This post is in response to questions posed by Julia Larson (@EIAtheism) to me on Twitter.
On Saturday 30th March Julia floated this invitation to talk, making it clear in the process that she thinks anyone who is anti-Atheism+ is either not a humanist and/or doesn't understand what Atheism+ is.
I would probably describe my myself as a secular humanist and atheist but I choose not be neatly defined by any of those terms. I am however very happy not to be associated in any way with Atheism+.
Julia has received a range of responses from various people on Twitter to her invitation, and the conversations can easily be tracked down. I have blogged this because earlier Julia asked me to provide some explanations (in response to assertions I made about the movement) and Twitter is too limiting for detailed answers.
Here is the tweet:
@EIAtheism: @ShaunJ72 Explain your descriptions: "humorless, divisive, only American, über PC." Use examples and why they're bad.
1. I will deal with 'Only American' first.
In America the Atheist community truly is a minority facing great difficulties getting its voice heard. Polls consistently show that a large population percentage believe in young earth creationism (46% in the latest Gallup Poll) and Christian views, much of them fairly extreme, dominate mainstream politics. This is a country where, for example, a presidential candidate would be unelectable if he or she admitted being an Atheist, despite the nation's secular constitution.
America has a rich history of popular movements effecting change, and it seems clear (from over here) that the only way to combat the very organised and powerful conservative Christian establishment in the US and their ceaseless campaigning to insert religious nonsense and bigotry into national politics and day-to-day life is to get truly organised against them. Atheism has become a 'movement' in the US out of necessity, like the women's rights, black civil rights and gay rights movements before it, and Atheism+ is trying to do something a bit different again.
From the A+ FAQ page:
Atheism Plus is a term used to designate spaces, persons, and groups dedicated to promoting social justice and countering misogyny, racism, homo/bi/transphobia, ableism and other such bigotry inside and outside of the atheist community.
(*Note that Atheism only gets a brief mention at the end. It's quite telling)
In the UK, nominally a Christian country, but in most senses not so, Atheism is not seen as a movement, and does not need to be. It is an intellectual position, and while many Atheists share a sense of community and have many values in common there is no rule book to fall foul of, no statements from a British equivalent of Richard Carrier decrying in their blog:
“I call everyone now to pick sides (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."
Also from him...
"...Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are (if such you are). If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned."
As you know, Atheism, boiled down, is the lack of belief in god(s), nothing more, nothing less. It does not come pre-packaged with social justice concerns, and one can be an Atheist without being a humanist, and vice versa, which I strongly believe is a good thing. The gender politics, race and various other social justice arguments ceaselessly rage here too but there is no will from anyone or any group to bring them all under the same banner. It would be pointless and self-defeating.
These are the reasons why an Atheist movement can work in America, but can't in the UK and most other modern countries, unless they share similar political dynamics & problems to the US. Britain, thankfully, does not share the same problems with religion dominating politics and public life.
Atheism+ is supposedly an attempt to make the Atheist movement more inclusive, but seems almost exclusively made up of Americans, and it will remain so (in my opinion) unless things change elsewhere.
2. Divisive
I refer you back to Richard Carrier's quotes above. From the name of the thing downwards, divisiveness is part of the movement's DNA.
Here's another one from PZ Myers:
"It really isn't a movement about exclusion, but about recognising the impact of the real nature of the universe on human affairs. And if you don't agree with any of that – and this is the only 'divisive' part – then you're an asshole. I suggest you form your own label, 'Asshole Atheists", and own it, proudly. I promise not to resent it or cry about joining it. I just had a thought: maybe the anti-Atheist+ people are sad because they don't have a cool logo. So I made one for the Asshole Atheists: A*"
Here is a paragraph from Peter McGrath's Guardian blog (Sept 2nd 2012)
"The founders of Atheism+ say clearly that "divisiveness" is not their aim, but looking through the blogs and voluminous comments in the two weeks since A+ was mooted, trenches have been dug, beliefs stated, positions staked out and abuse thrown. A dissenting tweeter is "full of shit", while, according to one supporter, daring to disagree with Atheism+'s definition of progressive issues and not picking their side makes you an "asshole and a douchebag"."
You yourself tweeted:
@The1Voyce Usually, sure. & those were just examples. Atheism+ is a way for those "good" atheists to distinguish themselves from the "bad"
I won't give you any more examples, I don't believe it's necessary, but if you take the time to read @uberfeminist's blog you will see that this 'Them and us', 'With us or against us' attitude is prevalent.
3 & 4 go together. UberPC(ness) and Humourlessness go bitterly hand in hand.
Did you read the blog post about the poem and limerick which @uberfeminist tweeted you? The way the forum posters were roundly attacked by A+ members and Moderators for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING wrong was awful.
If someone takes offence at anything posted in the forum, whether intentional, justified or otherwise, the 'offending' person must issue a full apology and retraction immediately or be branded an oppressor of rights, a harasser, a rape enabler, douchebag, shithead or worse. This is policy (apologising and retracting, not the abuse) and these are not isolated incidents.
Atheism+ largely exists online and in these forums and that's where, until they get out and do something, its proponents must be judged. Spend any amount of time in there and you will get an uncomfortable view of people with nasty streaks and hair triggers when it comes to conflict or perceived insult, particularly around gender politics (not everyone is like this, of course).
Political correctness in its most extreme and unpleasant form is a big shitty stick to hit people with, and it gets wielded most enthusiastically when it comes to gender politics, which drives Atheism+ (not Atheism).
You can obviously take this as you choose. You asked for feedback about A+ and you have received it. You can dig some more and look beyond Richard Carrier's talk you listened to at AACon and the high ideals he described, or you can accept it at face value. As Skeptics we all hopefully look at all the evidence and make own our minds up. From discussing things with you on Twitter I sense that you may have already made your mind up and have adopted an Apologetics role for Atheism+.
We choose to interpret the evidence differently, but this is diversity after all. And we like diversity.
Shaun.
No comments:
Post a Comment