I just read a great comment that I had to share… In an article criticizing Richard Dawkins as misguidedly anti-semitic, David Berreby (inadvertently) points out that atheists sometimes fall victim to the very type of thinking that causes the in-group rantings they are usually railing against. Well, duh…
Berreby’s argument is based on modes of identity, and IMHO, flawed. There may be the different modes of identity that he claims, but he doesn’t show me that any particular identity is less open to criticism as a result of its category. The fact that some identities arise “at the knee” is exactly what Dawkins decries.
But Berreby’s point point that Dawkins reverts to the very type of thinking that he is criticizing is the lasting one for me. I can’t disagree.
I remember talking to someone recently about how and why being a feminist has fallen so far out of fashion in recent years. I made a point that feminism, in its many forms, was all about bringing about the end of a patriarchal way of thinking, but that to achieve that end, feminism often had to revert to patriarchal methods. That is, the act of opposing a rival is a patriarchal thing to do. Feminism, as a rival in a patriarchal system, gets absorbed by that system for its patriarchal way of organizing itself. Ugh, for feminism…
I’m sure there’s all sorts of literature on revolutionaries and this phenomenon already. For atheists, they are often drawn into discussions about whether theirs is a new religion, or whether their faith in science is analogous to religious faith. And, they often respond a most fervent “NO!” to this argument, or a dismissive “um, not!” to that. But the fact is, Dawkins DOES want to herd us, and we often DO sound evangelical.
This is why Sam Harris’s points are so needed, and so right. Take a cue from the feminist experience folks.
But, I really love the following comment to the Berreby article. Reader phonyvet on the Huffington Post website writes:
My personal history of disbelief is from nihilism to atheism to agnosticism. (I can’t count youthful indoctrination in a supernatural belief.) As I grew older I decided that it was impossible for my mind to grasp concepts like Infinity or Eternity, and I concluded we humans possess too few senses to do so. We can invent symbols for such states, of course, but we cannot conceive of experiencing them. I decided that if infinity and eternity were too tough for me, then god was equally difficult. Disbelief or belief were both impossible. From a jolly atheism I moved to a glum agnosticism: I didn’t know because I couldn’t know. Either pro or con was too arrogant an assertion for a dumb ass like me. But I have a hunch….
A hunch!! Ha! Sounds right to me…
