Ross Douthat at NYTsays so.
He goes on to say
I’ve made this point before: that Pat Robertson does not really represent the Christianity that most Christians adhere to, but he does represent the kind of Christianity that athiests like Dawkins like to rail against. It’s an easy target.
Yes, but if there were no Pat Robertsons and thus no one for atheists to rail at, they would be happy atheists living their lives without fearing persecution for their lack of belief in whatever religion, and without fearing that the gov’t will be co-opted by that religion. (fear is a bit strong perhaps).
This tack is basically saying that unless atheists have something to bitch about that they are unhappy. While its true that some people (regardless of religious status or lack thereof) are miserable when they have nothing to bitch about, its certainly not a 1=1 situation.
Atheist does not have to mean argumentative.
Atheists tend to rail against fundamentalists not because they’re easier, but because they’re more dangerous. They’re more prone to inciting or committing violence or to passing repressive legislation. If all believers kept their religion to themselves and out of the public sphere, the atheists wouldn’t feel the need to push back so hard.
Well, Pat Robertson represents some of the scariest Christianity. I can’t see why anyone would want to rail against a little old lady siting at home praying, and I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who had actually done that.
Is nobody allowed to criticize Christianity until we are able to prove that each and every self-professed Christian believes the exact same thing? Or is it OK to criticize the actual things said and done by actual acknowledged leaders in the Christian community (as in Pat)? Richard Dawkins wrote a book. Pat Robertson has his own TV show, his own University and is a vocal proponent of one form of Christianity. Other Christian sects see Dawkins as the threat and Robertson as one of their own and above criticism. If the other Christian groups don’t want to be viewed as “…of necessity, be cruel, literal-minded, and intellectually embarrassing.” then they are fighting against the wrong person.
I think atheists can use fundamentalists in this fashion:
A) If someone is not a fundamentalist that holds as literally as possible to their religious doctrine then they open themselves to being a cafeteria believer. Very convenient…pick and choose what you like, get rid of the rest at their whim. Doesn’t seem to make much sense. Who are you (general “you”) to decide which aspects are and are not important in a religion? Take it or leave it but it is hubris to bend it as you deem fit. Not to mention if everyone does this you really have thousands or millions of versions of a religion and not one. They may be similar but not the same.
B) Someone is a fundamentalist point to them and note their extreme and patently absurd and possibly downright offensive nature.
It’s a trap you see?
Humbug. It amounts to saying “All right, we have our crazies, but if it weren’t for them you (and Dawkins) couldn’t argue against religion, what we the majority think is true [del]Scotsmanship[/del] Christianity”.
And that’s bullshit - atheists attack the fundamental notions of god, any god, and faith ; not the individuals preaching this or that bit of the Bible, nor the specifics of this or that religion.
Nobody represents the kind of Christianity that most Christians adhere to - it is too fragmented. Pat Robertson does represent a significant movement in Christianity, with a lot of followers, which is why his drivel makes the news. You have no more cause to write him off the reservation than he does you. Despite the large number of fundamentalists in the US today, many with significant influence, the mainstreamers seem to try to treat them as unpersons.
Atheists would be perfectly happy if all Christians would live and let live, I assure you. Dawkins writes because fundamentalists send him nastygrams about creationism. If all Christians accepted evolution, he’d no doubt be writing about biology alone.
However, one reason atheists do address the statements of Fundamentalists is that they are the ones making falsifiable propositions. They say god did this then. Mainstreamers have mostly retreated to unverifiable assertions, dotty philosophical arguments, unverifiable inspiration, and of course faith. The only possible response to the statement “I know God exists because I felt him say he loved me” is “how nice for you, let me know when he tells you a winning lottery number.” The response to the statement “God flooded the whole world 5,000 years ago” is physics and geology.
Atheism just involves a lack of belief. If you give me facts supporting your belief, I feel obligated to investigate. If you just give me unsupported feelings, I need not do anything, and there isn’t much of a book or even a column in that.
First, Dawkins specifically “rails” against more moderate Christians as being enablers. And second, more moderate Christianity does at least as much real damage as Robertson.
And yes, the rabid true believers are the real core of any religion. They generally set the agenda, they represent the core of the faith. Thing is, religion is fundamentally stupid and crazy; more moderate groups in time will naturally tend to drift towards secularism and the sort of religion that is mostly limited to marriage ceremonies and holidays. Religion pretty much IS “cruel, literal-minded, and intellectually embarrassing”; eliminate those aspects from religion and all you have is a hollow shell. Religion has nothing rational to it, no factual basis, no real moral center; nothing to be left behind once you remove all that is evil and stupid from it.
That’s a standard tactic of those trying to defend religion. Of course, since religion doesn’t have any good defenses, they by necessity must fall back on bad ones.
I’m personally fond of the POE - which is certainly not a fundamentalist-specific argument. Honestly, fundamentalist beliefs are too easy a target, given that they require to you be retarded about so much of reality. I prefer a meatier target.
Not to say that fundamentalists shouldn’t be shot down when they pop up - they do tend to be evil and dangerous, after all. But there’s little fun in it.
You’re allowed to criticize Christianity all you want. But you’re not allowed to criticize all Christians for the beliefs of one particular subset of Christians, which other Christians may not share or may even abhor. Well, you’re allowed to criticize anything you want, of course - the fundies really aren’t that dangerous here.
I just occured to me that Fundies are a moderate [del]Scot[/del]Christian’s best friend - they provide someone to point at and say, “You’re talking about him, not me.”
Well, that’s certainly one aspect.
As far as Dawkins is concerned, most of his distaste with religion seems to be the parts where it leads to denial of scientific knowledge and physical and intellectual oppression. He also claims that many “moderate” believers (especially the ones at the top of the hierarchies) enable a much more literal and oppressive belief system in others and I don’t think he’s wrong there.
What it comes down to is that the real “fundies” are the most extreme, but they’re usually not the biggest threat to the secular society. There just aren’t enough murderers and suicide bombers - mostly because the economy is still good enough in the western world. The big threat is coming from the much larger number of ignorant believers who think that belief is something that demands respect, that education is something to be suspicious about and that being certain is better than being open to correction.
With all of the broad brushes here, we could repaint my house in minutes!
I am reminded of an interaction on one of the old Firing Line Debates on PBS. Pat Robertson asked Ira Glasser how much money Ira raised using Pat as the bogey man. Ira responded that it could not be nearly as much as Pat raised using Ira.
Pick a religion - any religion. Somewhere, at some time, someone or a group of somebodies already did the picking and choosing. Which books are canon and which are not? Old Testament or New Testament? King James or original Hebrew, or Greek or Latin (and which translation into each of these languages). Diet of Worms (that’s a funny name), Council of Nicea, or some other meeting of important people in funny hats, or Martin Luther? There have always been people deciding what to believe and how to interpret or “obey” it.
I want to float the idea that every religion has at one time or another been given the “cafeteria” treatment by someone.
Last commentm added on edit…
Robertson is a hateful, spiteful, stupid SOB. He’s an easy target.
Extremists always address opposition extremists. It is exactly the same in religion, politics, economics, and sports. Moderates don’t generally spend all that much time and energy trying to convince other people to believe, or think, or support whatever they think.
Also, it is much easier to say, “Oh, you’re one of THOSE.” than it is to actually listen and consider a point of view substantially different from your own.
Tris
That might take a little effort. Or it might make a person question their own comfortable and familiar position.
It’s kind of hard to listen those with the whispering voice of reason when they are so willing to step aside and give the screaming extremists center stage. It is sad that atheists have to spend valuable time fighting back against those extremists that attack them constantly, because this is something the so-called “real Christians” should have been doing from day 1.
And what would this “whispering voice of reason” be?
I tend to fundamentally (heh!) discount the opinions of anyone who unironically writes about the “new atheism”. It’s a shibboleth for dismissives who seek a false equivalence.
Having said that, I disagree with his opinion. Fundies are not our friends just because they’re a big target for us. Nor do we need them to justify our atheism. I’d still be atheist even if it were all Episcopalians, Christian UUs and Quakers. Christianity is just wrong about everything it believes, not only the extreme bits, all of it. The only things it gets right are the things that aren’t unique to religion at all, like “don’t kill people or take their shit”.
I agree.
However I maintain any given religion has someone (or some group) responsible for the canon. All followers ought to abide by those rules. It is not for them to cherry pick what parts they like and ignore the rest.
If some group has enough issue with the canon of their religion they can try to strike out on their own and form a new sect/religion with the rules/story as they see fit.
However, saying you are (as an example) “Catholic” but you reject a fair amount of Catholic dogma you are a cafeteria Catholic and, IMO, should not really call yourself one. Part of being Catholic is buying the Catholic line. Who are you then to gainsay the Pope and the Bible?