In response to my last post a number of people suggested Carl Sagan as a "good atheist". And while Carl was a really great guy, I'm not entirely satisfied by that answer
( Read more... )
I think your overall gist here is about right, but I feel it's worth pointing out that two of your four quotations here (the longest two) are from a novel rather than from an actual statement of position and that said novel was actually very ambiguous and even-handed on issues of science vs. faith and atheism vs. religion. if you'd quoted a different character or a different part of the book, you could have made sagan out to be saying something nearly opposite.
Oh sure, I'm obviously quote-mining. But then again so is everyone I've ever heard quoting Richard Dawkins. They skip over literally volumes and decades of work to pick out a few choice quotes that, to me, only sound offensive if you read them out of context. You can do the same thing even with a nice guy like Carl Sagan and arrive at the same conclusion. Like dr_strych9 I remain completely baffled how Dawkins gets a worse rap than Sagan, except that he's not an accomodationist and engages in counterapologetics.
People are going to be offended no matter what you do; if you're asking for a way to state atheistic ideas while never offending anyone you'll never find it, which I think is your point.
But I think there are still distinctions to be made. Sam Harris, for instance, mused in one of his books that some religious ideas are so dangerous that it might be necessary to kill people just for believing them. I don't see any hint of that up there.
I've been wondering how much of the Carl Sagan applause has to do with what Carl said 15-20 years ago being acceptable to today's atheists and religious people. I wasn't as tuned into all this stuff 20 years ago, but time marches on. The last decade's godless commies are this decade's levelheaded moderates.
So, I guess when Mr. Hitchens "leaves us", he will be remembered as a good atheist? I hope not. I think we need "bad atheists", in that definition, I can be a bad atheist, it depends on who I am talking too. Most of the time, I am pretty good, and I strive (never struggle) to build bridges or keep communication going. I am the only atheist in my family, but both my brother and sister know that when I come over for dinner, they are free to pray in front of me. I would be offended if they didn't.
So, I guess when Mr. Hitchens "leaves us", he will be remembered as a good atheist?
Not necessarily. Some people acquire become even bigger bogeymen with even worse reputations in death than they had in life, and rational people end up arguing the other side of the coin.
I think we need "bad atheists", in that definition
We certainly do, whether they're actually that bad or not. The same way that we need good atheists like Carl Sagan, whether they were actually that good or not. It's always a lot simpler to reduce the spectrum to angels and demons than to take a critical look at what they're actually saying.
What exactly are you looking for? Religious leaders are well known for renouncing sects that are essentially on the same side of the God debate (just ask an evangelical street preacher about Catholics or Mormons some time), so anybody who admits to being an atheist won't be without criticism.
I think it's difficult to get famous for being a nice atheist. You might have some great discussions with your friends, but it's hard to sell a book with that slant.
Have you considered someone like the Dalai Lama? He's the leader of an atheistic religion, but thinks folks raised in a Christian tradition should stay Christian because it's a more familiar frame of reference.
I'm looking for examples of any speech or writing which includes debate and counterapologetics and avoids accomodationist statements that other reasonable atheists would agree is effective without being rude or dickish.
They don't have to universally avoid criticism, because a few people can always be unreasonably sensitive. They don't have to sell a book, but they do have to have a record of their speech somewhere so that I can see how they said it. Another blogger, for example. Anyone who's figured out how to not offend reasonable people while at the same time not pulling their punches and saying what needs to be said.
So far it looks like it's impossible. Partly because I have yet to find any such positive examples, and partly because folks seem to have difficulty explaining what's wrong with negative examples like Dawkins other than "I just don't like it". I don't think there's a nice way to say "because I've paid attention to the evidence, I can say with more certainty than religious people
( ... )
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
People are going to be offended no matter what you do; if you're asking for a way to state atheistic ideas while never offending anyone you'll never find it, which I think is your point.
But I think there are still distinctions to be made. Sam Harris, for instance, mused in one of his books that some religious ideas are so dangerous that it might be necessary to kill people just for believing them. I don't see any hint of that up there.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Not necessarily. Some people acquire become even bigger bogeymen with even worse reputations in death than they had in life, and rational people end up arguing the other side of the coin.
I think we need "bad atheists", in that definition
We certainly do, whether they're actually that bad or not. The same way that we need good atheists like Carl Sagan, whether they were actually that good or not. It's always a lot simpler to reduce the spectrum to angels and demons than to take a critical look at what they're actually saying.
Reply
What exactly are you looking for? Religious leaders are well known for renouncing sects that are essentially on the same side of the God debate (just ask an evangelical street preacher about Catholics or Mormons some time), so anybody who admits to being an atheist won't be without criticism.
I think it's difficult to get famous for being a nice atheist. You might have some great discussions with your friends, but it's hard to sell a book with that slant.
Have you considered someone like the Dalai Lama? He's the leader of an atheistic religion, but thinks folks raised in a Christian tradition should stay Christian because it's a more familiar frame of reference.
Reply
I'm looking for examples of any speech or writing which includes debate and counterapologetics and avoids accomodationist statements that other reasonable atheists would agree is effective without being rude or dickish.
They don't have to universally avoid criticism, because a few people can always be unreasonably sensitive. They don't have to sell a book, but they do have to have a record of their speech somewhere so that I can see how they said it. Another blogger, for example. Anyone who's figured out how to not offend reasonable people while at the same time not pulling their punches and saying what needs to be said.
So far it looks like it's impossible. Partly because I have yet to find any such positive examples, and partly because folks seem to have difficulty explaining what's wrong with negative examples like Dawkins other than "I just don't like it". I don't think there's a nice way to say "because I've paid attention to the evidence, I can say with more certainty than religious people ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment