Unhealthy Skepticism? Arrogance is in the Eye of the Beholder
In the former cases it may be that the religious rhetoric has become so familiar that no one pays close enough attention to recognize that it's no less arrogant, rude, or condescending than what atheists say but while the average person may be forgiven for not noticing this, commentators and pundits who are presuming to providing a careful analysis have no such excuse.
In the latter cases, where the person complaining doesn't hold themselves to the same standards they are applying to others, it may be an example of arrogance being in the eye of the beholder. When they say something that might be perceived as arrogant or condescending, it's the fault of the listener because the speaker is merely pointing out obvious and unassailable facts. When others say something perceived as arrogant or condescending, it's all their fault for not taking others' feelings into account.
Robert J. Sawyer writes an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen criticizing atheists and skeptics for being insensitive, rude, and condescending. Himself an atheist, Robert J. Sawyer is also condescending but for some reason, his condescension is OK:
We've all seen those cartoon fish outlines that some Christians stick on the backs of their cars. How do the skeptics respond to them? Why, with mockery, of course!
Recently in Toronto, a gala opening was held for the Centre for Inquiry, Ontario, the new local headquarters for the skeptical movement. At the little gift counter there, you can buy yourself a Darwin fish. The Darwin fish looks just like the Christian fish, except that it's got legs -- a fish evolving into an amphibian.
But Christians don't display a fish in support of creationism (something most educated Christians don't believe in anyway; they know that life evolved from simpler forms, thank you very much). Rather, they're declaring their adherence to a moral code: Blessed are the peacemakers; if someone strikes you on the right cheek, offer them your left; forgive and forget. Responding to that with a smug joke about evolution not only misses what the Christians are saying, but it makes the atheists look mean-spirited.
...Is it any wonder nobody wants to elect -- or have as a neighbour, or allow their daughter to marry -- an atheist?
[emphasis added]
Skeptics and atheists who display the Darwin Fish are being rude, arrogant, and condescending, Sawyer seems to be saying, and one of the reasons why is because Christians are just expressing their "allegiance" to a moral code. I didnt know that Robert J. Sawyer is a mind reader. How did he come to know for a fact that none are expressing, for example, a tribal identity against perceived godlessness and secular oppression?
Sawyer also seems to be saying skeptics and atheists are mean-spirited because "most educated Christians" don't agree with creationism, thank you very much. I think that Sawyer is informed enough on these matters to realize that, according to a recent Gallup Poll, 45% of Americans believe that God create human beings in their present form at some point in the last 10,000 years. Hardly any of these people are not Christians. Furthermore, this position is not merely creationism, but is typical of young-earth creationism (some creationists believe that humanity is a recent creation while the earth is old, but not too many).
So, according to Robert J. Sawyer, about 45% of Christians in America are not "educated Christians." For some reason, this isn't rude, arrogant, condescending, or mean-spirited, thank you very much.
[W]hat they're really saying is, "If you want time and space devoted to something that's important to you, then I should be given equal time and space to ridicule that thing."
Robert J. Sawyer seems to be saying that we shouldn't ridicule "something that important" to others when they express it in public. Let's take a step back, though, and consider exactly what that "something important" is. We're usually talking about Christianity. A fundamental tenet of orthodox Christianity is that all human beings are so depraved that they deserve to spend eternity of torment in hell and the only way to get to God and heaven is to become a Christian. No non-Christian, no matter how virtuous they live, will go to heaven or at least is likely to.
So if people want to promote or express their allegiance to a religious ideology that traditionally teaches that I deserve to spend all eternity in hell, that's not arrogant or rude. If someone doesn't want to have such a person as a neighbor, doesn't want to elect such a person to a position of political power, or doesn't want their child to marry such a person, they would justifiably tarred as an anti-Christian bigot.
If I want to ridicule such beliefs as irrational, baseless, or unethical, that is arrogant and rude. If someone doesn't want an atheist as a neighbor, doesn't want to elect any atheists to positions of political power, or doesn't want their child to marry an atheist, well that's quite understandable.
I'm not sure how this works, but we shouldn't be too quick to blame Robert J. Sawyer for this double standard the same principle or something much like it has been expressed by many others.
The skeptical movement in the United States has been an abject failure. It's done nothing to prevent the election of an anti-science fundamentalist to the White House (and I, for one, certainly wish the guy with his finger on the button didn't think there was a better world after this one). It's done nothing to quell the fight to expunge evolution from the classrooms. It's done nothing to counter -- and, yes, maybe even is responsible for -- the public perception of atheists as evil, arrogant people.
I'm not quite sure why Robert J. Sawyer considers the skeptical movement a "failure." True, there's a lot that could be better, but it's noteworthy that he doesn't state what he would consider a "success," much less how he would recommend achieving it anyway. If he did provide such information, then we could evaluate whether his standards for "success" are at all reasonable and whether there is any evidence for his recommended tactics being useful. As Jonny_eh points out, "It is very difficult to reason a person out of a belief when they did not use reason to get into that belief," so it's difficult to know how much would be achieved by more "reasoned arguments."
For example, given that 45% of the population believes that humanity was specially created in the last 10,000 years and did not evolve naturally, how much more can one reasonably expect supporters of evolution to have achieved than what we currently have? I will be the first to say that I wish matters were better, and I would even agree that there are many cases where matters could have gone better. I would demand some evidence and argument, though, before accepting that the situation is an "abject failure."
With regards to the public perception of atheists as evil, Sawyer has a lot of gall for suggesting that the current skeptical movement may be 'responsible for" this perception although atheists are the most despised and distrusted minority in America, their low numbers of acceptance today are still higher than in the past. Sawyer acts like so many others, making assertions that might be slightly plausible if atheists were loved and admired in the past when, in fact, they were more hated and distrusted in the past.
Right now, the skeptics and atheists whose behavior Sawyer deplores have been responsible for getting people to discuss atheism and atheist arguments much more than in the past. Indeed, it may be the case that without their raising the public profile of atheism and atheists, Sawyer wouldn't have been invited to write the editorial attacking them. How ironic is that?
Of course Sawyer is well within his rights to disagree with and criticize some of the tactics which other atheists and skeptics employ no one suggests that atheists shouldn't criticize atheists. Sawyer is not within his rights, however, to employ the sorts of double standards evident throughout this editorial. It's not legitimate to accuse others of arrogance but ignore his own or that of Christians. It's not legitimate to blame others for being responsible for negative public perception of atheists as if atheists weren't previously perceived as evil.
I think that Sawyer would do well to look more closely at analogous social movements in the past, like that of Gay Liberation most recently. Such movements are always met with this sort of hostility by those who benefit from the status quo. Members are invariably treated as evil, arrogant, oppressive, etc., for challenging the status quo and refusing to abide by traditional standards of discourse.
People who refuse to substitute civility for decency are consistently denigrated as being too rude or disrespectful. They, however, are a primary engine driving changes which we now take for granted and the same is more likely than not to be the case with atheism. This doesn't mean that there is no place for other tactics and methods (on the contrary, they are needed because no one tactic will ever be adequate), but it does mean that those who are so self-righteously upset about those tactics and methods seem to be approaching the debate in a very a-historical manner.
Even worse, their complaints aren't constructive they don't offer suggestions for different tactics which they can demonstrate will provide better results than what is currently being achieved. It's easy to throw rocks at the people who are out in front, trying to make a difference and perhaps making mistakes along the way as well. It's harder to go up front yourself and demonstrate that you can do better with different tactics.
Comments
An aquaintance at an informal meeting asked me what my faith was, after informing me that he is Lutheran. I said, I am agnostic. He said, I feel so sorry for you! I replied, so, you feel sorry for me because I’m not superstitious? I sensed that he felt that I was being condescending.
As someone whose beliefs are non-religious I find that I often encounter rudeness and arrogance from Christians. There are the newspaper articles, such as the quoted one which, disparage people with atheist beliefs. But one which really offends me is the way Christians will sometimes hijack work and social occasions to give a prayer (or grace before a meal). I think the offense may come from an assumption about my beliefs (i.e. assuming everyone present is a Christian and therefore will accept such behaviour)because I am happy enough to put up with such prayers when I knowingly go into Christian ceremonies (such as funerals for Christian people).
Frankly, I think this hijacking of occasions is plain rudeness similar to smokers imposing their unhealthy behaviour on others. If Christians must observe a prayer in such situations they should go outside and do it privately, just as a thoughtful smoker would.
We should all realise that we have to live together - this means that we need to show respect for each others beliefs - we don’t do that by imposing them.
I was struck by this comment.
[W]hat they’re really saying is, “If you want time and space devoted to something that’s important to you, then I should be given equal time and space to ridicule that thing.”
Who is asking that anyone give us anything? There is an implication here that when atheists use their free speech, there is a cost to the rest of society. Well I paid for my car, I drive it on my own time, and I’ll decorate it any way I want.
Something I think that gets ignored repeatedly when theists claim that atheists and agnostics are arrogent and condecending ….
As an athiest I am not afraid of theological type discussions - however they often make me cringe - why? Because 9 times out of 10 the arguments in favour of religion (no matter WHAT the religion) are the same tired, dead, baseless arguments I have heard and debunked thousands of times before, And whoever is wheeling them out seems to think they are shiney, new and impervious …. often (though admittedly not always) I find the theist or religionist blatantly refusing to actually DEBATE on the subject, they spill their argument or justification and expect me to be satisfied and trundle off.
On top of that - and probably because of it - is a very large and real frustration and annoyance factor
“Crap, I gotta put up with this same tired old argument AGAIN?!?!”
Of course - you probably haven’t been through it with this INDIVIDUAL so they just assume you are being arrogent. Sometimes they have even convinced themselves that their arguments are shiney, new and undefeatable!
Ahhh the trials of being polite and civil sometimes ….
TT
I live in a fairly religious area, and while my spirits are buoyed by seeing a rare fellow amphibian amongst a sea of fishes when I’m out on the road, I do sort of wish I’d find other symbols of skepticism floating around as well. Specifically, I’d like to see things that are more secularly-centered, instead of merely religiously-opposed.
I found the enthusiasm he received for the article from atheists on his site a little depressing. It does seem weird that so many of us can’t see the double standard that Austin is talking about. It’s not just the believers that are a problem.
I used to cheer people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris on, while also cringing at how they sometimes sounded to others. But then I started thinking more on the question of arrogance, especially after watching some of Dawkin’s public talks and interviews and seeing how outraged people would get when he spoke out. Now I see things differently.
The truth is that being all nice about the issues doesn’t get much attention. People just sort of shrug and go about their day without even weighing the issues. But atheists who pull no punches are the ones that have brought these issues to the fore. As Dawkins has said, someone has got to do this. If you don’t rattle people, they tend to get complacent and stay with their old assumptions. So nothing changes. Sadly, people resist change–especially if the change is about their world view.
I really think we should make a point of addressing this double standard and making people realize it for what it is. Until we force them to consider the hypocrisy of it, even some of our fellow atheists just won’t see it for what it is.
Ken @2 says “We should all realise that we have to live together - this means that we need to show respect for each others beliefs - we dont do that by imposing them.”
Not quite, Ken. While we are obligated to respect another person’s right to believe as they wish, we are not obligated to show respect for the specific belief itself, all the less so if such a belief is demonstrable nonsense.
Until a person opens her/his mouth and pronounces beliefs, then their right to belief cannot be challenged. Neither can their right to belief be challenged after the fact. But the belief itself, the idea proposed, enjoys no such right. Even less so does behavior on the part of the believer enjoy inviolable rights, and all too often we witness believers claiming the right to misbehavior because their behavior, their actions, are religious-belief motivated. There’s a huge distinction between merely believing something, but then acting on that belief, whether through speech or any other form of behavior.
Respect for a person’s right to believe and to espouse that belief is appropriate, but such respect once the belief is espoused or acted on should be in direct proportion to the respectability of the ideas or actions themselves.
“Anybody has the right to believe any old way they wish, but nobody has the right to behave any old way they wish” –Forrest Prince
Arrogance is closely related to the weakness of pride. It is fun to pretend to be arrogant and tease someone else mercilessly once in awhile.
How is it possible to NOT seem arrogant, mean spirited or condescending to someone with these beliefs?
i ask both rhetorically and sincerely. Rhetorically because i seriously doubt it is possible with any one who isn’t ready to give up on theism. Sincerely, because if it is possible, i’d love to know how.
People hate having their view of the world challenged, particularly if they are invested in it. The more invested they are, the more it becomes about destroying their identity. One can love soccer and listen to someone berate it, then get on with their lives. But with religion, it is much more personal.
Tell the child of a Xian about the non-existence of Santa Claus and they just might cry. Unless, as i said above, they are ready to not believe it. When they grow up, they still believe in Santa, but instead of getting toys for being good (obedient) they get eternal bliss in heaven.
They would have to perceive you as arrogant, mean or condescending in order to protect their fragile world view. If you aren’t arrogant, mean or belittling, you might have a point! They can’t abide that.
i have more to say but it’s almost time to go home. i’ll check back later.
Awesome rebuttal, much better than anything I wrote.
One nit pick though, there’s only 1 ‘h’ in jonny_eh.
Whoops, thanks for the correction Jonny_eh!
“For what we are about to receive no supernatural beings would in any way be responsible… if they were to exist!”
In the US, logic, education, and rationalism is looked down upon. Rarely does a movie ever glorify the intelligent person. The white collar person is always a “college educated smart-ass”, and it is the blue collar “real american” who is the hero.
With that upbringing, most Americans have started associating the concept of intelligence with arrogance, and so when someone tries to have an intelligent discussion, its looked upon as arrogant.
Thank you Mr:Austin for your news letter,
it’s informative and instructive. Respect in the debate means politeness+distance, since it is very dificult
to have an inteligent discussion/debate with someone who is charged emotionaly,an emotional veil/ barrier.
on the other hand, I read a comment on the forum by (em1001) as well on this
blog about the inteligent design vis-a-vis evolution, and evolution and genetics. Mr(em1001)said that the sequenses of DNA is sequenses made of PROTEIN, dna is a sequenses of chimical matter,which is a lot simpler than the protein.it is nitrogene base. men is composed of 100% of matter including GENOM.the matter create and annihilate according to the quantum theories of conservation of the energy. matter at rest/no motion= death. matter in motion/interaction= life. the inteligent matter by contrast to inteligent design. example: the inteligent matter use the elements in the earth + the elements of the air including the waves from the sun to transform it to a fruits. that someone eat to have energy to write a message. the picture on the screen is just another form of a matter, there is no supernatural power that going to carry this massage to destination. the men is the most inteligent form of the matter that he has over-take the knowledge of the migratory birds in the air or the big fish in the oceans. the men help matter devesify it self by creating and combining new form of plants animals. the goal is to conquer the beast within, no emtions, no violence in the mosques/ temples, football fields, birthday party ex..the men will conquer it’s HUMANITY. a man /human against men/ beast.sorry it’s too long, too many blogs on the web promoting religion, the mind and inteligent design ex…
Why would a relative stranger care about my view of the world?He probably wouldn’t so I don’t understand this conflict to be of much value….
I don’t say grace except when I visit my good friend who practises catholicism.We don’t agree on many things,religion being simply one.
The traditional descriptions of Heaven and Hell aren’t applicable to our time as there is plenty of the latter in front of us every day.
And,by the way,why can’t I watch racy movies with my Christian girlfriend?We do,happily,have similar needs….
Hey Forrest Prince..you began so well and I said “yeah” to your opening paragraph.The last paragraph doesn’t cut it,I’m afraid.People have the freedom to behave as they wish regardless of our degree of approval.An elite financial status gives even greater freedom.It’s too bad,one might argue,but democracy,for all its advantages,confers freedom of expression to the uneducated,the tedious and the closed-minded.It’s the most limited people who create serious battles that the rest of us settle over a dinner table.Bon appetit!!!