly because a plurality of approaches is what is called for.

moreover - 03 January 2008 12:20 PM

George, to associate the idealistic egalitarian idea of communism with greed - the hallmark of winner takes all capitalism - is idiotic. That is not an insult but simply factual.

I am really tired of this topic. All of our family’s real estate was taken by the communists. I don’t care if they confiscated it because of some idiotic ideal or because of greed. I know it was taken from us against our will, justify by the same nonsense that the Inquisition used to steal the fortune from the rich “witches.” Communism in Eastern Europe had nothing to do with Marx’s BS, which, BTW, made no sense either.

Atheists come across as spoil sports, party poopers, and worse.
That’s tragic, because on the contrary, the atheist analysis unlocked, once and for all, the door to freedom and the possibility for the brotherhood of humankind.

We should find a term that signifies that cage free mind.

My own inclination is to go with small h humanist, without the qualifier ‘secular’.

Being a humanist means we are concerned with humans and humanity, that our ethics must be derived at by humans and geared toward humans (not dictated by some ethereal entity whom we ‘serve’).
It also insinuates that we acknowledge the diversity of human philosophical and religious imagination, that we appreciate (to varying degrees) the rich and colorful psychological experience that humans exhibit. Being human means to have a subjective inner life that has a reality of its own, and we acknowledge its subjective relevance, sometimes affirming it, sometimes proving it wrong.

Such a ‘denomination’ sounds less pretentious and less aggressive, but also less flat and anaemic than that of a harsh naturalism which describes humans as intelligent machines with software defects.

So much for words. But the facts remain: religions push arbitrary dogma that they declare as true and divine without proof and in the face of contradictory evidence. Their adherents are typically not pleased to see their claims denied by anyone.
There is not that much you can do about the psychological discomfort that is sure to ensue.

Just imagine how difficult it is to tell an employee (or a superior!) that he has really bad breath!
I picked the example on purpose: bad breath is not necessarily his fault, and yet chances are he feels terrible about having been called on it, and may get defensive.

But there often is a point where one needs to take action and tell the truth, regardless of whether some egos gets hurt.

To my mind, it’s unquestionably true: Religions do hurt people.
Given the arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the possession of religiously possessed leaders (not to mention religiously motivated ‘worst practices’ which affect billions) people with liberated minds, such as humanists and atheists, can easily derive the responsibility to act against them.

zarcus - 03 January 2008 12:06 PM

When I see people talk about not using the term “atheist”, I can’t help but wonder if they completely understand why Harris is advocating disuse of the term.

I will admit that I may not understand entirely what Sam Harris is advocating with regard to disuse of the term.  My interpretation is and has been that atheism does not necessarily mean anything other than a state of being “non-theistic” (Ie. it is bankrupt as a philosophy because it says nothing about a person or their beliefs) and that in taking on a label, such as atheist, validates theistic nonsense argument.  This is something that I believe.  It may be or may not be a correct interpretation of what Sam Harris has said.

George, I disagree. I’m reasonably familiar with the oppressive history of the Soviets. My father escaped in 1959 from the German ‘Democratic’ Republic after his big mouth had made his life dangerous. But as long as the rich don’t share the wealth (which most inherited in the first place) poor people will try to take if from them. What Marx observed was a cruel practice of exploitation that was crying out for a revolution. Some of his philosophical ideas, especially the Hegelian notions, were false, but to call his analysis bullshit misses the mark by a very wide margin.