[ExI] Tolerance

[Lee Corbin]

Pat Condell and John Clark are not only very entertaining,
but often put truths in a way that's a delight to hear---
so long as you already agree that God does not exist or
religion has done at least as much harm as good (and
probably more).

In a more extensive way, of course, Dawkins and Hitchens
document why it's reasonable not to believe, and what
deleterious results follow from religious belief. And
I agree wholeheartedly with Brent about *results*
counting more than anything.

But there is an important asymmetry that arises when
we go beyond just considering our "internal" (though quite
public) discussions among us atheists. Say that two
persons A and B converse, and A lets it be known he's
religious and B affirms that he's an atheist. The
situation is not symmetrical: already B is implying
that A is a dupe.

It's the *added* shrill militancy of people like Dawkins
that I find repellent. You don't have to read much history
to see the same vicious certainty in revolutionary France
or Russia, or even in Hitlerite Germany. The intolerance
is palpable.

Of course, throughout history, it is we nonbelievers and
skeptics who have been on the short end of intolerance.
But is it either wise or good to imply that when the
tables are turned, if they ever are, that we will then
be completely intolerant of the "stupidity" of religion?

Brent wrote

 > I don't think we accomplish much by assuming people
 > are stupid when they are, to our minds, mistaken.

This must strike those of the Jacobin temperament as
hopelessly wishy-washy, good-willed, and easy-going.
Where is the fire and brimstone? NO! According to many
on our side, the religious must be denounced in every
possible way. Name-calling that would be prohibited
on this list (or in any civilized discourse) is par
for the course.

Brent continued

 > Of course, my assumption here is that you want to
 > accomplish something. :)

Well---that's exactly the right question. I totally
agree that atheists need to speak up despite the
lack of symmetry I pointed to above (in fact, I think,
it's this asymmetry that most often keeps atheists
quiet). But it's *how* we speak up that we need to
reconsider.

The only things that come of name-calling that I know
of are rather reprehensible:

    1. you can, by screaming abuse, scare people into
       being silent (we occasionally see that on this
       list)

    2. you can poison the conversation, creating an
       extreme polarization that forces even the
       neutral to take sides

Now Dawkins and the others behind a "brights" campaign
are hardly dumb---and it frightens me that they must be
perfectly well-aware of these two points.

They very rightly, though, point out that atheists
have often been the ones scared to speak up, and
perfectly correct to say that this should stop.
It's just sad that the word can't be spread without
creating even more polarization.

And when it comes to that, my friends, I'm afraid
that those of us who lack the God gene will be the
ones outnumbered and outgunned. Do you want that?

Let's please confine ourselves to an evolutionary,
not revolutionary, approach. Evolutionary persuasion
---not revolutionary confrontation.

Lee