Unable to save comment (key failed)
If Dawkins is supposedly a militant atheist, then the Pope is definitely a 'militant theocrat'!
Good morning. This is another thought provoking article. However, I have never heard the term, militant atheist, used until I read this article. I follow the news daily on the web, radio and television – especially articles of a religious or anti-religious nature. I would just like to know who it is that is “widely using” this term?
I used to have a bumper sticker that read :-
"Militant Agnostic!
I don't know nad you don't bloody well know either"
As a radical atheist myself I must respectfully disagree with your position. I think the idea of Militant Atheism is valid in the same way that Militant Feminism is valid. Neither literally take up arms and fight (generally), but - as you say - Dawkins is not just atheist but is positively anti-religious and would seek to persuade others to his way of thinking. Militant in this case has a purely symbolic meaning and I think most reasonable people would understand this.
Once again, I state that I have no axe to grind here; I am a huge fan of Dawkins' work and the God Delusion ranks amoung the best books I have ever read. I think Militant is probably a fair term to use in this case. If I were Dawkins, I'd be wearing it as a badge of honour!
Once again, atheists aren't lacking belief. You don't lack what you'd never want.
Surprisingly, atheists fight me on this issue. They also have often fought me on your issue, "militant" atheism. Everything you've said here and what was said in that video link are precisely why I object to the label yet the kiddie atheists seem to love it. They love the negative, scary label. In some strange way I think they find it empowering, and subsequently take on the mantle and indeed you seem online the types who think obnoxious bullying is cool.
Certainly the term is used by the religious to vilify us, and it dismisses us in the same way saying atheism is a religion does. It's a popular right wingnut strategy of controlling language (which they're masters at, btw) so you shape opinion without even having to argue. "Activist judges", "pro-life", "moral majority" and so on are all clever buzz words which accomplish this goal, and you can certainly add "militant atheist" to that list. I'd also add "lacking belief". Just as it's a mistake to keep using "lacking belief" to perpetuate the religious claim that we're deficient, so too is it a mistake to embrace and use the phrase "militant atheist" to describe yourself. To do so makes you a fool for you're playing right into their dark and clever hands.
I tend to agree with Philly on this. The militant label is simply a way of demonizing atheists. Would christians who are critical of atheists be called militant christians? No, they get called apologetics. Same thing really. Perhaps it is time for atheists joined the party and started demonizing christians with more than the "extremist" or "fundamentalist" tag. Surely there is something catchy out there that makes them (hopefully) a bit cautious in their veracity.
Another well written, thought-provoking post, vjack. I'm looking forward to reading your further takes on the issue.
I understand what Iain means in his/her post, and perhaps "radical" is more appropriate than "militant" when one considers how most people will interpret "militant". Yet I agree with PhillyChief that allowing believers to describe us as "militant" simply because we're outspoken and unapologetic plays into their notion that we're no different from those who blow up innocents with bombs or kill abortion doctors. Pure nonsense.
As with any other misconception of our views, mislabeling ought to be countered as often as it's encountered (and I've seen that accusation tossed out there quite often).
Hi Gang,
I treat accusations of "militant Atheism" in two ways.
The first is that we have taken a "step up" from the time when we were referred to as the "devil's workers". Hurray! (As I have commented before, murdering Finnish Atheists in early parts of the 20th century went unpunished.)
The second is that "our words are our swords" and we are winning the battle!
Personally, I find the claim that we lack morality more of an issue. That is a sweeping statement which has been difficult to argue since we too, can be immoral. (Christians do not have an exclusivity when it comes to immorality. They use their believe in God and Jesus as a smoke screen for their followers immorality. We don't have an identical "smokescreen") Now, if we can move the battleground to the "morality" issue we can deliver the "coup de grace"! For my new definition of morality visit www.withoutgods.net While my blog doesn't receive many comments yet, I certainly have ignited my so-called Christian acquaintances. Some of them have to admit that using my definition, they can't be moral . . . and they are visibly shaken. As a result, we have "suspended" our arguments about Atheism vs. Christianity as they inspect their own morality . . . and mine with the result that I am considered a "better" person than before.
The "militant Antheist" projectile as a weapon is a pebble compared to the "immoral Atheist" projectile which I consider a huge boulder! I am certain we can handle "little pebbles". And, if the religious see us getting all bent out of shape with this trivial classification, they win easily!
My thoughts exactly. It does indeed seem that in every other context "militant" refers to an aggressive or violent behavior - and I can hardly believe that anyone considers publishing a book or doing a speaking engagement to be "militant" in that sense.
So do Christians call other Christians who try to convert others to their religion "militant Christians"?
If you're a theist I think putting "militant" in front of atheist is a bit like an atheist putting "rational" in front of atheist. A few passages from my blogpost, spawned by vjack's post.
Religion and faith play by different rules. A religionist looks at somebody else who is a different religion and they are wrong or heretics or apostate or whatever, and you may kill them or torture them or pray for them or whatever, but the other whackos are playing at a similar level of attenuated grasp of reality.
I've seen several atheists use the argument that religionists are atheists to every god except their own and that's just not true. A religionist's denial of other gods is not based on reason and evidence and all those other good things, it is based on faith and thus isn't atheism.
Any atheistic declaration is an attack on the theists sanity, not in a "all versions of the same truth" way but in a "you people aren't connected to reality" way. That's the attack. That's the "militant" position. It's not comparing apples in a communal way, it's saying, "all of your apples have the same existence in reality as the 'tea' my 2-year old daughter pores for me out of her empty play teapot."
Too much of a violation of the social constructs is always seen as "militant" because you are not attacking pieces in the social game you're attacking the game itself. Which happens to be the only way the boundaries get moved in any significant fashion, but doesn't change the reactions of the reactionaries.
I'm an atheist and I do agree the militant label is misapplied. However it isn't always just used to refer to "out" atheists. It's also used ot refer to the aggressive hateful atheists, that small minority that think it's their calling in life to mock theists with childish taunts. You can tell me with a straight face you have seen these people, they're a minority but a vocal hard to miss one.
Instead of respectfully disagreeing like one poster these "mean atheists" give us all a bad name. That's what I think alot of people are talking about when they say militant atheist, and they are right to despise them just as we atheists are right to despise robertson or phelps. So just remember that protecting this bad crowd simply because their atheists only drags us down with them. We should condemn these mean atheists right along side the the theists, just like we expect liberal Christians to condemn the fundamentalists in their own ranks.
Sure, ain't you never of the (Catholic) Church Militant?
** what would Luthor do? **
O, ye of too much conscience -- step on their toes.
Amazing how fatuous the claims of the big-3 monotheisms sound. They are equally odious and equally dispensable as ethical or ideological guides.
Enough of bibliolators indulging in mere scripticism. -- What they claim has no more intellectual integrity or moral value than geeks parsing comix at a Superman convention.
What a fictionalized culture hero "Jesus" or "Moses" or "Mohammed" would do is irrelevant. As irrelevant as what Hercules, Sherlock Holmes, or Lex Luthor would do.
However fictional and morally purblind their gods, religious fanatics exert unwholesome political power. John McCain prays that fundies will back his remake of Apocalypse Now. Sen. Obama reaches out to pet America’s theocrats in waiting. Casting pearls before the swinish, he's already carried obligatory religious hypocrisy too far.
As for moral monsters Dobson, Hagee and their disgusting epigones: declare their mega-xian-enterprises taxable. They are nothing more than fronts for the far right ideology of christo-fascism (dominionism).
Stop state support of religion. Let it wither like Jonah’s vine.
“God help me. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. Amen.”
bipolar2 © 2008
Hey vjack, thanks for linking to my video. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y...h?
v=Y5OEocRp2wA )
The feedback I've been getting from people has been very encouraging, and it fills me with warm fuzzies to spur more dialog on this topic. Take care!
EKM asked: So do Christians call other Christians who try to convert others to their religion "militant Christians"?
They refer to such Christians as Sheep Stealers. It happens a lot.
Just to clarify, so far as I can tell, the term militant atheist caught on after the publication of Sam Harris' "The End of Faith", which uses martial language throughout. The label probably got applied to Dawkins as a matter of association, but that isn't to say that Dawkins' hasn't made statements that would encourage people to see he and Harris as fingers on the same hand, so to speak.
With Harris, the adjective could apply in one of two ways. For one, his book could easily be read as offering an interpretation of post-9/11 conflicts as a war between secularism and religion, a conflict he apparently supports. For another, several of Harris' most often-cited sources are Richard Kagan and Francis Fukuyama, two PNAC founders and signees of the document urging the Bush administration to invade Iraq regardless of whether or not there was any evidence of its involvement in 9/11. In as much as Harris incorporates their militant ideologies and politics into his exhortation against religion, it could well be argued that he has blended atheism with militancy, regardless of whether or not either is intrinsic in the other.
Arguments to the end that atheism is simply the absence of religion and therefore permits no adjectives are sophistry, really. Writers like Harris and Dennett are offering not merely critiques but political solutions. At the end of "Breaking the Spell", Dennett suggests removing children from homes in which they might be indoctrinated into religious belief, and from what he's written in articles, there's reason to suppose that Dawkins might support such legislation if it looked like it stood any chance of passing. By no means is that militancy on the order of what's been going on in Ossetia the last week or so, but it's certainly a thing apart from making sure there's a wall of separation to protect atheists from prejudice and force.
The salient point, it seems to me, is that such writers are proposing that atheists move towards the use of politics as an implement of force rather than a defense.
For the record, I think you're right that "militant atheism" probably is being applied by some as a way of stigmatizing all atheists. But at the same time, I think just as many people, if not more, are attempting to apply it where no convenient distinction is readily available. While I'm not a fan of the term "militant atheist", I do see some need for a handy term that distinguishes atheists as a heterogenous group from those who are attempting to unify like-minded atheists around a platform of pushing for an altogether atheist society. I have a hard time swallowing any argument that dismisses the term by presenting atheism as ultimately unqualifiable. That is, unless we're ready to coin a term that distinguishes between the simple absence of belief in gods and the positive belief that no one should believe in gods. For my part, I think that would be a useful term to have, but until we have it, expect
I suggest you look up "militant", for the claims you make about Harris, Dawkins and Dennet, MadArch, are about their what? Their WRITING. Perhaps you could read the post and especially watch the video linked in it.
"Militant Antitheist" please. None of this atheist stuff for me.
MadArch:
Regarding a name or term, I struggled with that one for more than 15 years. I settled on Milesian. If anyone wishes to look into its meaning, they may find that the original "Milesian School of Thought" (2,400 years ago) was populated by Atheists experiencing most of today's problems, but they persisted.
Getting the Atheist world to agree on a term is like the proverbial "herding cats" problem. If one looks into the "naming" problem, it is more likely that critics will have lots to say, but seldom, if ever do they advance a solution.
It's part of American culture to portray those that you don't agree with as radical, extreme, or militant.
Extremist atheists certainly exist. The problem is when mainstream atheists are accused of being extreme - but, the same thing happens to all groups, to an extent.
I once had a long chat with a fellow who wanted to see all evangelical christians deported or executed. He certainly fit the bill as a militant atheist (or anti-theist, I suppose).
The phrase "militant atheism" came from Dawkins himself. He explained what he meant by it at TED in Feb. 2002:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/
tal...nt_atheism.html
I get your point vjack, but what do we call the more outspoken atheist?
I think that perhaps one of the ways to get rid of the term 'militant atheist' is for us to come up with a more suitable replacement.
There is, and always will be, different ways to attack a problem. The more outspoken people are more likely to get labelled militant, fundamental, belligerent etc than the 'quiet' ones. Even us atheists need a term for the different levels, what should those terms be?
Len, what do you mean "came from Dawkins himself"? The term's been around since at least the 20s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Militant_atheism#Militant_atheism) and it's been used in English since at least 1997 (see bibliography for the same article).
My remark was made in the context of "militant atheism" being used as an *accusation* -- when Dawkins used it, he was fully embracing the term and added refinements to it. In the TED video, he says something to the effect of 'I don't want to urge atheism upon you, I want to urge *militant* atheism upon you.' Paraphrased of course, but you'll recognize it when he says it in the video. What on earth are books like 'The God Delusion,' 'Letter to a Christian Nation,' 'Breaking the Spell' and 'God is Not Great,' if not "militant atheism?"
When the world's most visible and outspoken atheist uses the term as a positive call to action, I'm not sure it's all that productive to think of it as an "accusation" and try to back away and disavow the term. If you look at it that negatively, then you're buying into the idea that there's somehow something wrong with being an outspoken advocate for your views. Personally, I think it's high time we started getting militant. There is far too much woo in the world.
I wholeheartedly agree with you vjack.
And Al, great video. Well made & well said. I'm a subscriber to you now.
I posted on this topic myself some time ago and had a couple of dissenting comments that I thought made some good points. In the end, I still see "militant atheist" as a largely pejorative term and one that is used to equate atheists with the "evil jihadists" and terrorists.
Anyway, here's my post from Dec. 2007: http://breakingspells.wordpress....s-a-real-label/
I've used the term (and got chastized for it) for lack of any other. Think of it as two separate adjectives describing a single subject.
Mr. X is militant, Mr. X is an atheist, therefor, Mr. X can be called a militant atheist.
I've always considered the current lineup of noted authors--Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens--to fall under the category Assertive Atheists.
Not so much militant (maybe Hitchens at times), but definitely not passive about their beliefs. Plus the title's got alliteration going for it, and even a potential negative connotation, if you emphasize the first syllable. After all, everyone can be asses at times, and people in this line of work should be able to take that kind of criticism.
Great post, vjack. Although some atheists have embraced "militancy" as a badge of pride - and you certainly can do that, for there's nothing wrong with being militant in the service of a good cause - it's clear that the term is most commonly used by theists who want to demean us and our movement as a bunch of nasty, misanthropic radicals.
What's revealing, I think, is which atheists *don't* get called "militant". Generally, it's the ones who wish they were religious - the occasional, rare atheists who bemoan their lack of ability to simply make themselves believe. That subservient posture is what believers would like us to adopt; anything else on their part is mere sophistry and concern trolling.
Given how atheists are treated in this society, I'm surprised atheists aren't more militant.
Funny how quickly the tables have turned. What sparked the whole atheist panty bunching and is number 1 reason for their whining is that "religions are so in your face!" Well welcome to 2008, and it seems that its more of atheists that are in anyones face than the Mormons on their bikes. And the circle of useless dumbass'essness continues. I say all those religious freaks, and those so called atheists have too much time on their hands... Please go to the mall parking lot or your local park to pick up some garbage, then you will be truly doing some service to the society.
Chimbles,
I'm just curious: what are some examples of "in your face" atheism? Are you saying that you get approached by atheists on bicycles, passing out pamphlets? Are you getting asked at the checkout if you'd like to contribute a dollar to an atheist organization?
Perhaps you've encountered atheists on street corners working commuters stuck at the light with bucket for donations to a good atheist cause. Or worse, maybe atheists are stopping you in the very mall parking lot where you pick up trash, thrusting small, pocket-sized copies of the God Delusion in your hand.
What, precisely, is "in-your-face-atheism?"
And why the use of the term "so-called?" Are you also suggesting that there aren't really atheists?
I'm just curious.
Chimbles, as Michael Shermer recently said:
What do you get when you cross a Jehovah’s Witness with an atheist?
Someone who knocks on your door for no reason at all.
ylooshi,
Ha ha ha! I could not have asked for a better response than yours. Perhaps a little bit of paranoia is behind your questioning there. Fanaticism use to only apply to the religious kind, now I guess it also applies to the so-called atheists aheem It seems that now a days atheists like to borrow tactics from the ones they hate. Maybe there is only one way to life, but for some it just takes that much longer to figure it out.
And yet, you haven't answered the questions I had. They were fair.
Also, I'm not asking out of "hatred" (I haven't any hatred for Christians or other superstitious people) but out of curiousity. I truly want to know what you consider to be "in your face" atheism.
I've always said that atheists will have come into their own when the term "militant atheist" is treated with the same distaste and horror as "uppity Negro." The term is used exactly for the same reasons: to humiliate and intimidate into silence.
Fuck that. I'm not silent anymore. I usually ask people who call me a militant atheist if they would like it if I called them a militant delusionist. I can pretty much guarantee that, 999,999,999,999 times out of a 1,000,000,000,000 that all I said was I didn't believe in a deity, in a matter of fact way, like it wasn't a big deal--which it isn't, to me. They're the ones who become the working definition of militant, no matter what the provocation.
Just to clarify, so far as I can tell, the term militant atheist caught on after the publication of Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"
Uh, no. The term was used consistently to describe Madelyn Murray O'Hair, long, long ago, and was quickly transferred to all atheists, at least by the 70s (it could have been sooner, but I wouldn't have been old enough to hear it often, as I did in the 70s). I think it's telling that the term is also used to describe proponents of feminism, minority rights, and, sometimes, gay rights, all movements that challenge the status quo.
As I pointed out in a follow-up comment, the term "militant atheist" has been around since the 20s, and was apparently first used within atheist circles. So, yes, I'm aware that it wasn't coined specifically to characterize Sam Harris. I wasn't particularly clear on this, but what I meant was that the current popularity of the term seems to have started with Harris. My point was that, whether or intentionally or not, the blog article made it seem as though Dawkins inspired the recent popularity of the term. Harris was first, and I think it entirely likely that Harris' use of explicitly militaristic language brought the term to mind for a lot of people. The tone and terms of "The End of Faith" made it easy for people to misread his intent -- Christopher Hedges even misinterpreted Harris' as advocating using pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Islamicist nations.
RE: PhillyChief's point, I'm not an alarmist. As I wrote earlier, I'm not entirely comfortable with the term "militant atheist", but I think it is expressive of concerns that are, in some cases, provoked by atheists themselves. And at the risk of hammering an already driven nail, the most visible example is that of Harris' "The End of Faith". I take your point that Harris' activism doesn't extend much beyond writing, lecturing and forming foundations. So if, as was recently suggested on State of Protest (http://www.stateofprotest.com/blog/2008/08/15/
how-much-is-too-much/) the term "militant" ought to apply only to those who actually take up arms, then you're right: There's no reason to call Harris militant.
That said, I'm not sure that we routinely apply that standard elsewhere. So far as I know, Marx never so much as threw a punch, but he called the clash between the classes inevitable, and exhorted Communists to start the revolution in order to ensure its immediate success -- much the same way that Harris has called the end of faith inevitable and wars between the West and the Middle East indicative of the clash between religion and secular democracy. (Marx and Harris also share conceptual roots in Hegelian philosophy, by the way.) I think most people would call it militant in the case of Marx, but atheists aren't so sure when it comes to their own -- in part, no doubt, because who wants that association?
Which is not to say that atheism is necessarily like communism in any other way, so let's not go that route. If you're not comfortable with the comparison, I'm sure we can dredge up some examples of Colonial Americans who wrote in support of Revolution without ever having actually participated in combat. Personally, I'd be okay with characterizing them as militant patriots, even if it could be demonstrated that they kept their hands in their pockets whenever they weren't writing.
Hi Gang,
Over history, activism is usually preceded by tragic events. Gays were bashed, thrashed and killed so they fought openly for Gay rights. Their physical lives were at stake.
Blacks were killed, beaten and lived terrible lives. So they fought.
Compared to what has happened to Gays, Blacks and some minorities, American Atheists have little to complain about, do little except complain about their occassional mistreatment by the religious; and do little, if anything to assert themselves as a unified movement. The fact that Dawkins, Dennett, et al have brought the Atheist cause into recognition by the nations media does not mean that any of them is about to be any active part of a "movement". I am not criticizing them. They are doing one of the jobs that has to be done but until someone steps forward, we are just a bunch of "farts in the wind"!
Vjack, for instance, has the most recognized voice in the blogospher. He also has a job. He can't risk his livelihood. I don't blame him. Usually, the start of any successful group is an organized, structured, identifiable group. It raises funds and PAYS its principles. With an answer to the question of where is their next meal coming from, they can do a good job.
From what I can see, Atheists, as a group, would have trouble raising enough money to buy a few hot dogs which they might barbeque if someone could find a "hidden place" where they could have a picnic. Madalyn may have raised her voice, but she was corrupt and immoral. We need a moral leader who stands up and leads. Until we do, we are nothing.
For example, if we were to attempt to create a group, we don't even have any addresses where we could send the invitations! If Atheists in US America number over 30 million, how do you contact them? And, if you do, would they answer. Don't forget, there is no identifiabl benefit for an Atheist "coming out" except personal pride.
At least the Gays had identities. In the meantime, my suggestion is that until Atheists really want to emerge, lets quit the bitching and complaining!
On Larry King the other night, Bill Maher repeated the observation that "America is too dumb to be governed!" Could his statement be aclue to what is wrong with Atheists?
Heck, we spend more time debating "names" then getting on with it.
It strikes me that you all seem to agree that it would be good to know what the terms mean, but you can't agree.
Here's some helpful clarification:
"Theist" - from "theos"(god) - you believe there is a god
"Atheist" - from "a-"(no) and "theos" - you believe there is no god
"Agnostic" - from "a-", "gnosis"(knowledge/wisdom) - you don't know whether there is a god.
My impression is that a lot of people calling themselves "atheist" are actually "agnostic", which would certainly explain a lot of the animosity towards terms such as "militant atheist" (someone who is very active about pushing the belief that there is no god)
militant athiesm: not only do i know there is no god, i am aware that _you_ know it too.
nobody anywhere has ever been stupid enough to believe that shit, but plenty of people are craven enough to submit to social pressure and pretend that the sky is red.
I disagree.
As of now there are no militant aetheists but there are many that aggressively push their beliefs upon others, when they do that are they any worse than fanatical christians who try to convert others and do not tolerate others. As an agnostic I think one thing that seperates us apart from the religous is that not only do we believe in science but we are also tolerant of others. When we begin to actively 'de-convert' people and pushing our beliefs on others-when the safety of another is not at stake (see anonymous)-we become as bad as them. So if we continue to beleive that we have the moral highground to de-convert others is when we become as arrogant as them. THats all for now
-Falconk27
Beeing obsessed by any kind of ideas...is it Islamism,Hinduism,christianism...or atheism is all the same after all,is it not?
One has no limits to what he can enslave himself to...
Commenting by HaloScan
