A “Newer” Atheism: Just What We Need

The pleasantly-named Andrew Lovley has a guest post on Non-Prophet Status where he argues in favour of “affirmation and accommodation”. Well really he just says that these are nice things and that Other Atheists are jerks for not pursuing them more diligently. And naturally that those of us who are not accommodating enough are (although he never uses these exact words) hurting the movement. For example:

“It is time we make a prudent choice about how we should relate to religion and its adherents. Our movement’s vitality, and our success at achieving our goals, is being undermined by our too-often acerbic and pretentious attitudes. It is time we recognize that the secular movement and its members are best served by acting on an agenda that balances affirmation of our identity and values with conciliation toward the religious.”

I don’t know about acerbic, but to say that it is “time ‘we’ recognize” something for which we have no evidence other than Andrew’s own declaration sure does sound pretentious. Lovley could be right about this in theory but if we’re just meant to “recognize” this epiphany of his without a supporting argument then where precisely is the “case” to which he refers in the title? Maybe there’s a second part planned, because he definitely makes some claims that aren’t substantiated anywhere. Like this one:

“Atheist activists should reconsider their priorities and reevaluate their efforts. A sign of maturity for any group is a focus on what they are for rather than what they are not. It often seems as though atheist activists direct more of their attention to religious people rather than to fellow atheists. We are doing ourselves a disservice when we are preoccupied with critiquing religion instead of engaging in dialogue about how atheists can lead positive, fulfilling lives and contribute to a better world.“

It gets kind of tiring to rebut this foolishness in the exact same way every single time but here you go. First of all, we can do both. It’s almost as if critics of religion and positive humanists can accommodate each other. Or even be the same people. Second, criticizing religion does get results, and here are some of them. Cards on the table Lovley: Where are the fruits of your alleged superior efficacy?

As I said in my comment on the original piece, Greta Christina’s analysis is by far the most convincing that I’ve seen. She concludes, based on comparison to analogous past events, that the current fight over accommodation and confrontation is a complete waste of time. In retrospect, both tactics did more for the gay rights movement than either of them could have done alone. If the assertive types can find it in themselves to let the moderates be, and the moderates can quit wringing their hands about the imaginary ruin we’re all about to suffer thanks to the assertive types, then maybe both sides can actually go back to what they both do normally: Work.

I’ve already made my feelings on this accommodation/confrontation dialogue pretty clear. The short version is that I think it’s massively unproductive to refer to two perfectly valid tactics as “isms” and use them to label people with whom one disagrees. Unlike either confrontation or accommodation as strategies, that really is something I feel the movement could do without. And we were actually doing pretty well with having moved past it, until Andrew Lovley got the bright idea to re-open this particular time-hole today. So for those of you keeping track at home:

• Accommodation– Still a sensible and valid strategy in numerous circumstances.
• Confrontation– Also a constructive and vital course of action in numerous circumstances.
• Arguing about confrontation vs. accommodation– Still a total waste of time and a boring, pretentious trope.

We don’t need a “Newer” atheism. We only really have a “New” one because the label has been forced upon us. What we need is exactly what we have: A huge number of extremely dedicated secular activists who are promoting a rational world view in a variety of ways.

One final observation: It used to be that this argument over tactics came from both sides. Of late, it’s only the aggressive accommodationists who seem to be taking part. Not a good sign for a group that purports to hold their position.

Advertisement