Atheist Smackdown
Allan Doeksen
June 18, 2007 issue - It may not be fair to call what's happening in
the atheist community a backlash, since atheists have always been and
continue to be one of the smallest, most derided groups in the
country. In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, only 3 percent of respondents
called themselves atheists and only 30 percent said they'd ever vote
for an atheist. No, what's happening in the "atheist, humanist,
freethinkers" community is more like what happens to any ideological
or political group as it matures: the hard-liners knock heads with the
folks who want to just get along, and the cracks are beginning to
show.
At the center of this controversy is the humanist chaplain of Harvard
University, a 30-year-old "secular rabbi" named Greg Epstein. In
March, in remarks to the Associated Press, Epstein called the popular
writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins "atheist fundamentalists." He
accused the best-selling authors—he now includes Christopher Hitchens
among them—of being more interested in polemics, in tearing down and
waging war on religion than in doing anything positive; his own
responsibility, he says, is to speak out for the positive aspects of
disbelief. "My problem with the atheists," he told NEWSWEEK, "is not
that they're saying God doesn't exist. What I'm saying is we've got to
build something." (Harris calls the term atheist fundamentalist "an
empty play on words.")
In the blogosphere, where the atheist community is very active, some
people aligned with Epstein, condemning the marquee-name atheists for
their mercenary and destructive impulses. "The polemicists are
interested in nothing more than selling," says Jeff Nall, a peace
activist and grad student in Brevard County, Fla., who wrote a piece
on this issue for The Humanist magazine. "The danger is in this
ridiculous star status—they're seen as representative of the broader
atheist community."
R. Joseph Hoffmann, senior vice president at the prestigious Center
for Inquiry, lashed out at Epstein in a letter he posted online. He
accused Epstein of mushy thinking ("Gen-X humanism for the
passionately confused") and of using the Harvard imprimatur to stake
out a divisive position. Epstein is the destructive force, Hoffmann
says, not Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins. "His heresy," Hoffmann told
NEWSWEEK, "is that he has an obligation to be embracing." In other
words, Epstein isn't wrong, he's right: the name-brand atheists aren't
friendly, at least not in print. But maybe being friendly isn't their
job—it's his. By Lisa Miller, Newsweek
========================================
Yeah, the story doesn't really add anything to the strong vs. weak
atheist argument. Nor does it include anything about agnostics. But
the figure where 30% wouldn't vote for an atheist is pretty
impressive.
Nothing wrong with a star status for Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris.
Dawkins' book was great, so is the work he's done for the BBC. Ive
enjoyed a few lectures from Sam Harris as well. I abhor celebrity,
but I don't really consider them celebrities, just well known
mainstream names. For now they're our voices because of their
household names, and that doesn't bother me because I know that
Moqtada al-Sadr does not speak for ALL muslims, nor does Fred Phelps
speak for ALL christians. For those who believe Dawkins and Harris
speak for ALL atheists would be childish. - Allan