Several days ago there was a post called How Not to Explain Atheism at Hemant's blog that irked me, and I've decided I have to get it off my chest.
It takes as its basis a post by another blogger, which recounts hearing one co-worker tell another, "you know Kelly***, there is no afterlife... There is no heaven, no hell, no god... When you die, your body will rot and be eaten by maggots. Life really has no point."
Hemant uses this as the occasion for a brief lecture on presentation and tactics, implicitly directed at the first co-worker and anyone who would say things like him. To which I say: please. Lecturing someone on tactics assumes that they're to some extent on your side, but what basis did Hemant have for that assumption, in this case? The original post gave very little biographical information: the co-worked was an atheist and had a voice like somebody named Ira Glass. The idea that being an atheist makes you part of some movement--Hemant's movement, whoever's movement--is silly. Does anybody imagine for an instant that being a theist automatically makes you part of some coherent movement?
Maybe the co-worker honestly thinks the way he expressed himself, believes in being honest with other people, and sees no reason to hold PR to be so lofty a goal as to justify sugar-coating. Hemant may think he's wrong to take such a position (I do!), but to jump right to tactical advice without stopping to realize not all atheists will share his goals is incredibly obnoxious.
4 comments:
My thinking when I read the original posting (and I said as much in my own) was that the guy seemed like he wanted to provoke someone. The dialogue was less important that seeing the girl's reaction. That's what made me upset
It wasn't just that he didn't sugar coat what he was saying. I think there are times we should be blunt and times we shouldn't. But it looked to me like there were two possibilities: Either he was just trying to get a reaction from the girl, or he was trying to tell her what he believed and did an awful job of it. If it was the latter, he would have been better served explaining *why* he believed all that, not just what it is he believes.
While this person in question may not be part of any movement, there are many atheists who are and who would like to see atheism become more respected. I just believe it's not going to happen if those people follow this guy's example.
Hope that makes sense :)
-- Hemant
>...or he was trying to tell her what he believed and did an awful job of it. If it was the latter, he would have been better served explaining *why* he believed all that, not just what it is he believes.
You have something of a point on the second part, since its always nice to explain to people why you think the way you do (though it's impossible to do this all the time, for obvious reasons). Still, I think it's hard to argue, without knowing the situation, that he should have phrased his statement differently.
I think the key is to recognize that we need a diverse range of tactics. Because atheists tend to have little in common other than our lack of belief, it should be expected that we will gravitate toward different tactics.
I welcome atheists like Hemant because I know that their preferred tactics will be effective at reaching certain folks. At the same time, I welcome (and personally prefer) the more direct approach you and I both seem to advocate. I don't think we are going to get where we need to get without taking the gloves off. Sometimes provocation is exactly what is needed.
I agree, Vjack, though I think the problem here is not about tactics. As Bertrand Russell once pointed out, questions of means can be decided by enough evidence, but questions of ends are much harder to argue. What irked me about the post I was responding to is that it seemed to assume that being an atheist automatically means accepting certain goals.
Post a Comment