Why Atheists Need Fundamentalists

[rug]

Ross Douthat
October 4, 2011, 8:51 am

I’ve written before about the interesting symbiosis that exists between militant atheism and religious fundamentalism — the way the Richard Dawkinses of the world are always eager to insist that a cartoonish figure like Pat Robertson represents the truest form of Christian faith, and that any believer who disagrees with Robertson’s pronouncements on Haiti or Hurricane Katrina obviously doesn’t understand his own religion.

For a recent example of this tendency, consider the fascinating exchange between the prolific Catholic blogger Mark Shea and Jerry Coyne, the author of “Why Evolution Is True” and a Dawkins-esque critic of biblical religion. The subject is human origins, and specifically the debate over whether the Western Christian understanding of original sin — as the fruit of a primal disobedience by the human’s race first family — is compatible with the increasing scientific consensus around polygenism (that is, the theory that today’s human race descends from a larger population rather than a single couple).

Shea touched off the dust-up by arguing that there’s nothing particularly radical, at least from the perspective of the Catholic tradition, about interpreting the first books of Genesis as a “figurative” account of a primeval event, rather than as literal historiography that requires that two and only two human creatures were on the scene when mankind exchanged our original innocence for disobedience and shame.

To Coyne, this idea was absolutely outrageous: In a searing post, he accused Shea of trying to defend “the palpable lies of the Bible” with a lot of hand-waving about allegory and symbolism and myth, when anyone can see that the authors of Genesis were just making stuff up. It’s “nonsense,” Coyne wrote, to suggest that the Old Testament is somehow compatible with human evolution and polygenism: All you have to do is read Genesis itself, which never suggests “that Adam and Eve were anything but the ancestors of all humanity.” To argue otherwise — to “fabricate a huge population of humans, not directly related to Adam and Eve but living at the same time” — is just a crude “attempt to evade the blatant fictionality of the Genesis story by claiming that the book doesn’t say what it seems to say.”

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/why-atheists-need-fundamentalists/

[LAGC]

1. The problem with liberal Christians is they don't read anything literally EXCEPT...

...for the parts about Jesus, which are somehow supposedly all true while the rest is all metaphor.

They cherry-pick just as well as the fundies.

[Kurmudgeon]

18. The typical prejudicial assumptions trotted out again...

The Bible is not just one book, it is a collection of Jewish histories as well as direct instructions from God.
Whether you believe that or not does not change the fact that that's how the particular instructions are referenced.
Also, before you make accusations that someone does a "cherry-pick", understand that some laws and directives are more important than others.
That's why "love thy neighbor" is more important and to be obeyed while "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" does not have the same power as a Commandment. It's all in the CONTEXT!
Of course, if your prejudice doesn't allow you to read things in context, I can't do anything about that.
That's on you.

[Deep13]

29. Not assumptions. Observations.

If you don't believe us, ask some of liberal Christians on this board. The red letters in the NT are true, the rest is myth. Of course, the life lessons in the red letters are pretty problematic themselves.

There are 613 commandments in the OT. The punishment for violating any of them is death (unless there is some exception I have overlooked). The context is pretty unambiguous--do it and die. So what is the proper context of the command to kill witches? What's the context of all that violence and misogyny? Why is the Biblical god such a sociopathic control freak? And if it is all about interpretation and metaphor, then in what sense is it a holy book?

Calling the Bible a history is nonsense. Like most myths, it is an invented history created during the 500 or 800 years BCE. It may contain some factual things, but most of it is made-up. That includes the foundational myth of the flight from Egypt. The Hebrews were never in Egypt. That was a different group that brought the story to Canaan where the Hebrews were residing.

[rurallib]

2. one of the most amazing things is that someone actually pays Douthat

for his drivel.

[MineralMan]

3. Which atheists? Not this one.

All atheists are not Dawkins. The vast majority of us don't give a damn about fundamentalists unless they do something incredibly stupid or illegal.

[DesertFlower]

4. i agree. nt

[FSogol]

5. Exactly. I have no desire to confront anyone about their beliefs.

If they want comforting myths, that's fine by me.

[yardwork]

6. I think that my son, who is an atheist, would say the same.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. which has been somewhat more frequent of late.

The basic premise is so stupid and without any indication of truth, that I hesitated even responding.

The only reasons that there are conflicts between agnostics and atheists on one side, and fundy crazies on the other, is because the damned fun dies keep trying to interfere with out lives. Elements in Kansas, Tennessee, the most recent school text decisions in Texas, parts of Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Misery, all have tried to destroy science on several fronts. It is not just creationism replacing real biology, or intelligent design pretending to be real science, it is the adverse and insane stance on stem cells, on biomedical research, the attacks on contraception and abortion access, the brain washing of our youth, and the unreasonable and baseless demands that society not only accept their ability to believe as they choose (almost all atheists and agnostics do that), but that we must be forced to live our lives in accordance to their fantastic, unbelievable, and ridiculous fairy tales. (stolen from tribes long gone.)

We don't want or need fundies. It simply is that they force themselves and interfere with our lives on a daily basis.

[Jim__]

11. He does qualify it in his opening sentence to militant atheism. - n/t

[stopbush]

13. Frankly, I don't know any atheists - including Dawkins - who I would consider militant.

"Militant atheist" is a purely pejorative term created by religious apologists to discredit and ignore arguments made by atheists, especially when those arguments engender religious responses that are nothing if not laughable.

The author of the article tips his hand in the first paragraph of his column. A clumsy bit of work that is - sadly - all too typical of what passes for being "fit to print" these days at the NYT.

[darkstar3]

35. +1

If we were to change the word atheist in "militant atheist" to feminist, several who use the term would realize exactly why it exists: To deny the legitimacy of the minority.

[trotsky]

38. +2

Or "homosexual." I'd hazard a guess that someone using either of our examples would likely get their post deleted.

[cleanhippie]

40. And yet its allowed here as if its no big deal.

:shrug:

[dmallind]

8. Yet another attempt to assert, falsely, that most believers are theologically advanced

Robertson speaks for millions. Spong speaks for hundreds - a few thousand ar best. Atheists talk about the former because he has a bigger presence, more followers, more money and more power.

Wouldn;t it be better to match and then override the influence of your own fundamentalists, who speak far more potently about what religion is, before you complain that atheists listen to them instead of some mewling academics who can't be heard outside a few college town coffeehouses?

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. So, Douthat is saying that the bible can only be disregarded if it

is interpreted literally? That without a literal interpretation to push against, the atheist has nothing?

Not much of a deep thinker, there.

[PETRUS]

10. wonder if you've seen this

http://life.salon.com/2011/10/02/how_science_and_faith_coexist/

...and if it would interest you.

[rug]

12. I haven't. Thanks, it's a fascinating article.

I particularly like his taxonomy of belief.

You should repost this as an OP.

[PETRUS]

15. Glad you liked it.

And will do.

[RC]

14. Atheists Need Fundamentalists like fish need bicycles.

Nope, not even that much.

[cleanhippie]

16. Atheists don't need fundamentalists, they need believers in a god.

Without believers in a god there ARE no atheists.



Believers can exist without atheists but atheists cannot exist without believers.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. huh? OK, it is tuesday, and I am slow

but you need to explain this.

If you really mean that atheists cannot exist without someone who believes in a fairy tale god like those sheeplike christians, that is absolutely false.
Their belief does not create or define our position on the non-existence of some god.

[cleanhippie]

19. By the current usage of the word.

While atheism is the default position we are born in (lack of belief is a better description), if there were no believers in a god, then there would be no reason to be atheist (in the common cuerent form and usage).

Without theism there cannot be A-theism.


Following me?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. yes, but I disagree. You continue the fallacy of

defining one party by the misbegotten, misguided, irrational beliefs of someone else.

That is a serious logical error. There is no god. It matters not whether some fundie christian asshole believes differently. The only thing that changes is how you try to frame your description of me, and frankly, i'd prefer the bicycle riding aquatic life form to being compared to some religious beliefs.

[cleanhippie]

26. I agree with you 100%. But in the context of how the word is used and applied as a label,

It stands to reason that if there were no theism, then there would be no atheism, no?


Look at this way. If we could take a magic wand and wave away the belief in gods so that there was never any thought of it in the first place, then the thought of being a non-believer would also disappear, no?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

28. but that is unlikely as erasing from the world of ideas

concepts like ghosts, goblins, unicorns, sane republicans, or freeze dried water.

As a logical exercise I applaud all of the above. But fiction writers, creative movie makers, and others will create such concepts, and make those ideas known. Hell, look at the Star Trek phenomena - growing larger and more popular even though the last series died an early death many years ago. The power of ideas is awesome.

[cleanhippie]

41. Friend, I never said that it was likely, I was simply just trying to make a point.

Hence the term "magic wand".

And hopefully you see the point being made.

[laconicsax]

20. Douthat sure made short work of that straw man!

Well, straw man and straw Dawkins.

[cleanhippie]

21. Don't forget the false equivalencies, too!

[laconicsax]

25. Of course. No 'rebuttal' of atheism is complete without them.

[LeftishBrit]

22. We don't

The point is rather that the existence of fundamentalists, and especially the intrusion of fundamentalism into politics, can lead to a reaction from many atheists who would otherwise not care particularly what others believe. In fact, I tend to refer to 'anti-secularists' rather than 'fundamentalists'. Many political anti-secularists, certainly in the UK, are not fundamentalists in the religious sense; amd a fair number of religious fundamentalists are uninterested in politics, or may even be left-wing.

I wasn't particularly interested in religious debates, and thought Richard Dawkins and his ilk rather a bore, until the religious right in America helped to get Bush a second term in 2004, and even then I wasn't all that interested in such things until the political pro-life movement became active in my geographical backyard and helped to defeat my MP in favour of a Tory in 2010. That one episode convinced me, more than a million articles by a 'New Atheist' ever could have, that the RW anti-secularists are a danger EVERYWHERE, even in places where you might think you're a few thousand miles away from that being a major problem. Even now, however, I don't care at all what anyone else believes, so long as they don't use it to impose religiously-based moral laws on others, or as an excuse for smearing liberal/left candidates and bringing in right-wingers, or of course as a justification for war or other violence.

No doubt in the world of journalism, opponents feed off each other: atheists and religious writers' articles attacking each other give each other publicity, and fodder for further attack-articles. And the trouble with journalists, not only with regard to this topic, is that they often think that *everyone* thinks like journalists, and has a journalist's preoccupations, and that the whole world is basically a press office or a student debating society (the background of many journalists). But this isn't the case. Most of us have other preoccupations.

And Ross Douthat seems a pretty dodgy individual, as he is the author of a book entitled 'Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream'. (Ugh!)

[MineralMan]

23. After further consideration, I've changed my opinion on this:

Some atheists need fundamentalists because who else is going to read their books? Without fundies to buy, read, and excoriate the books of prominent "militant" atheists, they'd all freaking starve to death. Ordinary atheists see a book about atheism, and can't figure out how anyone could write an entire book about why not to believe in supernatural entities and spooky stuff. Ordinary atheists just shrug and read something worthwhile.

So, folks like Dawkins depend on the religious types to buy their books so they can write endless posts on blogs and discussion forums about how wrong the atheists are. Ordinary atheists just go about their day, not believing in such stuff without requiring any explanation.

So, the opening title of this thread is true. Atheists do depend on Fundamentalists. Fundamentalists love to buy books so they have something reasonably interesting to read and something to write about. Otherwise, all they can write about is invisible stuff that doesn't exist. How much can you say about something that doesn't exist, after all?

More power to the "militant" atheists, I guess. Everyone has to earn a living some way. Me? I'm writing about HVAC stuff today, as I redo some heating and air conditioning company's website. At least that shit exists...

[cleanhippie]

27. You know, that's a great point and I think that for most of the non-believing population,

That is very true.

Well put, MM.

[Leontius]

31. "Religious types" with a few exceptions don't buy Dawkins books

for one simple reason, he's wrong and they know it and really don't care what the asshat writes about religion or belief in God.

[trotsky]

32. They don't care, but they spend so much time attacking him?

Fascinating. Even you are here piling on. So much for not caring!

[Leontius]

34. Problems with reading comprehension ,well no matter it doesn't

change anything, most believers really don't care what Dawkins or most other atheist writers have to say about God after the initial exposure. The exceptions that do basically have the same reason as he does 'Look at me, buy what I'm selling'. As for not caring, on my part at least, if I ever have a question on biology I'd be glad to hear what he has to say but on religion and God, not so much, he doesn't make my list of truly knowledgeable people on the subject.

[trotsky]

37. And here you are harping even more on something believers don't care about.

Fascinating!

[darkstar3]

36. Oh they "know it" now, do they?

Tell me , how do you know any such thing?

[LeftishBrit]

33. I suppose that's one of the points I was making

To someone who makes a living through polemical journalism, an opponent can be useful fodder. Not restricted to religious vs atheist; but that can be one example.

Nothing wrong with that, but journalists should remember that the vast majority of people aren't journalists and don't think that way.

[Deep13]

30. So, you disapprove of criticizing Fundamentalists?

I guess I thought liberal believers agreed that Fundies are bad news, but I guess not.

[iris27]

39. Douthat? Really? The man who says feminism is at fault when women are stressed out trying to

juggle a career and family life? Please.

Author aside...atheists would LOVE it if no religious believers were fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are responsible for nearly every part of religious doctrine being shoved into our laws and permeating public life. Their work is propped up by moderates who refuse to work against them, or to leave the church structure that perpetuates such abuses, but in a world of only religious moderates, atheists would breathe much easier.