It seems that the atheist movement has reached a place where just calling ourselves atheists is not enough. No longer can we just be people who unite under one common, succinct belief, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
Richard Carrier, and a few likeminded atheists, have decided that it is time for a new kind of atheism, an atheism called atheism+. In a three thousand plus word blog post, Carrier states clearly the tenets of atheism+. Like the religionists Carrier despises, he makes it clear that if a person wants to be a part of the atheist+ religion they must believe certain things. Carrier’s goal is exclusivism not in inclusivism.
Carrier certainly has the right to start any new group that he wants to. In fact, I agree with virtually everything he writes in his post. His values, for the most part are my values. However, I see no need to have a-n-o-t-h-e-r atheist group. Evidently, all the other the tents atheist congregate under are deficient and atheism+ aims to be the exclusive tent for select, ideologically correct atheists.
Carrier makes it very clear in his post and comments that he intends to cause division among atheists. In classic George Bush fashion, Carrier states, either you are with us or you are against us. And like the fundamentalist Baptist preacher, Fred Phelps, Carrier eviscerates anyone who disagrees with him. It is this behavior that I find offensive. Simply put, while I agree with the values put forth by Richard Carrier, I find his behaviour offensive,indecent, and harmful to the atheist cause.
Carrier’s vitriolic response to those who disagree with him is there for all to see. Carrier’s favorite word, douchebag, is used time and time again to disparage those who dare dissent from the stated position on atheism+. Other comments are laced with profanity and name calling. (and I am no language prude) Evidently, Carrier lacks the social graces necessary to be a front man for a new movement but no one is telling him this or he is not listening.
I left the following comment on Carrier’s blog. It has not yet been approved. (Carrier never posted my comment)
I embrace the values you speak of in this post. However, your approach to those who differ with you is offensive and does little to advance the cause you are championing. Calling people names and demeaning any and all who differ with you reminds me of what I saw and experienced in fundamentalist Christianity.
Truth is, I don’t need you and your movement in order to demonstrate the values you mention in your article. Your conduct is what has turned me away not your values.
Unlike you, I don’t need purity from others in order to cooperate with them. The humanist tent suits me well, even with religious humanists under the tent. The pressing needs of our world are too great for me to be drawn away into a sectarian, creedal form of atheism.
Feel free to add whatever invectives you think appropriate, Richard. In doing so, you are showing who the real douchebag is. (to use your favorite word, not a word I would use)
Note in your replies, Richard, that you refuse to knowledge even one challenge to what you have written. In a verbal style akin to Fred Phelps, you refuse any and all who dare challenge your orthodoxy or orthopraxy.
You have provided no compelling reason why I should join your cause. Your values are not enough. If I wouldn’t eat a meal with you because of your ill treatment of others who differ with you, I certainly wouldn’t join a group you are a central part of. Simply put, you are not my kind of atheist, not the kind of person I would want to be around.
The bottom line? Richard Carrier shot the atheism+ horse dead in the starting gate. When atheism+ shrinks quickly to the back page Carrier will have no one to blame but himself.
Update: Richard Carrier addresses his language use.
I recommend Daniel Finke’s post,No Hate.
Yeah, I like his stuff, too. But I think he is turning into that dreaded thing that you have warned myself & others to be wary of: a Fundamentalist.
Freethinkers are like Cats, very independent & we all think differently. We come from all areas of the spectrum. I’m not convinced there should be a Litmus Test on what we all should believe.
Yup. I’m a douchebag too.
Wow! I haven’t read his blog lately but I thought that atheism was simply a lack of belief in a god or gods and there was no other prerequisite belief to be “in the club”. Geez, if I think the Church has it all wrong to practice this kind of exclusivity and fundamentalism, how much moreso in atheism?
Atheists spend so much of their time refuting the idea that atheism is a religion. Why on earth would anyone want to go and turn it into one? Is it part of our DNA? Is an evolutionary trait to want to be the only ones who have it right? I thought part of atheism was being big enough and smart enough to recognize we don’t have all the answers.
I started losing respect for Carrier with the shameful way he conducted himself in dealing with Bart Ehrman. Carrier made a fool of himself, and resorted to personal and ad hominem attacks, which is unfortunately becoming typical for Richard.
As one of those rare godless paleo-conservative/libertarian white males, I would not be welcome into Richard’s “atheism +” cult, and I’m very happy about that!
You are a perfect example of a good man with good values who doesn’t fit in the atheism+ box. Atheism+ is for left leaning liberals like me. However, I refuse to call those who believe differently than me douchebags. Such thinking is offensive and too sectarian for me.I despise Us vs Them thinking. I am sure my Evangelical past colors my thinking on this.
If I have to choose between atheism+ and you Mike….hmm…I choose you.
Bruce, as a long-time reader, I always find your perspectives refreshing; you are willing to critique yourself and others while still being humane and polite (as appropriate for the circumstances). I think you articulated why I have been uncomfortable with the Atheism+ movement. Like you I agree with their stances on just about every issue except one; the fact it needs to be codified and exclusive.
I would label myself a “freethinker, skeptic and humanist”. Those labels, while overlapping in many aspects, don’t individually encapsulate my own view but, when combined, sum them all up very well. I use the word “Atheist” to describe my position on god(s) which is, I thought, what most atheists have been saying for a long time (the whole “Atheism isn’t a religion, its just a position on one question). I worry that Atheism plus will muddy those waters.
We agree, Josh. Let’s start a religion.
I suppose my past makes me reticent of attempts to codify “atheist” beliefs and demand “true” atheists join lest they be considered lame, stupid, douchebags. This sounds an awful lot like, believe like we believe or you are going to hell.
Thanks for commenting.
I find this in many who have left religion, that they take the same basic attitudes with them into the next “belief system” they choose to adopt. Any “faith” will do, and then out comes the insecure exclusivity – We’re IN, you’re OUT… We’re saved, you’re doomed…. For this type, it’s often only when the wolves they run with turn on them, that they wake up to the damage that is being done. Been there, done that.
I’m inclined to be provisionally supportive of A+. This isn’t just Carrier. A number of people in the community are using atheist plus as a rallying point. Greta Christina and Jen McCreight to name two.
In a recent article in The Humanist,
http://thehumanist.org/september-october-2012/a-woman%E2%80%99s-place-the-dearth-of-women-in-the-secular-movement/
Susan Jacoby makes several good points about the historical suppression of the atheist roots of certain activists. She cites Elizabeth Cady Stanton, but one can also point to A. Philip Randolph, the atheist that organized the March on Washington. The skeptical atheist and anti-theist threads running through progressive activism have been treated as a liability for quite a while. Stanton was silenced as an atheist, and who remembers the March as Randolph’s? Granted MLK was a public figure with tremendous charisma, and that speech was worthy of Shakespeare. But the religious mantle made the radical objections being made at the march more palatable than an association with atheism would have, and I suspect most people think of it as King’s march for that reason.
But unbelief is becoming more acceptable, and as that trend continues, more facets of atheism are going to develop. One facet that seems inevitable was for those who find their progressive values to be a product of their atheism rather than independent of it, to stand together openly and live that out in word and deed. I count myself in this camp, if not openly declared as A+ yet. The fact that some of them do this stridently is disconcerting, but I have developed a rule of thumb about the atheist/freethought/skeptical nexus. We have more than our fair share of the contentious and argumentative. Some seem more interested in finding something to fight about than anything else. It’s fun. Whenever someone seems a bit strident I mentally subtract some of that perception off the top to account for these personality traits, and for the habits they develop slugging it out all the time. Would it be healthier if they used the diplomatic handshake more than the line in the sand? Maybe, but some people are just fighters at heart, and only diplomats by necessity, if ever. These people have their value though as (I think) Desiree Schell makes clear here when she talks about the Overton window, and compares the Southern Povertly Law Center with the Black Panthers.:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/08/23/horrible-horrible-warnings/
Also, a lot of the intellectual passion in atheism/skepticism comes as a packaged deal with equally strong egos, some of which have never quite seen the point of taming themselves.
Another point in the Jacoby article is that the atheist skeptical community isn’t homogenous, but has conservative and progressive elements. Some (please note the use of some here) of the former are, for lack of a better word, not just skeptical, but rather militantly libertarian, either politically or just intellectually, or both. They’re default mode is angry confrontation with anyone they think is trying to tell them what to think or feel or do. I understand these people up to a point, especially when this dovetails with one of those contentious egos we have lying about. On the other hand, I also understand the atheism informed progressives who are similarly passionate. In theory they should be able to live together in mutual respect, in practice it’s proved impossible.
You gave a very simple, minimalist definition of what it should mean to be part of the atheist community. In the Desiree Shell talk she call’s these low barriers to entry–anyone can play…and some of them, are assholes. In this case, and particularly in interactions with the progressively minded women, these assholes when absolutely berserk. This interacted with the more aggressively libertarian strains, and some pretty nasty latent sexism within the community, triggering an avalanche of scorched earth invective. It was incredibly toxic. However because of the low barriers to entry not much can be done about it. It’s a little like Northern Ireland now, with too many little Ian Paisleys ready to scream NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER incessantly. So now a subgroup of the progressives, led more by the women than by Richard Carrier, have decided in effect that they need their own place where they can be the kind of atheist they really are; a place with a lock on the door. I get this.
With apologies to Groucho, “I would never want to join a club that would have me as a member.”
I have been pretty saddened by the rise in hostility and the vileness of language used that I have seen becoming more common, especially, but not exclusively, in the comments section of atheist blogs in the last year or so. Me, I don’t comment – I just don’t go back any more. I guess I am atheist minus.
Fowl language is for the birds!
I have worked very hard to temper my language. Not perfect to be sure, but I try very hard not to attack and demean people. Especially on the Internet. I don’t know most of the people I interact with and I want to be a good example of what an atheist is. They may consign me to hell but I hope they will think I was a nice guy.
Thank you. You pretty much summed up, better than I ever would have, the exact problem I had with this mess.
Well said Bruce. It seems that atheist + means atheism plus politics. Somehow I thought that secular humanism was all about separating religion from (state) politics. Now Carrier wants us to add politics to non-religion. Leave me out of this group.
What a nice breath of fresh air! It’s nice to know that not all atheists are assholes! I was reading Richard Carrier’s attacks on various commenters, and I was like, “Wow, what is this man’s problem?!” When atheists claim that they can be “good without God”, surely, they should clarify what “good” means, because Hitler believed himself to be “good”, too [with a god, but still]. Kindness is a good start. You attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. It brings to mind an Aesop’s fable that I was read when I was in kindergarten, “The Wind and the Sun”: http://aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?4&TheWindandtheSun. Atheism+ = Westboro Atheist Church, LOL!
Yeah, Carrier and I don’t see eye to eye. He seems incapable of showing respect and courtesy when people disagree with him.
Atheists are like Christians in one respect. We have assholes amongst us too.
Ergh, no thank you to an atheism+ religion. I read philosophers and experts who write about various non-religious aspects of life, and decide, for myself, based on the best approximation of objective judgements I can muster, what I and I alone think about the world and how to live in it. That is the freedom of no religion telling us what to think. It is wonderful. This may seem solipsistic, and it is! It suits my solitary nature. I understand there are some atheists that crave some kind of community, but I feel that that is what the internet is for. Thank you for your great blog!