jump to navigation

better late than never September 14, 2007

Posted by ocmpoma in : atheism, society , trackback

(Allow me to apologize, mostly to myself, for taking so long to put this up.)

Over at ScienceBlogs, Pure Pedantry has a lengthy post, I suppose it really is an essay, about what is commonly called New Atheism. It’s part of the discussion over what the Nice Atheists and the Mean Atheists (my terms) are to do with themselves and each other, and it focuses on the relationship between science and atheism. I highly recommend reading it.

I also recommend EvolutionBlog’s reply to it, and would like to point out Rob Knop’s comment that the analogy used, that of gay rights, doesn’t apply. I would also like to take a moment to point out that I’m not going to address directly (at least, not at this point) the idea that atheists have no business blocking or attempting to block theists from practicing science. I’d like to focus instead on the analogy, and perhaps at a later point focus on the role of atheism in science, if there indeed is one.

In fact, no analogy comparing the recent attempts to increase awareness and acceptance of atheists and those of various minority groups, be they homosexuals or ethnic groups or women, is apt.

The main reason for this is that groups which have in the past and which now continue to work for full equality in society are not segregated by choice — people don’t choose to be Asian, or women, or homosexual, or whatnot. Atheism and theism are broad philosophical positions, and they are chosen — or, at least, it is obviously possible for one to change from one to the other, unlike the others.

So, the line of argument comparing atheism to homosexuality is incorrect at its core. The point that those fighting for civil liberties aren’t opposed to the liberties of others — homosexuals aren’t anti-heterosexual, for example — is correct; however, while it addresses the specific atheism-as-civil-liberty-struggle argument, it does not actually defeat the notion of Mean Atheism.

Consider, instead of a non-choice group, one which is chosen by its members in the same way that theism or atheism are chosen. Again, by ‘chosen’ in this case I mean that a theist can choose, for whatever reason, to be a certain sub-type of theist or not to be a theist at all. Theism is not an innate, biological, fixed state, and neither is atheism.

In order for the analogy to work, then, we must consider such a group, and ask the same questions. My preferred comparison is racism. As Rob Knop says in the comment, the “gay rights movement never said it was delusional or wicked to be straight.” But, of course, sexuality is not a choice and therefor cannot be delusional or wicked. But a philosophical stance most certainly can be. And I’m willing to venture that many people who are opposed to racism are willing to say that being racist is wicked and delusional.

The struggle against racism does indeed attack those positions as untenable. (Indeed, I daresay that science frowns quite severely on racial bias…) There are those who were somewhat more conciliatory in their views, putting forth the argument that we should all wait for public opinion to gradually change, and there were those who were extremely loud in their attacks on racist behavior and very vociferous in their complete lack of tolerance for it.

Public opinion certainly does not change over night. And it only very rarely changes quietly, without a fuss. But it even more rarely does not change without a not insignificant group of people making a very loud ruckus. At the same time, there were those who sought change but didn’t think it should be pushed for quite so hard. In the end, it took the kickers and the screamers and the more conciliatory group to effect change in mainstream opinion. While Mr Young makes the case that scientists should adopt a big-tent approach and allow change to come gradually, Mr Rosenhouse says that he lacks the patience for such a wait. I’d like to say, as I have in the past, that it will take both people with Mr Young’s view and people with Mr Rosenhouse’s for change to occur — as it has for other changes to society’s philosophical view.

Tags for this article: ,

[?]

Comments»

no comments yet - be the first?