Illiberal Liberals…

The relentless but remarkably unoriginal attacks on Atheist authors, particularly Richard Dawkins for his best-selling The God Delusion, have finally stumbled onto a meme that is resonating with liberal bloggers. The idea, from Damon Linker in The New Republic, is that so-called “new” atheists are illiberal.  Yglesias piles on here and gets trashed in the comments, and DJW and Rob of Lawyers, Guns and Money come to his defense. Melissa of Shakespeare's Sister also seems to buy the “illiberal” line, based mainly on this quote from Dawkins:

Following a lecture in Dublin, he recalls, "I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

I don’t have the book in front of me (I read it originally from the library; I guess I’m going to have to buy a copy to find counter-quotes) but my recollection is that this exchange was the start of his “consciousness raising” about the subject of children and religious indoctrination. The rest of the chapter he lays out and carefully argues a thoughtful and nuanced position. If Ms. McEwan or Mr. Farley really want to know what Dawkins means by this quote it’s a simple matter to read the book. As for Linker, he knows that Dawkins is not advocating banishment of religion. He’s just taken the quote out of context and then plays dumb:

Why Dawkins refuses to take this idea to its logical conclusion--to say that raising a child in a religious tradition, like other forms of child abuse, should be considered a crime punishable by the state--is a mystery, for it follows directly from the character of his atheism.

This is a dead giveaway that Linker has created a strawman. He ascribes beliefs to Dawkins that are inconsistent with the latter’s actual position, and then has the temerity to accuse Dawkins of hypocrisy. In a rare twofer, Linker then pushes his strawman down a slippery slope. Dawkins’ irrational hatred of religion will lead inevitably to a totalitarian atheist state where children will recite anti-god chants in school and anyone caught teaching religion to children will be treated like a molester. It’s so ridiculous as to be funny except that liberal bloggers are joining  the attack as an opportunity to demonstrate their evenhandedness.

The rest of the article is no better, but it’s standard fare which PZ Myers ably dismantles. Linker tries to argue that good atheists are those that politely question while accepting that religion may be true, and bad atheists are those that try to impose their conviction through forced conversions. Needless to say this is a false dichotomy that fails to get at the substance of the current debate. The “new” atheists are distinguished by their willingness to speak up about their beliefs, and to question the role of religion in the public square. We don’t want to outlaw religion; we want to debate it. People like Linker know that on a level intellectual playing field religion cannot triumph, so he seeks to silence critics with claims of illiberalism. It’s a shame to see otherwise smart people falling for it.

- jack*

Comments

[Zenji]

This idea that the atheists are going to establish state anti-religion is common among the fundamentalists.

I haven't read Dawkln's book, but to be fair to the religious, both Russia and China established atheist totalitarian states that severely punished people who were adamant about their religious beliefs. Liberals commonly think that Bush's administration is Hitlerian, or at least, proto-fascist. The idea that it can't happen here is wilful self-delusion.

That is not to say that atheists in america currently want such a thing. I know that you do not. But it frightens the christian right. Just like fascism frightens the secular left.

[Ma'at's Feather]

People accuse Bush of proto-fascism based on specific actions. Such as state-supported 'faith based initiatives', tax breaks for religious organizations doing commercial & political work, etc. No thinking person accuses Bush of fascism simply because he claims a religion.

Yet you confound actions of totalitarian states--that is, to be totalitarian--with their atheism. And then infer that atheists have a tendency toward the totalitarian. Could support this with some evidence?

[Zenji]

Totalitarian communist states were not just atheist by chance, like it was just an accident of history or something. They were militantly atheist and actively forced it on their citizens.

However, i do not think that all atheists do this nor that they all have this tendency. My point is only that the radical xtians are afraid of it.

The reason is, if you extend the atheist argument to its logical conclusions you get to the point where religious belief is likened to a mental illness. After all, the religious believe in something that doesn't exist. They base their whole lives around pleasing an imaginary being. I have heard atheists say this in so many words: the religious are insane.

If I insisted on teaching my children a bunch of irrational garbage (which in your mind religious people do) and was very forceful about making them follow my dictates along these irrational lines (which in your mind religious people are doing), it is very easy to see why you might call that child abuse and even advocate putting a stop to it. I fully realize that very few atheists in america today are doing so. But religious people are afraid you will start.

Before you start saying i'm putting words into your mouth etc, how about this: explain to me why teaching my children a bunch of irrational garbage and making them behave according to strictures based in my fantasy life is NOT abusive? Why *should* religious people be allowed to do it? Doesn't it hurt the children and the society? Isn't it causing a bunch of trouble in the world and the society? What argument is there for allowing it?

And by the way, i don't teach my children these things, nor am i conventionally or outwardly religious. So you won't offend me by attacking the fundamentalists. But if you can't see any reason to allow them to teach their children the things they do, then you agree with me that atheism's natural extension is active anti-religiosity.

[jack*]

If atheism itself ever transformed into a fundamentalist ideology like Marxism or Maoism I would fight it, as I have stated unequivocally: http://www.jackasterisk.com/j_a_c_k_/2006/07/spoiled_rotten.html.

The question of abuse is an empirical one. If it can be shown that certain practices cause harm to children, then there is a compelling case for state intervention. My guess would be that if a convincing case could be made, churches would voluntarily modify their indoctrination methods to avoid the offending practices. Parents would force them to.

In the absence of evidence of abuse, parental autonomy is the controlling principle. As with corporal punishment, where the difference between accepted practice and abuse is strictly a matter of degree, the state only steps in when the evidence of abuse is incontrovertible.

[Zenji]

I want to re-state that i in no way believe contemporary american atheists are actively interested in destroying religion. Most seem to just want to be left alone by the religious, and that is fine by me. I want them to leave me alone too, for the most part.

The question of abuse, though, is tempered by the religious-atheist divide. You seem to be skirting the question here, by saying that if some vaguely defined religious practice or the other could be demonstrated to be abusive, you presume even the religious would be against it, while my premise is that if you follow standard atheism to its logical conclusion, all religious practices are akin to madness, and teaching your children madness can in no way be healthy. However, the religious will not see it that way, as they don't see their practices as madness. So, if you argue from an atheist perspective, you can argue that teaching even the basic premises and fundamentals of religion is abusive. But the religious will never agree.

I think that, like most american atheists, you don't seek to destroy religion, so you are content to live and let live. That is admirable, and perhaps we should agree to let it rest there. I only wanted to talk about why the Xtians were nervous about the prospect of a militantly atheist state.