Re-reading that old post of mine I linked to yesterday, representing an earlier and far more naive view of pseudo-skepticism and the atheism which is practically synonymous with it, I remembered another example of an atheist, pseudo-skeptic who also noticed that atheists tend to be rather nasty people, Ray Hyman once noted that his fellow "skeptics" were not very nice. In his study of the premier "skeptical" group, CSICOP*, George Hansen noted:
A few individuals in the national organization have expressed concern about the image projected by the local affiliates. Ray Hyman has been quoted as speaking of a “frightening” “fundamentalism” and “witch-hunting” when discussing the rise of the popular debunking movement (Clark, 1987). Hyman has also been quoted as saying: “As a whole, parapsychologists are nice, honest people, while the critics are cynical, nasty people” (McBeath & Thalboume, 1985, p. 3). Hyman (1987) wrote an article advising the local groups how to be effective critics; this was published in Skeptical Briefs and reprinted in a number of newsletters. He suggested using “the principle of charity,” saying “I know that many of my fellow critics will find this principle to be unpalatable” (p. 5, italics added).
I dare any atheists reading this to go to any of the big atheist websites and suggest to them that they apply "the principle of charity" and I will guarantee you that Ray Hymans' assertion that "many of my fellow critics will find this principle to be unpalatable" will be demonstrated to the point of conclusively confirming what he said thirty years ago. [Update: Hyman could be describing the atheist blogs of today in those comments. ]
Having read lots of the history of atheists in public life and lots and lots of those atheists' own words, nastiness is a recurring theme in their style and content, going back from this morning, figures like Amanda Marcotte, P. Z. Myers, Thunderfoot, seriously nasty guys like Hitchens and Harris, through the neo-atheist period, back to when they were wearing those not so convincing disguises as "Humanists" and "Skeptics" and even before that in figures such as Madalyn Murray O'Hair, James Hervey Johnson, Joseph McCabe... Perhaps it's just a natural consequence of an attitude that includes being convinced of your inherent intellectual superiority unencumbered by any real belief in an entity higher than you who imposes a moral obligation on you to treat people well, even when there isn't anything in doing so for you.
The more I think about it, the more likley it seems to me that even atheists who are not jerks will always bear the burden of the nasty boys among them. Including some, but likely not a majority, who are nasty girls**. Given its long history, the dearth of examples of the alternative attitude among them, I think it's a feature, not a bug of atheism.
* From the paper CSICOP and the Skeptics
|
| CSICOP Member | Source of Information | |
| George Abell | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Isaac Asimov | Free Inquiry, Spring 1982, p. 9 | |
| Brand Blanshard | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Vern Bullough | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Mario Bunge | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Bette Chambers | Humanist, September/October 1973, p. 9* | |
| Francis Crick | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Jean Dommanget | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Paul Edwards | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Antony Flew | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Yves Galifret | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Murray Gell-Mann | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Stephen Jay Gould | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Sidney Hook | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Marvin Kohl | Humanist, November/December 1973, p. 5* | |
| Paul Kurtz | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Gerald A. Larue | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Paul MacCready | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Ernest Nagel | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| John W. Patterson | American Atheist, May 1983, p. 12-14 | |
| Mark Plummer | American Atheist, June 1983, p. 29-33 | |
| W. V. Quine | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| James Randi | Who's Who In America (1990, p. 2683) | |
| Carl Sagan | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 59† | |
| Al Seckel | Free Inquiry, Summer 1986, p. 54 | |
| B. F. Skinner | Humanist, September/October 1973, p. 9* | |
| Gordon Stein | Free Inquiry, Fall 1988, p. 48-50 | |
| Robert Steiner | Robertson (1984) | |
| Marvin Zimmerman | Humanist, September/October 1973, p. 9* |
Those are certainly among the most well known and influential members of the group. An interesting case to study is that of Anthony Flew who in his later years came around to sort of believing in a God. The nastiness of the response of his former fellow atheists, asserting he was senile, past it, duped by evil "theists" etc. was typical behavior for them. There are other names that could be added to the list, of course, one of those one of the co-founders of CSICOP, Dennis Rawlins, who is a pretty nasty atheist but who got kicked out of the group. I'm not sure of another of the founders of CSICOP, Marcello Truzzi, the original editor of Skeptical Inquiry, the groups magazine, who got kicked out for being too nice to non-"skeptics". Rawlins had a hand in that, by his own admission.
** Hansen also notes and the Pew figures confirm that a majority atheists as well as an even large percentage of those who call themselves "skeptics" are men and the movement was dominated by them. Though he notes that, in itself, isn't an explanation of the nastiness of the "skeptics"
The problems caused by cynicism and hostility have been recognized by the organization, and steps are being taken to diminish them. The severity of the problem cannot be attributed entirely to male dominance; after all, a number of other predominantly male organizations do not have such a reputation. It is likely that there are a number of other factors that contribute to the perceived demeanor.
It's never been my experience that the women of "skepticism" are not hostile and cynical, fairminded or even particularly honest, certainly not those of atheism. It reminds me of that post referencing the anti-religious diatribe of the iconic "feminist," and, admit it, rather nasty person, Emma Goldman railing like a more articulate and less vulgar Madalyn Murry O'Hair about religious women.
It has thwarted her nature and fettered her soul, yet the Christian religion has no greater supporter, none more devout, than woman. Indeed, it is safe to say that religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the people, if it were not for the support it receives from woman. The most ardent churchworkers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained her spirit and enslaved her body.
Of course, she knew better than them. She followed Nietzsche's oh, so enlightened and charitable view of women. Nietzsche, that nice guy, you know.
And Goldman was sweetness and light compared to today's online atheist women.
Update: You don't seem to understand my theme, yesterday, included that atheists don't much like atheists either. I haven't thought about it to that extent or studied it, as such, but the striking phenomenon of Marxists and anarchists who spit poison at each other, attack each other, struggle for dominance against each other, may be part of the same phenomenon of atheists who hate atheists. If that is, as I am convinced, an inseparable feature of atheism, it would mark it as a liability for any left which included atheists in numbers where that propensity could manifest itself.
Update 2: Someone has tipped me off to a tiff that is currently running on various atheist blogs, starting when PZ Myers dissed Ayaan Hirsi Ali for saying that everyone should lighten up on the Christian right in the US and concentrate on defeating Islam, PZ isn't happy about such a suggestion. Called it "fatwa envy." Well, once he did that a number of atheist blogs attacked PZ, including Hemant at the "Friendly Atheist" certainly one of the most ironically named of blogs, and PZ's good buddy at the "Freethought Blogs" Ophelia Benson. I didn't look too much at it but there is lots of PZ hatin' on those atheist blog threads as well as angry exchanges.
And I'm also informed that the worlds oldest 12-year-old not named "James Randi," Penn Jillette, is also both the instigator and the target of an acid spitting contest over his dissing a woman who failed to entertain him. I won't repeat the word he called her but I'm sure if you guess, choosing the rudest and most vulgar of the several that my occur to you, yeah, that one. You can read some of the less ripe garbage Jillette generated around that here.
Does it never occur to them that they obviously hate each other about as much as they complain about people outside their group hate them? And these are some of the less nasty big name atheists and their camp followers. And some of them are supposed to be friends.
Re: update two: The Southern Poverty Law Center, I understand, just released a report on several extremist Christian groups (I won't argue over whether they are "really" Christian, it's how they identify themselves, so....). According to SPLC, these groups have killed more Americans than ISIS or any non-American terrorist group in recent years. But it isn't in grand gestures like bombing entire villages or setting up fiefdoms in rural areas of states, so who notices?
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it's just fatwa envy; although I doubt these are the groups Meyers is aware of/concerned about, either. They prefer more middle-class and "mainstream" concerns like science teaching (and not even how badly public education is funded, or how poorly served it is by emphasis on test results over actual knowledge, etc.). Most of these groups operate in rural areas and, aside from an abortion clinic/doctor now and then, affect people no one else in America worries too much about.
I heard a story on local NPR, an interview with a girl who was pregnant at 15 (now 19), and how "abstinence only" (the topic du jour again in the Texas Lege) did her no good at all, what she needed was classes in self-esteem in high school, classes to teach her she was of some worth, that she could accomplish something, etc. The kind of thing now poo-pooed by middle-class families, and all you will hear from Myers & Co. is about how stupid abstinence only is. It is, but there are wiser alternatives than just teaching biology.
Honestly, the things "those people" complain about (I include Hirsi Ali) is the purest example of Thoreau's observation of the thousands hacking at the branches of the tree of evil, for every one hacking at the roots.
That was one of the bigger disappointment about being able to read the unfiltered, unlimited ideas of people deputed to be of the left, online, how unattractively patrician they were.
ReplyDeleteI think that with the effort to make religion unfashionable, especially the mainline Protestant religions, beginning in the intellectual class in the later 19th century (O.W. Holmes jr.'s generation) that the indigenous American liberalism that had mounted the abolitionist, women's rights, various movements such as the reform of treatment of the mentally ill, etc. turned into a sort of domestic Fabianism. I think it really took hold in the later 1960s, perhaps as a result of the misunderstanding of the Schempp case and how restricted the need for secularism in public life was under "the Constitution". I'm sure if I look there was an effort to spread that misunderstanding by atheists in their campaign to de-religionize public life in the United States. And, as I've come to conclude, religion was about the only force in the United States for a general movement for rights and the protection of poor people and others who those who considered themselves their betters would just as soon not be burdened with playing taxes to support or to make much of an effort for. The flaccid weakness of even the nominal, secular, left which can't sustain much of anything but symbolic stunts like occupying parks and couldn't sustain a bus boycott if the entire Bill of Rights depended on it, is, I think, a result of its loss of a sense of moral obligation that comes with secularism.
What's left are people who might have a parochial interest in an issue which they might work on, but the effort is doomed by the lack of a general movement to join in which will include their cause. There is a reason that the last successful movement of the left was solidly based in the religious belief of its members. It is a shame that the importance that the Jewish-Christian tradition was in the best of American culture was so strongly articulated by the vulgar right, making it unfashionable to anyone on the left. Though I remember that point being made on the left, frequently, up to the death of The Reverend King jr. though it was increasingly made unfashionable and grounds for being thrown out of the "new left" on the basis of "wall of separation" then on the attitude that it was feudal ignorance and western imperialism and a hundred other slogans not much different from the ones Lenin, Stalin, etc had thought up to make the same attempt. The dereligionizing of the left left it unable to do anything as it empowered the right in their anti-Christ campaign. I remember how Ehrenreich, Pollitt and others presented Madalyn Murray O'Hair as a hero of the left when her life and thoughts proved she was nothing of the kind. I think that for atheists "of the left" their atheism will always be their first priority, their anti-religious coercion always a fatal blow to the real left.