One of the most commented on newspaper articles in recent days was the online version of a report printed in The Sunday Times that Richard Dawkins is planning a lecture tour of America during 2008. The report itself is reasonably neutral and factual, but some of the comments can only be described as ‘interesting’.
Dawkins is to embark on a lecture tour of 2,000-seater halls in the Bible Belt and the Midwest in the wake of the presidential primary season, which reaches its climax in early February.
There are clearly more problems in America about openly being an atheist than in the UK. Unlike in the UK, no presidential candidate could hope to survive in the polls in America if he or she admitted to doubts about the existence of God. Dawkins has teamed up with Robin Wight, the man behind some of Britain’s most memorable advertising campaigns, in the hope of making (amongst other things) it respectable to admit to being an atheist.
Dawkins, who sometimes lectures in T-shirts bearing the slogan “Evolution - the greatest show on earth”, said: “America has a problem with evolution. There is an astonishing level of sheer ignorance fomented by religious prejudices.
“The Bible Belt is a lot less monolithic than it portrays itself. I have a feeling that there is rather a large groundswell of people who agree with me. I may be preaching to the choir but I think the choir is larger than many people realise.
“People thank me for speaking out. They are grateful that I articulate what they wish to say but can’t because they live there.”
He added: “We have the ‘Out’ campaign. We do see an analogy with gay rights. There are a lot of people in the closet in America.”
A flavour of part of Dawkins’ likely reception is reported in the words of The Rev David Cox, of the First Southern Methodist Church, Charleston, South Carolina. The Rev Cox said: “I would certainly like to protest. [Dawkins] is a tool of Satan, of the AntiChrist it sounds to me. All God-fearing people will be opposed to an atheist touring.”
The comments on the report reflect at least two things:
-
Most of the people making the attacks haven’t read The God Delusion, because if they had, they would know that some of the things they are saying are fantasy projections onto Dawkins - things they want him to think rather than what he actually says.
-
They are deeply insecure and threatened by even the thought of the visit.
Both of the above are sad because one thing that Dawkins and Harris and Grayling (I haven’t yet read Hutchens) all agree on, and repeatedly say is: “Let’s have a debate and look at the arguments and facts. We are not afraid. If you have a case, make it and convince us. If your case is so strong, what are you afraid of?”
Let me summarize the negative responses people made here:
-
Dawkins is an evil man with evil motives. (I strongly suspect that he is like most of us, with a mixture of good and bad operating from mixed motives. However, one thing that has come through to me watching him on TV and from reading his books is his passion to face facts rather than run from them and his willingness to consider evidence.)
-
He is just promoting another religion and it will soon splinter into fragments of sects just like other religions. (I have written about this particular red herring elsewhere. Basically atheism has no belief in the supernatural, no organised body of doctrine, no organisation to enforce belief or ritual. If religions are TV channels, atheism has decided to turn off the TV set.)
-
Dawkins is obsessed with attacking Christianity. (He is concerned with challenging all religion on the grounds of its irrational and unscientific foundations, and its unhelpfulness to society. Islam comes in for a fair degree of criticism. You don’t get two scientists, who may disagree over the interpretation of particular empirical data, flying aeroplanes into each others’ houses.)
-
If we became atheists we would become immoral. (I have written about this particular red herring elsewhere. It is, of course, insulting to think that there can be no morality without religion. It is certainly harder to work out your morality rather than accept it as a given, and arguably more moral to act from choice rather than from fear of eternal punishment.)
-
If we became atheists, life would have no point. (Let me quote Jackie Duboise from Seattle: I must say that you have it all wrong. Atheism is not about preaching the futility of life, but accepting the world as it is and creating beauty within it. Wouldn’t it be better for humanity if we all shed superstition and pseudoscience? I think so. I believe in a bright future for human kind. A future full of scientific enlightenment and personal fulfilment. I am not talking about the arbitrary “hope” one receives as a member of a religious organization. I am talking about the sense of achievement one would receive in taking part in the greatest scientific experiment: humanity. Each one of us is the personal molder of our own life. Let’s think about future generations and send them the world we wish we lived in.)
- Why doesn’t he just shut up and leave us alone. (Fairs, fair! Thousands of paid faithful professionals proclaim their dogma everywhere, all the time. Why shouldn’t an atheist speak? And given that a case can be made that religion is harmful to society, why shouldn’t an atheist be allowed to make the case and present the arguments and data?)
The words of attack may be sincere and passionate, but it is so sad that already the climate is such that a serious debate will be virtually impossible. There seems to be a continuum between protesting against Dawkins and Pullman at one end (almost certainly without having read the books or seen the Golden Compass) through burning Rushie’s The Satanic Verses (without having read the book) to the killing of a Danish film-maker because of religious criticism or calling for a teacher to be killed for allowing a teddy bear to be called Muhammad. I am sure that some of the Bible belters, and the negative commentators on the Times article, would not wish to be acknowledge that they exist on that continuum, but I strongly suspect that they do.
It is sad and unnecessary but it is inevitable: the battle lines are drawn between religion and atheism. As I have said before, where attitudes become entrenched (and this can happen in all dimensions of life, not just in the religion/atheism debate), reason flies out of the window and people stop listening to one another. (If they even listened to one another to start with.)
But to paint this as a picture in which unshakable believers face unshakable disbelievers across an an bridgeable chasm is, fortunately, a mere parody of the situation. In the middle (in “no man’s land”, if you wish to extend the military simile), is a motley host of people who do listen, who do discuss and who concede points. Among religious believers are those who believe in evolution, in secularism, in humanism. Among unbelievers are those who accept that believers can have positive things to say about how we should lead our lives and care for one another.
It is sad when believers take a last-ditch stand on fundamentalist beliefs because they are wagering all on a bet that they cannot but lose. The more enlightened may salvage something of value by facing up to the truth.
The tide is running against religion. This is very clear. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury can make their robust statements but the very fact that they are making them shows that they are on the defensive, defending the indefensible.
The battle will rage on for a while, sometimes fiercely (as now), sometimes more quietly, but the end is inevitable. Believers are like a tug o’ war team gallantly struggling but gradually losing: each time they rally, each time they take a new grip, it is a step nearer the line.
The fact that believers now see themselves as “victims” and as “persecuted” is truly ironic. Even if it were true, which it is very far from being, they are unlikely to receive any sympathy from those whom they have victimized and persecuted - and continue to victimize and persecute wherever they have the upper hand.
I hope the Dawkins lecture tour will inspire and encourage cryptic atheists and enable more to manifest themselves. The more who do, the more who will follow. We should admire and support those who do, given that we in the UK do not (in our day, at least) face the same dangers.
SilverTiger: I accept what you say:
But to paint this as a picture in which unshakable believers face unshakable disbelievers across an an bridgeable chasm is, fortunately, a mere parody of the situation. In the middle (in “no man’s land”, if you wish to extend the military simile), is a motley host of people who do listen, who do discuss and who concede points. Among religious believers are those who believe in evolution, in secularism, in humanism. Among unbelievers are those who accept that believers can have positive things to say about how we should lead our lives and care for one another.
In my defence, I was responding to the tone of the comments on the original article, which to me, seemed noticeably lacking in the kind of subtlety you have described.
Dawkins’ tour should be very interesting. I anticipate some mouth-frothing and bombast from James Dobson and his ilk. Who knows, if he comes to my area, I may get another email from my pastor.
the chaplain: I kept thinking of one of your recent postings as I wrote this. Yes, I bet you will get a letter from your pastor. If you are very lucky you might even get a sermon about it - though I doubt he would ever read Dawkins
[...] credentials, the open profession of atheism is proving to be very problematic for some. (See also Bible Belt Threatened.) While US presidential candidate Mormon Mitt Romney is stressing that the separation between [...]