Atheist Interfaith Activist Chris Stedman wrote a book that I have yet to see, entitled Faithiest: How an Atheist Found Common Ground With the Religious. Here‘s the site accompanying the book.
After it’s publishing, many New Atheists reacted, especially to the comment below:
I believe that this so-called New Atheism — the kind that singles out the religious lives of others as its No. 1 target — is toxic, misdirected, and wasteful.
As you might have guessed, the more militant, “winner takes all” atheists criticised Stedman as an “accomodationist”. Stedman responds in an article of his own, entitled “Toxicity & Truth: On ‘New Atheism’ & Interfaith Activism”.
Although he states that he agrees with many of the critiques of religion brought up by New Atheists, as I do, he stated: “I believe that an exclusive focus on religion as the source of human problems is short-sighted, and that painting religious believers with sweeping generalizations is inaccurate and unfair. ”
Amen, brother. If we gave all the New Atheists army equipment, we’d better all head for the hills. We’d have Christian Fascists on one side, and New Atheist Fascists on the other. And brother, I could swear that they would find some commonalities in their totalitarian thinking. Hmmm, perhaps their hatred of Islam and “accomodationists” would unite them!
Stedman challenges the beloved quote of the New Atheists, that of theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg:
With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Stedman replies: “This idea neglects to account for the fact that religion has been cited as the source of both good and bad actions, and it’s an overly simplistic assessment of a complex issue. Basically good people do evil — or at least morally questionable — acts all the time, often without any religious influence at all.”
In another place, Stedman answers why he bothers getting involved in Interfaith activities:
“Still, I think it worth asking: When we advocate for something we think is true, what is our underlying goal? What kind of world are we working toward? Is there enough value in persuading believers out of religion if this change in their beliefs doesn’t also change their approach to other important questions? It seems to me that I have more in common with someone who believes in God and who also values scientific progress and human rights than I do with an atheist who believes that women are inferior to men, or that not all people deserve equal access to education and health care, or that (as Sam Harris has said) eliminating religion would be better than eliminating rape.”
Another juicy statement from Stedman really hit me. In another post, I cite a Bollywood movie that tries to go beyond the religious and racial profiling that has happened since 9/11: the celebrated actor Shahrukh Khan’s gem, My Name Is Khan. In it, Rizia Khan, the mother of the main character, Rizwan Khan, compares Hindus and Muslims after the 1983 Indian Hindu-Muslim riots where thousands were senselessly slaughtered. She states:
Remember one thing, son. There are only 2 kinds of people in this world: Good people who do good deeds, and bad who do bad. That’s the only difference among human beings. There’s no other difference. Understood? . . .
Stedman says something similar:
“You can be honestly and strongly critical of religious beliefs and doctrines while acknowledging each individual’s right to his or her personal beliefs, even if they seem irrational to you . . . I’m more concerned about whether someone shares most of my core values — such as pluralism, freedom of conscience, social cooperation, compassion, education — than whether they are religious or not. Many religious believers are at the forefront of efforts to promote human flourishing, and those shared concerns are more important to me than the fact that we don’t agree about the existence of any gods.”
In another place, Stedman states that he thinks that virulent atheism like that of PZ Meyers, who said “the religious are ‘a bunch of extreme assholes’ who have ‘something wrong with their brains’ is “toxic” and explains:
“Some of the most visible atheist activism today, characterized by positions like Myers’, is counterproductive. In my eyes, it largely fails to advance the acceptance of rationality. It certainly makes the work of building religious-nonreligious coalitions that much harder. It is symptomatic of tribalism and totalitarianism — qualities responsible for some of the worst in religion. Worse still, it confirms the suspicions of atheism’s most ardent detractors, making it more difficult for outsiders to see atheism as a legitimate perspective.”
There you have it, folks.
Toxic.
Totalitarian.
Tribalistic.
Any more “T’s” out there?
Conclusion: Become an atheist if you want, just like Stedman and myself. But don’t go to the extreme of hoisting yourself up on some Everest-height pedestal where you call down everyone and everything but yourself.
Hmmmm . . . come to think of it, but the British I worked with in Beijing shared a lot of the condescending attitudes of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. And the UK’s spoiled brat son and heir, the U.S. of A often has this superiority complex, put on showy exhibition by Sam Harris.
Maybe they’re just expressing their culture through their ranting.
Don’t get me wrong, we Canadians can be and currently are huge assholes too. Just ask a Canadian First Nations person. Or a local living within range of a Canadian-made mine in a foreign land. Shit, Americans reportedly can’t even sew a Canadian flag on their backpacks as they travel overseas anymore. Maybe we’ll be the ones sewing a Norwegian or Finnish flag on our stuff.
Point is, be humble and respectfully argue for truth, without being an Ass with a capital “A”. I know it’s hard for those of us growing up in prosperous cultures where life’s luxuries were handed to us on a silver platter. But just try.
Cheers, y’all,
Brandr
the Canadian Norski
and Happy Faithiest
turtleislandjourney 