More convenient mischaracterizations

Greg Epstein now has a (sort-of) defender!

Well, it happens to be a guy who had a hand in writing the press release containing the infamous 22 words...

A group of renowned Humanists, atheists and agnostics will gather at Harvard in April, to take on an unlikely opponent: atheist "fundamentalists."

...but, hey, I'll say it counts. Duncan Crary, director of communications for the Institute for Humanist Studies, has written an article for IHS's Humanist Network News on the "atheist fundamentalist" controversy. The article isn't terrible, but it does have an Epstein-esque tendency to avoid the issues his critics are actually raising and focus on straw men.

For example:

The activist known as Brian Sapient, of the Rational Response Squad, also told HNN that Epstein should not have criticized fellow atheists in the media.

The "also" in that sentence refers to me, and I don't recall making that statement about Epstein. And I really doubt Brian Sapient said that atheists shouldn't criticize other atheists in the media. Hell, we're both doing it. And it's certainly not the point that either of us are focusing our attention on.

Crary also says I criticized Epstein specifically "for issuing a press release which suggested a conflict within the freethought movement" -- not a terribly cogent interpretation of my rants on this matter. (How many times did I have to write the phrase "false accusation" to make the central issue clear? Apparently a billion times wasn't enough.)

That said, where Crary isn't slipping his own off-target interpretations into the article, he does let Sapient and me speak for ourselves. And his writing isn't actually deceptive -- it just has a convenient focus on alleged "criticisms" that Epstein's opponents actually haven't made a big deal about at all.

The full email interview I did with Crary is below...

1) Do you object to the term atheist fundamentalist?

Of course.

Why?

The term "fundamentalist" necessarily implies dogmatism. It is simply an inaccurate description of someone who specifically rejects dogma of any kind. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris explicitly reject dogma, and, to my knowledge, no person who has accused them of dogmatism has provided a single example from their writings or statements. It should not be acceptable throw around words like "fundamentalist" and "dogmatic" simply to describe ideas you don't like. These words are not synonymous with "blunt" or "harsh."

Those who conflate these ideas to win a cheap advantage in an argument should be called to account -- as anyone should be called to account for the claims they make.

It should be noted that Dawkins and Harris maintain of consistent position of being willing to justify any and all claims they make using facts and reason. A person who holds this position simply can't be called "fundamentalist" in any meaningful sense of that term. Fundamentalism is when reason fails you and you say, "Well, this book says so and I'm sticking to it." Christian fundamentalists happily and openly do just that. Dawkins and Harris do nothing of the kind.

2) Do you think there are any atheist fundamentalists?

Atheism itself has no fundamentalism to offer, to my knowledge. That term implies, in the original Christian sense, for example, an unwavering faith in the supernatural perfection of the Holy Bible. There is no meaningful parallel in the failure to believe in gods -- which is all atheism is.

If there is a piece of atheist dogma available to be dogmatic about, I'm unaware of it.

3) In your blog you wrote: "Ironic quotes or not, Epstein and the conference should apologize for using that word to frame this conflict and suggesting its use to the media." The media has been using the term atheist fundamentalists for a while now. Rather than putting the term in ironic quotes, how should one describe an atheist who is extreme in his/her intolerance of religious believers? (staunch? hardcore? extreme?)

First of all, Dawkins and Harris are not "intoleran[t] of religious believers." They may be intolerant of silly conversation (i.e., they don't show reverence when someone introduces a supernatural idea into the discussion), but that is not the same thing as being intolerant of the believers themselves.

It should be obvious that criticizing an idea is not the same thing as being "intolerant" of the people who hold it. As a liberal Democrat, I am scathing in my criticism of the Republican regime currently in the White House, and of the Republican Party platform in general. But do my harsh words mean I'm "intolerant" of all Republicans? No. Because that would imply that I was trying to suppress their rights in some way.

If it is not common to call opinionated people "intolerant" of those who hold contrary political ideas (and it isn't), it also should not be common to casually throw around the word "intolerant" when someone is merely opinionated about religious ideas.

When Dawkins, for example, says that a belief in a completely undetectable world populated by characters and events is "delusional," he is making a completely defensible statement. And he defends it. If you challenge him, he's willing to meet your challenge with evidence and argument. This is not "intolerance." It is bluntness.

So, in answer to your slanted question, provide me with an example of "an atheist who is extreme in his/her intolerance of religious believers," complete with a quotation supporting that description, and I will then tell you how I would describe that particular atheist.

4) It seems like Sam Harris disagreed with Greg's use of the term atheist fundamentalist, but he wasn't as upset about it as you. Why are you so angry about this? (i.e. why call Greg an asshole and write "fuck you" to him in your blog?)

Actually, I didn't call him an asshole.

When Greg Epstein revealed that he intended to keep advancing an accusation he knew to be false, I decided to demonstrate on my blog exactly how that kind of attitude should be met: with contempt. Epstein didn't merely make a mistake -- he formulated a dishonest strategy, and when called on it, said he intended to keep on using it. At that point, he does not deserve to be taken seriously.

This kind of bullshit is what I expect from Fox News, not someone claiming to approach a discussion in good faith. And, for example, I do openly mock John Gibson when I am on his Fox News radio show -- he's a clown who cares nothing about arguing in good faith, so contempt is the treatment he deserves and gets.

5) Do you see a value in taking a "softer", more tolerant approach to religion than the approach that "New Atheists" take? (Do you consider yourself a "New Atheist" according to the term which appeared in the Wired article and several other stories.)

If being a New Atheist means speaking obvious facts bluntly, then I am a New Atheist. I do not believe in giving anyone's ideas special deference, no matter what category those ideas fall into. I treat the notion that Jesus rose from the dead and flew into the air exactly the same way I treat the notion that crystals will heal cancer or that horoscopes have predictive value. What's the evidence?

Religion isn't accustomed to this kind of equal treatment, but that doesn't mean it should be exempt from it.

There may be some pragmatic, short-term value in a "softer" approach, but it is potentially harmful if that approach entails empowering delusional ideas with some kind of respectability. While a given delusion (ex: "I am in communication with the creator of the universe and I know what he wants") can be used to support both charitable acts and murder, the problem is the delusion itself. Ultimately, we have to move our society away from making any decisions at all based on delusions. It should be rather obvious that our long-term survival depends on it.

I don't think the "softer" approach alone will get us there.

6) Would you like to add anything else about all this?

I do think those who take a softer approach to dealing with the problem of religion have reached their strategy because they honestly feel it can do the most good. And, while I will explain why I do things my way if asked, I don't go out of my way to attack those who are less radical in working for a similar overall goal. And I certainly don't throw false accusations such as "fundamentalism" at them.

I believe we should work in parallel on our goals without attacking each other. We are on the same side, after all. You tackle one front, I'll take another. But Greg Epstein went out of his way to provoke a conflict within our side, hurling a false accusation favored by the worst representatives on the other side -- and he apparently did it to curry favor with the other side.

In no way is this anything close to acceptable behavior among allies.

Would you like to bury the hatchet with Greg someday and support the Harvard Humanist Chaplaincy?

I don't necessarily see Greg Epstein's behavior as representative of anything but Greg Epstein. But if he is going to conduct his office in the unprincipled way he has conducted himself in this dispute, I don't see how I could support the office while he occupies it.