Originally a comment by SC (Salty Current) on That’s why.
I’ve given this a bit of thought over the past several months, especially when I’ve been inclined to say, “Can we start ignoring him now?” Eventually, I realized that I pay attention to posts about Dawkins in much the same way as I pay attention to Right Wing Watch. As you and Lee said, he’s a rich and influential person and so even his most ludicrous and poisonous statements get media attention and a public hearing. Several years ago, I wouldn’t have thought that I’d ever regard Dawkins in this way.
Second, I have a longstanding interest in the ways governments (the US and UK in particular), corporations, and their networks of think tanks and political organizations surreptitiously spread their ideologies and work to sabotage social justice movements. In light of the involvement of some known atheists with AEI and some of the recent organization/foundation shenanigans, I’m even more concerned than ever that the atheist and skeptical movements have been and are being used as vehicles for these interests.
Third, I’m disappointed. It’s largely my own fault, I admit, because I hadn’t sufficiently investigated what Dawkins and others had said in the past and hadn’t been attentive enough to some evidence. Nevertheless, I had difficulty believing that he and others would be so resistant to applying to themselves the principles they so passionately, publicly espoused, or that they could so callously defend some of the things they have.
Finally, I care about the atheist/secularist cause. I feel that I need to know what people like Dawkins are saying so that I can distance myself from them and my anti-faith advocacy and values from theirs.
Yes, 100% yes!!
I can’t identify myself as an atheist without risking someone thinking I agree with Dawkins (about anything other than basic atheism) So I have to keep mild tabs on what Dawkins is doing so, in case someone says, “Well, your Richard Dawkins…” I can immediately say “not mine…”
An argument which might be effective against “your Richard Dawkins” would be “do you agree with Pope Francis/Pat Robertson/William Lane Craig/other church spokesman as appropriate?” Asking an evangelical if they agree with the Pope or asking a Catholic if they agree with Ian Paisley would be a reasonable refutation to “you must agree with Dawkins since you’re both atheists.”
Sorta like liberal Christians try to distance themselves from Westboro Baptist Church and guys like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum?
Beth @3,
You mean by whining to atheists who criticize “illberal” Christians that “we’re not all like that” but otherwise doing very little to stand up to them?
No, I think we have something more proactive and effective in mind.
But nice try.
This. Furthermore, there’s a fundamental difference between the two “distancings.” I’ve long argued (see: my blog) that the promoters of faith support violent religious movements regardless of their public rejection of the content of those movements’ claims. This is so because they claim faith itself as a virtue and (therefore) devalue any reasoned-empirical basis for evaluating claims or arguments.
Anti-faith activists have no such problem. The promotion of critical reason and evidence in no way supports the acceptance of bogus and harmful claims; quite the contrary. So we can distance ourselves from pernicious bullshit claims made by those in our movement on the very bases on which the movement is founded. For “liberal” religious people or faitheists, there’s a contradiction between epistemic foundations and the rejection of bad arguments. For us, there isn’t.
Al Dente: The problem with that idea is very often they do agree 100%, or believe they do. They believe we have to believe our “idols” 100%, which is why they get obsessed with showing them wrong on one issue. If they’re wrong about one thing,
they’re wrong about everything.