Stephen Prothero, the author of Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — And Doesn’t, wrote an article for USA Today about how atheists would be better off with some new voices.
Specifically, friendlier, female-ier voices — as opposed to the “angry white male atheist” voices, which we already hear plenty of. (There’s been plenty of discussion on how that stereotype isn’t very fair or accurate — Richard Dawkins, for example, isn’t an “angry” guy; he’s just perceived as such because he’s passionate when discussing the harms that religion causes — but I won’t dwell on that right now.)
Prothero also mentions William Lobdell and me as examples of “male types who also qualify as kinder, gentler atheists.” It was nice of him to include me in that list and I could easily mention several other men and women (several of whom contribute to and comment on this site) who belong there, too.
What I did want to talk about was the following excerpt. The context is that Prothero attended an event for the Boston Coalition of Reason and heard speeches from several old school (angry, white, male) atheists and one friendly, female atheist:
I heard two very different arguments at this event. The first was the old line of the New Atheists: Religious people are stupid and religion is poison, so the only way forward is to educate the idiots and flush away the poison. The second was less controversial and less utopian: From this perspective, atheism is just another point of view, deserving of constitutional protection and a fair hearing. Its goal is not a world without religion but a world in which believers and nonbelievers coexist peaceably, and atheists are respected, or at least tolerated.
These competing approaches could not be further apart. One is an invitation to a duel. The other is a fair-minded appeal for recognition and respect. Or, to put it in terms of the gay rights movement, one is like trying to turn everyone gay and the other is like trying to secure equal rights for gay men and lesbians.
The “aggressive” types want to both increase the respectability of the atheist viewpoint while at the same time persuading others that it’s the most rational point of view.
The “friendly” types want to both increase the respectability of the atheist viewpoint while at the same time persuading others that it’s the most rational point of view.
The difference is that the “aggressive” types don’t care who they offend. They’ll go after religion in all its forms — it doesn’t matter if they criticize the Vatican or the local church down the street or your sweet neighbor who happens to be religious.
The “friendly” types are willing to do some triage here. They’re not going to spend the same amount of energy going after a local pastor or national politician who happens to espouse a personal belief in a god. There are more important battles to fight.
I would much rather keep as allies those religious people who do things like support sound science, fight for equal rights for the GLBT community, and believe in separation of church and state.
I know others prefer a no-holds-barred approach, but I think that’s counterproductive when dealing with the people we want to reach out to the most — those who are on the fence, somewhere between “I’m going to call myself an agnostic” and “I go to church on Christmas and Easter.”
There’s a lot of people in that mix, and I think we turn them off by not acknowledging that we can’t offer everything that religion can at the present time. When we say that atheism is *obviously* right, we’re not addressing their real concerns about losing all faith and they stop listening.
That’s not to say the “aggressive” types aren’t important.
They get the attention.
As openly-anti-theist Brian Sapient once put it to me, the aggressive atheists provide a bitter pill for the religious to swallow. The friendly atheists are like the water that helps them get it down.