rebekah

Well, the sequel to the NYTimes article on the atheist “rift” is now available (Ian wrote about the first article here). I have to say, I’m disappointed. The first article in the series compared the supposedly-ousted Paul Kurtz (founder of CFI and a ton of other stuff) to the downfall of King Lear.  This highly-sympathetic article appeared less than a WEEK before the huge 30th anniversary conference of the Council for Secular Humanism.  For a situation that was already tense between the old and new leadership of the organization, the article’s timing couldn’t have been accidental.

And before heading off to the big Secular Humanism conference last weekend, I was more sympathetic to Kurtz’s situation.  But now after witnessing his behavior at the conference, I’m not nearly as supportive.  I think it’s interesting that this latest NYTimes article completely avoids reporting  on how Kurtz attacked the hosting organization of the convention, not to mention the several times he attempted to commandeer panel discussions.  While part of me can empathize with Kurtz and how upset he must be at letting go of his organizations, I’m also just weary of watching him destroy his legacy by acting out in such passive-aggressive ways.

But back to this latest article on the atheist ‘rift’ — the title of the latest article is “Atheists debate how pushy to be” (kudos to whichever editor came up with that lame title).  The article itself is mainly a discussion of the Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation? panel, again stressing the supposed rift between approaches.

The disagreement was not, then, between atheism and humanism. It was about making the atheist/humanist case in America. A central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?”

Here even the humanists got less humane, as each side stereotyped the other. Those trying to find common ground with religious people were called “accommodationists,” while the more outspoken atheists were called “confrontationalists” and accused of alienating potential allies, like moderate Christians.

Am I the only one who’s tired of this debate?  If you don’t like the accomodationalist approach, DON’T DO IT.  Likewise, if you’re not a fan of being confrontational, DON’T DO IT.  Both approaches have their place.

There. I just solved the ramped-up divide amongst us atheists.

In case that’s not enough, here’s a bit of a quote from the last comment of the above panel discussion — here’s Richard Carrier, who says my above solution a bit more articulately:

Different members of our [atheist] community have different objectives.  Eugenie & Chris [the "accomodationalists"] are talking about achieving specific political objectives, in which it makes sense to be diplomatic.  I just want there to be more secular humanists, full-stop.  So, for me, I’m an evangelist — a missionary.  I have to be confrontational, because that’s the only way I’m going to make more of us.

[...] Now I don’t have a problem with the accomodationalist perspective, using it in a particular arena.  In fact, I don’t even mind if we play “good cop, bad cop,” and you say “Richard Carrier is a complete asshole, and never mind him” and go on and sell your particular perspective and do it your particular way.

I think we can work together in that good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t think it’s an either-or option.  I think some of us are evangelists, some of us want to sell the world view and are out there doing it.  And some of us do get the broad experience and knowledge in the scientific views and different philosophies to actually confront Christians on every single issue that they argue.

And then at the same time, I can fully support Eugenie’s work.  Just like she said earlier, about how she has to take a particular perspective and be quiet about certain things to achieve her particular job, makes complete sense and I fully expect that, using that diplomatic approach.