You make an excellent point; I knew at some level that I was conflating two separate issues, but I was trying to capture attitudes and actions that many associate with atheism.
For myself, I chose the option third from the bottom. My own attitude towards religion has gentled somewhat over the years, especially on exposure to my sister’s flavor of born-again religion - she is totally committed in her own life, but as for the usual political issues she says, in effect, “there is a lot of disagreement about what the bible says in these cases, so I don’t pretend to know the truth; my personal relationship with Jesus only covers my own actions in life.” I have found this to be an attitude I can co-exist with quite peacefully, whatever other problems I may have with it.
To answer njtt, the last option was not intended to be a straw man but it was the most extreme case I could think of.
Thudlow Boink: I intended the poll to ask what each individual regards in their own mind as militance, not to describe general usage. I think Der Trihs was not presenting his own view, based on what I have read from him in the past. Perhaps he would come back and say what he really thinks.
Roddy
Yes, I was expressing how I thought the term is usually used by others. As for me; it would be someone who is strenuously, aggressively atheist; someone who works to promote the idea with great diligence and forcefulness. Not me; I just argue about it on message boards; not really Dawkins either, it seems to me to be a sideline for him and mostly a side effect of his devotion to his chosen scientific field.
I think I would say its someone who is a vehement advocate of atheism. “Vehement” seems the right description.
Right now, I’d think of people like Dawkins who are public advocates of atheism, but are usually comparatively polite about it, even though some of the time they’re really insulting. It would also probably include someone who had strongly held opinions who only shared them when asked. At this moment in time, in America, being in favour of the separation of church and state is a good thing, and REALLY REALLY OBVIOUSLY a good thing for everyone who is not Christian, so militant atheists (along with all non-Christians, and all sensible Christians) are in favour of it, and militant ones likely to be more forceful about it. But in a regime officially atheist (eg. Stalinist USSR), you will find the reverse: non-atheists and sensible atheists in favour of separation, and evil atheists in favour of state control. Conversely, in the UK, we officially have an official church, but I’ve never really felt discriminated against, and I’m content with the status quo.
I did not mean to imply that you intended it as a straw man, I was saying that I tend to suspect that people choosing it are, in effect, saying “how could any actually existing atheist, such as me, no matter how obnoxious I like to make myself, be anything other than a model of sweetness and moderation?”
Choosing that option is effectively saying that militant atheists do not exist, and if you think that, then you are one. Some atheists clearly want to be up in the face of religious believers, telling them that they are morons.
The main thing actual atheist militants (i.e., people who fit the antepenultimate option) achieve is to drive harmless moderate religious believers toward dangerous fundamentalism. They are a threat to the cause of science, rationality, and, indeed, atheism. Softly softly catchee monkey.
It is depressing to me that so many people think “freely criticizes, unasked, religious behavior or beliefs” equates to militancy. Wouldn’t that mean that the little old lady who knocks on my door to tell me about Jesus is a militant Christian? Or is it only militant if a non-Christian does it?
Certainly she’d be a member of the “Church Militant” according to certain versions of Christian theology. (I wasn’t really familiar with the term until running across it in the Wikipedia article on militancy.)
If she’s actively spreading the gospel, that little old lady, no matter how sweet and meek she may be, might be said to be metaphorically fighting for Christianity, and thus a “militant” Christian. The Christian life as a battle or war is a not uncommon metaphor (as in the hymn “Onward Christian Soldiers”), though it’s fallen out of fashion nowadays.
This is my view as well. I’m atheist but I am friends with some militant atheists, and my fiance believes in God. They’ve been very hurtful and offensive to her when they forget themselves, describing all believers as blind morons.
While I agree with you in general, it kind of dilutes the meaning of militant to include anyone who advocates. When that little old lady comes to my door with a gun, a bible and an ultimatum I want to be able to to use the correct, unambiguous terminology. The proper term, IMO, for the old lady with a bible is “Pain in the ass busybody”, the same as if an atheist dropped by to hawk his wares.
Well, speaking for myself, I chose that option because it was the best fit of those offered (as per the OP’s instructions), even though it’s not the precise definition I’d have given for “militant atheist.” I had the same problem as Hello Again with the second-to-last option, and as for the last, one can be militant on behalf of atheism (or anything else) without acting to suppress the free expression of those who hold opposing views.
It’s the sort of attitude you see among young newly “born again” atheists, the sort of people who generally have loud, obnoxious, outspoken, dogmatic opinions about any view they strongly espouse, especially political or religious. Often with a fierce, blind fervor and deliberately agressive in-your-face manner. Note that this really only works in person, not anonymously on a message board, where people will argue as fiercely, passionately and offensively about milk-drinking at dinner or shaved pubes as they will about things they really care about. It really needs to be up close, personal, and unavoidable, like militant pro-lifers in front of a Planned Parenthood office
So yeah, I’ve known a few of what I would consider “militant” atheists, most of whom calmed down eventually, or returned to their parent’s religions with just as much fervor and in-your-faceness as they briefly approached atheism.
I went with the “criticizes, unasked” option but with one caveat. To me it kind of depends on whether the recipients of said criticism have a choice. So, spontaneously attacking religion at a dinner party strikes me as being on the militant side, but keeping a blog about atheism doesn’t seem at all militant, even though it would still constitute criticising religion unasked.
I disagree with this in several ways. Especially if by “antepenultimate option” you mean the choice third from the bottom, about freely critizing religion unasked (that position in the list is what “antepenultimate” means). I doubt much “driving into fundamentalism” happens due to argumentation and disagreement with atheists. That tactic is just as likely to cause doubts about religion as it is to cause fundamentalism.
Second, the really obnoxious arguers are probably less interested in proselytizing others to their point of view than they are of “proving” themselves right by virtue of superior logic and argument. They are less interested in catching the monkey than they are of making it slink away in defeat.
Roddy
Well, consider it from their point of view. They are jogging along in life, occasionally going to church and vaguely wondering why so many people seem to espouse views that they don’t act on in real life, when they hear or read something new, and the whole religious house of cards comes tumbling down. The scales fall from their eyes, and they can see clearly for the first time! They want to share, they want to give everyone else the benefit of their new, new insights! How can these people be so blind???
Eventually, as you noted, they get worn down and calm down. Although I don’t know too many who go back to religion. If they aren’t very good at thinking logically they may start to call themselves agnostics instead.
Roddy
I’d say that’s due to the lack of better answers. (For example, a number of theists want to completely separate religion from government. I’m not sure why that’s listed in the poll where it is.)
To me, the little old lady who knocks on my door to tell me about Jesus in a polite way and her sister, the little old lady who knocks on my door to tell me there isn’t a God in the same polite manner are not militant.
The jackasses who are spoiling for a fight about the existence or non-existence of God are. It’s the combativeness and attitude that makes them militant, not the content of the message.
I voted E. There’s nothing militant about D or any of the above ones, but E crosses that threshold because I generally don’t think criticism should just be done freely and unasked, but my interpretation of the kind of behavior being described may be a little different from others.
The way I see it, there’s nothing wrong with mentioning one’s beliefs, particularly when it’s relevant to the conversation at hand. That is, it’s fine to say, for instance, that you do or don’t celebrate a certain holiday because of your beliefs, but it’s something else entirely to freely criticize someone who says they observe certain religious rites. And I think it’s obnoxious to just attempt to convince someone cold. Militant may be slightly too strong a word here, but I also think the next one is well beyond militant, so this was the best option.
And FTR, I feel exactly the same way about people of any particular religious beliefs too, and other belief systems. In my view it’s equally as bad for a religious person to freely and unasked criticize an atheist or someone with different beliefs. Of course, these sorts of people are less likely to be called militant and more likely to be called evangelical or similarly less connotatively negative words.
I get told the opposite quite a lot…I’m told that atheists really DO believe in a god, but that they are angry at him and deny that he exists because of that anger.