If you know me in the real world or even here on TA you'd know I'm pretty passionate about the image of atheism, deconversion and evangelical atheism. A christian friend pointed me to a video (which you can watch here) by Greta Christina today that made me realize that there is a bit of a gap, a chasm, between what I believe and what most atheists believe that could probably be easily filled by a little clarification. Then, I realized, this might in fact be the key to addressing the larger, over-arching issue of anger amongst atheists and whether or not this is a good approach for evangelical atheists.
It just never occurred to me that this point of distinction even needed to be made, but listening to Great and the crowd watching I realized I had made a bad assumption. No, this distinction does in fact need to be made clear. Great gets it, so I'll try to recast her point here in the context of deconversion.
Adherents and their apologists who are angry about atheist anger are just trying to take away the one ingredient responsible for all social change. I took this as a given, but many don't realize that almost every major social movement, from women's rights, to the queer movement, to civil rights; have all been built on "righteous" anger. "Righteous" anger is a special breed of anger that, unlike unhealthy anger, is clearly justifiable. It is the expression of anger, imo, by an emotionally healthy, mature adult.
But what has concerned me is that I get the impression that all too many atheists are not applying this anger constructively. Rather, there is an almost immature, temper tantrum manner in which this gets expressed publicly.
My argument is that to be effective we must learn to channel that anger into something constructive, which means having the maturity and emotional stamina to refrain from public outbursts of anger and rather channel that anger into a social movement of change; of evangelical atheism which includes that unpopular topic of deconversion.
Atheists must learn that anger is a transformative force that can be used for constructive change. But this means being mature and learning how to express anger appropriately in public. There is a difference between anger expressed privately and anger expressed in public. Expressing anger in public is ill-advised if the only thing being expressed is anger. On the other hand, expressing how and why the things that anger you are reason for change is what we should be doing.
So, to be clear, my concern about the manner and tone of the "new atheists" movement comes about as a result of this realization, the same thing that Greta explains in her video much better than I can. And she also points out that when people demand that we "tone it down" they are really trying to take away from us the one thing that fuels social change. They are really just trying to "shut us up" and are doing what every reactionary element has done in the face of social change that begins to truly challenge status quo. For any role I've played in that I regret it and hope I don't do that anymore.
For my part I am so accustomed to refraining from expressing this anger publicly that I have to catch myself sometimes even in private conversations, especially with adherents, when I say, "oh, I'm not really angry about that". Well, I am, but I choose to refrain from expressing naked anger in public as it is counter-productive. When expressed publicly anger should, imo, be channeled as a constructive conversation used to persuade, not defame us and alienate adherents. So, the litany of things that anger us are valid things to talk about, I just think we should be careful in public how we frame it.
I'd like to thank my Christian friend for pointing me to this video and I'd like to know what others think about this. In particular, do you express your anger with religion differently in public and private?
There is nothing valuable in saying that you are corrupt and sick, and that every misfortune you face is your fault, because you are corrupt, but all good comes from sky-daddy.
That kind of thinking is the same as a man beating his wife, and her telling herself that she deserves it, because she could be a better wife.
Sorry Simon, there is nothing of value in that view of life.
These horrible things are all done by men, yes. They are done by men, with direct permission of their holy books, and their god.
Milos - the long and short of it is, it's possible to strip away much of the clothes of religion to leave a naked essence, and this essence is what has value in common with the human race, the social animals, and all living things. I've done that here:
And how do you decide what the "naked essence" is?
To you, it might be healing, to the guy strapped with C4, it is killing the infidel.
That is the problem with religion. It is created in a way that anyone can find any meaning in it, thus making the "naked essence" mean whatever you want it to mean. That is where the evils committed in the name of god come from. Because all these people take away their own "naked essence" from their own interpretation of what their god and their holy books tell them.
Yes, he totally is. He's no empty-headed manufactured pop singer. He has character. He's extremely kind to his female fans, and it's clear that he loves women. He's got a good sense of humour. His mother was a single mother and he didn't have it easy. Apart from that, obviously I can't stand his music, but I like him as a person from what I know and think he could make a good role model.
If you look at Beibs that way, yeah, he's not bad. Let's hope hope he doesn't go down the child star path that so many others did.
sp - (haha)
what does bieber boy have to do with religion? Just curious.
Hey, somebody took the Bieber's name in vain.
That graphic would be just as powerful--and more to the immediate point (refuting someone who claims this shit only comes out of Islam)--if all the stuff re non-Xian religions were removed from it. So many in the US think this sort of casual bigotry (and attempts to legislate stuff on religious grounds) only happens in the middle east, and there are ample examples here to show them otherwise.
As often as not, the people wondering when there was ever any Xian bigotry or theocratic impulse are Xians and they are themselves bigoted and part of the problem. (You know the type: "If you don't like Christianity how about you move to Arabia!")
On the other hand perhaps you are trying to draw an explicit comparison between the two, but that won't work very well because for the most part it depicts intolerance and bigotry from Christians vs. violence from Muslims for the most part--the violence from Christians here are outliers. Even though you and I know they stem from the same ultimate source, your intended audience doesn't (or won't) see it that way and will use the apparent inequity of the comparison as an excuse to reject the point you are making here.
(Mind you, I wouldn't throw this version away; it will be useful in other discussions.)
I didn't make the graphic. I stumbled upon it a while back, and it seems to be getting updated by people as things come up.
The reason the violence from the Christian side is lesser, is because Christianity has already gone through the Dark Ages, and was forced to soften it's approach. Islam started during the Dark Ages, and is just starting to go through the revolution that will force it to soften it's attitude, or die out.
I don't doubt that without restraint Xianity could become as bad, as it is not different in any core principle from Islam. But it does have those restraints thanks to the factors you have mentioned.
I watched the vid earlier. I enjoyed it.
At times I get swept away in passion. (sounds like a bad romance novel right?) but for the most part I think I'm pretty consistently cool water even though there might be a raging undertow.
I keep putting myself in scenarios that I might call public or private. People can have a private conversation at a pub while others can over hear them leaving them to wish for privacy. (This is a taco, burrito conversation nachos!) A private conversation in public.
My expression of anger seems to be dictated by the situation regardless of public or private. Let's say I'm stating my views as to why I am angry to one person but I'm surrounded by several. Well, what I say depends a great deal on my mood. If I am feeling a bit bitter I might not go out of my way to be sensitive about an issue. When I'm light of heart then I will be more likely to be cautious.
But lets get back to the word angry. If I say "I am angry that the bible is so demonstrably false yet people still believe it." That doesn't mean that I walk around 2-4-7 in the emotional state of anger. Their are times that I'm more emotional about it than others. When more emotional, I'm more likely to spill it however ever it comes out then when I'm not actually experiencing that intense emotion.
Something else that keeps coming to mind is when I speak my atheistic views am I an example of a good atheist or am I being petty, offensive, or demeaning in my rhetoric? How do I represent a group of people?
It's possible for me to be the only atheist that someone knowingly comes across in a good while due to my location. I may be the sole representation of an atheist for them. So what impression did I leave? How was my mood that day? Was I actually in an emotional state of anger or simply recalling that that makes me angry?
My answer is (at length): public or private -I think -doesn't make as much of a difference as my mental/emotional state at that moment.