Atheism, Theism, and the Anatomy of Hate
To put it bluntly, some of the language coming from the pens and mouths of atheists is the language of hate. Religion has largely succumbed to this same criticism, I admit. Humanity is the common denominator. So, I suppose I’m not surprised that atheists such as Dawkins , Harris and Onfray will not hesitate to ridicule believers, no matter what their stripe. He calls believers “faith-heads”, as if teasing and bullying is going to help. I’m in agreement with lots of what Dawkins says, but scorning and ridiculing believers simply mirrors the very problem that he has with religion and its followers. Religion, atheists such as Dawkins claim, is the poison of the earth, the reason for all the troubles in the world, and so it and its adherents need to be stopped.
I think it is wrong to assert that it is faulty thinking that brings people to the battle field. It isn’t opposing ideas that cause one tribe to exterminate another, or differing opinions that lead one religion to persecute another, or juxtaposed truths that lead one group to harm another. I’m one who does happen to believe that out of the fullness of a man’s heart, he will speak, and out of the fullness of his heart, he will act. But I’m also convinced that it is not simply by believing a certain truth that leads one to harm another, but the disdain that it potentially leads to. Frankly, I think it is hatred of another person or group that leads to its persecution. Although ideology may be the root, the blossom is hatred, and persecution the fruit. Most people I know will check their ideology the moment any prejudicial conclusions can be drawn from it. If any “truth” leads to hatred, most people I know will question it.
So when I hear people like Dawkins, Harris, Onfray and company using language that rings of arrogance, scorn, disdain and even hatred, I seriously have to ask myself: “Can’t they see that they are perpetuating the problem?” They sound just like religious zealots. I ask that we all retreat from the language of ridicule. It doesn’t solve anything at all, but pours more fuel on the same old fire that we should be trying to quench. I agree that religion has been shamefully the blame for many woes. But can’t we see that ideas will never benignly reign over us? Truths will not win our day. Rationalism will not bring peace on earth. It will be love, which means respect, service, humility and compassion.
I want to hear what the atheists are saying. It is important to hear. I find it helpful. I truly believe I benefit from what they are saying. But when it is soaked in scorn, I’m afraid of where it is coming from and where it will lead us to.
I want to thank the atheist site A Load of Bright for the very honorable mention in introducing his blogroll. It’s dialogue like this that is hopeful.
The fine art photograph is the creation of my friend, Mark Hemmings. Nothing to do with this article, but think it is strikingly gorgeous.
If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!Tags: atheism, dawkins, harris, naked, onfray, pastor, theology
hmm, not sure I follow your argument. Your second paragraph, with due respect, makes no sense. The fact is that a “truth” once sufficiently engrained will NOT be questioned by most people, ergo, the killing in the name of God that has gone on for centuries. Can you articulate your point(s) better?
Also, you use a broad brush there when you say ” Dawkins, Harris and Onfray will not hesitate to ridicule believers” and that they use language of hatred. I am very familiar with Dawkins and Harris and I have yet to see an example where they “don’t hesitate to ridicule” or where they are hateful. Show me an example or two, in context, where they have done this. Please link to a source.
To be honest I sense a level of disdain for atheists on your part. Is that the message you want to send?
Jake: I do not disdain atheists, and do not wish at all to communicate that even in the slightest. I do have serious problems with language that denigrates another. That’s what I’m trying to address here. About the references, they are not at my fingertips, but I’ll find some that I read just the other day.
Hi David,
Your welcome regarding the link on my blog. I’m glad you liked it and it was well deserved.
This is one of those points where we disagree though. I think Jake is right that we need some quotes to get our teeth into. Personally, I think Dawkins and Harris are firm in their criticism, but always stop short of the line. But then, the line is subjective and perhaps there lies the problem.
There was an excellent post on this over at Daylight Atheism. There is also a long debate after it, where I think a number of people make what would be effective responses to your article.
I hope that’s not a cop out. If you get some sources I’ll try and respond in more detail.
It’s interesting to me that often the very log impeding our own clear vision is ignored while we pick at the speck in our brother’s eye.
Atheists continually assert that the Bible and religion have contributed to genocide, the horrific institution of slavery, the bloodbath of the Crusades, and the continued practice of the denigration of women. Such assertions are true and deserve to be considered by all theists. They are not merely a “speck”…but big, unsettling facts that theists must struggle to reconcile with their religious views and relationship with God. In my opinion, theists must also attempt to avoid further damage to the world by embracing Jesus’ teachings to love our neighbors as ourselves and, even more challenging, to love our enemies. I am thankful to atheists for reminding me of this–it helps me to sharpen my own compassion and humility.
At the same time, atheists ignore the log impeding their own vision…
Most atheists assume a manner of intellectual superiority to anyone religious. This is readily apparent when listening to, watching, reading, or participating in most atheist vs. theist debate and dialogue. Some friends and I watched a televised presentation by Dawkins at a university and shuddered whenever a well-meaning, respectful Christian student approached the microphone. Students whose questions complemented Dawkins’ ideological framework were answered clearly, in depth, and with humor and good will. Students whose questions challenged Dawkins point of view (particularly if they declared themselves to be Christian) were basically mocked, not taken seriously, and the students were chided for attempting to obtain a real education at a sub-standard (read Christian) university. (The last few words are my recollection and paraphrase of a statement Dawkins made which I cannot substantiate with an exact reference.)
Atheists, especially within the past five years, seem to have a new vision for our world–not just one which encourages dialogue between people theists and atheists, but one which attempts to completely eradicate religion from the earth. What this means for those who refuse to convert (or de-convert whatever the “correct” language may be) to an atheist viewpoint remains to be seen…If atheists truly believe that the religious are “delusional” how will this manifest itself? What do we do with “delusional” people now? We order therapy, we medicate, and we put them away where they cannot hurt society. Will we see a day when religious people are forced by humanists and rationalists to submit to these orders simply because they have a different world view?
While atheists are quick to point out the “hate language” of Christians toward minorities, the poor, women, and homosexuals; they do not appear to admit to their own verbal bullying of selected fringe groups such as pro-life adherents, homeschoolers, creationists, and fundamentalists (especially those that regularly exercise their rights to freedom of speech.) Their denigration of “faith-heads” and “idiots” and “myth chasers” and “the deluded” might not be so irritating if they stopped demanding more respectful and inclusionary language from Christians and other religious groups.
I agree with your post, David, and hope that all of us will spend more time considering how we interact with people who do not share our opinions and our convictions.
I don’t see the equation between hatred and ridicule. I also think you’re conflating ridicule of people with the ridicule of ideas. I have never seen any atheist ridicule a person. I have seen Dawkins, Harris etc. ridicule a person’s ideas, but I see nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with that. If an idea is worthy of ridicule, it should be ridiculed. The person with the idea should be respected. Theists seem to interpret the ridicule of their faith (which is an idea) as a personal attack, and feel that “if you hate my faith you hate me”. ‘Taint true.
Theists ridicule the very idea of atheism on a daily basis, but we don’t feel any hatred as a result. Just pity, because in most cases, it seems to come from a sense of bewilderment, or clear lack of understanding, on the part of the theist, of just exactly what an atheist is saying, coupled with a apparent detachment from reason and logic. But it’s so hard to get that sense on our part across to the theist. How do we do so without causing them to get their hackles up and become defensive, after which they stop listening?
I thank Tobe on A Load of Bright for the good word also.
I see a huge connection between hatred and ridicule…writings about the Holocaust are filled with examples of ridicule (of both ideas and people) which were used to intimidate and ultimately break the individual and collective spirit of the Jewish people.
Rarely is hatred immediate…I think the road to hatred is paved with the stones of ridicule, mockery, scorn, contempt, and, even pity (which has a connotation of acknowledging, but being “above,” someone’s plight.) I wish I could wave a magic wand (or discover a scientific formula) which would convert all the world’s pity to empathy. When we find the common denominator in our individual situations, then we can move toward understanding, harmony, and love.
No time to enter into a debate or discussion, I’m just popping on to say “good stuff” David!
Hello ttm: Jesus indeed said love your enemies, and he also said bring mine enemies before me that I may slay them. Which is the right Jesus?
Since Dr. Dawkins name has come up, I would like to paraphrase some comments he made on the accusation of “arrogance” which is not too far from “hate.” (picking up on John P)
Imagine you are the world’s greatest expert on the Roman empire. You know everything there is to know about ancient Rome, have lived in the region many years, have read every word ever written, from the ancients to the moderns, and have written dozens of prize-winning books about Rome. Along comes a professor with a degree in botany who declares that Rome never existed and that schoolchildren should be taught, with equal time, the “ancient Rome theory” along with the “No ancient Rome theory.” Would not ridicule and arrogance be well-deserved in this case?
Who’s the professor in your example, terrence? I didn’t quite follow you.
David, I have to admit that if anyone is edging close to the “line”, it’s Sam Harris. I find him the most incoherent and belligerent of the “nouveau” atheists. I’ve never seen Dennet, or Dawkins say anything worse than what’s come out of the mouths of the religious right in the United States. Heck. let’s start with your president.
Maybe you’ve been following this but this issue is getting tossed around the atheist blogosphere quite a bit. I’d like to point out that my favourite atheists, Adam of Ebon Musings, Alonzo Fyfe of AtheistEthicist and Richard Carrier are all very respectful of believers, while holding those beliefs up to the harsh light of scrutiny.
You are right, not everyone who thinks like an idiot is full of hate and will act on it. But regardless of ideology, thinking like an idiot is bad for everyone and influences a person’s thoughts and acts.
I think these discussions are diversions from real debate. Should we all respectfully discuss our ideological perspectives? Of course. Should we continually remind ourselves that love, compassion, forgiveness etc. are human ideals? I’d agree with that.
Should ridiculous, harmful, and destructive instruction and actions resulting from faulty ideology be ridiculed and exposed? I think so.
No debate here.
Mark’s pic is stunning, as are countless pics of his. Thanks for posting it.
Well, Terrence, it’s late, but I’ll attempt to answer your question. In Luke 19 Jesus is sharing a parable with his disciples. It’s a story about a ruthless master and ten servants who are entrusted with some money to manage while the master is out of town getting authorization to rule the kingdom. After the master leaves, the subjects soon to be under his rule send a delegation saying they don’t want him in charge of them. But he is granted authority anyway and soon returns. Upon his return he discovers that two of his servants have managed the money well–one doubling it and one earning a fifty percent profit. One servant risked nothing and buried the money in the ground. No mention is made of the other seven. The main point of the story seems to be in being willing to risk for growth.
When you say that Jesus said to “bring my enemies before me so that I may slay them,” you are quoting Jesus who is quoting the words of the master in the parable. He wanted the people who had sent the delegation to be held accountable for their refusal to fall under his rule. The master was known to be a ruthless man…so the quote definitely fits his character. After telling the story, Jesus walked to Jerusalem and ended up riding into town on a colt (not really the picture of a man ready to slay his enemies is it?)
Some people believe that the master in the parable represents God, the Father, who (at some point, most likely the end of the age) will demand an accounting from those who have rejected his authority (which I assume also includes those who reject his existence.) I do not claim to have the mind of God nor to fully understand his actions.
But all of this does not negate the fact that Jesus did command Christians to love their enemies and to bless those who curse them. It’s not an easy task…I’d rather be one of those servants given three months wages and an investment challenge!
Short answer: both.
…some of the language coming from the pens and mouths of atheists is the language of hate. Religion has largely succumbed to this same criticism,…
I think “language of hate” is probably in the eye, and ear, of the beholder. I read Sam Harris’s book “Letter to a Christian Nation” (heliobates, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about) and I found Harris to be increadibly refreshing. I have listened to several of his on-line dialogues and interviews also. I do not detect any hate at all. All I hear from him is an inteligent, well thought out critisizm of religious faith, all religious faith. Yes, some examples of what you consider “language of hate” may be helpful David.
Now, if you want to hear some hate, just tune into Falwell, Dobson, Kennedy on any given broadcast. Falwell will even attack liberal leaning believers…believers for crying out loud!
I ask that we all retreat from the language of ridicule. It doesn’t solve anything at all, but pours more fuel on the same old fire that we should be trying to quench.
I agree. But I think using extreme examples, perhaps funny illistrations, may at time be necessary to drive home your point. Insults are never beneficial. For example: I was driving through my town a year or so ago and went by a church that has a marque out front with a new saying on it every week. It was the first week in April. It read – April 1st, Athiest National Holiday – Pissed me off. These Christians were calling me a fool simply because I can’t bring myself to believe what they believe. To them it was just a funny joke. To me, it was an obvious insult. The only thing I found funny about it was how they spelled Athiest. I can’t spell worth a darn, but if you are going to call someone a fool, at least spell it correctly.
I guess for some of us atheists, even those of us who are former believers, it is kind of hard to enter into a serious, respectful dialogue with believers, when we see so much about the faith that we find absurd:
Thanking God for watching over you while many around you were killed by the mad gunman, tornado, earthquake, fire, etc. (Just watch CNN, FOX, etc after every disaster. They will always find someone who spends most of their interview thanking God.)
Bowing your head and talking to this supposed being while un non believers look around and scratch our heads.
Telling us–”it’s not a religion, it’s a relationship”, when we know what a relationship is, and that aint it.
Completely ignoring what we, the skeptics, considers substantial evidence that what you believe is very suspect, probably not true, and even harmful.
But, I agree, if we are to continue to dialogue, we, both sides, need to…curb our enthusiasm…?
Randy:
I’m going to retract what I said about Harris. I’ve been listening to some interviews (I have yet to read Letter or The End of Faith, and I think I didn’t have him pegged correctly.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I was just wondering. These atheist bloggers you mention. Do they also write about the stuff atheists have done wrong over the centuries, or are they pickey? If they only see the evil in religion, then they probably don’t know themselves very well…..or for that matter the human race.
Do you guys always have to have three proofs for every statement that’s made? Can you take David’s statement in good faith? Must you always demand “proof” or can you consider his comments and the spirit in which they have been delivered, and then respond?
Borrow a little good faith from Sartre every now and then.
Jeff – an ideology deemed faulty so it should be ridiculed/exposed? Who gets to decide which ones are faulty? You?
Jake – in reviewing your interactions with others on this blog as well as David’s (with atheists), I think your judgment on David’s disdain for atheists is a little like the pot calling the kettle black!
I’m a bit late at this comment but had to share this. Awhile back I went on a 2 dates with a guy who was intelligent, handsome and…as I found out on our second (and last) date, he’s an atheist. Well, I have know atheists before but this guy was OFF THE CHARTS full of hate and bitterness toward Christians. I found his blog recently and it is so full of hateful mean things, I was stunned. He says he does not believe in God but he really means is that he thinks Christians are fools and disdains them. Sad stuff.
abmo – I was just wondering. These atheist bloggers you mention. Do they also write about the stuff atheists have done wrong over the centuries, or are they pickey? If they only see the evil in religion, then they probably don’t know themselves very well…..or for that matter the human race.
I, as an atheist, (which just means that I do not have a belief in any God) cannot think of anyone who has used their atheism (lack of a god belief) as justification for cruelty. Granted, there have been non religious rulers who have committed atrocities, but they did not site chapter and verse as justification for their action.
So, to say that their atheism was the reason for their particular atrocity is ill informed. To say that the Salem witch trials are a result of religious faith, is accurate.
Many of these atheist bloggers are blogging for one reason, to point out the flaws of religious faith. If you want to hear the other side, sit in most any church on any Sunday and you will be informed of the rather unpleasant destination that awaits all us atheists.
Believers of all stripes have responded defensively to the so-called “new atheism”. How much of that defensiveness is anger at having the “sacred space” profaned and how much is valid criticism of the message? It’s hard to tell unless we’re discussing specific examples.
It’s inevitable that atheists would want to know exactly what he means, because the view from over here is not the same as the view from over there.
On the flip side, a lot of the atheists aren’t very careful about the brushes they paint with. Dawkins means something specific when he talks about “dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads” but it’s easy to misunderstand him because he doesn’t always distinguish his specific criticisms from his general feelings about religious beliefs.
But: right back atcha! Dinesh D’Sousa can spew his hatred without a hint of disapproval from religous “moderates”. Keep that in mind when calling for a more civil discourse
I realize that David is also talking to believers who use the language of ridicule, but he makes his point by going after atheists, who naturally are going to ask “what do you mean, ridicule?” and demand “okay, you first.”
Dave,
This blog is well written and speaks from the heart! I enjoyed the content and it comes from a good spirit. I know I can be a pain in the backside, but I will say “here, here, good job bro!”
John
PS – Randy – come to our church – you will not here distain! The only “Distain” you will get is when you drink your communion and spill some on your shirt. You will look down and say….”Look at distain!”
heliobates – okay – dismiss my comments as defensive if you want. I have to say, though, that I don’t think christians need to feed athiests with proof at every turn, It’s a waste of time. How much of your own system of beliefs has come about by persuasion from others? Verbal persuasion, from my perspevtive never “works”. We believe the stuff we do because it resonates with something within us. Formation of our beliefs is an intensely personal thing most of the time.
Go ahead – profane my sacred space (sounds like a come-on but it’s not!). I don’t think that can happen by having my beliefs challenged. Plus, I do enough of that myself!
Easy Julia.
I’m probably coming across more harshly than I intended and I apologize for that, especially if you read my response as dismissive of you. I was trying to fill in the context in which these discussions often occur.
Christians don’t owe atheists any proof. But why be surprised when, invited into a conversation about belief, they ask for it?
I thought my distain comment was funny!!
It was funny John, I should have said so….do you feel better now?
I thought you were “here all week”.
P.S. I tried the veal.
FOR JULIA: Do you really find it necessary to “believe” that, when you turn on the jet on your kitchen range, the flame will come on, or do you “know” that it will?
Terrence,
That would take a whole lot of faith. I have electric.
Really, what are you asking me? I’m just a little dense….
heliobates,
I’ve found it really difficult to reconcile faith and reason. I feel as though they are worlds apart. It could be possible. I’ve read some beautifully reasoned arguments on the athiest side of thiings (yours included), but they don’t seem to touch my experience of faith. (There’s so much behind that last statement. I’ve tried several times to put my thoughts into words, but it’s just not happening tonight.) Thanks for your gracious comments regarding mine above. It’s hard to decipher tone on these things.
I was just thinking the other day, that if someone mocks my faith that is sacred to me, it is/would be the same as mocking my husband! (or mother/daughter) etc. As it is a personal thing, and God to me is vea living person. So I would feel bad/sad, however way I’d feel if it was my family member that was ridiculed. Stil lwhen it comes to God, I don’t have to apologise for Him or defend Him – as He does ti Himself! But I can still feel it. And there is where Jesus’ teaching also come to life (about loving enemies). And is a challenge.
Anyway, I think whatever is sacred to someone, whatever it is, should be respected. To me, scorn and arrogance are never ok, but that is simply my value system. I happen to believe that we are all equal, believer or not, rich or poor, I believe we are all valuable and all deserve to be treated with the same respect, no matter what we think or believe.
It is of course another thing to contest someone’s thoughts if you happen to think differentily. And we all have freedom of opinion =)
Also I loved this post! I actually didn’t even think about the atheist side or think it to be “against” atheists – I think it was general and a good reminder to any of us, the whole humanity. Thanks.
Mimo
I want to begin by saying that I liked your post and agreed with many aspects of it, from a ideological standpoint.
You say that you have a problem with language that denigrates another, the language of hate, etc. If you do not feel any hatred for anybody, then clearly, you would have no hateful things to speak. However, there is a case for honesty. Honesty and political correctness/Newspeak are at direct odds with another. Freedom is a necessary condition of democracy. If someone hates someone else and voices their view, they are completely free to do so. What people say is a symptom of what they feel.
Focusing on the cause of their feelings is something else entirely. In my opinion, efforts should focus on the root causes of problems, problems that would not otherwise be as obvious to spot if people are not free to voice their feelings.
If people are not free to speak, then the feelings come out in actions, usually actions that are discreet…an example might be white racism in the US today. Whites are not free to voice their opinions, while racism from other races is allowed. The result is that people are racists in secret and take action when it would not be noticed.
The basic idea here is to put everything on the table for everyone to see. Then we know what we are dealing with, in an honest and open way. I hope that this will not be construed as ‘pro-hate’ or something like that, rather as an appeal to acceptance, realism, freedom, and honesty.
Cheers,
Nick
God loves Atheists, they just can’t believe it. (Little Joke)
I am a Christian and I have noticed a lot more Atheist comments lately. Even when, say on youtube, the topic is not religious there seems to very often be some random anti-religion comment. Quite often they come off as quite arrogant in their beliefs. Maybe this is because I am a Christian and I feel it more. But the words: idiot(s), grow up, myth, delusion etc. etc. are not positive or even neutral words. They are designed to provoke at the very least. I suspect a lot of atheist novelist are more neutral, but online there is less restraint. I have read a little of God Delusion (Dawkins Book) and I have to say his language is pretty provocative most of the time. If you want a truly neutral and open look at Jesus and his life, look at:
“The Case for Christ” – Lee Strobel
This shows true interview transcripts with most of Americas top experts on the New Testament. Lee Strobel is a very well known Journalist (he revealed the Ford Pinto Case among others) who considered himself an Atheist. Then his wife became a Christian. It was the change he saw in his wife that prompted him to seek the truth about Jesus.
He read most of the main atheist books etc. in preparation to meet these people, he asked pretty hard questions. He came away with this conclusion after months of interviews. Jesus is historically correct, the gospels are very reliable…basically Jesus is who he says He is.
This book is very thorougher and would stand up in a court of law (hence the name). He looks at evidence in a very logical and straight forward way. He doesn’t preach so much as present the evidence for you to make up your own mind.
Christians are not (always) idiots (though there are some nutters out there…wow…), or deluded. In fact, these days many Christians are forced to look at their faith more carefully than ever (because of many theories that come from Atheists, many very logical and well thought out). I had to, I had many doubts. But I looked the evidence and I conclude myself, YES Jesus IS LORD!
Now, I also think many people who are Atheist tend to (ironically) taint their research by not considering the fact that maybe, just maybe, there could be a God. If you start with the assumption that God doesn’t exist how can you ever believe? No, that is impossible. Some people don’t believe the holocaust took place too. Take the Jesus Seminar for an example. Here are a group of theologians who tried to test if what Jesus said was what he really said. However, from the outset they concluded that miracles and the supernatural cannot exist. This is not scientific is it? I mean, if you try to research something and you don’t consider all the possibilities, how is that an academic approach? It isn’t, it’s just speculation.
Now, here inlies the problem really.
1. Atheists don’t want to believe God can exist (they discard it outright).
2. Theists don’t want to believe God doesn’t exist. (the cannot disregard that perhaps he doesn’t exist either).
So I believe, it takes an agnostic approach to be truly fair to both arguments. You need to approach the topic with an open mind. You need to consider that facts and theories on both sides and decide for yourself what is true.
On this matter it is the heart that decides. The heart cannot be measured and ultimately this is the Christians greatest weapon (so to speak). How did Jesus say people would recognize his disciples?
“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” – John 13:35
Christians, show love, love your enemies. This is the way. Logic and reason will not, ultimately, work. It takes a step of Love.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13