Avoiding the argument

Few writers have more succinctly articulated the emerging mainstream counter-argument to “New Atheists” better than Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller when she writes that
“For five years, since the publication of Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, the so-called faith-versus-reason debate has been a favorite pastime of certain secularists and intellectuals, the subject of innumerable books and lecture series. Three charismatic men—Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Hitchens (who is a NEWSWEEK contributor)—have not just dominated the conversation, they’ve crushed it. And so they’ve become celebrities. Together they’ve sold more than 3 million books worldwide, which suggests they may be in this for more than just our edification.“(http://www.newsweek.com/id/219009)

As far as I can tell, her argument has basically nothing to do with the points raised by the likes of Dawkins or Harris but rather their style. The notion that because they are perceived to be rude and “like adolescent boys they rehash their rhetorical victories to their own delight”, we should disregard their arguments. Miller contrasts these adolescent egomaniacs with the more mature and thoughtful atheists who explore questions of belief “like a poet rather than a scientist” and respect everyone’s point of view and right to believe whatever they want to believe.

You rarely read articles that attack the substance of arguments made by Dawkins et al. No one has really attacked the notion that religion is a form of child abuse, or attack their arguments against the existence of God. They are instead derided as arrogant schoolboys trying to impress everyone with their intelligence. Furthermore, Miller’s bizarre belief that because “they’ve sold more than 3 million books worldwide”, this suggests “they may be in this for more than just our edification” reveals her true agenda to be playing the man and not the ball. As Sam Harris has previously observed, the consequence of this vilification is to “keep criticism of religion at arm’s length, [which] has allowed people to dismiss our arguments without meeting the burden of actually answering them.”

This style of vilification is tailor-made for our relativist, post modernist culture where people are encouraged to believe based not on the validity of their arguments, but rather whether it makes them happy and gets them through the day. People like to identify themselves as the “moderates” between “religious extremists” and “new atheists” and so the idea that both sides are “a bit right” becomes quite satisfying, even if you haven’t actually studied the arguments for and against.

It’s also wrong. What is so intolerant or arrogant about expressing your belief (or lack of belief) in god? I believe it is a double standard in our society that one can attack another person’s political beliefs without it being construed as an attack on their person, yet to make a similar attack on someone’s religious beliefs is regarded as intolerant. There is no rational reason for this. I think it can only be understood in the context of our cultural zeitgeist. I suspect that in centuries past with the abolition of slavery, the granting of voting rights for women and every other turn of the cultural zeitgeist there would have been people who would concede the points made by abolitionists or suffragettes but would have hesitated to accept the consequences of their arguments simply because of status of those ideas at that time as being “radical”.

Openly debating religion in the 21st century might just be the latest example of this, as there has been no historical precent in Western society for religion to be openly and popularly debated in the mainstream media. For many people the idea of religious debate being up-front and unapologetic is an alien concept, and it is only with the passing of time that the idea will gradually be accepted as mainstream and self-evident.

Advertisement