Some Maturity Please?
Brian Patrick Fogarty
From: "Brian Patrick Fogarty"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Some maturity please?
Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 3:06 AM
Dear Mr. Walker,
as an atheist, I am pleased that you have put together such a wealth of articles and essays from prominent thinkers on the subject so that people may have access to them, and that you have provided a forum for discussion. Also, you are quite a champion of seperation of church and state, a worthy cause indeed.
However, there is much in your page to cause dismay. In many of your responses (I'm not saying all of them) to clearly earnest religionists, you displayed an attitude that I would describe as abusive and unbecoming and that I can only assume left them bewildered and hurt rather than relieved of their beliefs. This is wholely unneccessary -- if you don't have the time to draft a carefully thought out reponse to each and every letter, you should delegate some of the work to someone else. People will understand.
One of the first things that many religionists unfairly acuse atheists of is that they hate God or have a bone to pick with religion. This is rarely true, but if one were to say that Cliff Walker has an unhealthy lust for battling with religionists or has turned a slightly passe corner of philosophy into a full blown personal obsession, judging by a lot of what you have said, I feel that would be an accurate assessment. Becoming an atheist should only be a mere stepping stone on any persons journey to knowledge, it is not the be all and end all of intellectual discovery -- Gore Vidal has been criticised in the past for getting bogged down in trying to be blasphemous and controversial instead of getting on with the task of making more good contributions to literature and political thought. Similarly, Richard Dawkins is somewhat guilty of being cruel in his comments instead of continuing to teach us all more about the intricacies of evolutionary biology. Clearly, atheism vs religion is an easy scrap to get dragged into. I think that you have absolutely dived in.
You have a positive contribution to make, Mr. Walker, but I feel you have been bogged down in what is in many ways a pet topic that has been already been covered by far better qualified and restrained people -- is atheism really that hot a topic these days? Effectively inviting people to take you on in like this makes you, unfairly, look like just another internet nut. A discussion forum can easily become a shouting match.
I always say that trying to relieve someone of their religion is like trying to get chewing gum out of carpet -- it requires delicacy, not a heavy hand, and it isn't even that big an achievement in any case. The world is full of falsehoods and superstitions of all kinds -- big deal, aren't humans truly bizarre. While making sure that these superstitions don't encroach on the laws of the state is an important cause, this particular section of your endevour doesn't actually have to involve an analysis of religious beliefs themselves at all, so try to be less confrontational and to formulate a better means of communicating with religionists when doing so.
Try also to spread your emphasis into other areas, like encouraging Americans to learn more about how the world works outside their own country -- something a lot of them, not neccessarily you incidently, know little about. I feel that America can be a remarkably insular place sometimes.
I'm not trying to tell you to pack your bags and go away, I'm suggesting how you could make a good page into a great page. Please understand that.
Brian
From:"Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Brian Patrick Fogarty"
Subject: Re: Some maturity please?
Date: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 2:16 PM
Yes. Most of my overseas friends consider America to be somewhat insular (I had to look that one up -- island-like).
Cliff Walker has undergone some changes in the past two years, especially since parting company with United States Atheists. Positive Atheism is, among other things, my attempt to discover an atheism that is both productive and inviting. This is no easy deal, and I thank you for your comments.
You can compare three editorials that deal with people writing letters: Earlier: (cliff76.htm -- June, 97); Later: (cliff94.htm -- April, 99), (cliff8b.htm -- Nov. 98).
Yes, when I find someone being dishonest, I tend to call them on it, even up to this day (eml9925.htm). But I do not, and never have, liked the ad hominem approach.
And no. I am not going to hide the past. I agree with you that behavior such as logging on to AOL "flaming" theists on the religion boards accomplishes nothing. This is why I have stopped doing that and have (thus far silently) changed my ways.
However, what, do you think, is a proper approach in a discussion where your views are misrepresented and then "refuted" by an opponent (the straw-man approach)? When such confusion is injected into the conversation, it is difficult to sort it out without sounding mean and ornery. But then, to ignore such letters is to abandon the purpose of the web page: to learn how to respond to the arguments and questions and accusations that come our way.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
From: "Brian Patrick Fogarty"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 6:59 AM
Dear Mr. Walker,
of course any discussion with people who quite frequently shun logic and the scientific method is going to be difficult. But no matter what explanation they have for arriving at their beliefs, the best way I find of challenging them is to stress how necessary it is to always have some means of sorting between truth and falsehood, and to give examples of how much crazier life would be if we didn't use such a tool -- if we didn't accept for example that it is. Most people will agree with that much. The next thing to do is to ponder what is the most reliable means of sorting between truth and falsehood -- stressing with the use of examples that the scientific method seems to be quite a good method, and that the religionist, perhaps unknown to himself, uses it quite frequently in non-religious contexts and finds it indispensable.
The big question then is: What is it about religion, which does not seem to be borne out if one uses the scientific method, that warrants it being exempt from such a means of examination? Why is a radically different means of analysis suddenly in use -- one that you can easily show is of no use in every single other area of life? If, for example, you believe in people up in the sky without any proof, if you wish to be consistent, you really have to also believe that all other similarly extraordinary claims must be true as well, until no nonsensical notion can be disbelieved.
If they eventually accuse you of taking bible passages out of context or misrepresenting them, simply point out the fact that a supposedly important book as the bible should surely not be open to such wild misinterpretation, and point out that you are hardly the only one doing it: a myriad of churches explain passages in entirely different ways. Also, perhaps it is they that are doing it - who is supposed to be able to tell?
That's just the way I liked to do it. If you're patient and willing to dissect what they say line by line, rather than generalise about it, it will ultimately frustrate them far more than cockiness will, and you will seem far more noble and dignified for it. It is very painstaking, and frequently involves reiterating again and again the obvious benefits logic has over faith. I'm not saying for a minute that this isn't what you usually do and endevour to do, I'm just saying that in this business you should stick to it rigorously or not at all.
It can be fun to enjoy the hedonism of it all and go in there mocking the pants of these people -- they are in all honesty wide open for it, but they'll just hate you and love to hate you. By taking a more academic tone you will take them aback, force them to explain their own position in minute detail, and even engender a sort of respect.
Here's a response I got from one guy I used to debate with, and he was as devout as they come, initially very shocked that I could take such a different line. I did not succeed in budging him, but I think I probably got him as close to questioning his own position as he'd been for a while:
"I think I hear where you're coming from, and understand your points. Your position is probably summed up when you say, "where you see remarkable linkages, I see some of the common themes of storytelling and history." I hear you. Your same theme, I think, is expressed by, "I think your experience shows what a remarkably flexible book the Bible is -- a speaker is never short of material for a sermon no matter what the occasion, and a believer never short of a nugget of wisdom." I hear you there, too.People have used the Bible (for centuries) to say what they want to say. I guess we're at an impasse. But I certainly appreciate your comments, which help me to understand not only where you're coming from, but where no doubt many more people are coming from. Take care, and may you find the truth, whatever it may be".
Letting people depart in anger or making them feel like an enemy only strengthen their resolve to go on believing these claims. Atheists should not compromise their values, but they can be better communicators.
In any case, I think a far bigger problem facing America than religion is its insularity. I come from Ireland, a small country that, less so than America, simply has to reach out and learn about other people and trade with them if it is to prosper. It has been this move over the past twenty to thirty years that has contributed greatly to the fall of the Catholic Church here and a far less subservient attitude to our government etc. If Americans did this, religionists and theists alike would be better off, and would also be of more benefit. You personally have refered frequently to India, Iraq and elsewhere, but I would wager that a lot of Americans know little about what happens in Europe or anywhere except America. I like America greatly, and have several friends there, but the biggest religion in America, it seems to me, is America itself.
Brian
From: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Brian Patrick Fogarty"
Subject: Re:
Date: Thursday, April 08, 1999 9:41 AM
This is good. I am currently composing a response to a friend of the poor fellow I "flamed" yesterday (I have not posted it). His argument is based on an uncommon (improper?) use of the word "faith" and confusing this use with the traditional use of the word, and I have tried to be very careful in addressing this.
I will spend some more time with what you say, as I think this is the single most important discussion that has occurred since I established out on my own.
Also, I have begun to reorganize the Letters section. Someone has agreed to help me with the work.
Meanwhile, I must spend the day at the doctor's office, because my left thumb has started twitching on its own, and writing, for me, was already tedious before this started happening.
I hope you continue to offer suggestions and criticism of our approach, because this is no easy deal for me. If you care to take a crack at some of our letters, I will post your response. You may have noticed that some of the letters have several responses, that have been tacked on over the years.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
From: "Brian Patrick Fogarty"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: Re:
Date: Friday, April 09, 1999 1:00 AM
If someone wants to attach his own meaning to the word 'faith', I wouldn't stop him -- anyone's entitled to create new meanings of old words as long as they explain that meaning. It is what he means rather than what he says that matters, but of course he shouldn't be allowed to switch between meanings with the same word.
Perhaps he is using 'faith' to in some way describe forming a relationship with God over and above merely believing in him as a proposition? Suggest that before you can embark on such an endevour, you surely first of all need to believe in him as a proposition, and surely that step is meaningless without proof. On the other hand, he might suggest that you that the proof of the pudding is in the eating -- form a relationship with God and you will surely have proof he exists. All you have to do then is point to all of the people who claim just such a relationship -- but sadly with different Gods or versions of the same God, or at least the same God for some reason 'telling' them different things, making such a means of proof look very unreliable.
Always go for the argument rather than the person as though they were effectively two different entities.
But I doubt if he'll give in -- I can hardly imagine very many people coming home to tell their wife or friends or parents that 'I met a bloke today and he convinced me in one paragraph that there's no God', especcially when he was the one to feel strongly enough to go and challenge you in the first place. I'd bet most of the people who start to question their religion as a result of the page are the ones who just quietly read the articles -- if you actually find yourself engaged in argument with one of them, it is likely they are more devout.
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.