Atheism Is Not An Intellectual Luxury For The Wealthy - An Open LetterTo Chris Arnade

The following is an open letter to Chris Arnade, in response to his article on AlterNet, titled "Is Atheism an Intellectual Luxury for the Wealthy?" (originally in The Guardian).

My answer to the question you pose in the title of your article, is an adamant "no".

You start the article with a story from your adolescence similar, in regards to interactions with believers, to the stories many of us who were atheists at that age have.

Preacher Man's eyes narrowed. He pointed at me, "You are an APE-IEST. An APE-IEST. You going to lead a life of sin and end in hell."

You then describe your later life.

Three years later I did escape my town, eventually receiving a PhD in physics, and then working on Wall Street for 20 years. A life devoted to rational thought, a life devoted to numbers and clever arguments. During that time I counted myself an atheist and nodded in agreement as a wave of atheistic fervor swept out of the scientific community and into the media, led by Richard Dawkins.

You're incorrectly equating atheism & science and lending credibilty to the silly notion that Dawkins is some kind atheist Pope, but that's only minor criticism.  My problem is more with what followed.

I eventually left my Wall Street job and started working with and photographing homeless addicts in the South Bronx. When I first walked into the Bronx I assumed I would find the same cynicism I had towards faith. If anyone seemed the perfect candidate for atheism it was the addicts who see daily how unfair, unjust, and evil the world can be.

You expected the homeless drug addicts to be atheists.  This is insulting for a number of reasons and reveals your ignorance in a few ways.

When you expected to meet other atheists you assumed they would be just like you, as if we're all identically cynical.  The atheists I've met have been the least cynical group of people I've ever encountered.  I tend to be fairly cynical, and it shows most when shown next to the optimism of the atheists I know.  And yet we still constantly face this stereotype.  Maybe you didn't know many atheists or knew nothing of what atheism really is, but either way, you were reinforcing that stereotype.  I doubt that was your intention, but it was nevertheless the result.

In addition to your ignorance about atheists, you reveal an even greater ignorance of both the poor and of religion.  The most common path from religion to atheism is indeed a level of inquiry not available to the homeless, whose entire focus is rightly on merely surviving.  This fact could have been a good argument in favor of a "yes" answer to your titular question, but you didn't address it all.  I suspect you left it unaddressed because it never even occurred to you.  If you'd realized that economic status is not relevant to belief in a god, you'd probably have spared us the article entirely.

How else could you have been so surprised that they're not only believers, but they're more so than most others?

None of them are. Rather they are some of the strongest believers I have met, steeped in a combination of Bible, superstition, and folklore.

Of course they're strong believers.  Religion provides hope to the desperate that their current situation is a temporary stepping stone to something far better.  It's a false hope, but that's irrelevant to the desperate.

Also unaddressed was how religion uses that false hope to prey on the desperate.  Religious charities often use the promise of help to coerce people into letting themselves be preached to.  Religious charities promise religion will make their lives better and then give them things, like food & shelter, that actually will make theirs lives better.  It's not far fetched to expect that the people being helped would mistakenly attribute the improvements in their lives to the religion and not to the food under a roof.

And that's all assuming that everyone in that situation is even a believer.  It ignores that many may have left religion before they they encountered hard times.  It disregards the fact that atheists can become homeless too.  It ignores the fact that homeless atheists often feign belief when it's what's required to eat.

You may have left your cushy Wall Street job to photograph the homeless, but you appear to still have some things to learn.

They have their faith because what they believe in doesn't judge them. Who am I to tell them that what they believe is irrational? Who am I to tell them the one thing that gives them hope and allows them to find some beauty in an awful world is inconsistent? I cannot tell them that there is nothing beyond this physical life. It would be cruel and pointless.

At least you got this part right.  Sort of.  Of course we shouldn't be preaching atheism to them.  As noted above, their focus is on survival.  Preaching atheism to them would make us no better than the religious ghouls preaching religion to them.  They don't need to be preached at.  They need something more tangible.

This is all obvious to most atheists I know, so why include this?  Do you think atheists are going around preaching to the homeless?  I'm not aware of any atheists who would call that acceptable behavior.  Including that bit suggests that atheists running around acting like assholes, preaching to the desperate, when we're doing no such thing.  You needlessly throw us all under the bus.

And for what?  To make yourself feel superior about not doing that thing that none of us are doing?

Soon I saw my atheism for what it is: an intellectual belief most accessible to those who have done well.

I'm sure your intention was not to suggest that atheism is only available to the rich.  You tried to qualify it by saying "my atheism", but the rest of your statement negates that by talking about atheism in general.  It's a blanket dismissal of all the working class atheists who exist.  That, by the way, is a hell of a lot of atheists, including myself.

You were a rich guy interacting with the opposite end of the spectrum.  You ignored the majority of people in between those two extremes of economic status.  You also ignored all the rich people who are devout believers, especially those who became rich via those beliefs.

I also see Richard Dawkins differently. I see him as a grown up version of that 16-year-old kid, proud of being smart, unable to understand why anyone would believe or think differently from himself. I see a person so removed from humanity and so removed from the ambiguity of life that he finds himself judging those who think differently.

I see someone doing what he claims to hate in others. Preaching from a selfish vantage point.

Preaching from a selfish vantage point is precisely what you were doing with this article.  You're preaching at the atheist community for being proud of our reason.  You're projecting your own arrogance onto Dawkins and the rest of us.

Dawkins is indeed arrogant about his intelligence.  But that doesn't make him out of touch or so single minded that he cannot understand why people believe differently from him.  He understands it well enough to have a written a book, The God Delusion, that many atheists credit as sparking their path to atheism.  The only other book I see given such credit more is The Bible.

You, on the other hand, seem to have trouble figuring out why people disagree with you.

When the religious disagree with you they worry for you, talk about hell, and bring you things to read and eat. Atheist call you dumb
— Chris Arnade (@Chris_arnade) December 27, 2013

Given that tweet, you also apparently have extremely limited experience interacting with both the religious and with atheists.  This seems pretty odd to me, since you're more public to the religious than I am.  If you got the e-mail I receive, you'd know better than to suggest they simply bring things to read & eat to those they disagree with.

And if you knew the atheists I know, you would know better than to suggest that they're hypocritical assholes.

If you're going to talk about us in the future, please do us the favor of actually learning about us.  That would be much more appreciated than preaching from your Wall Street high horse.

Amy And The War On Christmas

Sometimes you see something so stupid that you just have to share it even though you're dumbfounded about what to say about it.  With that, I give War On Christmas warrior, Amy.

I found this via the Young Turks, who were as dumbfounded as I was.  It feels like a parody, but it's apparently being promoted by a church.

Multiple comments by the channel hosting the video have said:

The WAR ON CHRISTMAS can only end through UNDERSTANDING.

Understanding of what?  What is it they think we don't understand that they think we're supposedly waging a war on their holiday?

Although, I do agree that understanding would end the "War On Christmas" nonsense.  If these people understood that Bill O'Reilly is full of shit, they'd stop thinking they need to worry about fake threats.

If these people understood that atheists don't give a fuck what Christians celebrate in their own lives, they could stop thinking we give a fuck enough to try wage a whole goddamn war on it.

If people understood that many atheists celebrate Christmas too, they could stop freaking out over nothing and share the holiday with atheists like Richard Dawkins.

If people understood that we give zero fucks about what greeting my cashier uses between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day, they wouldn't have to make asses of themselves boycotting good businesses who've done nothing wrong.

If the people caring for Amy understood that no one is attempting to keep her from celebrating Christmas however she likes, they wouldn't have to scare the shit out of a child for no good reason.

Christians are taking a lot of damage in this "War On Christmas", but it's all self inflicted.  Keep your religion out of government, and you'll be otherwise free to celebrate your holidays however you like.

This ad, that seems to only be confusing people, certainly cost them a decent amount of money to run.  I bet that money could have bought a lot of coats for people who would definitely benefit from them.  But fuck the poor people who are cold in Winter.  It's obviously more important to keep people from saying "Happy Holidays" in December.

Assholes.

Worth Your Attention - FFRFcrankmail

I've been planning a series of posts recommending people to follow for a while, as I've been fortunate enough to found enough such people that I had a backlog of suggestions immediately upon thinking of doing this.

This first in this series, wasn't intended to be first, as it's someone I discovered just a few days ago.  But, because people reading hate mail is one of my favorite things, I like this one enough to want to share it right away.  I'm talking about the the YouTube channel "FFRFcrankmail"^[1].

The concept is simple.  Freethought Today^[2] is a publication by the Freedom From Religion Foundation^[3].  As is common for atheists in public eye^[4], they get hate mail.  They publish some of that hate mail in Freethought Today.  The woman behind this channel reads that hate mail for our entertainment.

The best part is that neither of them correct grammar or spelling.  It's printed exactly as written and she reads it exactly as printed.  Including when it's in all caps.  The voices she gives them puts a nice twist on it too.  They attitude she gives the authors of these letters seems to fit pretty well.  She does it well enough to have gotten the attention of Freethought Today^[5].

For your viewing convenience, I've included a playlist of the entire series^[6] (23 so far).

Perhaps the channel will eventually get popular enough that she's reading her own hate mail^[7] like some other atheists^[8].

She can also be found on Twitter as @ffrfcrankmail^[9].  And thank you to Hemant Mehta for sharing^[10] this for me to have found.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  https://www.youtube.com/user/FFRFcrankmail
2.  http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today
3.  http://ffrf.org/
4.  https://www.facebook.com/davemuscato/posts/10151583163244004
5.  http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13958-ellie-says-crank-up-the-sound
6.  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQOFbrCYlDeh4Xz4xewP9bdtDESOJZJEQ
7.  http://youtu.be/-ZuowNcuGsc
8.  http://youtu.be/Oit78WtbKEg
9.  https://twitter.com/ffrfcrankmail
10.  https://twitter.com/hemantmehta/status/332596832507154432

Twelve Apostates - Neil deGrasse Tyson

The single most requested person^[1], as far as speakers at atheist conferences go, doesn't even identify as an atheist.  He got himself into some trouble with how he chose to word that choice in a video for Big Think, but his point was a good one.  The man may not self identify as atheist, but he quite clearly is.  He's just not an activist for atheism.  Or at least not openly.

He values his role as an educator and correctly fears identifying as an atheist would him less effective in that role.  It's an odd situation for someone to be in.  He's in a rare position where he can do more for atheism if he's not labeled as one of us and while his intention has nothing to do with atheism, other than the coincidence of it being the only honest position to take.

Whether he identifies with the Atheist Movement or not, he does more for it than most.  He gets people to see why science is a good thing.  And he calls out the fact that somehow people still don't understand that it is.  He has done a better job than anyone debunking the ridiculousness that they call "Intelligent Design", brilliantly destroying its claims of being scientific.

In responding to Bill O'Reilly's tides comment, he made one the best arguments against the God of the Gaps I've ever seen.

Tyson has earned his spot as the successor to a role once filled by Carl Sagan.  He advances science, by showing the wondrous things we can learn by using it properly.  If Congress would listen to him, scientific advancement would be improved across the board.  He understands that the Space Race was about much more than getting to the moon.

He is able to do this because he appeals to a "mainstream" audience.  In other words, many Christians like him.  This means Christians listen to what he has to say.  This is why I didn't like it when PZ Myers criticized Brian Dunning for being proud that his podcast has a lot of Christian listeners.  Congress won't be asking David Silverman to testify in front of them.  But they've done so with Neil deGrasse Tyson.  A Republican (or even a Democrat) President won't be asking PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins for their input, but George  W Bush appointed Neil deGrasse Tyson to two different advisory committees^[2].

A big part of why I included James Randi & Christopher Hitchens on this list was that the fact that they get their message to more than just those who agree with them.  Preaching to the choir is to convincing people as masturbation is to procreation.  It's fun, but it's unlikely to get you the results you're looking for.

So, he may not vocally support our movement, or actively participate in the atheist community, but he sure as hell^[3] helps our cause.  It's the inevitable byproduct of promoting truth, science, and recognition of reality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.  I base this on a conversation with a Skepticon organizer and my own experiences volunteering with planning a conference.

2.  Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry & President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy

3.  Pun intended

There Is No Dilemma - An Open Letter To John MacArthur

Mr MacArthur,

Your recent piece in the Washington Times has been making the rounds, and I feel a responsibility to respond.

In it, you expressed confusion about what atheists can thankful for without a god to thank.  However, you answered your own question.

One atheist has practically made a hobby of writing articles to explain why atheists feel the need to be thankful and to answer the question of whom they might thank. His best answer? He says atheists can be grateful to farmers for the food we eat, to doctors for the health we enjoy, to engineers for the advantages of modern technology, to city workers for keeping our environment clean and orderly — and so on.

It's a pity that you so easily dismiss the answer to your question in the very next paragraph.

Here’s the problem with that: Tipping the waitress or tipping one’s hat to sanitation workers doesn’t even come close to resolving the problem of whom Mr. Dawkins should thank when he looks at the stars, stands at the edge of the Grand Canyon, or studies the world of countless wonders his microscope reveals in a single drop of pond water.

The problem here isn't that Richard Dawkins doesn't know who to thank when he looks at the stars.  The problem here is your assumption that there is a who at all.  Sometimes there is a who to thank, like the waiters and sanitation workers.  Other times, there may not be anyone behind it.

You assume there is someone behind it all.  People like myself and Dawkins are not so presumptuous.

Throughout the entire article, you're attempting to figure out what atheists think but do so only through your own theistic mindset.  If you truly do wish to know what atheists think, I suggest you try to see things through our eyes.  Not yours.  

When you can only look at people different from through your own worldview, you make counterproductive, inaccurate assumptions about them.  For instance, 

That’s an odd and ironic answer from a point of view that repudiates theism on the grounds that it is not “rational” to believe in God. After all, the starting point for atheistic materialism is the equation nobody times nothing equals everything. What could possibly be more irrational?

No one has ever claimed "nobody times nothing equals everything."

Furthermore, chance (luck, fortune, happenstance, fate—whatever label you want to put on it) is not a force or intelligence. “Chance” has to do with mathematical probability. Flip a coin and there’s a 50-50 chance it will come up tails. But “chance” has no power to flip the coin, much less design an ordered universe.

Nevertheless, that’s how atheistic materialists have trained themselves to think. Chance is the ultimate creator. In the words of one Nobel Prize-winning atheist, “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution.” Fortune has thus been personified — imbued with the power to determine, order and cause everything that happens.

That’s mythology, not science. At the end of the day, the atheist is no more rational and no less superstitious than the astrologist who thanks impersonal “lucky stars” for good fortune.

Your assessment of what atheists think is grotesquely inaccurate.  I suppose it could be seen as mythology if you go to such lengths to over simplify an extremely complicated subject such as this.  I'm not aware of a single atheist who thinks the way you have described.  Perhaps one does out there somewhere, as we are a diverse bunch, it certainly is not even remotely a common occurrence.

Also, why would you refer to someone as a "Nobel Prize-winning atheist"?  No one wins the Nobel for being an atheist.  The science people do to win the Nobel is entirely separate from their belief in a god, or lack thereof.

On some level, atheists themselves surely realize this. Proof of their internal angst is seen in the fact that so many of them are not content merely to disbelieve. They are militant in their opposition to God. They hate the very thought of God and would love to have every mention of Him removed from public discourse — as if that would somehow remove the burden of their own ingratitude and relieve the pangs of a guilty conscience.

Again, no.  On both issues in that paragraph.  Firstly, I most certainly do not "realize this".  I have never believed in any god.  I've never been inclined to.  I've never felt angst over it, and angst is certainly not the source of my disbelief.  As I'm sure you've already been told countless times by atheists, my disbelief is the result of a lack of evidence to prove any god's existence.  That's it.  There's no angst, no desire rebel, no desire to escape accountability, no all the other strawman claims about why we do not believe.

On the second issue there, I am an ardent proponent of the Freedom of Religion and would oppose any effort to restrict your right to believe in your god or speak of it, even in public.  I do have a problem when people attempt to force their religion into government, just as I would have a problem with an atheist attempting to put atheism into government.  This is to protect your right to believe as you wish as much as it is to protect my right to not believe in your god or anyone else's.

It's a pity that you put your effort into writing an article attacking atheists instead of actually trying to understand us.  Your use of the term "dogmatic atheists" is as insulting as it is in error.  Atheism has no dogma and it's irresponsible, dishonest, or both of you to use the term.

Before you ever speak or write about atheism or atheists, please take the time to actually talk to, and more importantly, listen to some atheists.  I say "some" on purpose.  Don't just talk to one.  Talk to many.  Atheists are far from a homogeneous group, as the only thing we all have in common is that lack of belief in god(s).

Sadly, I don't expect you to heed any of this, or to ever actually take an effort to understand us instead of simply doing what you did this Thanksgiving by blindly attacking us with what amount to lies about what we believe.  So, I'll just have to take the consolation prize of the ad next your article being for the American Humanist Association's new endeavor, Kids Without God.  They're doing good things for good kids.