Reason and Racism in the New Atheist Movement

[Crux]

A very good text IMHO on the problem with a one-eyed view on religion. (http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2012/01/26/reason-and-racism-in-the-new-atheist-movement/)

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

The article makes some good points, but overall I found it to be a disappointing read. The writer completely ignores the link between religion and alienation and instead insists that religion's "negative" aspects be verified via an empirical research project. While religion is not the "single most oppressive issue", The writer argues for a more "nuanced" approach, yet he does not advocate a different method of criticism. In effect he is promoting a whitewash of its role in capitalist society. The claim that contemporary religion can assist in "undermining...systems of domination" comes off as rather naive. For me, this paragraph was the proof of his outlook:

Furthermore, home foreclosures, poverty, homelessness, oppression, inadequate mental health and social services, poor health care and violence plague America. Whether we like it or not, religious organizations are often the first to provide the much needed spiritual, material and social services to this sick society. As much as the new atheists would like to pontificate about religion in a context free environment, there is no such thing. As long as these social ills go unaddressed religious organizations will continue to play central roles in combating them. The broad and sweeping attacks against “religion” by the New Atheists do little to advance any sort of helpful conversation about what communities or people really need. They also don’t adequately interpret the positive role that religion plays in these issues.
It is completely incorrect to claim that religious organizations play a central role in combating social ills and it is even more absurd to imply that they are merely one form of medicine that can help "cure" this "sick society". Also, the author's framing of the issue in general must be rejected, because the critique of religion cannot and should not be reduced to a battle between "positives" and "negatives", for it does not help to accurately assess its social role in capitalist society. Instead what we have here is, "C'mon guys, religion isn't that bad. C'monnnn." Religion is conceived as an independent human need that must be filled. I think this is a rather silly interpretation.

Finally, while it was interesting to look at the role identity privilege plays in New Atheist ideology, it becomes clear that privilege is at the center of his analysis, along with promoting some transhistorical notion of "white guilt" or "whiteness":

As citizens of the U.S. we of course live on occupied land. Over the course of hundreds of years we systematically wiped out Native American cultures that were indigenous to the area.
"We"? Seriously? And does our criticism of the US government's role in this historical period simply stop at the concept of "cultural imperialism"? It's an interesting term to use, but it seems inadequate here. The central problem with this piece is that it is exclusively concerned with the superstructural aspects of capitalism, specifically privilege, and it pays "class oppression" no more than lip service, despite acknowledging its existence. But the former is a supplement to the latter, not the other way around. For me, that is when privilege theory is the most effective.

One final thing. In the piece's first update the writer's outlook becomes clear: Religion is merely a reflection of the "larger institutions of oppression" for him, rather than an institution of oppression in it's own right.

Such are the inadequacies of this piece, in my opinion.

[Crux]

The article makes some good points, but overall I found it to be a disappointing read. The writer completely ignores the link between religion and alienation and instead insists that religion's "negative" aspects be verified via an empirical research project. While religion is not the "single most oppressive issue", The writer argues for a more "nuanced" approach, yet he does not advocate a different method of criticism. In effect he is promoting a whitewash of its role in capitalist society. The claim that contemporary religion can assist in "undermining...systems of domination" comes off as rather naive. For me, this paragraph was the proof of his outlook:

It is completely incorrect to claim that religious organizations play a central role in combating social ills and it is even more absurd to imply that they are merely one form of medicine that can help "cure" this "sick society". Also, the author's framing of the issue in general must be rejected, because the critique of religion cannot and should not be reduced to a battle between "positives" and "negatives", for it does not help to accurately assess its social role in capitalist society. Instead what we have here is, "C'mon guys, religion isn't that bad. C'monnnn." Religion is conceived as an independent human need that must be filled. I think this is a rather silly interpretation.

Finally, while it was interesting to look at the role identity privilege plays in New Atheist ideology, it becomes clear that privilege is at the center of his analysis, along with promoting some transhistorical notion of "white guilt" or "whiteness":

"We"? Seriously? And does our criticism of the US government's role in this historical period simply stop at the concept of "cultural imperialism"? It's an interesting term to use, but it seems inadequate here. The central problem with this piece is that it is exclusively concerned with the superstructural aspects of capitalism, specifically privilege, and it pays "class oppression" no more than lip service, despite acknowledging its existence. But the former is a supplement to the latter, not the other way around. For me, that is when privilege theory is the most effective.

One final thing. In the piece's first update the writer's outlook becomes clear: Religion is merely a reflection of the "larger institutions of oppression" for him, rather than an institution of oppression in it's own right.

Such are the inadequacies of this piece, in my opinion.
Why yes, I think religion is in and of itself empty. There is no correct interpretation of religion because there are no gods, therefore the way people interpret religion depends very much on the actual material world rather than celestial spheres in some heaven.
Also the social role many religious organizations play is objective, especially in countries where the state's social side is weak. As for the need religion fills, well Marx called it the opium of the masses, and not without reason.

Also the article authours mention of cultural imperialism is concrectily in relation to the largely white, largely upper middle class and largely male New Atheists brushing aside all of the worlds religions as "poison".

This, I think, is the most pertient quote: "Many of these New Atheists claim that holding onto the belief in supernatural entities is absurd or irrational. However, there is nothing more absurd than whiteness, class oppression and patriarchy. Resisting these absurdities means a more nuanced approach to religion – one that recognizes the positive role it can play in undermining such systems of domination. Ultimately, it means relying upon relationships more than reason."

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Why yes, I think religion is in and of itself empty. There is no correct interpretation of religion because there are no gods, therefore the way people interpret religion depends very much on the actual material world rather than celestial spheres in some heaven.
Also the social role many religious organizations play is objective, especially in countries where the state's social side is weak. As for the need religion fills, well Marx called it the opium of the masses, and not without reason.
Um, I didn't ask you if you thought religion was an empty category. I couldn't care less what you think about it. I was simply responding to the article you linked.

And what exactly do you mean by "no correct interpretation"? Refuting the search for an accurate assessment of religion does not flow from the likelihood that there are no gods. Anyway, Scofield is correct to denounce New Atheism but his critical tools are either blunt or inadequate for the task. As for what Marx's famous "opium" quote, why did you bring it up? This is, quite frankly, a "duh" moment. And what he said is insightful, but not the final word on the matter. Or were you attempting to school me in the ABCs of Marxism? If so, I didn't need it. I was trying to use the Marxist method, and I do not need to constantly quote Marx to make my point.

Also the article authours mention of cultural imperialism is concrectily in relation to the largely white, largely upper middle class and largely male New Atheists brushing aside all of the worlds religions as "poison".
Though I'm not opposed to the term itself, my point was that "cultural imperialism" won't lead us very far. The few insights that Scofield manages to generate in his polemic are constantly marred by the limits to his philosophical method. There is a dash of relativism to his ideas, which focuses largely on identity privilege, and he gets the social role of religion entirely wrong. But you should already know this, since that was the basis of my earlier post.


This, I think, is the most pertient quote: "Many of these New Atheists claim that holding onto the belief in supernatural entities is absurd or irrational. However, there is nothing more absurd than whiteness, class oppression and patriarchy. Resisting these absurdities means a more nuanced approach to religion – one that recognizes the positive role it can play in undermining such systems of domination. Ultimately, it means relying upon relationships more than reason."
It's an interesting quote, but what does it mean? Scofield does not define what he means by "relationships" (interpersonal? Social relations and society?), and it's even more vague by his use of the word "reason". He criticized that term earlier, specifically as the New Atheists used it, but his casual use of the term here suggests that he is not just speaking of the logic used by his opponents, but reason in general. If he was talking about "reason" as the New Atheists used it, he should have specified.

And as regards to religion, what positive role, and how does it play any role in "undermining" anything, especially in our own time? Here Scofield's ahistorical approach shines through. Certainly, religion wasn't always a reactionary force. One could point to Christianity's struggle against the Roman Empire. But overall, he seems to think that religion can be used as a bulwark for social progress. And this is not to mention his over-reliance on privilege theory. Despite some good points he made, his own criticism of New Atheism is rather empty itself because it doesn't point to any understanding towards religion or atheism at all. His reference to "class oppression" is telling, because a "reference" is all that it is. He is essentially reacting against the truth claims of his opponents and rails against "science, reason and logic"...and that's it. That is why I found his piece disappointing.

[Raúl Duke]

I understand the need for nuance, but I kinda find the article to be the inverse of those "all or nothing" atheists: They focus on all the negative things, the article mentions a bit of how religion has helped gay men in Africa and African-Americans. That's all good and well and certainly something to be noted.

But religion has, quite powerfully, played a negative role. This is particularly the case in the US where the religious lobby want to criminalize abortion, harm gays, keep people scientifically ignorant (i.e. creationism), etc. The US religious lobby has even spread to other countries, its been reported of ties of Uganda's "kill the gays" bill and the US religious right.

Sure, charity is nice and there's nothing wrong with many religious believers but lets be serious, at least in the US, the cause of secularism should be of quite importance and goes hand-in-hand with defending women and LGBTQ rights since their main opponent seem to be religious conservatives/reactionaries.

I find it quite "murky waters" when the article seems to mix identity politics into religion...although oddly I'm reminded of cultural relativism.
It also seems a bit patronizing, in practice it indeed tells atheists that they should "shut up their polemics on religion especially any polemic of a religious practice by an 'oppressed' group.'" Instead of treating all religions as equal, it claims that religions by oppressed groups should be ignored and this seems to only re-enforce ethno-centrism (i.e. places the oppressed's religion in a separate, inferior category; not worthy of analysis or criticisms) I think. It also presents problems for atheists within that oppressed category, what about them they don't have a right to speak about their opinion regarding elements of their culture/group?

Finally, I think the article further categorizes and entrenches non-theism as a "Western concept" and in what it suggests it seeks to help it remain that way by making it sound and be more like a category that is exclusive to white Westerners, keeping non-western atheists out.

Finally, there's the truth element. Atheism so far has proven "true" but this article suggest that such truth is relative and also indirectly says that we shouldn't share this truth with oppressed religious people in a way I find patronizing.

I feel that in trying to "defend" oppressed groups from say deeply analyzing/critiquing religion the people who wrote this article only come off as patronizing white ivory-tower academics who "knows whats best" and is a defender of their interests.

[Crux]

I understand the need for nuance, but I kinda find the article to be the inverse of those "all or nothing" atheists: They focus on all the negative things, the article mentions a bit of how religion has helped gay men in Africa and African-Americans. That's all good and well and certainly something to be noted.

But religion has, quite powerfully, played a negative role. This is particularly the case in the US where the religious lobby want to criminalize abortion, harm gays, keep people scientifically ignorant (i.e. creationism), etc. The US religious lobby has even spread to other countries, its been reported of ties of Uganda's "kill the gays" bill and the US religious right.

Sure, charity is nice and there's nothing wrong with many religious believers but lets be serious, at least in the US, the cause of secularism should be of quite importance and goes hand-in-hand with defending women and LGBTQ rights since their main opponent seem to be religious conservatives/reactionaries.

I find it quite "murky waters" when the article seems to mix identity politics into religion...although oddly I'm reminded of cultural relativism.
It also seems a bit patronizing, in practice it indeed tells atheists that they should "shut up their polemics on religion especially any polemic of a religious practice by an 'oppressed' group.'" Instead of treating all religions as equal, it claims that religions by oppressed groups should be ignored and this seems to only re-enforce ethno-centrism (i.e. places the oppressed's religion in a separate, inferior category; not worthy of analysis or criticisms) I think. It also presents problems for atheists within that oppressed category, what about them they don't have a right to speak about their opinion regarding elements of their culture/group?

Finally, I think the article further categorizes and entrenches non-theism as a "Western concept" and in what it suggests it seeks to help it remain that way by making it sound and be more like a category that is exclusive to white Westerners, keeping non-western atheists out.

Finally, there's the truth element. Atheism so far has proven "true" but this article suggest that such truth is relative and also indirectly says that we shouldn't share this truth with oppressed religious people in a way I find patronizing.

I feel that in trying to "defend" oppressed groups from say deeply analyzing/critiquing religion the people who wrote this article only come off as patronizing white ivory-tower academics who "knows whats best" and is a defender of their interests. Firstly the article is obviously addressed to "New Atheists" primarily, secondly this (http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2012/02/01/a-response-to-frederick-sparks-over-reason-and-racism-in-new-atheism/).


I couldn't care less what you think about it. Then why didn't you send it to the author of the article? If you have no interest in discussion don't post on a discussion board. Also you're the one being ahistorical going for the "Roman example" as if that was the last time religious individuals and groups have been progressive.

[Raúl Duke]

secondly this (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2012/02/01/a-response-to-frederick-sparks-over-reason-and-racism-in-new-atheism/).Ahh
From the looks of the first paragraph, than I do agree; I as well find myself a bit tired of the "new atheists" calls of "hey everybody, religion is the ultimate wrong in the world." Nevertheless, I do think the article posted is kinda weak.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Then why didn't you send it to the author of the article? If you have no interest in discussion don't post on a discussion board. Also you're the one being ahistorical going for the "Roman example" as if that was the last time religious individuals and groups have been progressive.
Well, I currently have no interest in sending it to the author. I don't see why I should. And furthermore, I do have interest in discussion. I was merely irritated with your first sentence, because it had nothing to do with what I said. I didn't ask you if you thought religion was empty, yet you responded thus. It came off as a complete non-sequitur. I could have misunderstood you, but this isn't the first time you've sidestepped the main point of my posts in an attempt to defend your position from the outfield. (Given our previous discussions, I wanted to avoid stepping on the merry-go-round with you, so that we won't endlessly spin our wheels, like in the Julian Assange thread.) Scofield's article is somewhat interesting, but it's very poor and it deserves criticism. You largely ignored my criticism of Scofield's ideas and his method, instead providing me a specific quote inferring that I missed his point. I disagreed, and attempted to back up my statements, in the clear interest of having a discussion, but preferably without empty statements in response to nothing. If I came off as rude to you, then I apologize.

Your second sentence is characteristic of your argument method; yet again you leap before you look, and bluster about when you land. Or, to be plain, you are not a very careful reader. Now you're not only uttering non-sequiturs, but distorting what I said. And really, it doesn't make any sense. First, you claim that I am "the one who's being ahistorical". How on earth is mentioning a historical example in relation to our discussion ahistorical in any way? Did you mistake that word for something else? Or is there a dictionary definition for "ahistorical" that I have somehow missed for the past several years?

Finally, I did not claim, or even imply, that the "Roman example" was the "last time religious individuals and groups have been progressive." I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but it is complete fiction, nevertheless. Naturally, there are other examples of religion representing a step forward (though it's more complicated than that). "The Protestant Reformation [as another example] most clearly elucidated this transvaluation of the traditional theology. It has today become a cliché, but no less true, to point out that the real content of the Protestant Reformation was the preparation and justification on theological grounds of the new morality of acquisitiveness and competition." (See this site (http://www.permanent-revolution.org/essays/alienation_revolution.pdf) for the article I cited)

There's little more I can say at this point. I've taken responsibility for my rudeness. So now in return, you can take responsibility for your intellectual dishonesty.

[Crux]

While I grant that the author is a bit of a soft leftie, I do think the core of his argument is correct.

So, MEGAMANTROTSKY, fair enough. But my issue would be the following I do think religion fills a human need and I do think religion is, like I said, essentially empty, so characterizing it as reactionary in itself I think is wrong. Religion is not a monolith, religious people even less so. This is not about patronizing religious people, but about trying to take a materialist rather than idealist view on religion, as in "They believe in a God therefore they are wrong". What would be more interesting would be their interaction with religious institutions and those institutions themselves. It would be quite easy to portray the Catholic Church as an ultra reactionary force, for example, but what then of Catholic Worker? Or the Liberation Theologists? Are they reactionary because they have a connection with the Catholic Church? Or because they are religious at all?

My problem with your roman example as well as your reformation example is that that both these are relegated to a far distant past. Am I wrong in saying that it seems you are implying that the position today would be fixed and frozen?

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

While I grant that the author is a bit of a soft leftie, I do think the core of his argument is correct.

So, MEGAMANTROTSKY, fair enough. But my issue would be the following I do think religion fills a human need and I do think religion is, like I said, essentially empty, so characterizing it as reactionary in itself I think is wrong. Religion is not a monolith, religious people even less so. This is not about patronizing religious people, but about trying to take a materialist rather than idealist view on religion, as in "They believe in a God therefore they are wrong". What would be more interesting would be their interaction with religious institutions and those institutions themselves. It would be quite easy to portray the Catholic Church as an ultra reactionary force, for example, but what then of Catholic Worker? Or the Liberation Theologists? Are they reactionary because they have a connection with the Catholic Church? Or because they are religious at all?

My problem with your roman example as well as your reformation example is that that both these are relegated to a far distant past. Am I wrong in saying that it seems you are implying that the position today would be fixed and frozen?

You’re making the mistake of lumping in believers with the institutions themselves. When I slam “religion”, I am strictly referring to the institution. I draw a line between the church and those who attend it, because social distinctions must be made (example: the Catholic church opposes abortion, but a majority of US Catholic women defend it). If we are to have any hope of winning working people to socialism, we certainly cannot dismiss what they “think” they know. This naturally entails that neither our approach nor our outlook should be “fixed or frozen”, but based on the live engagement of workers with the problems that they themselves consider important. On the other hand, we must expose the pervasive nature of bourgeois ideology and culture, of which religious belief is a part of. If we do not, socialist class consciousness becomes a pipe dream. I don’t think these tasks are opposed to one another.

My problem with the writer was not whether religion “fulfills” human needs in the abstract, but his refusal to recognize the link between religion and alienation as Marx conceived it (or any conception of alienation, really). He seems to say that religion is itself a human need; in this context his “sick society” remark makes sense. Again, I believe this is ridiculous, because it implies that man will always need religion. And would a “healthy society” still require religion, if the sickness is cured? He does not say. Scofield refuses to look at the twists and turns of religious history and its role in class society up to this point. By ignoring it entirely, he cuts his argument off at the knees. He is not a “soft leftie”, he is simply incompetent.

Furthermore, despite Scofield himself saying that religion is a “form of oppression”, he has nothing else to say on how to stop it, or even if stopping it should be possible. It is a stance that is typical of postmodernism. He has taken Nietzsche’s notion of the “will to power” and tries to turn “reason” on its head. For him, the problem is the hubris of truth claims in general. This is Scofield’s conception of “oppressive forms”. Taken to its final conclusion, his position is essentially faces the future with passivity. Beyond preaching tolerance, he ventures no further. To sum up his position: “Live and let live…and if you can’t, shut up.” The problem here is that historical development does not leave any of us in peace, and it certainly does not shut us up.

That’s all I can say for now. And as for my “distant past” examples, it is because I studied these events in school and they are the ones that naturally come to mind when it comes to this topic. Next time you contradict me, try to refrain from putting words in my mouth. From now on, please be clearer about what you’re saying, articulate what you’re calling me out on, and read carefully. If you did, I wouldn’t have had to make yet another post on what I had already said. It is not that I am uninterested in discussion, but with you it is very time-consuming and irritating.

P.S. And since it seems that we've reached an understanding at last, I would appreciate it if I could have my thirty-one reputation points back.

[Luís Henrique]

A very good text IMHO on the problem with a one-eyed view on religion. (http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2012/01/26/reason-and-racism-in-the-new-atheist-movement/)

It makes some quite valid points, especially that the attitude of Dawkins & Co. towards social science is totally unscientific (the talltale of memetics, etc). But it downplays too much the ways in which religion is a reactionary force in our societies. It insists too much in arguing the religions of pre-capitalist societies (the Dinka, the Inuit...), which would be easy for militant pseudo-atheists to circumvent, as their focus is anyway the Abrahamic religions, and gives an impression of misguided cultural relativism. It unhappily also focuses too much on Greta Christina and her use of the word "convert", and in contesting the notion of "conversion to atheism", it fails to discuss the problem of method (for militant, evangelical "atheists", it boils to preach to theists, until the "obvious" truth of their shpeal dawn into the mind of the victim, as a process of revelation; for actual atheists, it involves exposing the theists to experiences that question their faith, in that such faith has no practical responses for the problems people face in their common, daily practice).

It fails to address the main problem with the "New" "Atheist" movement, which is the fact that those people are not really atheists - they merely worship a different god(ess), the Goddess Reason from the French Revolution, as well as it fails to go in more depth into the very nasty problem of "scientism" or "scientificism", ie, the irrational and anti-scientific ideologisation of "science" into an a-historic collection of revealed "truths".

Luís Henrique

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Atheism isn't a western concept.