Salon, which has devoted a lot of space to reprehensible articles bashing New Atheism, has finally allowed one of us to strike back—Jeffrey Tayler, a contributing editor at The Atlantic. His piece, “15 ways atheists can stand up for rationality,” is eminently sensible and, surprisingly, calls for us to be more strident, criticizing faith at nearly every opportunity. As he notes:
We atheists, however, need to buck up, assert our rationality, and change the way we deal with the religious, with everyday affronts delivered (at times unknowingly) by believers, with the casual presumptions that historically have tended to favor the faithful and grant them unmerited respect. A lot is at stake. Religion is a serious matter, reaching far beyond the pale of individual conscience and sometimes translating into violence, sexism, sexual harassment and assault, and sundry legal attempts to restrict a woman’s right to abortion or outlaw it altogether, to say nothing of terrorism and war. Now is the time to act. Polls-see here and here – show the zeitgeist in the United States is turning increasingly godless, that there are more atheists now than ever before (surely thanks in part to the efforts of the New Atheists). Most of Europe entered the post-faith era decades ago. Americans need to catch up.
What should you do when asked to participate in a pre-meal grace? When told that religion is the only thing that stands between society and rampant immorality? When some smug religionist claims that you can’t prove there’s no God?
Now I suspect that you’ll know the answers to nearly all of these questions, and one or two of them could have been answered better, but in the main this is a very good piece, and will hearten those atheists who (unlike most of us) are still sheepish about going public. Tayler is, after all, a prominent writer for a prominent magazine, and has also written seven books.
I especially like Tayler’s response to assertion #14: “My religion is true for me.”
h/t: Barry
Subscribe.
//
I suppose one thing that wasn’t mentioned in this piece is the expected trip to a church for a funeral of a relative or parent. Unless someone has an idea, I don’t see how saying “No thanks, but I’ll see you at the wake” will work.
I was raised Catholic and all my relatives, including my parents, remain die-hard believers. Is there any way for me to avoid going to church for a funeral? I doubt it.
I too have a really Catholic group in my family. My dad refuses to go into the Church for ceremonies. I will go in but I’d be considered a strange heathen if I were religious and non Catholic anyway. I just don’t participate in any of the rituals and sit quietly and politely. This is the same way I behave when going to Jewish ceremonies in synagogues as well (though I refuse to go into a synagogue that separates men from women).
I suppose that’s the only answer: go, but don’t do any of the rituals. But the kneeling and the sitting and now we’re kneeling again — please, someone, just stick me in the back so I can watch the farce from there.
What is really creepy is the weird answer back stuff they do. That “and also with you” thing mystified me as a kid. I found this list of responses to enjoy as groupthink/brainwashing for Catholics.
Back in the day, of course, the Catholic mass was even more creepy, being in Latin, including all the “answer back stuff”.
I went to a Catholic infants school. Mass in Latin every week in the school church. Hours of Latin classes each week: None.
We were taught by a collection of sharply-uniformed Catholic stormtroopers, or ‘nuns’. If we wanted to know what any of the Latin bollocks meant, we were told that we didn’t need to know, as it was the holy word of God, and the senior commandant, or ‘priest’ would provide any interpretation, or ‘bollocks in English’, that we might need.
At around the time that I was entered for Stage Two Indoctrination, or ‘First Holy Communion’, the Vatican allowed the mass to be delivered in the local mother tongue. It was, of course, still bollocks, but at least we knew it was bollocks and didn’t need to get a second opinion.
The church ruins Latin & not just with its incorrectly pronounced soft c’s (I know my opinion is not popular re: c’s). I’m surprised to hear that in modern times they were actually hiding behind Latin still – didn’t a nice man die in England for the vernacular?
I don’t know if you’ve heard this before but the phrase associated with magic, “hocus pocus” comes from people hearing the Latin mass and the priest say, “hoc est corpus…”.
This is what happens when you hide behind a dead language & refuse to educate your followers.
I sing in a choir that was hired for a Catholic wedding recently. I stood when everyone stood, and sat when they sat and sang when it was time to sing. I never take part in any prayers. I did do the “peace be with you” bit which seemed harmless. Looking around the church while the rest are praying is a good way to locate other atheists too. There’s always more than you think. I was also on my iPad for much of the time.
If you sit at the back (preferably the last few rows) then you can just sit, and no need to follow the others doing their calisthenics.
(you can do that even when you’re sitting in front rows, but it will be a bit unnerving, especially among relatives)
For a long time I refused to enter a Catholic church because there was a high chance I would vomit. Such a visceral response was triggered by memories of my forced Catholic upbringing and would ruin the spiritual experience of others. Nowadays, being older and more mature, I welcome an invite, because it’s an opportunity to take a well needed nap. Nothing is more boring that the crapola that goes down in a Catholic church. 🙂
Logically, yes: immortality.
Or infinite prolongation at the very least.
Cryogenics may offer an alternative cop-out for avoiding church funerals.
Or he could just, you know, not go.
Problem is, not going would be an alibi exercise. Literally.
Religious funerals have two sets of key ingredients:
credulity and superstition;
death.
Credulity and superstition have proved hard to eradicate.
Time to try and tackle the death part.
Well, to hear some tell it, a chap named Jesus knows how to take the sting and the victory out of death. Perhaps we could ask him how he effected the triumph. 😉
Why would Barry need an alibi? The point is that the other people should deal with Barry acting on his principles. They’re the ones requiring him to do something he might rather not do.
If Barry doesn’t want to upset them, he may choose to attend or to invent an alibi, but neither of those would actually be necessary, in the same way that breathing is necessary.
Don’t know ’bout the Jebus fella.
Me, I’d follow W.C. Fields anytime.
He doesn’t. That’s not the point.
The point is that not going would be a literal alibi exercise, if you consider the literal meaning of alibi.
You mean if he didn’t go, he’d be somewhere else?
Well ok then.
Why wouldn’t that work?
I think it’d work; it’d just involve upsetting a lot of people.
They should learn to deal with it.
Exactly.
Years ago I was of the opinion that the proper thing to do in such a situation is to go in order to honor the dead person, but merely observe and not pretend to participate.
But after doing this a few times, two of which were funerals at Catholic churches, I am now of the mind to just say “no thank you” and find another way to pay my respects. In all of my experiences it turned out that the purpose of the funerals was NOT to honor the dead, at least not primarily. In all cases the church officials presiding took the majority of the time to preach and proselytize to the captive audience in a manner that had absolutely nothing to do with the deceased, and bore more resemblance to an unscrupulous used car sales pitch. The kind where they try to dominate you because they feel persuasion isn’t working. In each case I became so disgusted with the church official that it was all I could do not to stand up and express my disgust, thereby making a scene.
Now that I know that a religious funeral is not for honoring the dead, there is absolutely no reason for me to attend. Especially if the deceased is someone I knew well and had much respect for.
When I die I expect my body to be disposed of in the cheapest most expedient way, perhaps given to a school lab, and all my friends and family that can to get together and have a memorable party involving lots of top shelf drink and good food, and fun. And lots of tall tales about how awesome I was.
Clearly, not all Catholic funeral services are the same. A recent service for a former colleague was a genuine and heart-felt tribute (including the priest’s) for a much-loved woman. And if the priest’s talk included some standard Christian notions, my colleague was an active parishioner.
Oh no. I am sure that every single catholic funeral service in the history of catholicism has been precisely as I described my few personal experiences of them.
Are you getting enough vitamin snark these days?
😀
Hmmm. Maybe that is what that new capsule my wife recently added to my morning vitamins is.
Catholic weddings are the same. Very little of it is about the couple getting married, most of it is about Jesus. “There are three people in every marriage, the husband, the wife and Jesus” eww puke. A wedding mass is mostly mass and a little bit of wedding.
Pretty much my experience also. I recently attended a funeral at which the priest droned on and on about Catholic doctrine and beliefs, but he he hardly knew the deceased and said very little about him other than a few gratuitous statements about his exemplary Catholic life (if you knew the guy you knew that was a total caricature). To make matters worse, the priest would not allow the deceased’s friends to say anything in memory of the guy. But after the priest exited and before the congregation had, some of his friends commandeered the front of the church and proceeded to read some recollections of the man and his humanity. The only part of the funeral worth attending…
I skipped the church service part of dad’s funeral. I just couldn’t deal with a Catholic priest yammering on about someone he didn’t know, so I took the opportunity to drive my niece to the airport. I was back in time for the walk to the grave and the burial of the ashes. And the idiot funeral director talking about his Irish heritage. Of which there was none.
Yeah, the fact that church officials think they need to give the “keynote address” strikes me as so unctuously (new adverb?) presumptuous. Of course, the families usually buy right into it.
Nope, not new.
I’ve never seen it, though.
This phone’s dictionary is woefully incomplete.
Oh my gawd that aticle was terrific.
Piercing.
Thanks for the heads up Prof. Coyne.
Vaal
Agree.
I read the article. It is great.
Ah, finally we get rationality from Salon!
#1 concerning saying Grace – it is fun as an atheist to sit there silently, head not bowed & look around because you find a surprising number of other atheists this way! I have no issue with politely explaining that I’m an atheist where in the past I would just fake it and tolerate it.
#5 makes a very good point:
Those who abstain from crime solely because they fear divine wrath, and not because they recognize the difference between right and wrong, are not to be lauded, much less trusted.
I’m reading a book called Confessions of a Sociopath written by a sociopath. She is a mormon and she uses the guidance of the LDS to guide her so she doesn’t do something really wrong. She also notes that being a Mormon that teaches bible school to children also gives her a pass of some sorts because people assume she is moral. This is something to consider when giving religion a pass. I don’t think the sociopathic author deserves ridicule but religion is a nice place to hide questionable behaviours.
My favourite bit, from #1:
Although I have a mind of printing this as a flash card, to be silently extracted and put on display whenever I’m expected to take part in saying grace.
Ha ha! I always want to shout, “You’re thanking some god for this food?! You should thank science for modern agriculture, the farmers who cultivate the food and all the people in between who get that food from the soil to your grocery store. You should also thank everyone who ensures you live where you have a job that helps you pay for that food & the luck for having been born or immigrated to a place that has food for you!”.
But I just keep that inside. I’ll let it outside if anyone questions my lack of participation.
All this talk about saying Grace, reminds me of an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm in Season one where Larry’s wife has a dinner party and one of the guests sits in Larry’s chair at the table, and insists on saying grace. After the dinner party Larry tells his wife, “Next time you do one of these things, I want some Jews”.
Perhaps next time you could volunteer to say grace and thank the proper people! 😉
Ha ha! I don’t think anyone who knows me would let me!
Dear universe, we thank thee for this glorious planet on which we live, we thank 4 billions years of evolution for creating us and the plants and animals on which we depend for everything, including the oxygen we breathe. We thank all the scientists for breeding the miraculous new varieties which produce so much more food from the land, and the farmers who daily tend their fields and their flocks to ensure our well-being. We pray that Frontera and Nestle will pay them fairly for their produce so that they may continue to provide so graciously for us. Thank-you universe, Ramen.
May not catch on you feel?
I just don’t want to thank the universe. It doesn’t have a conscious and doesn’t care. I would probably say something to the effect of we should be appreciative of having the short time we have together and make the most of it. That could be a buzz kill though & I’m sure writers throughout history have said it better than I.
Somehow, to me, saying something in lieu of saying a prayer is almost as silly as saying a prayer. What’s the point? Why can’t people just talk about whatever they want to … have conversation over dinner? Why have a formalized “moment of reflection” with some comments contrived for the occasion?
Well… maybe if these were regular dinner meetings, having a custom of telling a good joke before dinner might be a good idea. But even that rubs me wrong. People don’t always feel like joking.
I think what you said should be repeated if ever any of us is in the situation of saying a prayer. It’s actually what would go through my mind anyway.
“Dear God. We paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing.” – Bart Simpson.
This was also a favorite passage of mine.
I liked the Lincoln quote about the “unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation.” Succinct and brilliant.
You can take various tests online to see if you are a sociopath. Here is one:
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy. Not that I think you might be one 😉
Yeah I have too much stupid empathy to be a sociopath & suppressing my emotions just gives me IBS. 🙂
Regarding #1, saying grace, I always thought a better custom would be to exchange hugs, handshakes, what have you, maybe exchange some kind word. Love you, glad you could join us, tell us about your day.
Or if you really want to thank somebody else, what Occam and Diana MacPherson said.
Yes, this is what I prefer, you say something nice.
I don’t understand. You’re just describing conversation at the dinner table, no? How does that connect to #1.
2. ‘ “Religion is a personal matter. It’s not polite to bring it up.”
No, religion is fundamentally collective, ‘
Good point there. If I were the only person in the world who believed Christianity, I’d probably be locked up.
It’s good the author addressed that point. Canadians like to say religion is personal and it’s not polite to discuss it as a way to silence atheists & tell us to keep our opinions to ourselves. I guess there’s some truth to politeness among Canadians. I’m probably one of the ruder Canadians in this regard. 🙂
Diana… What do you say to the JWs when they come aknockin’?
I don’t let them go into their spiel and just politely tell them that I am not interested but have a nice day and I also refuse to take their literature. I don’t give them any information about myself as anything you say can make them think they have a chance to save you and they’ll come back (this was sage advice a former JW gave me).
I just politely tell them to get off my property and never to return. None of them ever have.
I smile and try to talk them out of it. Makes the day more interesting for everyone.
I live in a gated community, which tends to discourage proselytizers (although a couple of Mormons got in recently). If some JWs were to come by I would invite them in if I weren’t busy with something else, just to have a little back-and-forth. I would try to keep them off balance so they would have to abandon their prepared spiel, though. I suspect they would give up fairly quickly.
I just turn on the sprinklers. As far as I’m concerned, nothing gives them the right to open my gate, walk across my property, and knock on my door.
Years ago, one of my fellow grad students used to greet the JWs with “Hi, we worship Pan – you know, the little guy with the goat feet? Wanna come inside and see our shrine?”
LOL! It would be good to say “of Pan flute fame”. 🙂
I had a professor that would only take JW literature if they agreed to read some Nietzsche & he had some excerpts of Nietzsche photocopied & ready. I don’t know why they canvas university areas.
I used to make doorstep proselytizers the same offer — “I’ll promise to read your literature if you promise to read mine”, having printed some “tracts” with Adam Lee’s Ten Questions to Ask Your Pastor. They seemed confused, but took the deal. Oddly enough, it’s been years, and they haven’t come back. Maybe they deconverted.
One should keep a couple of these handy for just this purpose!.
Those are good. I think they should make a new one called “Jesus wasn’t a 6’4″ blond haired blue eyed Northern European” because every JW pamphlet portrays Jesus just like this.
Because university students are young, and don’t necessarily have hardened convictions or well-developed critical thinking skills/baloney detectors, and hence might be open to persuasion of various kinds. Which is why recruiters, from the army, to the various religious franchises, to some less objectionable organizations, swarm there.
I’ve now interrupted three “witnessing” situations in the past year on the campus where I teach. I’m getting progressively less subtle about it, too. Last one I interrupted, I asked the victim, “have they told you about the talking snake yet?” That at least got a laugh. Next time I’m going to start with that, then go to the talking donkey, followed by genocide and slavery and, if the victim is female, some choice passages about women being property and less valuable than men.
See, there are some advantages to knowing the bible!
Interesting. I hadn’t thought of that angle before and probably university students would be particularly vulnerable given that this is the first time most of them would be living away from home.
I know at my alma mater you weren’t allowed to solicit on campus so people selling stuff would get the boot. I think religious folk approached me but they were fellow students (or were they?!). I’m glad you interrupt the “witnessing” situations.
JW’s have different literature they hand out depending on the person they are talking to. They give the full on religious stuff to those they think are religious already (the stuff with the really Caucasian Christ) and they give literature that contains more a newsy current affairs type stuff to those that seem more secular. Whenever I’ve got the Christ-y stuff it’s been left at my door. I believe I took the newsy stuff before I put my policy of refusing their literature in place.
When I received the newsy literature & asked my former JW friend (I found it confusing), she told me it is how they suck you in – try the lighter approach for the more secular tough cases.
I always thought it was a way to keep fights from breaking out among the believers.
It’s quite timely that this comes out soon after Peter Boghossian’s “A Manual for Creating Atheists”, and I should wonder if Tayler has read it. I just finished it myself and it is truly an important piece of New Atheist literature if not the most important.
I actively practice all of the listed items except #1 “Let’s say grace!”. I just partially close my eyes to blend in and not call attention to myself. During a prayer I just think about sciencey stuff or whatever.
Not bad. Not bad at all.
There’re some nits I’d pick on his list, ones I’m sure the other regulars here are well familiar with. But that’s not worth detracting from the work as an whole.
b&
Yeah, me too.
But as long as it’s not lousy, what is a few nits between friends?
Truer words never came through falser teeth.
+1
Fnitrinitenitds?
b&
Very good article. I don’t really outright disagree with him about any of the items on his list, though on some items I would like to add some thoughts.
I wouldn’t say he’s calling for more stridency, but rather confident, unapologetic engagement. In social situations, people usually engage their force field when others become strident.
Religion and spirituality are granted so much special privilege in our society that “confident, unapologetic engagement” IS considered “strident.” What they want from us instead — the non-strident option — is either an attempt to blend in and pass as of them or a sheepish admission of atheism followed by a respectful and humble reassurance that we’d never want to take anyone’s faith away from them so we won’t engage.
Of course, they’d also be happy to hear how frequently we have doubts and how much we envy them. Those are the good atheists.
This…
… is just what I was about to
saywrite./@
type
Oh noes!
But what if I’d been using my TV again? Dose pointing to and clicking on letters an onscreen keyboard with the remote control count as “typing”?
/@
I feel a neologism coming on…
?
Oh! You mean shrill, harsh, aggressive, militant, stridency!
I can’t think of a social situation where someone’s being grating, harsh and annoying has ever made much headway, whatever is being discussed.
Tell that to civil rights activists. Tell it to gay rights activists. Tell it to anybody involved in movements for social change.
“Grating, harsh, annoying” are in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Calling people these names is a standard way to tell others to STFU.
Sorry. We should not be willing to shut up because a believer might think it is harsh.
I would be the last person to suggest activists should shut up. But should we become strident when we sit down for dinner? Does Tayler say we should? I don’t see where he does.
Yes, if by “strident” you mean objecting to being asked to pray.
You keep acting as if stridency has some clear mutually agreed definition. It doesn’t. It is just a word that some people use to tell others to shut up.
Well, I’ll cop to thinking I knew what strident meant. And I’ll shut up.
You don’t have to start in on a rant about how stupid prayer is but I don’t think there is anything wrong with not praying and politely waiting until everyone else was finished.
No, perhaps we shouldn’t.
That’s beside the point. Theists will call anything we say or do “strident”.
I think you are missing the joke. The use of stridency by the OP and others responding to your comment is almost certainly intended to poke fun at critics that use the word to describe any atheist that opens their mouth to speak.
Do you think that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have never succeeded in convincing anyone of anything?
Or do you think grating and harsh speech is appropriate only to men with microphones, not to women and men in their own homes. Is it not a “social situation” if the stridency is coming out of a radio or television in someone’s living room or a doctor’s waiting room, rather than being spoken by someone in the room?
You know, I do believe I’m gonna have to steal that thought the next time somebody complains that strident atheism is counterproductive — not that I want to associate Richard Dawkins with Rush Limbaugh, of course, but that’s a good way to make the point.
Thanks!
b&
§
A clearly stated and unapologetic call to action; I enjoyed reading it.
I had pretty much given up completely on The Atlantic after the Scientology “advertorial” debacle last year revealed what a shambles their site’s editorial judgement has become. Perhaps I’ll give them an occasional look now and then after this.
It’s a shame that he opened with a ridiculous piece of myth-making:
“There is nothing new about nonbelief. All of us, without exception, are born knowing nothing of God or gods, and acquire notions of religion solely through interaction with others – or, most often, indoctrination by others, an indoctrination usually commencing well before we can reason. Our primal state is, thus, one of nonbelief. The New Atheists … have, in essence, done nothing more than try to bring us back to our senses, to return us to a pure and innate mental clarity.”
Most of us acquire what we know of the natural world (including evolution) “through interaction with others – or, most often, indoctrination by others, an indoctrination usually commencing well before we can reason.”
Is the “primal state” of the unschooled child really “a pure and innate mental clarity”?
In addition to pointing out that no, religion is fundamentally collective, it is important to point out that religion is also supposed to be fundamentally important. The supernatural, spiritual realm is supposed to be an objective fact — and recognition of this (whether it be finding God or just finding out about our spiritual nature) is supposed to be THE meaning of life and THE most significant action anyone can take. In religion, one’s faith should be a person’s basic identity, the defining aspect of a life.
So no, you just can’t make this big freaking hullabaloo song-and-dance about how IMPORTANT and TRUE religion is … and then demurely mumble that “religion is a personal matter and it’s not polite to bring it up” when someone disagrees with it and wants to explain why. It’s not “private.” You’re not admitting to watching Honey Boo Boo or lounging around your house wearing a Star Trek uniform.
Spiritual truths aren’t supposed to be minor little tastes which one person may have and another doesn’t and there’s no right or wrong to it. They’re explanations of reality which are intended to be taken seriously not just by the individual, but by the entire world of individuals.
Pick and horse and ride it.
The last family funeral I attended, I glanced around during a prayer and caught two sets of eyes aimed more or less my way. Wary of seeming to spy, all of us were in instant not-see mode. I am as sure neither of them is a free thinker, though, but were confirming suspicions on the sly, as I am that the devil (along with all the rest of it) is not real.
In re. the (NB) first #10:
After the passing away of his son, Lincoln, in dire need of solace, nevertheless remarked that, “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”
Is it time to elevate Lincoln at least to Jefferson’s level of unbelief?
Oh, I think so, yes. God-botherers tend to read his ambiguous statements another way. But I think they’re wrong.
If you read through Lincoln’s speeches, one of the most remarkable things, (besides the brevity), is the number of biblical references. Of course, there are many reasons for this, not necessarily religiosity.
I’m certainly no Lincoln expert, but as far as I can tell, like Jefferson he was not a Christian but was also fond of parts of the bible anyway.
There’s a lot of good stuff in the article but I’d like to draw attention to one point – namely the importance of making sure all your facts are right. Tayler is wrong to assert in point 9 that salvation is mutually exclusive (at least for some faiths). Catholic salvation doctrine for example teaches that non-Catholics and even non-Christians can achieve salvation. I won’t go into the detail but, in the typical mealy mouthed weaselly behaviour of apologists, this doctrine has evolved over time to be more ‘liberal’ and is justified as a ‘divine mystery’. When arguing Pascal’s Wager don’t get caught out by this and instead refine your argument to deliver an even more devastating rebuttal. On a broader note let’s continue to ensure our own confirmation bias doesn’t lead us to fail to fact check and thus commit the same crimes of hypocrisy we see the theists do all the time.
13. ”You can’t prove there’s no God.”
Correct, at least epistemologically speaking.
Unfortunately, that is wrong, epistemologically speaking. It’s a variation on the ubiquitous (and facile) “You can’t prove a negative”, which philosophy prof Steven Hales has written about: “You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.”
(Incidentally, this is a variation on Popperian epistemology, which has shown that no inductivist or justificationist proof is possible. What he have, from a strictly logical point of view, is only the toolbox of deductive logic applied to hypotheses in a falsificationist manner. And this can indeed prove things, if you want to use that word, relative to certain premises and certain assumed facts. There is no absolute proof in that scheme, as anything is subject to criticism and revision, but maybe we can just live with that.)