This is consistent with many, many other cases of privileged majorities attacking minorities simply for doing nothing different than what the majority is accustomed to doing. It's the privileged attacking others for daring to assert any sort of equality.
Pastor David Walker of Thomson, Georgia, writes:
If we want our ideas (our God) to be taken seriously we can't go pout and write mad Facebook posts every time someone challenges our views.
This much is true. In fact, I think it's the only true thing written in the entire post. Unfortunately, it's only a half-truth. What David Walker leaves out is some of the other very basic things that are required for a person's ideas to be taken seriously. For one, they have to be able to demonstrate that they've done their homework on the ideas they are discussing.
In this case, they have to be able to show that they understand something about atheism and atheists; what we actually have instead is a pastor who repeats numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations about atheism. Is that really someone who can be taken seriously at all, never mind have their ideas taken seriously?
So, while I am writing about how I find the idea of atheism intellectually arrogant, I am in no way seeking to attack those who refer to themselves as atheists.
Are we really supposed to believe that David Walker isn't saying anything about atheists as persons when he attacks atheism as "arrogant"? Somehow, atheism is inherently and necessarily "arrogant," but atheists themselves aren't being called "arrogant." How is that supposed to work?
I would honestly love to hear their response to my thoughts. I am addressing the IDEA of atheism, and I most certainly CAN do that without getting personal.
But can David Walker addressing the idea of atheism without spreading falsehoods? Sadly, no.
I think most people who claim to be atheists really mean to say that they are agnostics.
This is pretty important: David Walker's entire post is based around the claim that atheism is arrogant, but the critical line in this post is Walker presuming to tell atheists what they really believe and who they really are. David Walker is presuming the knowledge and authority to assert that most atheists who say they are atheists are actually mistaken about themselves -- he may not ever have met them or know anything about them, but he does somehow know this.
If that's not arrogance, I'm not sure what is. Even worse, I'm quite confident that he doesn't have any idea how arrogant his statement is or how ironic it is for him to attack atheism as "arrogant" on the basis of a position that is about as arrogant as a person can hold. I don't think he comprehends how arrogant it is to presume to know the minds and beliefs of people he doesn't know and has never met.
For some strange reason, lots and lots of Christians are equally presumptuous and arrogant. Why?
An atheist is someone who believes that there is no God. It is a black and white, absolute statement. "I am an atheist, I know beyond a doubt that there is no God."
An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods -- nothing more, nothing less. David Walker would know this if he had done some very basic, very simple research on the matter. So let's review our options: Walker did the research and learned the truth but is deliberately deceiving readers or he didn't do any research because he assumed that he already knew everything, couldn't be wrong, and so didn't need to even double-check, never mind try to learn something new.
The first would make him a liar. The second would not only be another example of arrogance, but would be tantamount to lying because it demonstrates a disregard for facts and truth. A person who cares about the truth recognizes that they are fallible and tries to make sure that they have the facts when they make claims.
I find the idea of atheism intellectually arrogant because it assumes an astounding amount of knowledge on the part of the one making the statement. The atheist in essence says, "I have investigated the whole of recorded human thought, and explored the mysteries of the galaxies, and I can say definitively that God does not exist." No one in their right mind would claim such a thing.
Why wouldn't anyone claim such a thing? If a "god" is defined in certain ways, it would be entirely appropriate to make exactly the statement which David Walker objects to. If "god" is defined in a self-contradictory way, of course it doesn't exist. If "god" is defined in way that contradicts well-established facts about reality, of course it doesn't exist. It's perfectly reasonable to deny the existence of alleged gods that clearly don't exist.
Thus we have the curious situation where David Walker is not only completely wrong in everything he says about atheism, but even if he were right, his conclusions would still all be incorrect.
Atheism is by definition a closed-minded system of belief.
Atheism is, by definition, neither a belief nor a system of belief. David Walker would know that if he had done even a modicum of research on the matter. Which he didn't.
Atheism is a position from which other ideas are attacked, not fairly evaluated.
As opposed to David Walker's Christianity -- because he doesn't attack other ideas (like atheism). He only engages in the fair evaluations of other ideas. Somehow, though, "fair" manages to incorporate misrepresenting the ideas at issue. How is that supposed to work? This Christian idea of "fairness" is not one that I recognize and I don't think it's one that I'd want to have anything to do with.
I find it surprisingly inconsistent that so many socially open-minded people are persuaded by such an arrogant position on God.
I find it sad that so many Christians insist that they are open-minded even as they misrepresent everything they are talking about. I find it sad that so many Christians insist that it's arrogant for atheists to reject their god even as they reject every other god without being arrogant.
Are there any Christians out there who are capable of having an honest, substantive, and serious conversation about atheism? Are there any Christians out there who are capable of dealing with atheism as it really is instead of straw men that they make up in their heads? I"d like to think so, but I've yet to meet one.
Agnosticism on the other hand seems to me a very honest and humble position.
Notice that David Walker doesn't claim to be an agnostic himself. So agnosticism is a "humble" position, which implies that agnostics are necessarily "humble" as people. Atheists, though, cannot be humble. And theists? At no point does Walker ever apply the standards to theism that he keeps applying to atheism.
If agnosticism is the only humble position, then David Walker admits to being arrogant -- but that would undermine his attack on atheism. If Walker claimed that theism were humble like agnosticism, then he'd have to construct some sort of argument supporting this -- but I don't think he can. The only option left is to ignore the issue and hope readers don't notice.
I personally believe that a true agnostic will not be one for long.
Nowhere does David Walker explain what a "true" agnostic is supposed to be or why that version is "true" whereas others are not. It's not hard to suspect that a No True Scotsman fallacy is lurking in the background here.
The Bible teaches that God has promised we would find him, if we sought him with all our heart. It may be more accurate to say that most people who claim to be atheists are agnostics who have quit looking for God for whatever reason.
What happened to only speaking about the "idea of atheism"? Well, that was never credibly sincere. It's nice to see the pretense dropped finally.
It is my prayer that those who claim atheism would become dissatisfied with what is an intellectually flawed idea and embrace agnosticism.
And that's supposed to happen through the efforts of Christians like David Walker who consistently tell falsehoods about atheism and atheists? I don't think so. Feel free to comment on David Walker's blog and let him know that being arrogant while presuming to condemn arrogance -- and doing so on the basis of falsehoods -- is no way to defend a religion. Though, I've yet to Christian apologists come up with anything better.
Update: David Walker wrote a new post... but didn't actually add anything. He talks about his past, and how he's really a great guy, but at no point does he have anything substantive to say. David Walker made a great deal of claims about atheists and atheism, but revisits almost none of them. He seems to think that maybe he shouldn't have called atheists "arrogant," but that's it -- just that one thing. All the rest of the new post is about him. Just take a look at how often the word "I" appears; then look how often it's combined with something like "was mistaken" or "should reconsider."
What does it say about a person that when errors in their claims and reasoning are pointed out, they "respond" by mostly just talking about themselves and say almost nothing about their original position they tried to promote? There have been a lot of cases where the arguments offered by Christian apologists against atheism actually seemed to really be all about them, not about atheists.
I've suspected this when it has seemed that they had no interest in talking about real flesh-and-blood atheists, instead focusing on two-dimensional pseudo-atheists that existed nowhere but in the apologists' imaginations. In such cases, the arguments seemed to me to more about describing some grand cosmic drama where atheists were just minor "extras" playing role -- such apologists don't care about us as real human beings, they only care about us playing the role we're assigned. That's why, I think, they insist so much on imposing upon us their misconceptions.
the Christian position comes down to this:
they can do what they want and any other group who wants the same is uppity.
First the slaves, then women, then gays/lesbians and now atheists.
the arrogance is all theirs that they have an entitlement to uncritical consideration, public space and what they call respect, when they mean reverence.
Two ancient Christian ideas seem to have been firmly established as basic principles of Christian belief: “the naturally Christian soul” and “God made us for him, and restless is our heart until it rests in him.”
I think that these and similar thoughts developed during the centuries Christians were fighting the Roman authorities. To give themselves enough courage to keep up the fight, they had to convince themselves that their religion was somehow the natural, normal state of the human mind that the “pagans” would naturally gravitate toward, once they were “cured” of their delusions. And many, perhaps most, Christians today still consciously or unconsciously believe this.
There are some Christians–some Quakers, Unitarians, etc.–who have given up this point of view, but of course the more “militant” Christians don’t even consider them Christian. Hence, the “militants” are locked into a circular pattern of thought that hardly any of them seems able to escape from. That’s why there are so few of them who are open to being partners in a sensible argument or conversation.
More time than not its the religious that are arrogant.
As both an agnostic and a personal friend of Mr. Walker, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Cline on a couple of points. For one, I think his distinction between agnosticism and atheism–that many people who consider themselves atheists are actually agnostics–is a valid point. Reading his use of the word ‘humble’ as suggesting that agnostics are somehow inferior is not accurate. While Mr. Walker is indeed a Baptist minister, with a strong faith and education that directs his opinions (many of which are different than mine), he is not, in my experience, exclusionary, no more than are many agnostics and atheists of my acquaintance. I don’t share his presumption that atheism is inherently arrogant, since it, too, is a type of faith, but I think Mr. Cline’s rebuttal descends into the type of ad hominem attack that is unfortunate, since I suspect he hasn’t met nor had the sorts of conversations with Mr. Walker that I have enjoyed, on matters religious, political, and social; again, while we often disagree, Mr. Walker is always willing to discuss these matters openly and without judgment or rancor. This secular humanist is proud to call him a friend.
Except that it’s not the least bit valid and relies upon false definitions of both atheism and agnosticism. In particular, it presumes that the two are mutually exclusive; in reality agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism.
You’re right, it’s not accurate. I didn’t say anything along those lines.
Except when it comes to attacking atheists as “arrogant” on the basis of being arrogant himself.
No, atheism isn’t any type of faith. The absence of belief in gods is no more a “faith” than the absence of belief in elves.
Criticizing a person for making attacks on a class of people based on falsehoods and misrepresentations is not an “ad hominem attack.”
Is there value in having a “conversation” with a person who will arrogantly and presumptuously start out assuming that they know my mind even though they have never met me and know nothing about me? Substantive and productive conversations simply aren’t possible when one person starts out assuming that they have nothing to learn. What results isn’t conversation, it’s preaching.
Yet none of your disagreements are accurate — that is to say, you disagree by stating something false or something that depends upon a premise that is false.
Mr. Cline,
Thank you for posting my response to yr. blog post. I wish you good luck in yr. defense of atheism and agnosticism (esp. since, as I have noted, I categorize myself as the latter). I hope yr. tone doesn’t eventually overwhelm your message; otherwise you will find yourself only preaching to the choir.
I notice that you don’t address the errors of yours I pointed out.
I’m also an agnostic. One of the errors of yours that I pointed out is the attempt to make atheism and agnosticism mutually exclusive.
In my experience, complaints about “tone” are frequently offered by people who don’t object to that sort of “tone” in other contexts, only when their own favored ideologies are being critiqued. This means that it’s not really “tone” that concerns them, just the extent to which flaws and failings in their ideology are being revealed by people who refuse to be deferential.
People complain about the “tone” of so-called “new” atheists, for example, yet more and more people are admitting to atheism than ever before. Clearly those “new” atheists are not just preaching to a choir. I think it’s been demonstrated by history that people who are assertive, direct, and unapologetic in their critiques of popular ideologies reach many more than just members of the choir and that is, in fact, why others express so much concern about “tone.” They don’t want to see that choir grow.
I left a comment on Walker’s blog which is still held in moderation even though its clear he has been online since I left the comment. I suspect there are many more comments held in moderation. My comment was short and didn’t say anything about arrogance or attack him in any way. It’s clear from his subsequent blog post and his tweets that he’s feeling a bit shell-shocked by the attention he’s received, but sadly he seems to be avoiding any real dialogue.
U know what’s really cool? If you take Atheism/Atheist out of Walker’s quotes and insert Christanity/Christian… watch:
“A Christian is someone who believes that there is only one God. It is a black and white, absolute statement. “I am a Christian, I know beyond a doubt that there is only one God.” –>the one from the bible no doubt… lol
” I find the idea of Christianity intellectually arrogant because it assumes an astounding amount of knowledge on the part of the one making the statement. The Christian in essence says, “I have investigated the whole of recorded human thought, and explored the mysteries of the galaxies, and I can say definitively that my God does exist.” No one in their right mind would claim such a thing.”
“Christianity is by definition a closed-minded system of belief.” –> DUH, and their history PROVES it!!!
“Christianity is a position from which other ideas are attacked, not fairly evaluated.” –>see above for examples…
— I just HAD to do it… hehehehehehe
If Mr. Walker thinks that agnostics are humble, he should read some of T. H. Huxley’s comments about religion (Huxley coined the term and applied to to himself).
Good comment Jennifer
It is, in my estimation, a gross display of arrogance to say “I know”…we actually one doesn’t know…he believes. Atheists are without a belief in the existence of a GOD…any god…but the assertion that atheists KNOW there is no god is contradicted by the definition of the term “atheist”.
I have no problem…I’m actually proud of being able to say “I don’t know” and I would rather not know than to claim to know something that I do not know….cannot not know.
When a “believer” says to me…”I believe”…he is being fair and honest….if he actually believes. When a “believer” says “I know”…he is lying to me and to himself.
I commented on Walker’s blog, Austin. Cheers.
“Arrogant” – doesn’t that come from the Latin, meaning “unquestioning”, “not asking”, or “without question”? Atheists are not “unquestioning”, quite the opposite; we question just about everything! Those who don’t question, who just accept and believe what they are told, those are the arrogant ones! By definition, then, Christians are arrogant, Atheists are – rogant?