The Triumph of Reason

 Response to Katha Pollitt's "The Atheist's Dilemma"

From The Nation, Dec 3, 2007

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071203/pollitt

In this issue of The Nation, Katha Pollitt
posits that what people like to refer to as the "New Atheism" is
destined for failure. She argues that the devout will not be persuaded
by atheists, particularly those like Sam Harris, who "[think] religion
is completely stupid." She goes on further to admonish us for not
appreciating the so-called moderates of any faith. Ms. Pollitt is
demonstrating her ignorance of the effectiveness of the atheist
"movement" (although I hesitate to use that word) and the reason why
even the moderate religious acolytes need to be called to account for
their beliefs.

Ms. Pollitt is correct in some regards
with respect to the most devout believers. Those people are not likely
to be persuaded by anybody, and confrontation with atheists generally
serves to push them further into their delusion and reinforces their
belief. Cognitive dissonance can work either way, depending on how much
one has at stake. I do not believe that a change in tactics or attitude
will affect those types of people.

Moderate believers simply compound the
problem by providing respectability and cover for the extremists of
their ilk. Do I appreciate the more accepting people among the
faithful? Sure. Ultimately, though, they are still responsible for
perpetuating and propagating their worldview. If we could get to the
point where the cafeteria Christians and Muslims are taken out of the
equation, we could effectively stamp out the religious violence that
occurs every day because it would be acceptable to excoriate
faith-based belief systems. We could do exactly what Sam Harris talks
about in his book, The End of Faith, which describes the
effectiveness of ridicule as a tool for social change. As long as it is
taboo to criticize religion, that will be impossible.

Her conclusion is that only the "angry
teenager" would be persuaded by this type of argumentation, but I know
for a fact that this is not true. With billions of Christians and
Muslims in the world, it is difficult to gauge how many individuals are
impacted by any particular meme, but the only way to change society is
to change the people who make up the society. Being likely the most
confrontational, and to some, offensive, group of atheists out there,
we receive letters of hate, threats—and thanks. Many people have told
us personally that we changed their lives with our in-your-face
approach. We want to make it seem ludicrous to believe in fairy tales,
and that does work for some people.

If Ms. Pollitt is looking for a
one-track route to de-conversion, she'll likely be looking from now
until the day that she dies. Every person is different and will respond
to the arguments against religion in many ways. That doesn't change the
fact that her assertion that we won't change anybody's mind is
absolutely incorrect, and with hundreds of people that I could use as
examples, I can only fathom how many have been influenced by Dawkins,
Harris, Hitchens, et al.

It is odd that she turns around and
uses an argument very similar to Sam Harris' recent speech and article,
"The End of Atheism." She claims that once you have denounced religion
and come out as a nonbeliever, you have nullified any potential
influence you could have had. To some, it's true. An atheist is put
into a box, usually the stereotypical definition of evil baby-blood
drinkers who are angry at god. The way to change that is to reclaim the
word "atheist." Come out to your friends, family, co-workers, and
neighbors so that they will realize how ridiculous it is to perpetuate
that caricature. Atheists who kow-tow to that are just as guilty as the religious when they hide behind other, less-offensive labels.

What will the outcome of this "Golden
Age of Atheism" be? Nobody knows. There are many who, like Ms. Pollitt,
would like to convince us that being the silent minority is the correct
tactic. They would like to see us shut-up and sit-down—just let
everybody believe whatever they want to—it's a personal issue. She
wants to know if "art can succeed where atheism cannot." Where is it
that "atheism" cannot succeed? Is not the author of "The Reluctant
Fundamentalist" just as much of an atheist as I? He is just using a
different approach. Atheists will succeed once we stop arguing with
each other and start taking the danger that religion poses to the
future of humanity seriously.