Sincere Kirabo discusses a wonderfully useful term, the “village atheist”. He brings up that faction of atheism that reacts with hostility to any mention of social justice.
The aforementioned critique, while a forgettable blip on the radar, is symptomatic of an overarching problem that’s festered within secular (both atheist and humanist) spaces since the New Atheism came into vogue. I call it “village atheism.”
I coined the term to classify a self-contained community of socially unaware atheists who reside within and reinforce a feedback loop of ignorance. This subset of nonbelievers is overly wowed by the low bar it requires to recognize the inadequacy of the God hypothesis. Meanwhile, in many ways, they preserve or encourage a bounty of beliefs that are just as oppressive and pernicious.
Yep, I recognize those atheists. You should read the rest for his dissection of the characteristics of these people — you’ll find them painfully familiar.
(I also wonder if they are able to see the irony of the image I used here.)
First comment there begins:
Second comment disagrees because
Fourth comment:
We wouldn’t want atheists to be progressive and elightened, you know!
The thing about a village is,
There’s nowhere you can hide
Cos everyone knows everyone
(A point of village pride)
And should you act distinctively,
That act becomes your role
A label thrust upon you—
Wholly out of your control
If your label as an “other”
Is too difficult a test,
You will monitor your actions
So you blend in with the rest.
It’s how villages keep order
And maintain the status quo
You can risk a village label
Or be safe, and just lie low
Thus we find the Village Idiot
(With luck, there’s only one)
And the nasty Village Atheist
Who argues just for fun
But for groups in the majority
Whose thoughts and acts are shared
There’s no “other” role required
So that label they are spared
It’s a simple sort of governance,
Enforcing right and wrong
The “Village X” may live here,
But they really don’t belong.
Last time a village atheist article came out (that I noticed, anyway), it was Randall Rauser, Christian apologist. It will be interesting to see how Kirabo’s take compares. My response to the old piece:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2014/04/08/in-defense-of-the-village-atheist/
@The unholy master
I would’ve thought we’d hope any person, atheist or not, would be progressive and enlightened.
I wonder which of those words is the most offensive to the commenter? Or maybe it’s the should? Should is quite a terrible word in the right hands.
“You should wash your pots once you’re done eating, it’ll keep the house tidier.”
“NOOOOOOOOOO!”
I guess this person thinks an atheist should stop their advocacy at working to make the world a better place by fighting against the pernicious influence of religious belief in matters of governance. No supporting feminism. No supporting LGBT rights. No advocating for Indian or Black Lives mattering. Nope. The only advocacy atheist should engage in is in supporting secularism. Interesting though, that there’s nothing implicit in not believing in gods that necessarily leads to advocating for a secular government. It’s almost like these nincomfucks only support atheists advocating for *certain* issues.
Excellent essay. Any atheist who doesn’t consider all of humanity as their tribe, fails to understand that the holy books are all about narrow tribalism, believe as we all do, or be expelled. Once all of humanity is your tribe, social justice follows as night follows the day.
If you exclude any piece of humanity from your tribe, the explanations as to why sound very much like religious bigotry….
@5
there you go using reason again!
uncle frogy
Thanks to cuttlefish for giving us an idea how ‘village’ has become a term of disdain among some people. But it doesn’t seem a ‘wonderfully useful term’ to me, since it gives no idea of the reason for disdain – Sincere Kirabo’s dislike of “village atheists” is about a different set of people than the Christian apologist Randall Rauser is complaining about. You might as well just call them ‘bad atheists’.
@Nerd, 5
We can exclude those perverts who think sprouts are food, though, right?
It’s certainly curious to hear the argument that we should reject religion because it’s sexist, homophobic, etc, and then being told that opposing sexism or homophobia are totally unrelated to atheism. You can’t have it both ways!
Ugh. Right, no point being a better person, you just want to feel smug and superior to all those believers. Ugh. And Dawkins endorsed the term Brights.
Village Atheists. It’s a good term, one I’ll be using.
If religion poisons everything, then the proper thing for a concerned atheist to be concerned with is…
Umm, eight letters; second is a “v,” fifth is a “y,” last is a “g.”
Nope, still can’t get it.
Oops!
Nine letters.
Ten
This comment brought to you by the School of Non-Traditional Arithmetic.
OK, I guess I must come forward in defense of scientism, against the charge that it is something inimical to the cause of social justice.
Sincere Kirabo defines “scientism” as “attitudes that view natural science as the only meaningful interpretation of life,” and view reality through “a single scope that exalts the methods of natural sciences above all other forms of human inquiry.”
A commenter to Sincere Kirabo’s original article says:
Well, unfortunately (depending on the meaning of “should”), the commenter has a point. After 40-odd years of association, off an on, with organized atheism and humanism, I long ago was disabused of the notion that atheism automatically disposes a person to be enlightened and progressive. Why should you care about other people, just because the authoritarian sky-daddy is no longer a factor? My experience is anecdotal, to be sure, but the atheists I have found to be concerned with social justice are largely those who recognize that the failure of the sky-daddy hypothesis has been due to the application of human thought and investigation of the real world, in a communal attempt to understand it while avoiding as much as possible the lure of self-deception.
That is, the road to atheism (at least for many of us) has been through science, and the relaization that the “method” of natural science, which is an ethical system based in truth-telling, is indeed the only tool we have to move our understanding of life in the direction of something of more lasting value than a “meaningful interpretation” (which can be served well enough by religious belief or any other fantasy): that is, in the direction of the probable truth.
I have long thought that such an ethic, one that values criticism and alternative viewpoints, is a strong starting point for a wider ethic that includes valuing the welfare and the contributions of minorities. What I would suggest is that perhaps those who come to atheism by way of a more non-communal inquiry, by personal philosophical or Biblical analysis, or by personal experience of the failures of religion, may be less inclined toward connecting atheism with the cause of social justice.
Now, that is just a conjecture, and I know of many exceptions. I have a very dear friend, a scientist, who is Catholic, and is also dedicated to causes of social justice. And I have known bigoted scientists (and even some who literally prayed over their test-tubes for God to favor their own experiment over those of the competition). And Mr. Kirabo may well himself be an exception.
But, to the extent that Mr. Kirabo wants to denigrate a scientism that “exalts the methods of natural sciences above all other forms of human inquiry”, then I will just have to plead guilty to being a Village Atheist as well as a Scientismist. At least until Mr. Kirabo can explain what those “other forms of human inquiry” are, and how they avoid self-deception while also avoiding being classified themselves as part of science.
Daz
my dear, you need to ‘splain yourself
.v..y..g
nine
.v..y…g
ten
.v..y….g
The first letter is probably ‘e’, if that helps.
anym
Go to the office!
(smartass)
;)
Is it Avery Ling? I’ve had my eye on that guy for a while now… he’s up to something.
The only prerequisite for atheism is not believing in god – what you do with that belief is dependent on how one was raised and what kind of culture the person was exposed to. As we can see, religious beliefs don’t make one a good or crappy person. That comes from experience.
There is an obvious nexus between conservative religious beliefs and the spate of anti-abortion TRAP laws and “bathroom” bills the past few years so supporting separation of church and state is important for those social justice issues.
I have read more than a few of these kind of essays and what seems to be missing is how atheism should be leading someone to helping on all the social justice issues out there. If religious belief is irrelevant to trying to encourage work on those issues then most of essays like this are a waste of time.
The problem is not so much the people who say atheism doesn’t imply a certain moral outlook but that so many atheists lose their shit when someone says atheists should care about social justice and non-religious bigotry. Why exactly does it elicit that response from them? Very revealing.
Is it outrageous if the NFL says football players should be ethical and care about the welfare of marginalized people? Running while carrying a ball says nothing about harassing women!!1
It has been explained time and time again. You aren’t/won’t listen.
Simply, once one abandons imaginary deities, then one must consider the morality/ethics that permeate society that are based on the bible. And any person really thinking will reject them too.
Too many folks like you seem to reject deities, but not the religious based morality. Then the step to humanistic based morality is easy. But you won’t see it, as you have to hate/feel superior to somebody to make yourself feel good. That is toxic.
I think, Saad, (at least from my perspective) is that some people don’t like someone else trying to pigeon hole them into being someone else’s type of atheist. Atheists are the proverbial herd of cats with the only true thing in common being that they don’t harbor the god belief thingie. It begins to fall into the “No true Scotsman” fallacy when you decide someone else that doesn’t believe in a god is a bad atheist for not sharing other moral principles that are unrelated to atheism.
Look at the quote PZ has above (and let’s hope I get the quote tags right this time, forgive if I fail…)
[quote]I coined the term to classify a self-contained community of socially unaware atheists who reside within and reinforce a feedback loop of ignorance. This subset of nonbelievers is overly wowed by the low bar it requires to recognize the inadequacy of the God hypothesis. Meanwhile, in many ways, they preserve or encourage a bounty of beliefs that are just as oppressive and pernicious.[/quote]
I think this is absolutely terrible. Seriously, what the hell is this person thinking? “Recognizing the inadequacy of the God hypothesis” is pretty much all there is to being an atheist, by definition. This singling out groups of people that don’t think like you do and labeling them as “bad” because of it is no different than religions splitting off into various cults because they interpret scripture differently. Actually, it’s worse. It’s defining atheists by standards outside the definition of atheism.
The fact is, atheism and theism are two sets of people. Bigots, social justice advocates, equal rights advocates, these are all separate sets of people that may overlap the atheist or theist set. There should never be this “wrong kind of atheist” mentality. It makes no sense.
Blew the quote thing again. Damn. Would someone be so kind as to refresh my failing brain on the proper use of that?
It’s <blockquote> and </blockquote>
Correct.
So apparently atheists are to be the people who do only the most minimal thing possible to qualify for the title?
Do you also complain about atheists who promote scientific thinking? That’s absolutely terrible. What the hell are they thinking? “Science” isn’t part of the definition of atheism! We should be embracing all those people who reject naturalistic perspectives on the universe!
I am always amazed at the atheists who have such narrow views that they get upset at anyone who suggests a philosophy for their life ought to involve a little more than just doing the least possible amount to qualify for a label on their badge.
HA! Thank you, it is much appreciated.
We of course won’t mention the additional fail of failing to recognize that I could use preview to see if I failed or not… o.O
parrothead #22:
Really? So it doesn’t lead to further considerations like that of the separation of church and state, or to the question of religiously-based policy, like anti-abortion laws, anti-LGBT laws and so on? If not, then what, exactly, is the purpose of an atheist movement? Should the only purpose of an atheist meeting be to confirm that each member still lacks belief in gods, followed by “Meeting adjourned, see you all next month”?
Well, yes. That defines the set of people we call “atheists”. It’s not a title, it’s simply a definition. You’re an atheist or you’re not.
I support the promotion of scientific thinking period. It doesn’t matter if the person is an atheist or a thiest… that’s irrelevant. I don’t define “science” as a part of the definition of atheism, never have. That’s the difference! Now, I have more in common with an atheist that promotes scientific thinking than I do with a theist that supports scientific thinking so yes, by nature, I’ll have a bias towards the atheist, but I’m not going to try to claim that all atheists are defined by agreeing with me that promoting scientific thinking is good. The set of people that are atheists and the set of people that promote scientific thinking are not the same set, but they overlap. I may have a warm and fuzzy in that overlap, but that doesn’t make atheists outside that overlap “not a real atheist”.
Then allow me to try and cheer you up a little if I may. I also agree with a philosophy of life that does try to make things better for everyone as a whole as best as we can. However that is outside of my atheism. My atheism doesn’t define for me the fact that people should be treated equally and with respect. It does influence it a bit… to me it adds to the value of someone’s life when you recognize that all we have is this one precious life to live, but that’s my atheism contributing to my philosophy, not my philosophy defining my atheism.
@ Daz #27
Like I mentioned to PZ but you wouldn’t have had a chance to read when you posted this, atheism contributes to my philosophy, but my philosophy doesn’t define my atheism. Everyone that doesn’t agree with me philosophically but is a fellow atheist isn’t less of an atheist for not agreeing with me on everything.
There’s no empirical evidence that homeopathy has any real benefits, especially when compared to science-based medicine. But would that make someone less of an atheist if they added homeopathic treatments to their daily regimen? No, they’re not related.
I give up. There’s no getting through to stupid people.
No one, least of all me, has ever said anything close to that. I can say it over and over again: being an idiot doesn’t disqualify you from being an atheist. There are bad people who are atheists, and no one is going to take their precious label away from them.
But those kinds of atheists are obstacles to the greater goal of promoting a better understanding of the universe, and building communities that are worth living in.
OT
PZ, did you change the font here?
Wouldn’t it be more correct to say those kinds of people instead of those kinds of atheists?
parrothead #29:
And you didn’t answer my question. What is the purpose of an atheist movement, if the lack of belief in gods has no consequences on the political and social views of the atheists involved in that movement?
Yes, an individual person might lack such belief and not consciously notice those consequences on their worldview; but those being addressed by the OP are part of a movement. All the OP does is point out that this means they have already—whether they want to acknowledge the fact or not—found something more to rally around than a mere lack of belief; unless, of course, my description, above, of an atheist meeting is accurate.
parrothead, #22
As I said in my post, I’m not worried about the “atheism doesn’t mean I can’t be sexist” angle. I’m okay with that. You can call yourself whatever you want.
The question I had is why so many atheists get upset when another atheist says that atheists should oppose misogyny, LGBTphobia and racism. There’s hardly any complaints from the atheist circles when an atheist wants the Ten Commandments removed or the Bible kept out of biology classrooms. But mention fairness towards women or trans people and the kicking and screaming commences.
Why?
Not if you want atheists to be seen as moral people who consider all of humanity their equals. Unlike any religion, where you are either in or out of the tribe.
Individual atheist vs. atheist movement. There are two topics under discussion.
chigau (違う) #31:
According to the Font Finder addon, it should be being rendered in Cochin if you have that installed. (Wish I had it: it’s a pretty font.) If not, it should be Georgia.
</OT>
I really can’t answer that. I can’t see how anyone at all can be against fairness for women, transgender, or anyone for that matter. Atheist or not, to me it makes no sense. (I know the religious tend to claim religious reasons for their hated of others, but it seems more of an excuse than a reason.) I would think, from having a philosophy influenced by my atheism, that people would place more value on the lives of everyone because let’s face it… this is all we have, this one shot. It’s precious.
The ‘not supporting social justice doesn’t make people “not a real atheist”‘ seems to be the completely fictional straw man that just cannot be killed. When these topics come it’s always brought in to beat on, no matter how clearly false and off topic it is.
Of course I’d love for all atheists to be seen as moral people. However… not all atheist are moral people. It’s a simple fact. Not all theists are moral either. If you try to umbrella all atheists into a single movement it’s going to fail. It’s herding cats. Perhaps a simply terminology change… a humanist movement instead of an atheist movement. I may have the understanding of it wrong, but isn’t humanism more of a moral umbrella where atheism, by definition, doesn’t address morals at all?
@ 38
And yet the article is labeling a group of atheists “village atheists” because “I coined the term to classify a self-contained community of socially unaware atheists who reside within and reinforce a feedback loop of ignorance.”
How is this not dividing atheists into groups of “good” and “bad” atheists based on morals that exist outside atheism?
I like the Status Quo Warriors label for those atheists.
Apparently, they liked everything about right-wing religion except the praying stuff.
“Take your god out of my white supremacy and homophobia!”
parrothead, #40
What is wrong with coining a term for a clearly discernible group? These atheists assemble on the internet and at meetings as atheists.
We’re just pointing out one more thing they have in common. It makes perfect sense and is also very relevant. Atheist communities have a bigotry problem.
Scientismist @14
Kirabo did give some examples in the article. I’m not able to grab a quote on my phone, but philosophy and the personal experiences of being the targets of bigotry were two. In addition, part of his complaint seemed to be how these ‘village atheists’ don’t consider sociology and psychology to be real science. Anyway, I thought he was pretty clear as to what he was talking about for what scientism is, and it wasn’t dismissing science or belief in its value.
Parrothead @40
He’s categorizing and criticizing said atheists with their poor thinking and morals. I suppose you could simplify that as “bad”.
But the “not a real atheist” things is a wholly fictional straw man. You’re the one who seems to be conflating the two.
@parrothead
I would imagine that this person is thinking that atheists are people, and can be defined as the subset of people who are atheists by standards within “reasonable person” but outside of “atheist”. He is not, as far as I’ve been able to tell, defining them as bad atheists, but as people who are atheists and also bad at being rational or observant or considerate – just because they’re atheists, that doesn’t mean they’ve become divorced from all other possible aspects of personhood.
I’m actually in pretty much complete agreement with the claim that essentially nothing really follows from atheism, and that not believing in a god is both the minimal and maximal requirement for being an atheist. It does follow from having no belief in a god that there’s no reason to believe in or adhere to any of the rules laid down by any gods or for reasons based on those gods, but it doesn’t follow that you will give a damn what follows from your other beliefs – it’s quite possible to be an atheist and entirely uninterested in trying to be rational. They’re not failing at being atheists, they’re failing at being people who are both atheists and thoughtful; they’re failing at being people who are both atheists and rational; they’re failing at being people who are both atheists and aware of the world in which they exist. Those other things are all outside the definition of atheism, but they all still apply perfectly well because there an atheist is more than embodied atheism.
I’m an atheist, but other definitions still apply to me, because I’m not also an ameist.
parrothead #40:
Why should we not classify people according to whether we think their socio-political views good or bad?
And please answer my question regarding the purpose of movement atheism in light of the “it only means lack of belief” definition.
What this interminable debate reminds me of
“Nerd of Redhead”
This is a village atheist type argument if I ever saw one.
There is a significant body of Jewish, Christian and Islamic ethics that isn’t based on divine command theory. Plenty of thinkers behaved as if the answer to the Euthyphro dilemma was that the gods love piety because of its piousness at which point their morality is not invalid on its face.
still OT
Cochin font is fucking awful on my iPad.
end OT
Saad @ 42,
What’s not very helpful in his ‘coining’ the term is that it’s been in use since at least 1965: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VBg02gF8lLMC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43 ; and has been fairly extensively used to mean something a bit different – see Cuttlefish’s comment #2, and their blog entry in which they defended ‘village atheists’ in that other usage. Even Bertrand Russell get accused of Village Atheism.
I can sort of see how ‘village’ applies to the earlier usage – someone in a minority in a community who is pigeonholed as ‘the’ atheist; but I can’t see how ‘village’ applies to atheists who seem better described as: right wing, objectivist, individualist, libertarian, selfish, etc.
I personally don’t give a fuck if atheists are seen as the same heterogeneous group that religious folk are. In many, the god-shaped hole is easily filled with some other irrational, self-confirming belief that doesn’t necessarily include the supernatural (*cough*HBD*cough*EvoPsych).
But I do agree we shouldn’t talk about “good” and “bad” atheists. There are atheists who happen to be fuckheads, atheists who are not-so-much fuckheads, and atheists who are pretty decent people.
@ Daz 46
Just got back from lunch. Cinco de Moe’s. $5 burritos and a free T-shirt. Yummy. :)
I agree that people can be classified according to socio-political views. What I dislike is the impression that “atheists should be this or that”. Trying to tie moral or ethical labels to atheism gets divisive and dangerous in my opinion.
Regarding the “atheist movement”, I thought I did answer that. I simply think it’s a very very badly named thing. “Humanist movement”… that makes sense. “Atheist movement” (to me) doesn’t. Personally I’d prefer to have the phrase dropped altogether. It doesn’t say anything. It doesn’t describe anything.
To tie that to the topic, I’d say that the people described as “village atheists” clearly aren’t humanists.
What is wrong with being divisive, if in doing so, you split the major part of atheist movement into progressive force for humanity in the process, while sidelining those who hate other people? Which brings in more people to the movement.
In other words, you separate the humanists from the non-humanists, no? I’m fine with that to be honest. They shouldn’t be part of a humanist movement clearly. Sideline the haters, even if they’re atheists, for not being a part of the humanist movement. You’ll have the added benefit of bringing more people to the movement, more humanistic people, even if they’re not atheists.
parrothead #51:
Why is it dangerous? It’s merely the statement of a personal political belief: “I think we, as a group, should do X, Y and Z.” That’s not only unharmful, but perfectly normal behaviour.
And why is “divisive” bad? I would wish to be divided from racists, misogynists, homophobes and so on; and frankly I do see socialism and a wish for fairer treatment of my fellow humans as a natural consequence of my lack of belief in some kind of divine justice. In the absence of a god who might fix our problems or an eternal Paradise where all woes are alleviated, us humans need to fix our own problems, and try to create the best society we can.
And regarding your other point, humanism is already an atheistic worldview. Whether or not a particular humanist is a believer in gods, they do believe, in effect, that human problems should be approached as if no gods exist.
Trying to divide via the humanist label doesn’t really help. Besides significant resistance to outspoken atheism/anti-theism among humanists, quite a few of the right-wing anti social justice atheists are also self-described humanists. Of the “I’m a humanist, not a feminist” variety.
Atheism does have implications for morality. It must do:
Provided an atheist’s beliefs are consistent, their moral philosophy (however haphazard) would not be based on, or acknowledge the existence of, a deity and it’s whims. It’s not necessary to include that as part of the definition of “atheist” but it does follow logically.
It’s clear that most of us here, even those hellbent on bringing this argument uselessly back to the dictionary, believe that atheists ought to have a moral philosophy as opposed to being amoral jerks – it’s not a definitional requirement but who the fuck said it was? In addition, I assume that most of us here would prefer if that was a moral philosophy based on empathy, compassion and a scientific understanding of the world. Again – that’s not a definitional requirement – but who the fuck said it was?
The confusion here seems to stem from thinking that “ought” and “is” are the same thing. Saying “atheists ought to be X” is not the same as saying that “Atheist are X” or that “Not X = Not Atheist” It would be nice if that were true with respect to a decent, empathic moral philosophy though – I wouldn’t have to constantly fend of associations with Joseph Stalin or the assumption that I’m a Dawkins fanboy.
Sure, if there were more people under discussion than merely atheists… but there are not. The article is about people who are atheists who share certain harmful characteristics. They may share those characteristics with other people, but the very point of this discussion hinges on the fact that they are atheists.
It’s funny. Here we have yet another discussion about morality amongst atheists that has become derailed by people clinging desperately (and at breathless length) to a dictionary definition – a definition that’s not even in question by those they rail against. Gosh, a cynical person could almost suspect that derailment was the goal in the first place…
Okay. No labels. What now? Are the great rifts mended? Has the harassment stopped? Have assholes ceased to be assholes?
That’s amazing! It must work the same way that “colour-blindness” ended racism… Oh wait.
parrothead @28:
And @29:
For me, too, science is not part of the definition of atheism, but is nevertheless essential to it. If it were not for science, I don’t believe I would ever have ever been an atheist. My atheism is a conclusion, a probable truth drawn from my understanding of the world as informed by the communal scientific project. I’ve read the refutations of the arguments for God, and about the incompatibility of all the “omni’s”, and the problem of pain and evil, and I once had a humanist friend who did scriptural analysis; but none of that would help if not for the question being, at bottom, “what’s more probable?” And the theistic position is that the probabilities don’t matter. And once you swallow that, you can still like science, and even do science, but it’s about as meaningful as collecting Pokémon cards. Science, and the scientific ethic, says that the probabilities do matter, and once you accept that, theism is on an asymptotic path to probabilistic oblivion.
Is it possible to be an atheist and not value science and its ethic? Of course, just as it is possible to be an atheist and still believe in the supernatural. Just because you believe in disembodied spirits and magical influences doesn’t mean you have to believe that there is an all-encompassing spirit that has a plan for your life. And you might casually use a homeopathic treatment, just as you might also take more vitamins than needed, or knock on wood, or avoid stepping on cracks in the sidewalk, or ask a magic 8-ball for advice.
But if you’re going get into it more seriously, if you spend good money on a medium to communicate with your dearly departed Aunt Mildred, if you really believe in the magic water, if you care so little about understanding the world that you would entrust a serious health concern to homeopathy, or anti-vax quackery, or peach-pit cancer treatments in Tijuana.. if you really think that global warming is no problem because the inevitability of human history, or the force, or the ghosts of the ancestors will somehow save us (anything except, of course, trusting either in science or God).. then yes, you may be an atheist, but “less of an atheist,” in that your atheism is just a quirky refusal to take that last step and give your life to Jesus (or whatever). Your atheism has become an atheistic theology, just as empty and divorced from any concern for the probabilities as any other theology.
I understand that there are non-scientific atheists, and theistic scientists. I just don’t understand why someone would want to do that to themselves.
John-Henry Beck @43:
I agree. But there is a vast difference between believing in the value of science, and believing in the values of science. And it has to do with understanding what science is. The “anti-scientism” charge is almost inevitably accompanied by the claim (as it certainly is here) that the “scientismist” is guilty of dismissing the truth of “other forms of human inquiry”.” And that is, in my opinion, nonsense. If those “other ways” include proper controls, if they lend themselves to a Bayesian analysis that shows how they contribute to the increase in the probable truth of a theory or conjecture, then they are themselves part of science, not of “other ways”. If not, then they are not revealing any truth, and are not a form of human inquiry that can contribute to the search for truth. They may serve as a basis for a personal faith — and that may be of great personal or social value; but when “exhalting” good science as the only path toward a communal understanding of the true nature of our world and ourselves is sneered at, then the speaker is revealing their ignorance of, and even contempt for, not “science” as a valued museum piece, but of science as a discipline with its own ethical values.
Personally, I say bring on the divisiveness. I hate that conservative anti-social-justice atheists have put such a huge stain on the label, and I hate that I constantly have to say “whoa chill out I actually don’t own a fedora” when I explain to my friends that I’m an atheist.
It’s gotten to the point that I, a very openly GNC person in a same-gender relationship have to hedge and explain that I’m not a homophobic atheist.
Showing that there is open and divisive debate within the community at least shows that we’re making an effort to clean up our own garbage rather than tacitly supporting them by shrugging and going “well they might hate gays but they don’t believe in god so we’re cool.”
Keith @56,
“Here we have yet another discussion about morality amongst atheists that has become derailed by people clinging desperately (and at breathless length) to a dictionary definition – a definition that’s not even in question by those they rail against.”
PZ’s original post is about a definition. And since the ‘village’ part of it has nothing to do with the proposed new definition for ‘village atheist’, it’s not at all surprising that this has been about the definition of ‘atheist’. It’s not derailing it at all.
@parrothead. bad atheist = atheist who is a bad person, at least from a progressive point of view and not bad because they are insufficiently atheistic. If that is divisive position, who gives a shit, for that was my attitude from when the whole elevatorgate blew up, it was before that but elevatorgate crystallised it for me, and it still is all these years later. Sometimes divisiveness is the only right and logical answer towards the anti-SJW.
@Parrothead, my first sentence should have read bad atheist/village atheist.
The first and second criticisms of the piece seem to have potential to apply to the piece itself. The third note on “scientism” seems to fall flat.
“Social Justice” questions involve views about how society OUGHT to be. Atheism in itself is an IS concept. In so far as certain widespread ought-conclusions use inference chains reliant on the premise of theism, pushing atheism erodes their rote acceptance. (My fondness for some of Hume’s questions may be showing.) However, there is more than one possible axiomatic bridge from is to ought even in the absence of theism, leading to several different sorts of prescriptive philosophy — secular humanists, Randite capitalists, Marxist communists, and so on. Even in so far as they agree on “is” questions, they can fundamentally disagree on issues of “ought”, and thus effectively on which direction constitutes “progress”. And in particular — recognizing the supremacy of science on empirical “is” questions does not prevent recognizing that “ought” questions (and purely abstractive “is” questions such as mathematics) are a separate issue.
The underlying charges may merit pursuing, but the indictment seems to warrant improvement.
@14, Scientismist:
The philosophical part of that seems not implausible — intellectual shortfalls appear one major impetus to deconversions. (See e.g. Altemeyer and Hunsberger, plus Ebaugh.) Contrariwise, I’d conjecture those with “personal experience of the failures of religion” — especially in areas of social justice — may have been particularly primed to be more likely to ongoing interest in such. Nohow, it may be that a persistently underlying predisposition to concern for social justice may leave someone disproportionately likely to encounter such failures.
@21, Nerd of Redhead:
A carefully thinking person will reject the justification. However, despite their religious origin, most humanists seem to consider a lot of the Works of Mercy a good idea.
@21, Nerd of Redhead:
You sound as if you feel superior for having avoided this philosophical trap, and as if you might despise those who have not.
@25, PZ Myers:
I’m a little surprised a biologist has such little respect for taxonomic nomenclature. Maybe it’s because of genomic sequencing having resulted in several major phylogenetic reassessments in the last few decades?
@49, ethicsgradient:
While it seems a more literary than philosophical note, I’d agree. I also don’t find the “Village Atheist” monicker particularly evocative name for the social type characterized. Maybe something like “slacker intellectual atheists” would be more precisely perjorative.
I wanted to like this more, but he’s using way too many words to say “a lot of atheists are dicks and share the same prejudices as the rest of society”. Which is not a point I disagree with, but it doesn’t really get any more insightful than the bit PZ quoted.
Also, “scientism”? Are we really going to give legitimacy to that idiotic euphemism for “not thinking faith supersedes evidence”? Few other words have the benefit of sounding as stupid as the person saying them.
Daz: Uffish, yet slightly frabjous @54:
Yeah, that’s exactly how some of the local humanists and I managed to remain.. well.. at least somewhat mimsy, I guess. At least not manxom foes.
abb3w @63:
Yes, I agree that that’s a flaw in the conjecture. Those who have broken with religion after being disillusioned by “personal experience of the failures of religion” to embrace social justice, would almost certainly themselves express an interest in social justice.
But I was thinking more of those who have themselves been targeted, shunned or disowned. Experiencing personal injustice may not necessarily inspire a wider empathy. Again anecdotal, but in the ancient past (the ’70’s) I knew some gay people who had been rejected by church and family, and rejected them right back, but nevertheless had little interest in promoting gay rights (and no interest at all in organized atheism or humanism — or in science).
@zibble, 64
Is there a more fitting word for the bizarre belief that absolutely anything you can think of, regardless of whether scientists have, are, or can say anything about it, can be justified as true and good and right Because Science(TM)? Other than the dissatisfyingly general “ignorance” that is.
Ethicsgradient @60
It’s not about the definition of “atheist”. It’s about a set of characteristics supposedly shared by a subset of atheists. Not once is the dictionary definition of atheist questioned. Not by PZ (as PZ made clear in these comments) nor by Sincere. Instead Sincere suggested labelling a subset of atheists who share particular characteristics “Village Atheists”. He did not say that the word “atheist” itself needed to be redefined.
I’m not saying I agree with his repurposing of the term “village atheist”, nor am I saying that his characterisation of those he would label with it is accurate. What I am saying is that constantly raising and falling back on the definition of “atheist”, in this context, is beyond useless because absolutely no one here — not one person — disputes it.
The proposed new definition of “village atheist” does not necessarily entail a redefinition of the specific word “atheist” and nothing in the article or PZ’s post suggests it does.
Also, I don’t find it at all surprising that it became about that. It always does. I find it tiresome, predictable and, as I said, uselessly distracting in this context which, intentional or not, is effectively derailing.
Let’s imagine that instead of repurposing the term “village atheist” (with all the baggage associated with that) Sincere instead decided to use the label “bagglevoster atheist”. Maybe this will help make it clearer that what is in question is not what an atheist is (we all agree on that), but rather what a “bagglevoster atheist”, a subset of atheists, is. Once that’s established we can get at the real meat of this argument; is there a subset of atheists that match this characterisation? Is it fair and/or accurate? And, having established that, where do we go now?
Can we stop arguing about atheism, and start arguing about “progressive” points of view? I had belief beaten out of me by the Christian Brothers fifty years ago, and I find I have almost as many “progressive” acquaintances who are Christian, Hindu, Muslim or plain batty as Atheist (with capital). And more than all of them together those who couldn’t give a sod. If you asked them whether they believed in gods or not, they’d probably say “what do you mean by god?” and ignore the answer. More to the point is “do you believe in people?”. Then you’d get an interesting chat.
@athywren 67
I guess my issue is that I don’t see that as being a coherent question. The breadth of science is so large and the exact definition is so murky that what Science (TM) is even supposed to refer to is a matter of semantics. There are people who just take science to mean microscopes and beakers, and so the idea of science informing subjects like ethics is understandably incomprehensible to them; and there are people who see in “science” more of a methodology whereby independently verifiable facts lead to more trustworthy conclusions, which has application far beyond the strictly “scientific” disciplines.
Whatever you mean to use the word “scientism” for, it was blatantly created to equivocate between “joyless philistines who can’t appreciate anything in life that can’t be reduced to quantifiable data” and “people who think that the supernatural bullshit you were raised with and believe for entirely self-indulgent reasons is not of equal validity to objective facts”, and even the former is a pretty ludicrous straw man. At its most coherent, “scientism” is just a pejorative for philosphical Materialism, but I doubt that’s how you intend it. I think the very fact that you’re struggling to find other words to describe the concept indicates the concept itself is incoherent.
@zibble, 70
There are people who appear to believe that science is a form of magic whose invocation justifies any nonsensical claim. Is there a more fitting term for that belief than scientism?
Is that a more coherent question?
I’m not struggling to find other words to describe it, FYI, it’s just that “scientism” is one word, while “the veneration of the appearance and/or form of science to the point of being anti-scientific” is several.
The word atheist was once used to refer to Christians… it was once, and still is in some quarters, used to refer to Satanism (not to be confused with Satanism). I’m not sure it matters what a word was originally intended to mean. In my experience, though, it has been more often used to refer to joyless philistines who believe that everything in life can and should be reduced to quantifiable data. I have to admit, I used to think that was a strawman too, but I’ve met many of them since I found the anti-rational wing of atheism.
Saad @ # 41: I like the Status Quo Warriors label for those atheists.
“Status Quo Wankers” fits the acronym as well, with a bit more punch.
Am I a Village Atheist if I think it is fun to stay at the YMCA?
@parrothead
I think this is where you went off the rails.
*
You utterly ignored the whole village part of village atheist and thought that Sincere Kirabo was redefining atheist. It’s rational to create a label for a group of people that one encounters often enough to be significant, but you can’t hyper-focus on the atheist part to the exclusion of the rest. Ironically you are proving some points of others here, it is the group emotions connected to the word atheist that lead you to be doing what you are doing in this place and group emotions that get the best of us in many kinds of fallacious thought. Something about what we are doing here is troubling you and it made you grasp at something mistakenly.
Similarly because people do associate and do politics based on disbelief “atheist movement” is rational and appropriate.
*These were supposed to be nested block quotes, but that did not work for some reason.
–
Wrong?
I like the Daniel Dennett quote in the Wikipedia article on scientism:
“when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don’t like, they just try to discredit it as ‘scientism'”
It’s not like scientism isn’t defined in the article, and the key point there is that scientific results are completely ignored when it comes to “soft” sciences. There’s an observable phenomena where people take discoveries in physics, chemistry, and other hard sciences seriously, then turn right around and blow off even the best sociological, archaeological, or similar studies because they have anecdata that contradicts them. Even biology is a middle ground, where biological research gets blatantly ignored by people who take the “hard” sciences seriously. Just take the unbelievable ignorance that many transphobic assholes display every time they try to argue that science is on their side.
Abb3w @63
Thanks for obliging. “Waahhh, how dare you put yourself in a morally superior position to ME?!” All arguments of the Status Quo Warriors seem to boil down to this. Oh, and to “You’re not my mother, I hate and despise who I want!!1!11!”
Equality and social justice are direct threats to the authoritarian mindset. No wonder the Dawk en co. are so fragile, if your position defines you and gives you legitimacy, you don’t want it questioned, and throwing others under the bus becomes a feature, not a bug.
kosznai #77
Congratulations on a most excellent job of formatting.
@koznai #77, I couldn’t have put it better if i tried.
@kosznai, apologies, didn’t mean to drop an s.
copy/paste is haaard!!
srsly
try it on a virtual keyboard on an iPad
not for the faint of … whatever
‘copy/paste’, what is this magic you speak of?
This involves some glue and the sticking of pages to a Window(tm) pane allowing you to transfer the scribbles on said pages.
@71 Athywren
Doesn’t that describe creation “scientists”?
It seems to me that what you’re describing is the simple truth that people are often misinformed and prefer “facts” that back up their preconceived opinions. That’s not an ideology, that’s human nature. And, considering it’s a problem you fix with greater scientific literacy (eg so you can spot the bullshit in a biased study), blaming the problem on “worship of science” seems a little ironic.
People used to win arguments on the basis of Bible quotes. Even though we’re such a religious country, we now prefer to win arguments on the basis of facts (or the appearance of having them). This is a culture-wide shift that reflects what modern society views as the more trustworthy basis of knowledge – objective, testable facts – so that’s what people appeal to even when they’re spouting bullshit. That’s my read on what you’re describing, anyway.
I think if there’s something legitimate in the term, it’s in the superiority complex of many people in STEM fields… but I still think using the word “scientism” for that is just lending undue legitimacy to a term invented for the reason qwints [75] described.
Chigau @78
Ooohh, thanks! The phone tried sabotage but years of lurking comes in handy sometimes :)
John Phillips, FCD @79
Never mind, everyone does it. Serves me right for using my Hungarian surname, not having any imagination ;)
Many thanks for the heads up!
parrothead, #51:
Making any type of normative claim about atheists is “dangerous”?? What’s supposed to be special about atheists? How is this any different from doing it for any other group of people?
Notice also that the above is itself a (not really hidden) normative claim: why shouldn’t we try to form any determinations about what atheists should do or what they should be like? Who or what is in danger? What is being divided?
If I claim “atheists should be non-murderers,” what is supposed to be the problem? I haven’t made some kind of conceptual mistake about what atheists are or some kind of factual error about what we’ve empirically learned about them (or “us,” as it includes myself). Instead with such a statement I’m saying that those things, atheists, whatever we are, should act in certain ways and not in others. Whatever we are, we’re at minimum the sorts of things (people) which are routinely considered moral agents, the sorts of things for which normative claims were designed and for which they are completely unproblematic, so making claims of that form about us is a non-issue. That’s what those words mean. Construing it in some other way is just creating a strawman, and while that’s always what these “dictionary atheist” arguments degenerate into, it could be interesting to avoid the temptation at least once.
Why? Don’t just say you “simply” think that, that “to you” it makes no sense because you don’t get it. That’s not helping me understand it at all. What is your thought process here supposed to be about?
Gah. Sorry, the bold text was just supposed to be for a couple of words. I guess I didn’t close the tags properly.
@86 consciousness razor
I’d agree that its no more dangerous, but sadly probably no more meaningful an exercise than doing it for people who prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream. Since the simple fact of a god’s existence alone has no known moral implications, trying to base a movement for around atheism only ever has the effect of alienating would-be allies of who don’t agree with atheism. To have any hope of success in places which aren’t already dominated by atheists, you need a secular movement, not an atheist one.
erik333:
How then did atheists get their already dominated places? ;)
(Or: what makes you imagine atheists can’t also be secularists?)
PS
You are so very confused, erik333.
You really think it so very important to appease those people who don’t agree with atheism yet would be allies to movement atheism except they become alienated by it?
Heh.
@Scientismist, 58
So…nobody ever learned anything true from loving or being loved? No work of fiction inspired a desire that played any part in learning more about how the world works? No one came to understand something true and valuable about themselves via introspection, contemplation, or discussion?
Conversely, what about when the assured consequences of scientific investigation are wrong?
Lots of people here with unusual gender identities and chronic illnesses who can tell you about such things, and in particular tell you how often further study happened only because affected people insisted that their lived experience meant something different than the assured consequences of study up to that point, and that more work was necessary. That is, progress in medicine routinely happens because of political pressure derived from overlapping personal experiences and interpretations thereof. The trick is that some people are actually quite good at observing and interpreting their experiences and turn out to be right, even though it takes political pressure on research institutions to establish that.
Similar constraints apply in lots of fields, too, all the time. If you want to say that only science that remains valid is real science, then you mean that large, unknown fractions of the common knowledge of any given discipline aren’t science at all and deserve no respect. But…without humanity-anchored means of evaluation, we aren’t going to know which. “This leads to a conclusion I find monstrous; you’re going to have to back that up a lot more” is a valid human response, even though it rests on intuition and a person’s own store of experience and interpretation.
We don’t have any sort of truthoscope we can fire up to assess each datum as it emerges from research, nor each finding as data accumulate. In the end, I think, you’re talking about a personal vision of science rather than science as it actually exists and as human beings actually conduct it.
Since Sincere Kirabo doesn’t link to the specific article he’s referring to it’s hard to be certain but based on what he writes in his article I suspect he may be doing what a lot of other progressive atheists tend to do which is to conflate disagreement with the solution to a problem with failure to recognize the existence of a problem.
@chris61, 92: That’s how criticism often works, isn’t it? We don’t stop using terms like Gish Gallop even though Gish insists he doesn’t do it, or occasionally that if he does it’s fine because he’s arguing in defense of God. We keep arguing that secular government is a good idea no matter how many theocratic leaders and followers say it’s awful. Criticism doesn’t require the consent of the criticized to be valid.
(Some criticism does. But “you have a sadly deficient view of what atheism requires and what it should encourage in us” isn’t in the same category as, say, “Mr. Randi, you are sadly mistaken about who you actually love and desire, because nobody actually ever loves or desires a partner of the same sex” would be.)
@90 John Morales
It might appear that way, partly because some parts of my statement vanished as formatting.
I was trying to say that if you are pushing for the advocation of a “moral code A”, and trying to link that to atheism and framing it as an atheist movement you are making a mistake. The atheism is incidental, as the mere existence of a god (or not) has no known moral implications, you won’t ever unify “atheists” behind it to any significant degree. If “atheists” are already a minority it seems like a sure fire way to make your movement as irrelevant and small as possible. IF what you really care about is the “moral code A”, it seems to me more reasonable to work towards a secular “moral code A” movement rather than an “atheist” one.
erik333, secularism is not a moral code, humanism is.
I saw the advent of the internet and its influence upon atheism, and how one unifying factor has been atheists’ reaction to those (in the majority and historically) who do think that morality depends on god.
Anyway, what you advocate is already being done by atheist factions dressing themselves up in the trappings of religion (e.g. temple of the future).
Let a bunch of flowers bloom.
I never said it was a moral code, i said the movement should be secular rather than expressly atheistic in order to be succesful.
@77, kosznai:
I’m not a big fan of the status quo (nor Dawkins, at that); however, I’m also not a particularly big fan of arguments that seem both based on source derogation and subject to a reflexive/Gödelian defect.
I’ll also suggest in passing that there appear to be at least major two sorts of authoritarian; that US history seems to indicate that equality and social justice are at best indirect threats to either of those authoritarian mindsets; and that while proselytizing “social justice” seems likely to tend more common among those with anti-authoritarian mindsets, it would seem a position that also might readily be preached by those of the authoritarian type highly disposed to social/interpersonal dominance who also happen to be members of non-dominant groups.
Others can decide whether the definition and references for Message Distortion from (doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2502_5) by Jacks and Cameron might further illuminate your response.