I’ve had it with National Public Radio. Their incessant coddling of faith and indictments of atheism, without giving nonbelievers a chance to present their arguments, is reprehensible. And the nadir occurred this morning when NPR carried a four-minute story on Weekend Edition “analyzing” the murders of three Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Click on the screenshot below to go to the site and hear NPR embarrass itself. (There’s also a transcript of the piece.) Who was the one “expert” chosen to explain the killings? Our old friend, the religious apologist Reza Aslan.
The title at the website, shown below, tells it all.
Well, yes, maybe some see “extreme anti-theism” as a motive, but others see guns, others mental illness, others a parking dispute. It’s all a muddle at this point, and may remain so forever. Why, do you suppose, did NPR concentrate on “anti-theism”? And who is “some”. Well, “some” turns out to be “one”: Aslan!
Here’s part of the transcript:
Religion scholar Reza Aslan says ordinary atheists just don’t believe in God. Hicks, Aslan says, was an anti-theist.
“An anti-theist is a relatively new identity, and it’s more than just sort of a refusal to believe in gods or spirituality; it’s a sometimes virulent opposition to the very concept of belief,” Aslan says.
“Virulent”? Why not “passionate”? Here are the two most relevant definitions of “virulent’ from the Oxford English dictionary, showing that the word definitely has a pejorative tone:
More:
The anti-theists have their own heroes; people like the outspoken writer Richard Dawkins, who appears often on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher condemning religion generally and Islam in particular.
“I mean these people have a holy book that tells them to kill infidels,” Dawkins once said on the show.
In fact, what Dawkins said above is the truth. Why does NPR present it as if it’s some bigoted interpretation of the Qur’an? The piece continues:
Reza Aslan says the anti-theists are few in number. But just as mainstream Muslims must confront the extremists in their communities, Aslan says, it’s time for mainstream atheists to do the same.
“To recognize that there is a small fringe element that has a belief system predicated on the inherent nature of religion as insidious, as needing to be removed from society,” he says.
Aslan is, pardon my French, a mushbrain. “Anti-theism” is not a “relatively new identity”: just go read Mencken or Robert G. Ingersoll (who wrote in the 19th century), Madelyn Murray O’Hair, or any number of the earlier “atheists” in Hitchens’s estimable book The Portable Atheist. The reasons atheists became “anti-theists” is because it simply became less dangerous to say what you thought about religion, not that some nonbelievers recently decided that religion was harmful.
There is in fact no strict demarcation between “atheists” and “anti-theists”. We have atheists who don’t believe but see religion as either beneficial or benign, atheists who see religion as generally harmful or worthless, but aren’t activists, and we see atheists who see religion as harmful and are activists. And there are all gradations of this. None of them, at least in America, have been accused of violence—until now. Aslan, who loves to draw this distinction, now can’t resist putting it into practice by connecting it to the Chapel Hill murders. He is a vile, unctuous and disingenuous opportunist, who loves the limelight far more than he hates atheists.
The fact is that one can make a good case that religion is harmful, even if only that it deludes people about their future, and to argue such a view doesn’t make one some kind of extremist or fringe radical whose views lead ineluctably to murder. There are those who, for instance, see belief in the paranormal as harmless, and those who see it as harmful and inimical to a rational worldview. Do we call the former “a-paranormalists” and the latter “anti-paranormalists”? The distinction is drawn for one reason only: to discredit unbelief by making it seem strident, unreasonable, and even a cause of violence.
NPR does quote Asra Nomani, a Muslim writer who says that Muslims shouldn’t use the killings as an excuse to create a “culture of fear”, but that doesn’t stop the show giving its own slant on the crime.
But right now the feeling among Muslim Americans seems to be that the North Carolina killings were clearly a hate crime.
President Obama on Friday released a statement, saying no one in America should be targeted because of who they are or how they worship. That statement followed a decision by the FBI to launch its own hate crime investigation in North Carolina.
Yes, of course many Muslims may see this as a hate crime, but they have their own viewpoint that doesn’t necessarily represent what really happened. Right now there is in fact a “hate crime” investigation that will determine if this act falls under the legal specifications of such a crime. Until that happens, we should reserve judgment. NPR doesn’t want to, and if they were responsible journalists, they’d present an opposing view, both to the notion that “anti-theism” is young and a “small fringe element of atheism”, and to the implication that anti-theism played some role in the killings. Or, if they were truly responsible, they’d stop fanning these flames and just shut up.
h/t: Jeff
Subscribe.
“refusal to believe”
Don’t need to read any further.
What a (insert expletive here)
That’s the phrase that got me bristling the most too! He’s an a-hole.
Good catch.
Not only is he vilifying atheists who express their critical views about supernatural beliefs and dogmas, but also mischaracterizes atheism, basically depicting atheists as some kind of wackos refusing to accept the obvious.
As if an atheist is like a toddler that won’t eat his broccoli.
I’m preaching to the choir here, I realize, but it’s incredible that shouting “the prophet is avenged” or “allahu akbar” before killing someone in cold blood is insufficient evidence for Aslan and his ilk to conclude a religious motive, but the mere fact that someone self identifies as atheist, “likes” atheist authors on Facebook, and so forth, is incontrovertible evidence. Amazing.
Amazing?
I’d argue it’s par for the course. Reza wants to portray islam as a peaceful religion, so distancing violent muslims from Islam is exactly what he should do to succeed.
Portraying atheists as dangerous also fits into that picture, because it makes it easier to get sympathy from other religions.
Forgive me if it sounds like I’m drawing a conclusion with not enough evidence, but I’m just too unsympathetic toward mr. Aslan.
Spot on. If the Reza Aslans of this world are hoping that this will forever stain the name of every new atheist then I think they’re going to be disappointed. It doesn’t matter how much you go on smearing – if you’re reaching, you’re reaching.
I’ve done most of my thinking and soul-searching on this by now and Aslan’s opinions on the subject aren’t of much interest to me, precisely for the reasons you mentioned.
I hope I’m being overly cynical, but from my vantage point here in the USA, I’m not so sure the Aslans of the world will be disappointed.
In neutral fora like my FB feed (that is, not at atheist websites), it looks to me like the majority opinion of the general populace is that atheism is to blame.
Well, the loudest voices are the only ones we hear. And I know what you’re saying, but there aren’t really any neutral areas.
Hey, maybe I’m reaching? I don’t really know.
Yeah, what I meant by “neutral” was that the forum in question would be a representative cross-section of the general population, not a site devoted specifically to the atheist or theist perspective.
I’m not finding reasons to abandon my cynicism on this issue. Here is a discouraging article. I suggest putting something soft on the desk in front of you before reading.
Of course, AP reporters are incapable of opinionating/bloviating/editorializing in an alleged news article. (Unless of course it is labeled “news analysis.”)
re “if they were truly responsible, they’d stop fanning these flames and just shut up,” yeah, I had heard this, as well, upon just awakening this morning.
It only serves in me to reinforce my resolve that when the local IPR officials, with very many of whom I have tried to discuss this — their mollycoddling for years’ and years’ worth of both sexism and religious ideologies — beg for pledges outta me again, I have successfully for all of that time now steadfastly held off — and given “their” pledge dollars over, instead, to the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation / its hq in Madison.
I, too, am done. Long done.
Blue
What a good idea, I might do that too. It’s been a long time since I had an NPR driveway moment.
In the last few years way too many of my NPR driveway moments have involved turning off the radio. ‘Twas not always thus.
The whole thing is just one giant tu quoque mutual masturbatory meet-up.
In red-letter text, [the] Jesus [fictional character in the Bible] said, “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” And he meant it, too; the whole point of the New Testament is how that’s exactly what Jesus himself is going to do come Armageddon.
The only thing I can think of that’s even remotely close to it that’s come from any Gnu Atheist is Sam’s notion that some ideas might perhaps be so dangerous that the appropriate response is to kill those who hold them. And, first, he’s caught no end of flak from basically all other Gnu Atheists for that statement (including me); and, second, that’s the President’s own position with respect to ISIS and bin Laden and the rest.
And the evidence supports this. We have the religious shouting prayers at the top of their lungs as they kill and maim; we have one single non-religious person here who himself says he killed his annoying neighbors it because of a parking dispute.
Yet, of course, because the murderous dipshit doesn’t bow down at the altar of a god, any god, we’re supposed to think that it’s that failure to bow before gods that caused him to kill those who did….
b&
We’re seeing here, besides Aslan’s narcissistic opportunism, a reaction to the most distrusted group in America – atheists. Finally! Bigots get to express outrage at a group that isn’t Muslim and is distrusted just a hair more than Muslims!
I had a discussion with a Muslim friend on FB today. I told him that in America atheists are the most distrusted group and provided the data to back that up. I also told him, when he said that the hate crime in NC was being reported as a parking dispute and that was unfair as Muslims are blamed for terrorism, that 1) the investigation was on-going so it wasn’t for sure that it was a hate crime 2) that Foundation Beyond Belief, because the murderer identified as atheist, was supporting the causes of the murdered and 3) that ideas should not be protected – any idea but people deserve respect.
He is a very liberal Muslim (non liberal people religious or not do not like me) and he didn’t unfriend me so I hope he thinks things through.
I get that Muslims feel personally attacked when people criticize their beliefs and I really hope that every day atheists approach their believer friends gently over these things. I don’t expect to change his mind about belief, but I hope I can change his mind about where atheists are coming from.
I’m assuming Aslan gave this interview before it became apparent that a co-religionist of his murdered two people in Sweden for the crime of being in the same building as a blasphemer.
I can’t imagine he was too pleased as it rather spoils the purity of his narrative.
Well, since Aslan is apparently the “go to” guy, someone surely soon will be calling on him for pearls of wisdom about this shooting also.
You know, I think I know what he might say.
Aslan has written before that New Atheists are violent: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/21/reza_aslan_sam_harris_and_new_atheists_arent_new_arent_even_atheists/
Jerry wrote a response to that: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/reza-aslan-and-karen-armstrong-are-everywhere-and-its-not-pretty/
and so did I.
The best spokesperson for liberal Islam imo is Maajid Nawaz, but Fox has recently snaffled him, which in the US unfortunately dents his credibility. Search YouTube for Quilliam Foundation to find him, including what he said about Chapel Hill.
Other notable liberal Muslims in the Islamic world include:
Ibrahim al-Buleihi (on Wikipedia), who, despite being a member of the Saudi Shura Council, would in a free society be someone with whom you could have a rational discussion. You can also find him in a MEMRI video.
Dr. Noha Mahmoud Salem – Egyptian feminist about whom you can find very little on the web but who also appears on MEMRI, and whose video Jerry posted about a year ago.
Dhiyaa al-Musawi – Bahraini liberal intellectual, with even fewer facebook likes than I: he has a MEMRI video and the obvious point that his case reminds us of is that behind the Arab Spring there obviously must be some liberal Muslim thought.
Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, who I have seen, again on MEMRI, declaring her disgust at the hadith quotation, “Muhammad said in a hadith, ‘3 things spoil one’s prayer: A woman, a black dog and a donkey.’”
In North America, there is Irshad Manji, from New York, I think, with whom Ayaan Hirsi Ali obviously has cordial relations.
There must be many more, it’s a question of finding them, setting up the conversation and standing between them and those who wish to kill them. x
Maajid Nawaz is a personal favourite of mine and it’s deeply depressing to hear that he’s signed up with Fox. Someone, I think peepuk, put up the video of the Nawaz/Mehdi Hasan/Mo Ansar pseudo-debate on Newsnight over the Jesus ‘N’ Mo cartoon tweets and it’s a good demonstration of even moderate Islam’s incredible inability to deal with internal dissent or criticism. He’s very unpopular with his fellow Muslims so it’s grist to their mill if he’s joined Fox.
I just watched, for a second time, Irshad Manji’s magnificent interview with Medhi Hasan on Head To Head(?). She is awesome.
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a liberal voice with a lot of sensible things to say about women and the veil. Unfortunately she sometimes borders on the unwatchably irritating and hysterical and has an inevitably thin skin when it comes to external criticism.
I hear a lot of people described as ‘moderate muslims’. Scrape the surface and it’s not always true. ‘Relatively moderate’ might sometimes be a better description.
“Maajid Nawaz is a personal favourite of mine and it’s deeply depressing to hear that he’s signed up with Fox.”
That may be due to something similar to Hirsi Ali’s working with AEI–no liberal outlet dares to hire them. Perhaps their feeling is that if the left won’t let them get their message out, you sign up with the outlet that lets you do so. On the off chance that people will actually be more interested in what you’re saying than who employs you.
I remember a few days after 9/11/01, some angry white American male, apparently with retribution on his mind, shot and killed a Sikh, thinking him Arab.
He was quoted as saying (one gathers proudly), “I’m a damn American!”
I very much remember that. Disturbing and very sad. Ignorance and prejudice was the reason for the killing, and a rather quick-to-forget response of that killing by the American press.
I wish people would focus on the more pressing issue: that poeple should not kill people for parking issues. That’s insane, no matter what religion (or lack of religion).
The Texas killer was treated as a disgraceful pariah, executed and then forgotten.
Substitute prison with no hope for parole for execution and that is justice.
Ben,
Here are the quotes:
The quote from The End of Faith:
I have underlined the part that Aslan quotes out of context on Twitter.
Along with this quote in The End of Faith is an end note:
Shortly after quoting SH out of context wiht the intention to distort, Aslan has the nerve to say to New York Magazine:
Add hypocrite to liar. (Are you listening Mr. Aslan?)
I TRIED to under line it. Here’s what Aslan quoted: “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.”
Yeah…that’s the passage.
I’m not with Sam on this one. But it’s crystal clear that Aslan is, as is the President and significant majorities of the American public.
And nowhere in there is even the remotest hint that this is a personal call to arms; rather, it’s a pedestrian policy position.
b&
Mush mush🐺
I don’t know why Hicks killed those three, and obviously, very very very few people in the US or atheists in the US would agree with him, or conduct similar acts.
On the other hand, anti-theist statements I’ve seen at blogs and twitter often are as divisive and stupid as any statement ever made from an atheism plus social justice warrior and can be as ugly as statements I’ve seen from fundamentalists of all sorts.
Atheism? Sign me up.
Anti-theism? You’re doing it wrong.
And yes, NPR is terrible on many many issues. Politically correct. Agenda driven. Or just cowardly.
Truly, the best thing for the quality of NPR news to do, is cut their funding, make them smaller and hungry again like when they did their best reporting, and encourage competition. NPR’s size and budget has literally scared other media sites out of news production and made NPR fat and lazy.
Ummm. . . you think that people who think that religion is harmful are “doing it wrong”? What are we doing wrong? If you mean that we all have ugly and divisive statements on Twitter, you’re wrong. Most of us don’t. I believe that most of the readers here would count as “anti-theists” based on our discussions of religion’s harms. Should we shut up then?
No, I’m sorry–YOU’RE doing it wrong if you are somehow faulting everyone who thinks that religion is harmful. For that is what an anti-theist is, even according to Aslan.
Yes – I identify as anti-theist. I think I’m doing it exactly right.
I must also point out that your opinions on npr would out you as a pretty red republican. Almost Mitt Romneyish, I think.
And the Republicans would see me as a communist from Kanukistan. I’m pretty much no one’s favourite.
Not here!
/@
🙂 thank goodness!
I’m thinking Randy’s reply was meant to be directed at “whatev”.
Oh, that would make sense. I thought he was implying that being an anti-theist would have me labelled weirdly by NPR and figured it was a comment on how weird NPR has become.
Bullshit! I have no doubt but that you’re many people’s favorite WEIT regular.
b&
Thanks Ben but I was thinking political party wise I’m no one’s favourite, which I’m okay with. I like being the outlier in that respect.
Surely you don’t mean Diana’s opinions on NPR, rather whatev’s?
As I member of the LGBT community I applaud anti-theism. Even in a liberal country like the Netherlands, homophobia still exists and I and some friends have experienced it. Islam and christianity are the chief causes of homophobia.
I think that some people want the murder of these three young and ambitious muslim citizens to be about islamophobia, because that would validate their calls for blashempy laws. My gut feeling tells me that even if the investigation concludes that islamophobia did not play a role, some people will argue that the FBI can’t be trusted because the government is supposedly islamophobic.
If insults really are a reason to limit free speech, then religion is in trouble. I don’t think the religious themselves realise this.
Ofcourse, being an atheist myself, I would be really disturbed if the killer really did kill because the victims were muslims. So we’ll just have to wait and see.
By use of the often used, little explained catch all, “politically correct” they land on the side of Conservatives and Republicans more often than not. And yet they are pummeled for being “liberal” by the types that consider Fox “news” not Conservatives enough!
I am an anti-theist and have been since I put critical thought into the question of god, gods, religion and reality.
It seems to be the only rational position.
Have you seen anything as ugly as ‘behead those who …’ from any atheist tweet or blog?
The thing that anti-theists have done wrong is that they haven’t succeeded yet.
I’m a skeptic (atheist) and so anti-theist, of course, same as I am a skeptic (a-astrologist) and anti-astrologist.
If you read the myth texts, say the abrahamistic, and note how they support genocide, killings, torture, rape and misogyny, and don’t become an anti-theist *you* are doing it wrong.
If you read about the Inquisition and the IS terrorism, which proves the point that religion promotes violence, and don’t become an anti-theist *you* are doing it wrong.
If you notice how religious belief correlates with the culture that people live in, and how children are brainwashed and claimed to be default adopters of that belief, and don’t become an anti-theist *you* are doing it wrong.
And if you read the blatant false claims on the world that religionists routinely make without any support whatsoever (same as astrologists), and don’t become an anti-theist *you* are doing it wrong.
It would be intellectually lazy and morally cowardly not to be an anti-theist (and anti-astrologist) under these circumstances.
When religionists can give up their harmful myth texts and place them in museums, beyond the reach of children, then anti-theism can be reconsidered.
When religionists stop make violence in the name of their religion, stop brainwash children, and stop make unsupportable claims on nature, then anti-theism can be reconsidered.
But I won’t hold my breath.
Hear, hear!
The irony is that Aslan’s actual position on the killing of ISIS members is more definitive than that of Harris. Harris, as we all know, hedges his examination by observing that the propounder of the murderous idea needs to have killed because of that ideology; that it must be evident that they will kill in future because of that idea; that one must exhaust all means of bringing them to justice before you can consider killing them. Aslan makes no such caveats. x
Yes, I would expect this because
1.) there is a lot of racism and virulent anti-Muslims bigotry in the U.S.
2.) Grieving people are going to find it hard to accept that loved ones were killed for trivial or random reasons
3.) some Muslims see blasphemy and verbal attacks against religious beliefs and practices as “fighting words” and hate crimes in themselves, crimes which ought to be legally forbidden or discouraged as strongly as possible.
They may also be right in this particular situation, of course. Their assumption isn’t unreasonable. We’re atheists and we’re entertaining the possibility ourselves.
So is it Reza Aslan’s opinion that atheists who believe that the inherent nature of religion is insidious are themselves an insidious element who need to be removed from society? Is he demanding violence?
No. Looks to me like he’s only arguing his case.
As are we. If you look at the writings of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, and so forth the so-called battlefield is reason. Even the facebook page of the killer emphasized non-violence and tolerance and attacking bad ideas. He championed the ACLU and other social justice organizations. The killer was going against his own ideals in the philosophy front.
Aslan’s statements here would be exactly the same if this was a clear-cut case of racism with plenty of “kill the muslim” evidence. This strongly suggests that he’s trying to equate wanting to de-sacralize faith with wanting to murder the faithful.
We seek to “eliminate religion” like we try to “eliminate illiteracy,” by showing why there’s a problem and why the solution is better. The person who jumps to the conclusion that any attempt to improve the world invariably involves guns and cattle cars has the problem.
I would also add that Muslims have witnessed people who identify as Muslim commit atrocities lately and when Islam is criticized, it is easy to see how Muslims can think they are being all lumped in together. I’m not saying that is what is happening, but I can see how they would become defensive. If atheists went around doing bad things and people said atheism was bad, I would get defensive too.
Also, as you say, there is a lot of bigotry and that bigotry has a lot to do with being an identifiable minority.
That was an excellent post.
“Hey, guys! Let’s eliminate illiteracy/poverty/hunger by killing all the illiterate/poor/hungry.”
/@
They were the target of the Eugenics movement. And typified in the Nazi movement. Some of the hard liners here still supported the idea of first location an identification, then sterilization and after that on to killing to protect society as they saw fit. Loaded with scientific sounding terms, but really just a cover for a “race” and class war of extermination. We were just lucky there were enough people who didn’t agree with this “Social Spencerism” (Darwin had nothing to do with the ideas put in his name–Spencer did)
The mistaken idea that birth has more do do with your formation than the environment around them. It is called Euthenics. I ascribe to it and there is material evidence that it is correct and Eugenics is wrong.
You beat me to it. The War on Illiteracy–no, it’s not a metaphor!
Having Reza Aslan define “anti-theist” is rather like having one of the Pope’s new cardinals define Hinduism. Being a “religion scholar” who just happens to be a Muslim and who just happens to have made clear, previously and quite publicly, that he respects Christianity and, for that matter, any belief over atheism and nonbelief, makes Reza Aslan just about the worst choice of expert NPR’s correspondent, Tom Gjelton, could have chosen. He might just as well (and, yes, I realize I risk being accused of illustrating Godwin’s Law, here) bring a Nazi on to define Judaism.
There’s a relevant distinction between:
1. Theoretical (Metaphysical) Antitheism (= Positive Atheism) =def the belief that theism is false, that there are no deities
2. Practical (Ethical/Political) Antitheism =def the belief that theism is bad and harmful, and that one should therefore fight (legally or illegally) against the theists and their organizations, attempting to minimize or even eliminate their sociopolitical influence
1 doesn’t entail 2, and so a theoretical antitheist can consistently reject practical antitheism. Theoretical antitheism as such is silent on how atheists ought to behave toward theists. A theoretical antitheist could even consistently believe that theism is false but practically useful or beneficial.
If antitheism = new atheism, then that’s not right. You’re describing one of the accomodationist positions. How would you distinguish between atheism and anti-theism?
New atheism isn’t defined against anything called “old atheism.” It defines itself against accomodationism.
– Atheism (aka Negative Atheism) =def the absence of the belief that theism is true
– (Theoretical) Antitheism (aka Positive Atheism) =def the belief that theism is false
Antitheism entails atheism, but atheism doesn’t entail (theoretical) antitheism.
Then we’re using different definitions. Jerry wrote:
From this I take his own definition of an ‘anti-theist’ as “an atheist who see religion as generally harmful or useless and actively argues against the existence of God and/or the truth and value of religion.”
If this is the definition, then an “antitheist” could not consistently think that “theism is false but beneficial or useful.”
I think you are talking about the traditional distinction between positive atheism and negative atheism, not dealing with the newly defined stance of anti-theism, which as far as I can tell either means “new atheism” or “new atheism extremism which endorses violence.” Aslan seems to be trying to use the term as a deepity and damn the former by equating it with the latter.
Well, I think Myron made a very clear destination that Jerry doesn’t. “Antitheist” is not a recent coinage, and does seem to be used in both of Myron’s senses.
/@
“Antitheism” in the sense of “positive atheism” has already been used in the 19th century. For example:
“You will now see the difference between two things which have never been sufficiently distinguished from each other—atheism and antitheism. The proper opposites to each other on the question of God are theism and antitheism, held respectively by those who believe in the existence of a Deity and those who deny it. Atheism, rightly understood, stands in the position of neutrality between these antagonists. It is an unbeliever, whereas antitheism is a disbeliever.”
(Posthumous Works of The Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D.D. LL.D., Vol. VII, edited by the Rev. William Hanna, LL.D. Edinburgh: Sutherland and Knox, 1849. p. 66)
* destination → distinction
Stupid AutoCorrect!
PS. (Reading more carefully what you wrote!) And, no, this is rather different from the weak/strong atheism different. But, here, if Aslan is using to describe “atheists who endorse violence”, then that is a new coinage and different from both of Myron’s, or at least one allowing only an “extremist” view of #2.
/@
I hate to disagree with you Sastra (and I rarely do), but I think Myron’s right. New/gnu atheists are practical antitheists.
That is, not antitheists = new atheists, but antitheists ⊃ new atheists.
Hmm… maybe not even that, as I guess you could have folks who were practical antitheists but not theoretical antitheists.
In ant case, accommodationists may be theoretical antitheists (positive/strong atheists) or negative/weak atheists, but cannot (by definition) be practical antitheists.
/@
PS. Myron, are you quoting the definitions here, and if so where from?
I think you and Myron are conflating ‘atheism’ with ‘anti-theism.’ Otherwise, I’m in agreement re the strong and weak atheism.
I very, very, very much do NOT like the term, “anti-theist.”
I’m (generally) just fine with theists. By and large, they’re good people trying to do the right thing as best they understand it — same as anybody. Yes, they’ve been conned into perpetuating a childish and generally nasty childish fantasy, but the overwhelming majority of them have matured into healthy sanity despite the con. And for that they deserve a great deal of credit!
What I do consider myself to be is an anti-theismist. As you’d gather from that above paragraph, I see theism as the greatest confidence (“faith”) scam in all of humanity, and I hate to see people taken in by it every bit as much as I hate to see people swindled by used car salesman or multi-level soap marketing scheme.
There are certainly theists whose personal identity is so wrapped up in their gods that they will take this as a personal affront to them. Hell, there’re even theismists (“accommodationists”) who are outraged at the notion that somebody would want to disabuse theists of the claimed-comforting delusions that have been imposed upon them.
But that’s all irrelevant.
It’s theism I’m anti-, not theists.
Cheers,
b&
Well, there’s the English language for you.
Antitheism is (in one sense, Myron’s #2) being opposed to theism. If you subscribe to that, then the normal rules of English would have that you’re an antitheist, which *should not* mean, or imply, that you’re opposed to theists as people. Although, of course theists, and wankers – sorry, accommodationists – like Aslan, might well construe it that way. So, I understand your reservation … although “antithesis-ist” is such a rebarbative construction.
/@
I blame the ancient languages. We need to just use English words.
If I correctly recall, George Orwell once wrote an essay to that effect, striving to maximize Anglo-Saxon English in composing it. He apparently didn’t like the infiltration of Latin and Greek into Angulish.
He didn’t like using foreign phrases. I read Politics and the Englishad nauseam in high school. I wrote that last line to screw with George. 🙂
Politics and the English Language
Clearly, no one screws with George!
Aw, well…
/@
Nonetheless I’m all for introducing Ben’s neologism (if it’s in fact even original with him; sounds like something that might have occurred to others as well) into the conversation. Best to be strictly clear.
Yes, at least as far back as 2005, per Google. But…
This could turn into the “amazing” thread.
/@
Oh, gawd yes. Sorry to aim in that direction!
I’ve been using it since the USENET days. I wouldn’t claim to be the inventor, but I don’t think I had previously encountered it before I started using it.
b&
I thought that was an odd word choice too. Virulent? Like a disease? I guess it tells us what Aslan thinks of anti-theists, and atheists too I suppose, not that it’s surprising.
Same rhetoric can be found here:
“Atheists are described alternately as threats to national security or as carriers of a dangerously contagious virus.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/mona-eltahawy-egypts-war-on-atheism.html?_r=2
Yes! Yes! Yes! What an incompetent piece of drivel.
In particular, the piece did not quote the universal denunciations from Dawkins and others. It did not mention Mr nut-with-a-gun’s Facebook posts supporting a mosque near the World Trade Center and mosques being built in his area. These are not the words of someone wanting to kill Moslems solely for be Moslems.
* * *
Until there is a pattern of these murders, one’s comments on a motive is mostly a Rorschach test on how you think.
Here’s mine:
This is a guy who lives in an “honor” culture with guns. His life has been going down hill.
The neighbors are more accomplished and successful which also makes him feel worse.
He does not get along with his neighbors and may have felt “dissed” somehow.
Typo:
be –> beingAnd his wife is divorcing/has divorced him (iirc). A textbook stressor.
/@
Good point.
His wife filed for divorce after the crime.
Interesting fact:
(adapted from the ibtimes)
The suspected shooter’s ex-wife, told the AP that prior to their divorce 17 years ago, his favorite movie was “Falling Down,” a 1993 film about a divorced unemployed engineer who goes on a shooting rampage. “That always freaked me out. He watched it incessantly. He thought it was hilarious. He had no compassion at all,” she said.
The shooter’s neighbors had a meeting about his gun-toting angry, aggressive confrontations around noise and parking last year.
From the News & Observer and cited by CBS,
a neighbor talks about accused Chapel Hill gunman’s “equal opportunity anger”: http://youtu.be/4pZI_IP8sjc
Neighbor disputes are a common motive in the South.
“When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras” they say in medical diagnosis.
When witnesses say they have seen horses and not zebras, I weigh that more than speculation from folks with no experience of the situation.
“Neighbor disputes are a common motive in the South.”
That’s what they get for not watching Mr. Rodgers.
Tried engaging with Aslan long time ago via Twi**er and…he blocked me. That’s how he handles being challenged.
“The fact is that one can make a good case that religion is harmful, even if only that it deludes people about their future, and to argue such a view doesn’t make one some kind of extremist or fringe radical whose views lead ineluctably to murder. There are those who, for instance, see belief in the paranormal as harmless, and those who see it as harmful and inimical to a rational worldview. Do we call the former “a-paranormalists” and the latter “anti-paranormalists”? The distinction is drawn for one reason only: to discredit unbelief by making it seem strident, unreasonable, and even a cause of violence.”
I think that another reason for making such a distinction is to muzzle the critics of religions.
This opinion piece gave me a sour stomach for exactly the same reasons. Along with the predictable anti-Dawkins frothing by SJW apologists (“Wakeup Call: Atheists Capable Of Violence, Too!” really?), it made for a vomit inducing week for rational Progressives.
We’ll still be talking about this case in six months time.
By then there will have been so many attacks on artists and Jews throughout Europe we’ll be getting the Charlie Hebdo and Copenhagen attacks mixed up in our minds.
I really don’t think we will. Maybe I’m wrong but to me the arguments from people like Aslan and Werleman are simply reaching. The loudest voices are the ones who’ve made their minds up about this, but I think a lot of other people aren’t buying it, at least not to the extent that the aforementioned would like.
I do agree with the thrust of Jerry’s post. Can I just say that describing Reza Aslan as ‘a vile, unctuous and disingenuous opportunist’ is ad hominem criticism of the kind we deplore when it’s used against new atheists? We really should stick to criticising ideas.
It’s a criticism of his behaviour, not his ideas. And it’s a valid criticism.
Is it okay to describe him as an “opportunist”? If not, is it OK to say he has opportunist ideas?
“Vile” I’d probably not say, simply because it can be used against you later, but “unctuous”, “disingenuous” and an “opportunist” are absolutely appropriate. He’s all of those things. And an incredibly tedious man too.
I started listening a lot less when they fired Bob Edwards, the last real journalist they had. I quit completely shortly after that when the effects were seen of the crypto-fascists parachuted in by Bush to the CPB when Radio “free” europe and VOA were winding down.
What still amazes (and amuses) me is that people generally consider PB to be left-wing. Their idea of balance is the friday Kabuki with EJ Dionne (right wing) and David Brooks (ultra right wing). When was the last time they had on a trade unionist, a socialist, a communist or (mon dieu) an atheist?
Once again this liberal/progressive Democrat is defending David Brooks. I don’t agree with everything he says, but I don’t think he’s in any way ultra-right-wing. He is often knocking the Tea Party.
Typo ergo sum Merilee
>
Good. We shall agree to disagree about D Brooks – politely.
As for the Tea Party I don’t consider them right wing or left wing. To me they are just an amateur performance art group with rich friends.
I always looked most forward to Morning Edition with Edwards. He never provoked one to reach for the volume control. He was the antithesis of the drama divo/diva.
(Spellcheck approves of “diva” but not of “divo.”)
–
Only once did they have on Dr. Noam Chomsky, and strangely they did not repeat their show as they normally did at that time back in the 1990’s here in Houston. As rare as hen’s teeth.
NPR is only a couple of steps above Salon these-a-days. They lost me when they kept bellowing about how “razor tight” the US election was, when just about every competent political poll showed that the election wasn’t close at all and the betting lines had Pres. O up at 5-1 odds.
Jerry, why don’t you off to go on as a voice of/for reason?
+++++11111
Oh, sorry, did I understate my feelings on the subject? Well, stiff upper lip, you know.
Unfortunately even if an investigation finds there’s no reason to believe this was a hate crime it won’t dissuade those who are already convinced it was. I just hope they don’t find it politically expedient to call it a hate crime in order to avoid offending Muslims, and potentially fuel extremism.
Would it be a hate crime, would there be (has there ever been) an investigation, if some religious zealot killed an atheist?
Interesting point. Very doubtful, I’d say.
“The anti-theists have their own heroes; people like the outspoken writer Richard Dawkins, who appears often on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher condemning religion generally and Islam in particular.”
It’s ironic that a month ago Reza Aslan was painting himself as the great defender of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists and free speech, and now he’s attempting to demonize people who simply express their critical view of religions.
Correction: the quoted words were written by the author of the article and not Reza Aslan, but they evidently echo Reza Aslan’s line of thought, see his demonizing of people who voice their opposition to the concept of religious beliefs earlier in the article.
And let me add that the nature of our disagreement comes down to this very fundamental level. I oppose to the very concept of religious belief – a supposedly revealed truth from the creator of the universe. We already know that religious beliefs of different faiths are contradictory. Christians believe that Jesus was the last messiah and he was crucified. Muslims believe that he wasn’t crucified and Muhammad was the last prophet, whereas Jews are still awaiting the messiah. What should we do in this situation, to decide which of these contradictory religious beliefs (if any) is correct? Consult the creator of the universe again?
Saudi Aruba has bought the media.What else are these people going to do that are radically committed to an ancient delusional religion and have so much money they don’t know what to do with all of it. They pay for these stories that puts Islam in a favorable light regardless of the crime. It is plain to see.
Saudi Aruba? Aruba is still within the Kingdom of the Netherlands! 😛
Saudi Aruba – a tropical island with wonderful beaches where everyone has to wear a burka?
I’d rather visit the Sultanate of Bonaire!
/@
No, they wear burkinis, a sartorial compromise reflecting the name. 😉
😹 That actually made me LOL!
I’d like to think that and just shut up is something that we would all hesitate before saying.
Saudi Arabia is as bad as the IS only they have finesse and control over the area since the British Empire chose them as the royal leadership. They have the veneer of civilization, but the savagery of their laws. And it helps they they and the USA have had a “close connexion” since World War 2.
And the UK. All our flags were flying at half-mast a few weeks ago, after their latest cosseted demagogue popped his gold Gucci clogs.
I was actually going to donate a old running car to NPR but won’t be doing that now. I’ll sell it on Craig’s List for a few hundred instead
There is a certain degree of defensiveness – and indignation – at the idea that somebody out there might, in response to what he or she could read on the internet – decide to go and shoot some muslims. What we say in this day and age can have consequences far beyond what one might expect from a conversation at a bar or at the dinner table. We live in a different world from that into which we were born.
Dawkins does not advocate or condone killing Moslem neighbors, even if you have a parking dispute with them.
Someone nut has a bad life and kills.
He is, besides being a supporter of a mosque near “ground zero”, also is a fan of Dawkins.
They have some overlap in beliefs but he is not a follower of Dawkins because Dawkins has never advocated killing innocents.
Dawkins did not know beforehand that the nut existed. Dawkins immediately calls what he did “vile”.
Dawkins is not responsible for what some unknown nut does.
“There is a certain degree of defensiveness – and indignation – at the idea that somebody out there might, in response to what he or she could read on the internet – decide to go and shoot some muslims.”
That seems to describe the noble, intellectually-gifted Good Ol’ Boy Anglo-Saxon soul who burst into the Unitarian church in Knoxville, TN and shot several people to death several years ago. (I had attended a wedding there a couple of years earlier. I had moved out of state by that time.) As best as I recall from the news he apparently associated the Unitarians with liberal godlessness and was offended/enraged by the idea, or something to that effect. I don’t recall any hate crime investigation being conducted.
I don’t like how Werleman and Aslan are capitalizing on this, but why are we so closed off to the notion that this was a hate crime, but we readily believed that Ferguson was racially motivated?
Who is “we”? I never posted anything on the Ferguson murders, and I don’t recall much discussion of it on this site.
I’m not “closed off” to the idea. I just don’t actually know yet. D’you see the difference?
“We” doesn’t include me. I think you’re referring to another blog frequented by SJW’s who assume most everything is motivated by race, class, gender, religious, and cultural, among other biases, and bigotries.
It may have been, but I thought it was more of a policing problem.
I thought “This is a catchy rebuttal,” and then I noticed it’s by *Jerry Coyne*. Wow, awesome to find your blog… at least one good thing came out of NPR’s drek.
Welcome!
Please read “Da Roolz” (posted on the sidebar at the top of the page) to get acquainted with some of our charming idiosyncracies here. To start with, this is not a bl*g. 😀
(And don’t worry, at least half of all newcomers naturally think this is a bl*g. I just point it out to you so you can become an ‘insider’ ASAP.)
Let me welcome you also!
Come for Jerry’s excellent posts; stay for the excellent commentary!
And be sure to try the puns!
Sticky or hot cross, the puns here cannot be beat!
Haha! They are very punny.
What did the crab say when he discovered his long-lost girlfriend?
“I lobster, but I flounder!”
😋🐠
grooaaaaaaan;-))
I think he was being a little shellfish.
/@
They’re the icing on the pake!
(Although I can’t remember a “pake” post for /ages/!)
/@
I don’t know the motives for the Chapel Hill murder, but personally, I can imagine an atheist (or an anti-theist, if you really insist) killing people who demonstrate their religiousness. It’s crazy, but consistent.
What I cannot imagine is how this can be honestly attributed to the writing of Dawkins, Harris or any other significant new atheist.
When this comes from the kind of Aslan, who are willing to do any possible aerobatics to deny the connection between Muslim violence and the very clear calls for violence in Muslim holy scriptures and of prominent religious scholars (including mainstream religious leaders), this is becoming plain hypocrisy.
This is not an honest misunderstanding of atheism, but a deliberate effort to distort reality.
It’s a bit bye the bye but John Oliver’s interaction with Reza Aslan on the Daily Show, when Stewert was away directing his movie, really put me off Oliver.
Til then Oliver had seemed quite sensible and aware but in this interview he was fawning all over him. Almost to the point of falling at his feet and saying ‘I’m not worthy’, as though Aslan had some special moral high ground. He does come across a bit like that in smarmy self righteous kind of way.
He concluded with “The great Reza Aslan”.
I’m not just character assassinating Oliver, I wonder, does anyone know if he still has this attitude as his show is supposed to be good, but I can’t bring myself to watch it.
That episode really stuck with me as well. I have described it before almost word for word as you did here. I would like to see Oliver discussing this current issue, on his new show, with Aslan.
Though not to the extent that Oliver demonstrated during his talk with Aslan, Jon Stewart himself has demonstrated distinct accommodationist leanings more than once on his show. He has also, more than once, ridiculed some particular religious belief / behavior.
Though I do find this disappointing, I still think both Oliver and Stewart are an excellent addition to the social and political commentary. Some of the very few who are consistently rational and ethical. Though not perfect. I don’t know any that are.
Glad you agree. Jon Stewart does have that ‘way’ I guess, he can be a bit deferential.
But as you say, no ones perfect and they do add some excellence especially given some of the opposition.
Also, I was wondering about Oliver’s show because he got a shout out from, I think, Steve Novella, speaking on Rationally speaking with our old friend Massimo Pigliucci, and Julia Galef.
“But right now the feeling among Muslim Americans seems to be that the North Carolina killings were clearly a hate crime.”
I’ve heard the mere mention of pork being described as a “hate crime” against Muslims. Presumably, the fact that wild yeast can ferment things and create alcohol is a hate crime against Muslims. When a Muslim immigrant from a warmer part of the world moves to Michican and experiences his/her first winter there, he/she seems to typically feel that the cold temperatures are clearly a “hate crime” against Muslims (never mind the fact that it gets awfully cold up in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan…)
The words “It’s not always about you,” usually spoken to American narcissists, seem apt.
(That’s not to say there aren’t vicious hate crimes against Muslims — there most certainly are, and as thinking people we condemn them. But the rush to label everything as a “hate crime” seems to make people pay attention less when an actual hate crime is committed, in sort of a boy-who-cried-wolf scenario.)
Re: “anti-theist,” I think the term is too vague. I am very anti-theistic thinking, but tend not to be anti-theistic people. And I think we not only can, but must, maintain that distinction.
I have a lot of Christian friends, and some Muslim ones, who describe themselves as “devout” — and yet who ignore most of the benighted claptrap in their “holy” books. I have zero problem with them as people.
If the Chapel Hill tragedy is a hate crime, and I suspect there are indeed elements of that to it, it’s because Hicks stepped over the line from being anti-theistic ideas to being anti-theistic people.
Reza Aslan is as much an expert of religion as Karen Armstrong is, or my next-door imam, or my attendant at the petrol station.
There are some I would consider relatively expert, albeit with different takes, such as Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and indeed our Host. At least they have given the subject some serious thought.
Excellent write-up about a ridiculous article. I just sent an email to Tom Gjelten about his yellow journalism. Absolute garbage reporting. I love that NPR never has an atheist on to discuss stories related to atheism, never.
150,000+ murders per year in the US — and they want to focus on the one that was committed by a person whose atheism was a public part of their personality.
Sounds like noise to me. 1 part in 50,000.
What a bunch of morons.
And do you see a single atheist praising these murders?
Slipped a digit. Divide by 10.
New Headline:
Chérif Kouachi Shows Muslims Need to Watch for Radicals in their Ranks
Chérif Kouachi, on his Facebook page, praised the Koran, Hadith, and Ma’rakat al-Islam wa’l-Ra’s Maliyya. He also expressed suport for “Muslim Equality” and called himself a “gun-toting Muslim”. These make it very clear that his motivation during the Charlie Hebdo shooting was hate of westerners and defense of Islam.
/irony