Mailbag: Bloomers in a Twist

From: "Val"
Subject: What's Wrong With It?

I am appalled by your criticisms of the Godless Americans March on Washington! ... Your criticisms were pretty feeble but you were obviously determined to find something bad to say about it.

I don't often get complaints from atheists, but this was perhaps the most vociferous and nasty that I have seen, so I wanted to include it here. Although it is true that most of the hate mail I receive comes from Christians and occasionally Muslims, I don't want anything to get the mistaken impression that atheists aren't just as capable of slinging mud with the best of them.

Val here is appalled by the fact that I had criticisms of the Godless Americans March on Washington. That's all well and good, but for some reason she wasn't appalled enough to actually correct any errors I made - or even to point out any errors in my critique. She's unhappy, that much is obvious, but it's a shame that she couldn't translate that unhappiness into constructive criticism of her own.

It sounds to me like you are suffering from the "not invented here" syndrome. ... You are jealous that they are making big things happen. You are not a big fish in the pond so you aren't even going to swim.

It sounds to me like Val is committing an ad hominem fallacy: she can't or won't identify any actual errors in my arguments, so she has chosen instead to focus all of her attention on me as a person. If she can't discredit my reasoning, perhaps she can discredit me as a person - by finding some fault with my personality and/or motivations, perhaps she can provide some basis for dismissing my critiques.

That is a classic ad hominem argument, but stated in such a fashion it should be obvious just why it is a fallacy. Even if all of the negative things she said about me as a person were true, that wouldn't necessarily invalidate any of the arguments and criticisms I have raised. It's quite possible for my ideas to be right even if my motivations for raising them are less than honorable. Thus, even if I personally can be dismissed, that doesn't mean that my criticisms can.

I used to have respect for your work and I currently have a link to one of your pages on my website. I am seriously considering deleting it. ... Obviously you have your bloomers in a twist because you didn't get the attention that you think you deserve. Maybe you think they should have invited you to speak.

She did delete the link, actually - although I'm not sure what "respect" she could have had for my work previously since my critique of the March didn't say anything new, different, or radical from what I have been saying for years. Perhaps some simply feel uncomfortable seeing atheists critiqued, and that is unfortunate, but luckily not all feel that way.

I received an email from one of those involved with organizing the March and he wasn't bothered by my critique at all - on the contrary, he thought it was good for such critiques to appear rather than all atheists just blindly following along. I know for a fact that some out there agreed with Val that the March shouldn't be criticized, but I also know that others didn't agree with her at all.

As I explained to Val in one of my emails, my critiques had nothing to do with me or with being jealous. I'm sure that I would have been flattered to have been invited to speak, but I guarantee that had I been invited, I wouldn't have gone. Quite aside from my critiques about the March, I'm not entirely comfortable as a public speaker. I had enough trouble getting over that when I taught German at Princeton - and that was in front of small classes. Speaking before large crowds is simply not something I am prepared to do - so it's just not possible for me to get my "bloomers in a twist" for not being invited.

I've seen more than enough. I am washing my hands of you. I am totally disgusted by your attitude. I do not have any interest in continuing any dialog with you.

Unfortunately, it was never really a "dialogue" to begin with. I tried to correct a couple of misconceptions she had and, more importantly, to get her to explain where I was mistaken in my critique - but nothing came of it. It seemed as though she was determined to find fault with my comments and to attack what I had to say - not unlike when I hear from Christians who are unhappy with my critiques of Christianity.

To be perfectly honest, I suspect that the parallel there is much stronger than it might initially appear. Christians get upset over criticisms of Christianity because their religion is so much a part of who they are - it is a primary, and perhaps the most important, aspect of their concept of self. Because of this, any criticism of Christianity will be taken as a criticism of them personally - it's difficult for a person in such a situation to see things any other way.

A principle criticism I had of the Godless Americans March on Washington was that I perceived certain associated actions to constitute attempts to get atheists to create a personal identity around atheism. The consequence would be much the same as we see with Christians: atheism becoming a primary aspect of people's concept of self, such that any criticism of atheism is taken as a criticism of the atheist personally.

I disagree with that because atheism, as merely an absence of belief in gods, cannot serve as a basis for a person's identity or concept of self. There just isn't enough there and if anyone tries, they'll end up very disappointed. If a person is looking to create an identity for themselves, they need to look to more positive things. You can't build an identity on what you are not (not a theist, not a liberal, not an American) but, rather, on what you are - what you stand for.

Good candidates would be things like liberty, religious freedom, rationality, and so forth - none of which, it should be noted, are exclusively or even especially atheistic. These are attributes which theists can share in as well. It seems to me that Val took my criticism of the Godless Americans March on Washington very personally - almost as if any criticism of the March and of attempts to build an identity around mere atheism were a criticism of her as a person. Could it be that she did exactly what I argued in my critique was a bad idea?

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...