“When a thing is funny, search it for a hidden truth.” — George Bernard Shaw
On Saturday, atheist writer Steve Neumann published an article in Salon titled, “Cut it out, atheists! Why it’s time to stop behaving like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins.”
In the post, he argues that we atheists are too mean because Bill Maher called religion a neurological disorder, and Richard Dawkins wants his followers to make fun of rank-and-file religious people.
Neumann also claimed that atheists essentialize Christians when we criticize their leaders and prominent spokespeople for saying racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-scientific or otherwise idiotic things. Instead, we should launch a viral campaign — the Atheist Positivity Challenge, as Neumann calls it — where we go dark on the Internet, announcing to all of our friends that we’re taking a month off from ridiculing religious nonsense. As he argues: if we turn the other cheek, atheism’s standing in the court of public opinion will improve.
Having recently levied a criticism in line with the ones he seems to be indicting, I feel entitled to a response.
For starters, yes, calling religion a neurological disorder isn’t fair. There’s a plausible case to be made that religion gave humans an early adaptive advantage, which would seem to make it, at the very least, the social organizational equivalent of the appendix: a prior necessity that has stubbornly stuck around beyond its use.
Then again, citing Bill Maher as an intellectual spokesperson for atheism at-large isn’t fair, either (see, I can play that game, too).
More importantly, it is entirely possible and absolutely necessary to call out instances of religious idiocy for what they are; always with vigor and often with humor. And I’d like to think that most of us are able to do so without insulting every single person who subscribes to a particular faith.
When I write an article responding to Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry’s monumentally glossy revision of Christianity’s history on sexual regulations, I will absolutely pepper my writing with a few religious sexual references, and I can do so while limiting my criticism to Gobry’s thesis, avoiding expanding it to every single Christian who reads the post. The innuendo helps drive home the point: Gobry has no idea what he’s talking about when he claims that Christianity’s teachings on sexuality have been clear, consistent and immutable for the last two thousand years, and will continue on into the future as such.
And, sure, for selfish reasons, it also made the article more fun to write. If we can’t laugh about the absurd, what is there to laugh about?
However, I do agree with Neumann to the extent that if criticism of this nature is going to be successful it will come in the form of a scalpel as opposed to a stick of dynamite. “None of the above” may the fastest growing religious affiliation in the United States, but it’s still very much a minority. This means that even the most outspoken liberal atheists have a predominantly religious audience. If we weren’t able to hold the assertion that Mike Huckabee is a buffoon level with the belief that tons of other Christians aren’t, we wouldn’t make it very far as writers.
That may mean we need to go out of our way to include #NotAllChristians at the end of our tweets, but that absolutely doesn’t mean we need to keep our mouths shut when Mike Huckabee says something ludicrously stupid in the name of God. I think the reader is perfectly capable of understanding that we’re making fun of Mike Huckabee and not them (unless Mike Huckabee is reading this, in which case I absolutely am talking about you, and you are a buffoon).
And especially when we consider the fact that Mike Huckabee and people like him are, in no uncertain terms, trying to have these ludicrously stupid statements embodied in public policy, it is not only acceptable but advisable to take those statements — and anyone who engages in similar advocacy based on them — down a peg.
Neumann seems to think that the reason atheism doesn’t poll well is because we don’t play nice on the Internet playground. As if atheism was viewed warmly before it was socially acceptable to, you know, be an atheist in public. Or as if the religious are viewed favorably because they are uniformly amicable on the web — to say nothing of real life. I guess Neumann and I will simply have to disagree over whether atheism is unpopular because we’re too glib or because many in the ranks of the religious think we have no conception of morality, trusting us about as much as they trust rapists.
Either way, the scrutiny and appropriate criticism of ideas is crucial for social progress. Claims need to be evaluated, and claims that are patently absurd need not be accepted. Tolerated, sure; I don’t want to live in a world in which Texas Congressman Joe Barton is prohibited from saying that “wind is God’s way of balancing heat,” but I do want to live in a world in which a statement like that allows me to publicly disqualify him from elected office. And moving such statements from the category of “controversial” to the category of “laughable” is one of the best ways to do that.
It’s that difference between tolerance and acceptance that drives the need for all claims to be open to being made fun of (even my own, as I’ve learned the hard way in the comments section). Respecting the fact that others hold beliefs that differ from yours doesn’t mean that you have to accept the beliefs themselves, nor does it mean that you should pipe down just because someone else might feel that twinge we all get in our stomachs when we feel that someone may have just made a good point against our own. Especially if you can make them laugh while doing it:
So, no, I will not be participating in the Atheist Positivity Challenge. I reject the premise entirely: One need not be silent to be positive. I will continue to speak up when I hear people make claims that would be otherwise unacceptable in ordinary conversation, save for the fact that they are couched in religious dogma. I will make every attempt to do so without catching any well-intentioned, agreeable believers who don’t sign on to those claims in the crossfire, and I’ll also tuck my shirt in and take religious writers who have well-thought, serious points to make seriously.
But asserting one’s invisibility is no way to earn respect. Asserting one’s ability to weigh evidence against interest is.
