As Good as Gnu

Julian Baggini has complained about new atheists before, saying:

In any case, my [negative] opinions are not so much about these books as the general tone and direction the new atheism they represent has adopted. This is not a function of what exactly these books say, but of how they are perceived, and the kind of comments the four horsemen make in newspaper articles and interviews. All this, I think, has been unhelpful in many ways. In short, the new atheism gets atheism wrong, gets religion wrong, and is counterproductive.

He goes on to attack new atheism because it is anti-theistic, and parasitic on god-belief, whereas he proffers an atheistic world view. It seems obvious to me that these two are not in conflict with one another, and Baggini is simply mistaking his distaste for new atheism's political goals with a pertinent point. Later he says:

The practices of religion may be more important then the narratives, even if people believe those narratives to be true.

But those practices are not more important than the belief that the narratives are true, as his own investigations have shown, in a piece called The myth that religion is more about practice than belief:

My own research shows that the vast majority of Christians appear to take the orthodox doctrine at face value.

But now he makes another tone attack on a certain type of atheist, and one can only conclude he means the new atheists, given his form. He cites this article by Jeffrey Myers, to illustrate how atheists protest about being called out for their tone, and then says:

Accusing someone of being aggressive, nasty or shrill can be a neat way of avoiding the meat of the matter while also appearing to occupy the moral high ground. That's true, but tone does matter, and it's often more connected with substance than it might seem.

But the linked piece doesn't say that tone does not matter. It says "Our tone does not matter". This is a vital distinction, and gets to the nub of how very wrong Baggini is on this issue. Myers points out that:

Because the reality is that our tone is NOT the problem. Our tone doesn't matter. Because it doesn't matter how polite we are, how eloquent we are, how articulate or respectful we are. It is not our tone that theists reject - it is our existence.

And Baggini and other accommodationists should know this, because they themselves are regularly accused of the same crimes as the new atheists - just read the comments section to Baggini's attempts to bridge the gap between theism and atheism in The Guardian. In this latest article, Baggini notes:

"Tone" actually crops up in two guises in this debate. It not only refers to the mode of argumentation but also to the alleged way in which many atheists are "tone deaf" to religion.

Fair enough, it is 'alleged'. But is it true that 'atheists' are tone deaf?

(And which ones? Is that a trait that they have as a group? As often when it comes to this sort of accusation, no evidence is linked to support Baggini's position. To be clear, I don't doubt that the occasional atheist might make a tone-deaf pronouncement. I object that atheists are characterised as a group with this clumsy stereotype, and I object that the four horsemen, and gnus, are too)

In fact, the opposite is true, is it not? It is many theists who are tone deaf to atheistic writing because they respond no differently to Julian Baggini's supposedly nuanced approach than they do to Richard Dawkins's supposedly tone-deaf approach. Consider these comments:

Julian Baggini
I think one of the biggest obstacles to progress here is your inability to resist your obsessive-compulsive desire to use space in your own articles to denigrate religious belief and instead use them to propound the primacy of your own atheist ones. A lot of religious people may draw from that that your claims of respectful discussion are somewhat akin to a wolf in sheep's clothing. CatholicAndy

The most troubling thing about this piece is the aggressive idea of 'acceptable' religion; as if giving an ultimatum to all religious believers. Baggini doesn't reveal which authority gave him the right to define how religion should be in the 21st century, nor does he give any consideration to libertarian values, like the freedom of expression or belief.
With this article Baggini, despite all his claims to occuyping a middle ground, has shown himself to be as intolerant and supremacist as the militant atheists he claims to descry. iphedia

And there are many more - there we have it in black and white.

Russell Blackford wrote an excellent piece on this a while back:

The problem is likely to be that a lot of discussion of tone is just not very intelligent - how many reviews of The God Delusion have you read that show a tin ear for Dawkins' control of tone? Many reviews don't show any sensitivity at all for the varied tones: the humour; the quiet thoughtfulness and introspection; or the comical intoxication with language itself in Dawkins' famous denunciation of the Old Testament deity. Generally speaking, the reviewers just don't "get" it. But the cure for that isn't less discussion of Dawkins' tone; it's more intelligent discussion of Dawkins' tone. A hackneyed adjective such as "strident" doesn't cut the mustard.

Spot on. Dawkins's writing and pronouncements are thoughtful and witty and insightful - maybe not as profound as some of our better philosophers, but he's not talking to academia. He's talking to the general public, and his tone is entirely appropriate for that. The cry from gnu atheists is not that tone is unimportant, it's that the tone argument is being used dishonestly and prejudicially against them.

The response to Baggini's own writing shows that to be true. Whether he likes it or not, he's as good as gnu in the eyes of many a theist.

Read more »

You Really Aren't Helping

The curious case of the You're Not Helping (YNH) blog (now defunct, so I can't link to it) highlights a particular sort of human irrational behaviour. It starts from a good intention, I think, but is derailed by simple lack of reasoning.

For a recent history of YNH, this post from The Buddha Is Not Serious gives a good breakdown, in more ways than one. You're Not Helping is a blog started by a faitheist; that is, an atheist who sees value in faith or, at least, that some respect for their beliefs is in order. Even more particularly, a faitheist thinks that some atheist behaviour (typically labelled 'new atheist') is driving a wedge between 'moderate' theists and the rest of rational society. Their complaint is obviously not about the arguments put forward by the new atheists - I show in this post how their arguments are in fact the same ones put forward by the old atheists - and the faitheist is an atheist so presumably must concur. No, their complaint is about the tone; they think a better tone will achieve better results, politically, I think.

Tone is important, we know. Russell Blackford writes intelligently about it here. But it's not all-important. Further, it's not evident that one tone is always the right tone to deliver an argument. I like to think I'm quite reasonable when putting forward my point of view, but I dare say some would call me strident, and others would call me soft on the faithful, depending on their own stridency. I don't see that as a problem. I would encourage a variety of tone for the delivery of these arguments.

The faitheist position is that the tone adopted by the new atheists is unhelpful, and therefore they should not use that tone or, failing that, be silent. There are a number of problems with this:

1) There seems to be no evidence presented to support their hypothesis - it's just common sense, they think.

2) They fail to demonstrate that there is a way of delivering the atheist message without falling foul of the 'tone' accusation. Massimo Pigliucci is a leading faitheist, whose philosophical writing I've often admired, but hilariously is accused here of failing in the tone wars himself ("Tone matters. And sarcasm is not science."). Should he tell himself to be quiet?

3) And finally, their commentaries on the new atheists adopt the same snark and sarcasm that they are demanding the new atheists remove from their commentaries on theism - just consider the antics at YNH and The Intersection.

This really is an impossible and incoherent position. I'm not going to tell them to shut up, however (that's their line). No, I'm just going to keep pointing it out, whether they like it or not, and in whatever tone I choose to adopt. That, I think, is my right.

Incidentally, it's ironic here, that YNH complains about being told to shut up, on a site calculated to shut up new atheists:

If you were aiming to shut up and silence an individual trying to express his opinion by digging deep for personal information and not caring what collateral damage you leave along the way in the form of incorrect allegations, you've succeeded.

Well, I certainly don't want YNH to shut up, but there are justifiable reasons for folk wanting to know who an anonymous blogger is who's telling them to how to behave. There's always a suspicion of ulterior motives; it's useful to know where someone is coming from, since it backs up their opinions and gives them some colour. It's not vital to know, but can be helpful. Imagine if YNH was simply a blog set up by churchmen to sow dissent amongst the atheist community? That would be pertinent. Not that that would ever happen, of course.

But this is really a ridiculous diversion from the everyday battle to promote rationalism in the public sphere. Nevertheless, as long as we are wired as we are, some of us will go off on irrational tangents. Here's hoping William at You're Not Helping will see the error of his ways one day.

UPDATE: Gurdur, another prominent accommodationist, clearly spots the problem that YNH exposes; one cannot demand folk behave according to certain rules whilst one flouts the very rules one demands. This first commenter, defending YNH says:

He may have conducted himself badly, but it does not diminish the validity of the message.

Let me just complete that sentence to highlight its asininity:

He may have conducted himself badly, but it does not diminish the validity of the message that one mustn't conduct oneself badly.

Sigh.

FURTHER UPDATE: A full and frank (?) apology has been made for the conduct of YNH by William. I confess it comes over a little too neat for my liking, but others are giving him the benefit of the doubt. It is only teh interwebz, so let's consign it to history and experience.

Read more »