THE LOS ANGELES TIMES PUBLISHED an interesting op-ed piece against atheists on Sunday, written by Charlotte Allen from the Manhattan Institute.
"Ms. Allen is, in internet terms, a troll."
It was not interesting in the sense that it put forward any ideas or analysis of value, but in the other sense of the word. Not "interesting" in the way that, say, a lecture on the habits of a black widow spider or a flying fish is interesting, but more in the way the spider or fish itself is.
To begin with, her piece throws some light on the recent decline of newspapers. We're told that newspapers are being replaced by the internet, which is cheaper, and more convenient for some.
But it also may be the case that the internet is just a smarter venue—at least in terms of street smarts, which may well be what really matter in these perilous times.
Ms. Allen is, in internet terms, a troll. A troll is a person who enters a comment in a blog or forum for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble. Trolls are generally not liked or respected, because they disrupt intelligent conversation, side-track other commenters from the real issue, and waste everyone's time.
Apparently the Los Angeles Times either doesn't know what a troll is, or simply failed to recognize this particular troll. Fair enough. They don't always get outed on the web, either.
The article consists of long diatribe against atheists for being irrational whiners. I'll take up her charges one at a time:
-
We have a persecution complex. "Boohoo, everybody hates us because we don't believe in God"
She cites Sam Harris as saying that "no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that God exists". This, she implies, is silly because the Supreme Court has ruled that laws banning atheists from office are unconstitutional.
She fails to note two things. First, the inability of atheists to get elected most of the time in most states is not so much a matter of law as it is of culture and prejudice. Secondly, Harris did not bring this up as a whine about persecution, but as a comment about the irrationality of such a situation. In fact, I read atheist blogs and atheist books all the time, and persecution is a very, very minor theme.
On the other hand, when it does come up it's justified. Not so long ago a boy was denied admission to the Boy Scouts because he wouldn't lie and say he believed in God. This is an organization that gets all kinds of preferential treatment from government, paid for by the boy's family's taxes. Fair? But people like Ms. Allen would have us shut up about such things. Just stop whining. -
Her second charge against atheists is that we are constantly talking about how stupid believers are. Anyone who has consistently read even this site knows better.
She quotes Dawkins as saying that people who believe in God are "uneducated", "rather stupid", and "inferior". She claims that Dennett calls atheists "The Brights", "in contrast to everybody else who obviously aren't so bright."
She does work for a right-wing think tank, so it's probably unfair to expect her to do her homework.
The Dawkins quote refers, not to believers, but to people who refuse to accept evolution in spite of all the evidence. While it may be a bit harsh, it's not that far out, coming from a scientist who is an expert in the field.
It was not a statement about believers generally, many of whom are quite bright indeed and do accept the overwhelming evidence for evolution (something Ms. Allen points out in the same article, oddly enough).
The reference to Dennett's use of the term "The Brights" shows an astounding lack of either research or honesty. "The Brights" is not simply Dennett's name for atheists, it's the name of a movement to which I belong (you can see the logo in the sidebar).
It's not, strictly speaking, even an atheist movement, but a group of people who are committed to a naturalistic worldview.
The organizers of that movement are very careful to explain that the term is a reference to the enlightenment, and is not meant to imply anything negative about anyone else. In fact, the term that both Dennett and The Brights suggest for people who have a super-naturalistic world-view is "Supers".
How condescending is that? -
Her final attack is a little hard to follow. It comes in two parts.
On one hand, we atheists are supposed to be overly obsessed with theology and the Bible. We spend altogether too much time pointing out errors, in scripture, raising questions about whether the God painted by the church is really consistent or good, bringing up evolution (like Christians hadn't accepted that long ago), etc. etc.
On the other hand, we aren't interested in "making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made..."
In other words, we talk way too much about religion, and not nearly enough.
But as often happens with a troll, there is a bit of truth buried in this last one.
There are some atheists who go on and on, bashing religion mindlessly, heaping all religious people into one stereotyped category, and dealing with them through ridicule rather than honest discussion—you know, the way some religious people treat atheists. They aren't the people she quotes, but, if you look long and hard enough you can find them.
We atheists are, after all, human beings. We are becoming more numerous by the day, and any sizable group of human beings has, somewhere in its ranks, those who are uneducated, rather stupid, and, well, intellectually inferior.
There are certainly examples on some atheist blogs, just as there are examples in some anti-intellectual churches, and even, as I am sure anyone who read Ms. Allen's article will agree, in some conservative think tanks.
