Posted on 11/13/2007 8:07:51 AM PST by NYer
Richard Dawkins has a bright idea: Atheists are the new gays. Is he joking? Not at all. The bestselling author of The God Delusion has been suggesting for two years now that atheists can follow the example of gays. This would put the atheists last in the line of liberation groups: first the civil rights movement, then the feminist movement, then the gay liberation movement, and now the cause of atheist liberation.
What makes Dawkins want atheists to be like gays? Dawkins explains that gays used to be called homosexual, but then they decided to pick a positive-sounding name like "gay." Suddenly the meaning of the term "gay" was entirely appropriated by homosexuals. Gays went from being defined by their enemies to defining themselves in a favorable way.
Dawkins cited this example in advocating that atheists call themselves "brights." After all, atheist is a somewhat negative term because it defines itself by what it is opposed to. "Bright" sounds so much happier and, more important, smarter. "Bright" kind of reflects the high opinion that atheists have of their own intellectual abilities. Even the stupidest village atheist gets to pat himself on the back and place himself in the tradition of science and philosophy by calling himself a "bright."
Dawkins and the philosopher Daniel Dennett have both written articles promoting the use of the term “bright.” Not all atheists have warmed to the term, but Dawkins and Dennett clearly envision themselves as far-looking strategists of the atheist cause. But how bright, really, are they?
Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don't want to? I doubt that Dawkins would support "outing" atheists. But can an atheist "rights" group be far behind? Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?
Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. It seems strange for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn't seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America.
If Dawkins' public relations skills seem lacking in this area, they are positively abysmal when they come to building support for science. Remember that Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science. He has a chair funded by the Microsoft multimillionaire Charles Simonyi. If I were that guy, I'd withdraw the support, not because I disagree with Dawkins, but because I think he is setting back the cause of science.
Basically Dawkins is saying if you are religious, then science is your enemy. Either you choose God or you choose science. No wonder that so many Americans say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions. Indeed Dawkins takes the same position as the most ignorant fundamentalist: you can have Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can't have both.
Dawkins is in some ways a terrible representative for atheism, which I'm glad about because a bad cause deserves a bad leader. He is also a terrible advocate for science, which I'm sad about because science deserves all the support it can get.
Having debated Christopher Hitchens, I’d like the opportunity to debate Dawkins. I think I can vindicate a rational and scientific argument for religion against his irrational and unscientific prejudice. When I wrote Dawkins to propose such a debate, however, Dawkins said that “upon reflection” he decided against it. He didn’t give a reason, and there is no reason.
In his writings on religion, Dawkins presents atheism as the side of reason and evidence, and religion as the side of “blind faith.” So what’s he afraid of? How can reason possibly lose in a contest with ignorance and superstition? I have written Dawkins back offering him the most favorable terms: a debate on a secular campus like Berkeley rather than a church, with atheist Michael Shermer as the moderator, and a donor ready and willing to pay both our fees.
So I hope Dawkins takes me up on my challenge to an intellectual joust. If you want to encourage him, write Dawkins and send the email to dineshjdsouza@aol.com. I’ll forward your thoughts to our wavering atheist knight. He may want to pattern atheism on the gay rights movement, but surely he doesn’t want the world to think that he’s a sissy.
I think it may be a good idea. A lot of people are naive about the tactics used by the homosexual/gay rights movement. A bright rights movement may possibly make those tactics more transparent to some people.
Atheism? That’s so gay...
I am and we are...
I think that the term “theophobe” best describes Dawkins.
Oh boy - almost direct quotes from some of our Darwinist-obsessives here!
No wonder that so many Americans say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions.
LOL - that is going to leave a mark. Get ready for Darwinists demanding to know what D'Souza's scientific training is, and how many peer-reviewed papers he has written.
I think that most gays are atheists, so this would make a gay atheist, a two-fer.(two affirmative action credits for the price of one) What it would really do is enlarge the gay lobby to include hetero-sexual atheists and give them a legal stance that they can use to advance the gay agenda (separation of church and state). Even though the separation of church and state is a bogus regulation, it has a national precedent that is lacking in gay rights.
Can we just get rid of the tired “this is the new this” line as if everything is an analogy to fashion?
“Nothing like painting with a broad brush.”
Yep, the brush covers all. We all have lungs and we all believe in God; however, some admit the truth and others deny it.
Basically, they're both the same class of living Straw Man Arguments, and equally useless to the discourse as a whole. Anyone using them to make a point is usually just muddying their own point.
I don’t deny what people say and write. What they say and write is not necessarily the truth of what they believe when the heat is on. Belief in God is an innate characteristic of sentient humans. Animals are incapable of fathoming God. Purporting to believe in the spontaneous generation of life is about as old as believing in God.
>>”Bright” kind of reflects the high opinion that atheists have of their own intellectual abilities.<<
Except they are not very smart at all. Every single “atheist” that I have challenged on his/her faith has eventually admitted they were really agnostic.
Wanna see how a real atheist would live? Watch Natural Born Killers.
Indeed. Antoninus has a great line for atheists:
"Tell me what you believe in without using the word God."
Turn their philosophy of negation into one of affirmation, and watch rationality disintegrate.
I am not aware that atheists are particularly oppressed, actually. They are certainly free to have all the steamy bath-house sex they want. Or am I confusing my liberation movements here?
Of course there’s a difference. You would never ask an atheist whether your new end table would go with the drapes.
God resides in everyone, atheist or not. You either accept this fact, or deny it. It’s not like believing in Santa Claus.
“I don’t believe in a god. Further, I don’t abandon my atheism in the face of danger.”
Like I stated, I have heard it all said before. IMO, only lower life-forms are true atheists. As a scientist by profession of the last 3o years, the stunning complexity of what life is and the keyhole of where it fits in an interdependent living planet, surrounded by an interdependent universe is beyond the bounds of my comprehension how an intelligent being could believe in spontaneous generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.