"That is fucking evil. And if you are complicit in that, or don’t even see what’s wrong with it, or worse, plan to engage in Christian-style apologetics for it, defending it with the same bullshit fallacies and tactics the Christians use to defend their own immorality or that of their fictional god, then I don’t want anything to do with you. You are despicable. You are an awful person. You disgust me. You are not my people.
I do not think it is in our interests any longer to cooperate in silence with irrational people, when it is irrationality that is the fundamental root cause of all human evil. Anyone who disagrees with that is simply not someone we can work with... "
1. We believe in being reasonable. This means, first, that we believe in being logical and rational in forming beliefs and opinions. Which means anyone who makes a fallacious argument on any matter of real importance and, when shown that they have, does not admit it (when given the chance), is probably not one of us, and if they persist in doing that, is definitely not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with. This does not mean we must disavow anyone who happens to hold an irrational belief or have reached a conclusion irrationally, but only those atheists who explicitly oppose or reject the very idea of rationality. In other words, any atheist with whom we cannot even have a rational discussion.
Being reasonable also means we believe it is right and good to politely negotiate to find mutually acceptable compromises in matters of policy and coexistence, which includes agreements on the use of resources. But that does not mean capitulation: compromises must be mutually acceptable, and both parties must genuinely aim at that; if there is no such compromise to be had (not even one of mutual acceptance of our differences), then we are in one form or another enemies, and we must admit that.
I do not think it is in our interests any longer to cooperate in silence with irrational people, when it is irrationality that is the fundamental root cause of all human evil. Anyone who disagrees with that is simply not someone we can work with. We need to make the requirement of rationality in all our dealings with anyone fundamental. Even if we cooperate on limited projects with people who will be rational only in that limited sphere of cooperation (for example, interfaith projects for the common good), we still cannot hold our tongue and not continue to denounce their irrationality in any other sphere if we feel we need to, because to do so would be to become a traitor to our own values. Because being rational and reasonable is what we stand for. And it will always be what we stand for. Openly and passionately, and without compromise.
Although we must still give leave to people in political situations who have to hold their tongue, simply for pragmatic reasons and not because they are actively denying or undermining our values in this regard. For example, the NCSE is and has to remain religion-neutral and thus cannot “affiliate” with Atheism at all, much less Atheism+, even if many who work there are atheists or even Atheist+ enthusiasts. As with many other businesses and enterprises, it simply would not be appropriate to their mission. But we aren’t all working for the NCSE.
Reasonableness is not enough, however. In my book Sense and Goodness without God, and in my formal demonstration in chapter 14 of The End of Christianity, I lay out the empirical and logical foundations of objective moral facts on atheism. And the three principle values I discover to be fundamental truths about how all humans ought to govern themselves are reasonableness, compassion, and integrity, generally in that order.
So the second value we must lay as the foundation of Atheism+ is:
– : –
2. We believe in being compassionate. That means we believe it is important to have empathy for other people (men, women, white people, black people, rich people, poor people, and anyone suffering illness or misfortune or unfair treatment, and so on) and to act in the best interests of human happiness (rather than in the interests of our own vanity, greed, or self-righteousness, for example).
This does not mean we can’t be angry or mean or harsh, when it is for the overall good (as when we mock or vilify the town neonazi); ridiculing the ridiculous is often morally appropriate, and insults are also appropriate when they are genuinely appropriate (because, in short, human happiness would be destroyed if we didn’t marginalize that which can destroy it). It also doesn’t mean that we won’t act against evil, ignorance, and all the sins of vanity, greed, or self-righteousness. To the contrary, it is our compassion that compels us to do so. Our compassion entails we will and must always be the enemies of the uncompassionate.
And this is where the biggest divide exists in our movement today. Everyone who attacks feminism, or promotes or defends racism or sexism, or denigrates or maliciously undermines any effort to look after the rights and welfare and happiness of others, is simply not one of us. They have rejected compassion as a fundamental value. Regardless of what they say, that is in actual fact what they have done.
Indeed, as the Surly Amy story shows, there are clearly many of us who disregard the happiness of others just to hurt them, mocking or insulting (or even threatening) them merely to please one’s own vanity or self-righteousness, in complete disregard of the pointless misery it causes another human being. That is fucking evil. And if you are complicit in that, or don’t even see what’s wrong with it, or worse, plan to engage in Christian-style apologetics for it, defending it with the same bullshit fallacies and tactics the Christians use to defend their own immorality or that of their fictional god, then I don’t want anything to do with you. You are despicable. You are an awful person. You disgust me. You are not my people.
Even the most rudimentary application of The Golden Rule would have caused any of the people who treated Amy as they did, or Rebecca Watson, or any of the many women and men who have been targeted by this shit, to stop themselves well beforehand. “Wait. Would I want people to treat me this way?” No, you fucking wouldn’t. So alas, you are a hypocrite.
In Sense and Goodness without God (V.1.1.1, pp. 295-96) I made the point that all biblical religion is fundamentally fucked because at its root it fails a most fundamental moral test: it valorizes Abraham, who is willing to murder his own son to prove his faith–which means he placed faith above compassion, above even basic human decency. Almost every evil perpetrated by religion today can be traced to that diseased debasement of humanity, in the fundamentally corrupt values represented in that story. Many atheists are building the same corrupt edifice, and instead of “faith in god” trumping human decency, they are placing their own vanity and self-righteousness above human decency. Basically, it makes them feel good to hurt people. And that’s what makes them evil.
Indeed, “I don’t like you, so I am going to make you personally miserable” is their value system, rather than “I don’t like you, so I am going to have nothing to do with you” or “I don’t like something you said or did, so I will still respect you as a person and look after your basic welfare, but I am also going to explain in a logical and empirical way why I think you are wrong, and what I say might be harsh, but I will take the greatest care to ensure it is, to the best of my knowledge, relevant and true. But I’ll hear you out if you think I’m wrong about that.” No, that would be reasonable, and reasonably compassionate, behavior. Which these atheists know not of.
(I am by no means talking about respecting actual criminals, however. Their punishment is due. But even them we won’t needlessly torment. Their punishment must be productive, and deserved.)
And so I am declaring here and now, that anyone who acts like this, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with. In fact it is especially important on this point that we prove that these vile pissants are a minority in our movement, by making sure our condemnation of them is vocalized and our numbers seen. We must downvote their bullshit, call it out in comments, blog our outrage.
Don’t assume that because someone else did that, that it’s covered and you can give it a miss. No, we need to show numbers. So speak out wherever you see these two sides at loggerheads, and voice your affiliation, so it’s clear how many of us there are, against them. And this very much is an us vs. them situation. The compassionate vs. the vile. You can’t sit on the fence on this one. In a free society, apathy is an endorsement of villainy.
This also applies to the sexists and racists and other dirtbags who try to make themselves seem reasonable through the specious tactic of merely not using curse words or insults, as if that is all that it takes to be a reasonable person. No, when you see apologists for sexism and racism and other anti-humanistic views of the world, views that have at their core a fundamental lack of empathy for other human beings and a pathological disinterest in seeing how things look from perspectives not their own, views that place narcissistic self-interest above genuine concern for how other people are doing, even when they try to mimic what they think “sounding reasonable” looks like, you needn’t resort to invective or insults, but on the same even keel they are pretending at, simply declare that they are not one of you, but are one of them. The people we want nothing more to do with. Until and unless they realize their own sins and repent of them. Feel free to calmly explain why.
(But be empathic enough to assume at first that someone being an ignorant dufus is really just ignorant and misinformed, and not a douchebag; give them at least one shot at being educable, before kicking them into the sewers to wallow with their peeps.)
And of course the third value we must lay as the foundation of Atheism+ is:
– : –
3. We believe in personal integrity. That means we believe in being honest and forthright, and consistent in our values. Hypocrisy to us is among the greatest sins, and we will denounce it everywhere, and purge it whenever we discover it in ourselves.
This may seem uncontroversial, a no brainer, but it really needs special emphasis, it needs to be something we consciously define ourselves by, so that it is ever on our minds when we decide who to be and what to praise or denounce or fight for or against. It must actually shame us when we are discovered to be hypocritical or dishonest in any significant way, and our integrity ought always drive us to correct ourselves when that happens. Our integrity ought to be important to us.
We must integrate this ideal of personal integrity into our very self-identity. Those who don’t, those who aren’t shamed by being exposed as liars or hypocrits, those who persist in being dishonest or inconsistent even when their dishonesty or inconsistency has been soundly proven, is not one of us, and is to be marginalized and disowned, as not part of our movement, and not anyone we any longer wish to deal with.
– : –
The nexus of these three values does entail there can be such things as unreasonable compassion (like destroying your own happiness through excessive giving, or not giving babies vaccinations because needles hurt) or unreasonable honesty (like aiding a murderer by telling them where their target is hiding) or dishonest compassion (like tricking someone into losing a lot, by being generous to them now) or uncompassionate honesty (like being unnecessarily frank about someone’s appearance), or even dishonest reasonableness (like merely pretending to be reasonable). These are all moral failures. But there can be honest debate about where the boundaries are drawn when values come into conflict, as long as that debate is always governed by the most fundamental value of being reasonable (as defined above).
There can also be many other uncertainties and disagreements over whether someone or something really fulfills these values, and good people can fall short of their own values from time to time. The only issue at hand is whether we are at least on board with the idea that these are the values we should hold ourselves to, and with doing our best to hold ourselves to them. That is the question of what sort of atheist we are: an atheist who embraces these values, or an atheist who does not. The rest is open to honest and reasonable discussion, disagreement and debate. But we have to draw this line, so we are no longer mixed in with the atheists who refuse either to embrace these values or sincerely work toward embodying them, so we no longer give tacit endorsement to them or their toxic contributions to the atheism movement.
In a post later this week or next I will explore further what I think the values of Atheism+ could be, beyond the general principles I have laid out here. And I will consider these posts a living document. If from sincere and constructive criticism in comments I am led to alter or revise what I’ve said above in any way (beyond clarifications that can be well-enough addressed in comments themselves), I will do so, and announce the changes in the comments, so there is a record of them. Because I think the values of Atheism+ are to be built collaboratively, and don’t have to be dictated by me alone.
In the meantime, are you an atheist? Do you identify as an atheist? Then I call upon you to pick sides within our movement (not in comments here, but publicly, via Facebook or other social media): are you with us, or with them; are you with the Atheism+ movement, or do you at least cheer and approve it’s values and aims (since you don’t have to label yourself), or are you going to stick with Atheism Less and its sexism and cruelty and irrationality?
Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid."
freethoughtblogs.com |
