PAM's Tactical Approach
Treats Theists
With Kid Gloves
Knut W. Barde
(formerly, "Why Treat The Theists With Kid Gloves?")
From: "Knut W. Barde"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: October 20, 2001 9:29 AM
Subject: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
I understand that a positive atheist asserts that it can be proven that the word god has no corollary in the real world except as an imaginary concept. One might as well use the word blubblub and begin spinning stories about it.
Opposed to this is the notion that neither the theist nor the atheist can affirmatively prove their position, and so the best that can be done is to give up trying to convince each other. Along the lines that differences in taste are not justiciable.
I think atheists should try to do better.
It seems that the positive theist must begin with the question of whether the word god is coherent or intelligible. The question of whether the supposed entity exists is already a subsidiary question.
When it is asked: does god exist? there is already implicit in the question the claim that the existence vel non of the item in question can be examined. However, if one were to question the word god for its coherence, the question of the existence of the item might never even be reached.
We don't discuss the existence of a blubblub, if we have determined that a blubblub is an incoherent word.
When we look at the development of the word god over the millennia, see Karen Armstrong, and Feuerbach, then it is clear that the word, like all words, is the product of human activity, except perhaps onomatopetic words.
When we chastise the theist for wanting to believe, for placing the thing to be proven already into his linguistic premises, how do we defend against the theist's charge that we are also questionbeggars by refusing to ascribe coherence to the word god? We would not have this problem with most other word, where existence, coherence, etc., are subject to argument and falsification. And yet aren't love, peace, freedom, liberty, just as slippery and chimerical? Aren't all metaphysical words empty of definable content?
Is it fair for us to say that the anyone who uses the word god must first pass the test of bringing coherence to the term before we allow any assertions regarding the term to be entertained? Does the theist have the burden of proof ab initio, or can he rely on a prima facie establishment of his term god by reference to humanity's history which indeed has bandied the term about. The theist might agree the term is historically slippery, but nonetheless catchable, while the atheist would claim the word is slippery because it is a chimera.
Often it is said that it is more diffiucult to prove a negative, or the absence of a positive, and it seems to me that when atheists deny the possibility that the word god can have meaning, they are denying the possibility that god is hiding out in some nook or cranny of a 15 billion light year universe. That seems to be a bigger denial than the theist's claim who can easily hide behind the assertion that as long as we can't disprove god he just might exist. The theist can easily maneuver us into the position of agnosticism because the task of claiming ignorance of god is easier than claiming knowledge about the absence of god because of the lack of coherence of the term.
The theist will have no problem in proving that the word god is coherent because that is what he wishes to believe, and he will not feel defeated just because it is admitted that his conclusion is based on faith.
Thomas Aquinus and Luther and many others, wallow in the proclamation that their reason, rationality, and good senses all are overcome, surmounted, made irrelevant by their faith. The jettisoning of reason and its replacement by faith is seen as an accomplishment, not a failure.
If that be so, then the ultimate retort of the theist to the atheists rason is a simple "I chose to believe, and no argument can or will make me change my choice". The atheist is then wasting his time watering stones to make something grow, when he should see a stone for a stone.
If we realize that theism is a committment and not a conclusion of reason (despite half-hearted attempts of believers to satisfy some demands that reason might make) then atheists should realize they are not fighting ignorance, irrationality, lack of knowledge, etc., but they are fighting a way of life. Ways of life are not fought at the debating table, but in the streets.
The atheist can glibly sit back and marvel at the theist's idiocy, but he is powerless to make any inroads with the only means that he has available, i.e. argument, because the theist plays by different rules.
Any argument of the atheist must ultimately become a personal attack on the theist's reason as well as the theist's honesty, seriousness, veracity, intellectual integrity, courage, etc. The theist is caught in a solipsistic web of self-delusion that must be broken by the same kind of psychological force that created it in the first time, it will not be broken by rational argument, since no theist got to be a theist by that route in the first place.
As long as religious freedom means that a theist can freely parade his delusion we have the same situation as if a scientist can lecture his students that 2 and 2 is 5 and get away with it.
As long as the religious playground is available to those inclined to use it, so long will there be a crack in the edifice of reason through which unreason will wash over the landscape. If 70 years of soviet dictatorship and state sponsored atheism could not get rid of the russian orthodox church, then we are deluding ourselves that atheist whispers will have any effect in a place where anything goes as far as religion is concerned. We are dealing with a lot more than merely deciding who has the better argument.
Knut
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Knut W. Barde"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: October 20, 2001 9:51 AM
I understand that a positive atheist asserts that it can be proven that the word god has no corollary in the real world except as an imaginary concept. One might as well use the word blubblub and begin spinning stories about it.
If you'd look at our FAQ piece, "What is Positive Atheism?" you'd notice that we don't use the term "positive atheist" the way Michael Martin uses it. Rather, we are developing and advocate a philosophy called "Positive Atheism" (with capital letters and ending with an "m") that was begun by Gora in Vijayawada, India.
I'll let you use this opportunity to begin your objection over, now that you realize that we don't use the term the way your letter presupposes.
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "Knut W. Barde"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: October 20, 2001 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Thank you for the clarification.
I have reviewed your description of Positive Atheism.
It strikes me as essentially a tactical approach to avoid incurring the wrath of the theist majority. The prudential advice not to get in people's faces probably has survival value.
What is fuzzy however, is whether you are merely advocating a) that an atheist should be left alone in his lack of belief in the word god, which is sort of the reverse side of the coin of freedom of (from) religion, or b) whether you are willing to confront anyone who claims, whether aggressively and intrusively or only for consumption of the particular in-group, that god talk is not only no mark of stupidity but evidence of superior knowledge, by rejecting such claims with the same vigor that you would employ to ferret out science teachers that claim 2 and 2 is 5.
I sense that you merely want to use the first amendment to carve out your own niche in the religious playground using the same rules that apply to all other players, rather than working on closing the playground down because the rules perpetuate ignorance.
I agree that skillful means must be used to advance the atheist position that god talk is nonsensical. However, when theists talk about god they are making assertions about the world. If they said "this is my hallucination" they are harmless, if they say "I can see better than you can" then they must be subject to being called on to prove their point because they are making an assertion about the world with a claim of veracity and truthfulness.
Theism is not the kind of trivial assertion about opinions and tastes that we can safely ignore, but it is an insistence that the world is constituted in a certain way. I disagree also that most people in the US believe in theism because of some thought process. In fact I believe that few people have arrived at theism because of a thought process. Rather the adult theist merely rationalizes what has been inculcated into him since birth by family and society. Religion is a habit more than anything else.
Especially when we observe how religions have been and continue to be responsible for so much bloodshed and suffering, I cannot agree that keeping the playground open has any usefulness.
The Dalai Lama has essentially said that religion is humbug and that what is needed is common sense ethical behavior. If he can say that, then we as atheists can say more than merely: "don't bother us".
We must get to a point where the theist must apologize for his delusion and plead forbearance, rather than the atheist who must plead for tolerance.
If the atheist does not seek out the target of religiosity then what is the point of being an atheist? Your position seems closer to an agnosticism that wants to be left alone and is too afraid to annoy and offend.
In short the concerns over tactical concerns of survivability of beleaguered atheists have eviscerated their message to the point of benignity.
If the atheist message is correct, then why treat the theists with kid gloves? Apparently you are not sufficiently convinced of the pernicious influence that theism has had and continues to exert, not only as far as the defensive concerns of atheists are concerned (which seems to be the main focus of your position), but more importantly in its role in the larger social, political, and cultural world.
Knut
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Knut W. Barde"
Subject: Re: Positive_Atheism_Letters_Section
Date: October 20, 2001 9:34 PM
It strikes me as essentially a tactical approach to avoid incurring the wrath of the theist majority. The prudential advice not to get in people's faces probably has survival value.
Precisely!
However I am after more than just survival, I am after dignified integration through accurate understanding of what atheism is and is not. And since the "weak" (or "negative") definition is historically the most popular, we can get away with describing the overall big-picture of atheism that way. This does not infringe on the individual's choice either to be a "strong" (small-"p" "positive") atheist or a "weak" ("negative") atheist.
What is fuzzy however, is whether you are merely advocating a) that an atheist should be left alone in his lack of belief in the word god, which is sort of the reverse side of the coin of freedom of (from) religion, or b) whether you are willing to confront anyone who claims, whether aggressively and intrusively or only for consumption of the particular in-group, that god talk is not only no mark of stupidity but evidence of superior knowledge, by rejecting such claims with the same vigor that you would employ to ferret out science teachers that claim 2 and 2 is 5.
I leave this to the individual. Since I advocate for the individual and do not recognize the point of forming atheist-only groups, the only collective sense of atheism that I talk about is atheism as a whole, an abstract concept, not a specific set of people. And the only thing I really use this for is in advocating that we define atheism as a whole in terms of the "weak" or "negative" definition: "An atheist is somebody who, at minimum, lacks a god belief, although many atheists go so far as to assert that no gods exist or that the statement 'God exists' is a false statement."
I sense that you merely want to use the first amendment to carve out your own niche in the religious playground using the same rules that apply to all other players, rather than working on closing the playground down because the rules perpetuate ignorance.
I admit that I don't have the power to close down the playground. I also realize that to even try would only make things worse. As one who submits to Liberal Scientific Method, my hope lies in the ability of the most successful ideas to prevail in the common forum ("successful ideas" being those most likely to make accurate predictions; those which withstand the scrutiny of a wide variety of people in an open discussion).
Most of all, though, my innate sense of fairness tells me that I really don't have the right to anything that I'm not willing to grant to all. If I want to have opinions, I need to let them have theirs, regardless of how dangerous or despicable I think their opinions may be.
My values along these lines are much more important to me than even my atheism; I spend much more of my time and energy pondering and working with these issues than I do with atheistic issues.
But then, atheism is a different animal in one sense: atheism, to me, is not a positive belief but rather is a reaction, a way to distinguish myself from people who do hold a specific set of beliefs, saying, "I'm not that way."
To me (and according to the "weak" definition of atheism), atheism is the default position when it comes to religious opinion. Atheism is normal humanity that has not installed that added attraction of religious belief. Thus, atheism is no big deal.
I have begun to explore this viewpoint in two recent editorial columns, "Atheism: But A Small Part" (April, 2001) and "To Symbolize That Which Is Not?" (August, 2001). I go to great lengths to get into some detailed defense of this new viewpoint in the exchange with Argentinean skeptic Juan De Gennaro, "Why Advocate For Individual Activists?" This is as thorough of an expression of this new direction as I have formulated, and though it's been out for a few months, I'm only beginning to get some reaction to it. Though it's hard to tell from the perspective of being in the middle of it, I can imagine some people saying, "You must be wa-a-ay out there, Captain! Over!"
I'm not sure even how to describe it or, rather, what to call it. It's not exactly "deconstructing" atheism, but I'm certainly taking a radically minimalistic approach when compared to all other expressions of active or organized atheism that I've encountered.
However, I think this approach most accurately reflects the majority viewpoint among atheists, because most atheists rarely if ever even think about religion or atheism. We certainly don't hear from them. They just live their lives, and religion is not a part of their lives. Nevertheless, I am raising a few eyebrows among atheistic activists and those who organize atheist groups. If I think about it, though, this is the atheism with which I was raised: we never used the "A"-word but a fifth generation of us is crawling on a carpet in California.
I agree that skillful means must be used to advance the atheist position that god talk is nonsensical.
I'm not sure all god-talk is nonsensical. I like Drange's bit about if you could portray a deity as a character in a motion picture, such as the "God" in De Mille's "The Ten Commandments," then the god-talk is not entirely nonsensical.
Now, when you start to insist that "God" is simultaneously omnipotent and omniscient, then you start speaking nonsense. The same occurs when you compare the claim that "God" is omnipotent and omnibenevolent with the existence of evil.
But mixing sense with nonsense is a classic ploy of religionists.
I urge atheists to try to stick to those expressions of religion that are intrusive, exploitative, or dangerous. Sure, some will argue that they're all that way, but we have only so many resources and must choose our battles wisely. I think most theists aren't really hurting anybody, just like most drinkers and pot smokers aren't really hurting anybody.
However, when theists talk about god they are making assertions about the world. If they said "this is my hallucination" they are harmless,
In Vic Stenger's new book, his whole point is that many theistic claims are scientifically testable. He concludes that none of them pass those tests, but he says that they are testable nonetheless.
Drange and others say that the more sophisticated the god-claim, the less able are we to verify or test it. In other words, Hinduism (very sophisticated) freely admits that their god-concept is unfathomable by humans. However, the classic Jewish and Christian concepts (and to an extent the Islamic concept) is fathomable, to an extent (less sophisticated). The volcano god who belches out smoke and fire whenever somebody sins is almost entirely fathomable (patently unsophisticated).
if they say "I can see better than you can" then they must be subject to being called on to prove their point because they are making an assertion about the world with a claim of veracity and truthfulness.
This is one of the main reasons I submit to Liberal Scientific Method: any claim to truth is more easily verified if the same test will produce approximately the same results no matter who conducts the test. This prevents there from existing a special class of people who are privileged with knowledge or who are allowed to arbitrate "the facts." Some physicists (and several others, particularly computer scientists) have emphasized this "equal access" principle in an odd but poignant way: their ultra-casual mode of dress, which seems to be saying, "We're not special!"
Religion is a habit more than anything else.
Yesss! That entire paragraph! Yes! Yes! Yes!
Drange has the mumbo-jumbo theory of some religious language, which goes as far as saying that if you learn to recite slogans and then learn to tell people that those word-combinations express what you believe, this is not rightly called belief at all! A belief must have substance to actually be believed. If there is no meaning to the stated belief, it is not a belief at all. It is just a bunch of words strung together: mumbo-jumbo.
The Dalai Lama has essentially said that religion is humbug and that what is needed is common sense ethical behavior. If he can say that, then we as atheists can say more than merely: "don't bother us".
You got a point, there.
We must get to a point where the theist must apologize for his delusion and plead forbearance, rather than the atheist who must plead for tolerance.
Yeah, but there's this big sign on the elementary school that says, "God Bless America." That slogan is the new war cry for the effort to use the reaction to the Day of Atrocity as precedent for bringing George Bush's personal religious views into the center of the public (government) discussion. "In God We Trust" wasn't enough for them, they've got to have more, more! Putting "under God" into the Pledge wasn't enough, now the principal of Glenn Stephens elementary school in Madison, Wisconsin, in her staff bulletin for the week of October 15, has instructed teachers to reveal the names of students who are not participating in the Pledge of Allegiance.
She wants them to snitch on kids who don't honor the "under God" part!!!
Where the hell do we start?
If the atheist does not seek out the target of religiosity then what is the point of being an atheist? Your position seems closer to an agnosticism that wants to be left alone and is too afraid to annoy and offend.
That's what the word atheist means to me: it is the most inclusive word we've got because all it means is "without theism" -- "without a god-belief." Some atheists carry their atheism much further than I do, and they are rightly called "atheists" as well.
My particular angle with activism is to urge atheists to examine their behavior as a possible source for the stigma and bigotry we endure.
Believe me: I don't have to do much more than call myself "an atheist" in order to annoy and offend. In the classic sense of gay rights activist Luke Sissyfag, decked out in his pink chiffon, that word is more than enough to attract more bigotry to myself than I can even handle: I have plenty of opportunity to expose the bigotry for what it is.
Hey! I'm having to find a new apartment because the noun used to describe me is atheist and there's not a thing I can do! I've been helping people in this very situation for years. Now that it's my turn, this asshole's got me wrapped up so tightly that I cannot even make a sound until I'm safely out of here. By then, it's too late to save this tenancy which has lasted ten years, now!
And when I'm done with that, spending time with religionists who mind their own business is a warm, welcome relief from a hard day.
No! I will work on those expressions of religion that are intrusive, exploitative, and dangerous.
If the atheist message is correct, then why treat the theists with kid gloves?
They have bigger guns than I do (see previous).
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.