Douglas Todd Links Atheism with Genocide, Surprised at Response
I regularly interview (and respect) atheists -- and have interviewed thousands of people who would be aware that I could not agree with them on everything.
Source: The Vancouver Sun
But are they aware if Douglas Todd is bigoted against them? In such a situation they might change their minds — and well they should. There is already more than enough anti-atheist bigotry in the world; we don't need to add to it by enhancing the credibility of bigots in the media.
I have no trouble with someone being an atheist. It's quite a defensible position. It is just that it Dawkins' brand of atheism is particularly prone to skapegoating. I don't agree with religious fundamentalists either. But can you be an atheist fundamentalist? I definitely think so.
So, in addition to being an anti-atheist bigot (saying that "some of my best friends are atheists" doesn't mean that Douglas Todd isn't a bigot — it just means that he's a bigot who doesn't even recognize when he's using very old and worn rationalizations), Todd also doesn't really understand what atheism is. No one who has a grasp of atheism can think that "atheist fundamentalism" is a coherent concept.
You can't be a "fundamentalist" about mere disbelief in gods. You also can't be surprised when atheists refuse to be interviewed by a person who doesn't evince any interest in what atheism is, makes accusations they can't support, express bigoted sentiments, and so forth. Douglas Todd's entire article is an exercise is self-absorbed whining: "poor me, look at how the mean, intolerant atheist refused to be interviewed by me after I accused atheism and science of being responsible for the worst horrors of the 20th century."
Then, just in case the irony of the situation wasn't strong enough, Douglas Todd proceeds to complain about the dismissive and insulting tone of the comments to his article. Apparently, it's OK for a theist to express anti-atheist bigotry, ignorance, lies, and insults, but it's not OK for atheists to object and respond in any manner other than one which demonstrates the most rigorous politeness.
There is just one response to such a position: NO (actually, there is a far more appropriate response, but I can't write it here). If people like Douglas Todd want to traffic in ignorance and bigoted insults, they are of course free to do so — but they are not free to then whine about atheists not sitting down with them as if they were deserving of civil, polite treatment. Everyone starts out deserving a basic amount of civility and respect, but once a person launches into bigoted tirades, they give up any claim they might have had to being treated like everyone else.
As it turns out, though, Dawkins never refused to be interviewed at all — he doesn't recall ever being asked for an interview by Douglas Todd. He also doesn't recall ever reading Todd's original article, which is understandable. iI's certainly forgettable because it simply rehashes a series of fallacies, errors, and lies that have been used by every other anti-atheist bigot looking for a reason to attack atheists through Dawkins' book. So, in addition to being an unoriginal bigot, Douglas Todd turns out to be a very unimportant bigot as well — though one with delusions of grandeur, it seems.
Comments
I looked up fundamentalist at dictionary.com just to get some idea of what the word means in a more official capacity. If the definitions offered at that site are representative of the overall definitions I would find elsewhere, then, no, it would not be possible for an atheist to be a fundamentalist.
The usage would be no different than saying that if I do not accept someone’s assertion that I’m a male (rather than a female), I’m a fundamentalist about the idea that I’m not a male.
First: that does not appear to be the proper usage of the term.
But second, if that’s someone means by it, then it should not have such negative connotations.
If someone means “intolerant” or “borish,” then they are using the term in such a way that isn’t even close to any of the definitions offered for the term. In such a case they’re simply using the wrong term/label for what they mean.
Hahahahaha, take that Douglas Todd!
QF’s Blog: http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com
First, Richard Dawkins runs away from one anti-atheist bigot with delusions of relevance, and now he’s running away from this one. What is he . . . scared or something?
“First, Richard Dawkins runs away from one anti-atheist bigot with delusions of relevance, and now he’s running away from this one. What is he . . . scared or something?”
No, you tool. Dawkins is just being prudent. He rightly finds things like that to be a waste of time. A lot of these ‘debates’ are useless because it often isn’t two people in a give-and-take but it’s one party, or both, trying to score points with the audience by appealing to their emotions or prejudices. It can come down to who is the better orator and/or who is more skilled at emotional button-mashing.
Actually, I think that in the common usage of the term, the word fundamentalist COULD apply to an athiest.
I see the differnce as being between the person who insists “there is no god”, and someone who says “I see no evidence for god”. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs, but I find it ironic that the only thing a skeptic is never skeptical OF is their own conclusion.
So, skeptics are always fundamentalists, too? Is a person who says “there are no fairies” also a fundamentalist? Apparently, your idea of the “common usage” of “fundamentalist” is anyone who is confident of the truth of a conclusion, but you don’t explain what’s “fundamentalist” or wrong with that.
You know, TheReverend, I used to say it exactly like you suggest, “I see no evidence for God”. I then got all sorts of arguments about how I didn’t REALLY believe there wasn’t a god because I left some possibility open that there might be one. There’s little that’s more annoying than being told what one’s beliefs are.
I thought of going with “I believe there is no god”, and leaving it at that. But no theist says, “I believe there is a god” when describing their belief, they simply categorically state that god exists. It’s assumed the intent is that they believe god exists. I don’t count everyone who says “god exists” as a fundamentalist, particularly if on deeper questioning they indicate it’s a firmly held belief, not a matter of objective, known fact.
Hello Austin et al,
A few things:
Canada, especially British Columbia, is not like most of the U.S. Non-religious people are commonplace in Canada, with almost one-third of the population saying they have no religion. About 11 per cent of Canadians say they’re atheist. So there is not the same anti-atheist bigotry in Canada as there seems to be in the U.S. In Europe, as you know, atheism is very common.
2. In this case, I am using fundamentalist to refer to anyone who is close-minded and doctrinaire - not open to being persuaded by the point of view of the other.
3. While I share Dawkins’ critique of many forms of supernaturalism, I admit I get a little angry at what I perceive as Dawkins’ dismissal of some of the more sophisticated spiritual viewpoints around these days, including those coming from a host of scientists. Sometimes I wonder if it is what Carl Jung would describe as “The Shadow,” the part of my personality that wants to deny the negative and project it on to others. It is a common psychological function; of religious people and non-religious people. Sometimes I wonder if the vitriol that some atheists aim at religious people, particularly for being fundamentalist, is a projection of their own hidden fundamentalism.
That there is less anti-atheist bigotry in Canada than America hardly seems material to your own anti-atheist bigotry.
So you are using the term incorrectly. Regardless, you provide no basis for thinking that even this incorrect definition is accurate (in the sense that it’s an accurate description of the people in question, regardless of the word used).
1. Feel free to offer a substantive explanation of where and how Dawkins is mistaken.
2. Anger at him for this, even if he is in fact quite mistaken in his position, doesn’t justify your anti-atheist bigotry. If I saw a black Christian being dismissive of Muslim views and decided that he was wrong, I wouldn’t be justified in launching into a racist rant.
Once again, you misdefine fundamentalism. Not only does this inaccurately describe atheists, but it is in fact very unfair to real fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is a real and discernible religious phenomenon. Many religious fundamentalists are indeed closed-minded and dogmatic, but not all are. On the contrary, I’ve found some fundamentalists to be less closed-minded and less bigoted than some religious liberals.
If you mean to say that someone is dogmatic or closed-minded, then say so — and be prepared to support the accusation. Treating “fundamentalism” as a synonym for attitudes that you don’t happen to like is a slur against fundamentalists as well as a means for not having to seriously engage the ideas and arguments of those you’re mis-labeling. Why? Because “fundamentalist” is a term you can use ambiguously, relying on others to fill in their own negative assumptions about what “fundamentalism” means. Since there is no specific criticism, you can feel free not to provide any specific evidence to substantiate it.
And do keep in mind that it’s the atheist here who is trying to defend the fundamentalist from unfair and undeserved attacks from the theist.
Now seriously argue (i.e., not simply engage in slurs and vitriol of your own) that atheists who attack fundamentalists are projecting their own negatives onto religious believers, you’ll need to identify the particulars of the attacks then examine how and where those same atheists actually express the same qualities, ideas, or behaviors which they are attributing to others.
Anti-atheist bigotry seems almost a prerequisite for most christians I’ve been in contact with. Why is it “vitriol” when an atheist disagrees with a theist. Maybe that’s just a diversionary tactic used by christians to avoid dealing with the truth of the matter of discussion.
Demonising is a common debating tactic. “Angry”, “vitriol”, “fundamentalist”, etc are all just demonising terms. When people use them, in any debate, they need to be confronted and corrected. This is not “fundamentalist” or “angry”, it is being precise, clear, and fair.
Good for Mr Todd for posting here. As a fellow British Columbian, I agree that theist bigotry is not as systematic or overt here as it seems to be (from my vantage point) in much of the US; though that isn’t really very high praise, necessarily. However, I would point out that the Darwin Fish decals on both my cars are the only part of either car that has ever been scratched, and in each case several times. I have also had disparaging comments and looks for my atheist t-shirts of the sort that people wearing religious t-shirts do not encounter.
There is nothing close-minded about being decisive in your opinions. The more one studies religions and their gods, particularly across the period of human pre-history covered by anthropology, the more obvious it becomes that all religion is fictional. The atheism that is common among the brightest and most educated people is both decisive and well-informed, and clearly not “fundamental” at all.
What makes a person fundamentalist is how they came to their opinions. Were they the product of indoctination and obedience to authority? Or were they the product of comparative study, skepticism, open enquiry? Which came first - the opinion, or the evidence to support it?
I, like most atheists, am awaiting evidence of the “vitriol” of Richard Dawkins. Why is vitriol required to politely object to dogma that inspires people to violence, including murder? What does atheist “fundamentalism” consist of beyond well-written and irrefutable critical commentary?
I’ve always understood a “Fundamentalist.” to be a person who took the teachings of the “Bible or Koran as being the literal truth with no deviation allowed.
For many years my closest and dearest friend was a Pastor of “The Church of the Nazarene. a fundamentalist organisation. A nicer bunch of people I have yet to meet. As a Professional Photographer I took the photos of many of the Congregation, was a guest at many weddings, and am still in touch many years after retiring. They all knew of my Atheism. No recriminations, but then most were Australians, and even the feeling of affection came from the lone Texan, wife of another Pastor. Fundamentalist Christians don’t have to be vitriolic opponents to Atheism. Not if they are truly Christian.
The Pastor and I were truly close friends,something that puzzled quite a few. I now have an e mail friendship with a Muslim in Saudi Arabia. Admittedly the young lady’s objective is to convert me, a hopeless task, but I receive no notion of hatred or vilification. Incidentally her writings and terminology in this direction are practically the same as an evangelising Fundamentalist Southern Baptist.
There is no need for aggressive behaviour it never proves an argument.
I view religious beliefs as only another form of superstition. The definition is a belief in an outcome not based on fact.Or any blindly accepted belief or notion. I guess that covers it.
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
If you put almost anyone in the right impoverished life vs death circumstances, they are capable of anything regardless of philosophy.
Anyone who thinks a single body of work is the source of all wisdom is a book mutant. A Marxist can be a fundamentalist too. Book worship is a moronic fixation and fetish. Nothing can be understood unless you are capable of standing outside of it.
First, and less significantly, you’ve quoted Mr. Todd misspelling “scapegoating” in the second passage above. It’s nice, as an editor, to see my services are needed.
Second, and more importantly, you rightly object that there can’t be a “fundamentalist” disbelief in god or gods. Every fundamentalism needs a fundament (foundation), a text to adhere to regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
What Mr. Todd seems to mean (and I object to this both as an atheist and as an editor - such careless word choice!) is inflexible atheism. An atheist can be as inflexible in her beliefs as a fundamentalist theist. But this is an analogy, a comparison, not an equivalency.
Unfortunately, such logical distinctions are lost on theists. Ever since Medieval Christian scholars backed themselves into a corner trying to calculate the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin (no, they didn’t, but it was fun to write that phrase), theists have given up logic and now mainly stick to… well, sticks. And bombs. And a lot of yelling.
Third, and this is way less important than even the first point, I have been having fun referring to the writer as “Mr. Todd,” because of the Beatrix Potter book about the weaselly fox by a similar name.
Having had a face to face conversation with Richard Dawkins,i will like to say that he deliberately tries to make the same arrogant and patronising declarations of most superstitious beliefs because he has come to realise that there is no point trying to make less intelligent humans understand things their brains are not biologically moduled to grasp.The guy is an intellectual genius and thats his only fault.The bible,Koran and the jewish talmud dont care how other humans who do not adhere to their various stupid claims feel.why should Dawkins care how superstitious people feel when he says they are stupid?superstitious or not we have and shall always benefit from people like Dawkins on this planet and thats what hurts the most.hahahahahaha
Austin, I have to ask you why you bother to try to get these christian fundies to use the english language in its proper sense, if they weren’t kept illiterate they might figure out how their being duped
Mr. Todd,
Are you “open to being persuaded by the point of view” that the earth is flat?
Douglas Todd, I am also a Canadian… born in Vancouver…
… I have lived in most of the metropolitan areas of the country including Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto & Montreal…
… I have also live in a number of rather rural areas…
… as an athesist (finally after 40 yrs as fully committed Christian), I can assure you, there is plenty of anti-atheist bigotry (you are just one more example)…
… having also live in the USA off & on over the past 20 years, I can add that Canada is not much (if at all) different…
… the smae can be said to you Brits, AUssies etc. who regularly post your arrogant blather about how glad you are to not live in the US…
… you’e obniously overlooked your own short comings (of which there are many)… & my experience with many of you is, you covet the American livestyle & cringe to contemplate your fate should the US rethink their support of your lesser nations…
… long live the Queen… eh…
Juicy article; as an atheist myself, I’ve been annoyed at Todd for years. His original review of The God Delusion has a wonderful weak underbelly ripe for a thorough drubbing…one day I may make the effort.
In the meantime, I’m glad I found your blog, and you might be interested in mine. It’s devoted to critical analysis of journalism in Vancouver, and I just treated Todd in a recent post. You might like it.