This is Olivia Benson and Elliot Stabler here to discuss what passes for criticism of our new book, Is Atheism Degenerate? Madalyn Biddy launched a personal attack in her rant, "The Problem With Olivia Benson," scribbling idiocy like this:
Then there is this idiot from wherever who keeps viciously attacking me, making judgments about my book based on what we the authors say about it, as if that could possibly be enough to get a sense of what our book is like. He offers some really point-missing stuff about the toxic gas, etc.:
This idiot then goes on to say,
And, no, our book is not an attempt to make a causal link between atheism and immorality. Rather, we are saying that there are many atheists who are immoral. We are well aware of the difficulties in establishing such a causal link. Here's some stuff from Chapter 6:
---
Okay, I know that I'm not supposed to explain the joke, but there are a few things that I want to clarify. Now if you follow the links, it is pretty obvious that Is Atheism Degenerate? is a stand-in for Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson's book Does God Hate Women?. However, I am not saying that book is necessarily bad, but rather showing how bad it looks based on their own quotes from the book and their defense of it, especially to someone skeptical of them. The authors could very well have written a book that is better than what they indicate.
Now the analogies, of course, aren't exact. For example, the pieces of the sentence, "This makes no sense, since atheism makes room for non-toxic ideas as well, like humanism," don't map individually onto the counterpart sentence, "Cruelty can be justified in the name of love, science, freedom, and so on." The analogy between bringing up Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow and bringing up Stalinism definitely needs defending. In a nuanced discussion of the relationship between religion and misogyny, the murder of Asha can be a legitimate piece of evidence. In a nuanced discussion of atheism and morality as well, pointing out Stalinism can be useful as well, especially for noting that mere atheism is not enough to prevent people from doing the kind of atrocities that have been done in the name of religion. However, both the examples of Stalinism and Asha Dhuhulow can be misused, brought out as emotional non sequiturs to blackmail the audience into accepting a claim without sufficient support. In the case of Stalinism, the latter usage has become downright cliché. Now in Stangroom and Benson's book, the case of Asha may very well be tied with a clear chain of logic and evidence to her thesis. In Benson's reply to Bunting, however, this just didn't happen. Bunting complained about Benson overstating her case and making harsh claims about religion in general. Asha, however, was not only murdered by those of a specific religion, Islam, but of a radical insurgent sect of Muslims, al-Shabab, that have terrorized the locals of Asha's town as well as much of southern Somalia, and set up ad-hoc courts that "have shocked many Somalis, who traditionally practise a more tolerant form of Islam." Benson didn't even try to show a chain of logic between the murder of Asha and her more general conclusions that pertained not only to Islam, but Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, and well, religion in general.
Now contrary to Benson's mind-reading, I did not enjoy writing the thread posts criticizing her, especially when it felt increasingly like Benson was trying her best to drag me through the mud, however, I did enjoy letting off a bit of steam here.
It's not that Benson doesn't have a point, it's that she overstates it with such crudeness and lack of insight that I'm staggered anyone wants to publish it. Except that I know publishers with a keen eye on the bottom line will publish anything and atheism sells – it feeds a public appetite for outrage. I just think it's profoundly intellectually dishonest to feed that kind of outrage – there is no attempt here to open people's minds, only fuel their indignation.She "supports" this by quoting me out of context as saying "Atheism is the toxic gas that pours into the vacuum. Atheism is the river of sludge that pours into the dry wadi," giving the misleading impression that my book is just vulgar abuse. What I said in context was this:
Atheism doesn't necessarily originate immorality, but it leaves no framework in place to support moral behavior, allowing a gap that an atheist can fill with anything that he wants. Atheism is the toxic gas that pours into the vacuum. Atheism is the river of sludge that pours into the dry wadi.Her complaints about language show how utterly out of proportion her priorities are. How can she huff and puff over harsh language while ignoring the mountains of corpses, shattered lives, and utter misery committed by the atheist Stalinist regime.
Then there is this idiot from wherever who keeps viciously attacking me, making judgments about my book based on what we the authors say about it, as if that could possibly be enough to get a sense of what our book is like. He offers some really point-missing stuff about the toxic gas, etc.:
Or take this point:Look, the point is that atheism is poisonous because it makes room for toxic ideas about morality. He replied, astonishingly, "This makes no sense, since atheism makes room for non-toxic ideas as well, like humanism." This fool obviously has poor reading skills.
"Atheism doesn't necessarily originate immorality, but it leaves no framework in place to support moral behavior, allowing a gap that an atheist can fill with anything that he wants."
Ok, then. Atheism doesn't on its own prescribe ethical behavior. This is true enough. But look at the next line:
"Atheism is the toxic gas that pours into the vacuum ..."
Ok, that seems ... hey, wait? If atheism is supposed to allow a gap, shouldn't it be likened to the vacuum, not the gas? This is even worse than a mere overstatement. Notice the shell game here. The literal statement is something far more modest, but the metaphor identifies atheism with the poison itself. One can make a similar point with the other metaphor. Again, if the metaphors are restatements of the original literal point that Benson herself made, then shouldn't atheism be likened to the wadi, not the sludge. The literal statement says one thing, but the metaphors, rather than amplifying the original point, change it, sending a different message under the table.
This idiot then goes on to say,
I am trying to find a way to say this in a way that avoids sounding too accusatory, but for now I can't: Don't even try to use the murders under Stalinism to shield your own ideas from scrutiny. I'm sorry to put it so harshly.Of course, even though I can't hear him or see his facial expressions, his tone gives away what he's really thinking. He doesn't regret what he's saying at all. Then the 'Don't even try' - as if he's the cop on the beat, maintaining "law and order" on the Internet, shoving my arm up behind my back until my shoulder breaks. That adds an extra level of deliberate offensiveness, as if he'd caught me picking his pocket or molesting his child. Then there's the 'use' and the 'murders under Stalinism' - which of course pisses me off more than all the rest combined and cubed, as no doubt it was meant to. I'm not using anything; I'm calling attention to a horrible outrage, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. To say, as I did of Madalyn Biddy, "She spat with fury at me for saying harsh things about atheism while not saying a word about Stalinism," is not even close to an attempt to shame her by an emotional appeal.
And, no, our book is not an attempt to make a causal link between atheism and immorality. Rather, we are saying that there are many atheists who are immoral. We are well aware of the difficulties in establishing such a causal link. Here's some stuff from Chapter 6:
Therefore, it follows that the fact that non-atheists practise adultery, and many atheists do not practise it, does not rule out a causal link between atheism and adultery.Our little idiot decided to keep at it, blabbering this bit of bilge:
However, it is important to understand that it is not ruled in here either. The significant point is that we cannot infer causality from these broad relationships: on their own, they tell us little about the link between atheism and adultery. The only thing it is possible to say with any certainty is that a causal link remains an open possibility.
In fact, it will be very difficult to establish the existence of such a link - or indeed to show that there is no such link - just by looking at statistical data on the prevalence of adultery. To get a sense of the complexities involved here, it is worth briefly considering some of the findings of a Barna Group study titled... ETC, ETC.
A while back, the Denialism blog pointed to an article about how repeating a myth by denying it can nonetheless reinforce people to believe it. Now what you are doing isn't exactly the same thing. You are referring to a common perception that atheism and immorality are related, but neither confirming or denying a link. Still, the effect is similar: You are repeating an allegation, and thereby reinforcing it in the mind of the reader. That's weaselly. If you don't have enough evidence to make at least a probable causal link--and you already admitted as much--you shouldn't bother even mentioning the issue.How dare he call us weaselly! Yes, our book is entitled Is Atheism Degenerate?, but this hardly suggests that we have some ulterior motive for repeatedly mentioning atheism and adultery together.
---
Okay, I know that I'm not supposed to explain the joke, but there are a few things that I want to clarify. Now if you follow the links, it is pretty obvious that Is Atheism Degenerate? is a stand-in for Jeremy Stangroom and Ophelia Benson's book Does God Hate Women?. However, I am not saying that book is necessarily bad, but rather showing how bad it looks based on their own quotes from the book and their defense of it, especially to someone skeptical of them. The authors could very well have written a book that is better than what they indicate.
Now the analogies, of course, aren't exact. For example, the pieces of the sentence, "This makes no sense, since atheism makes room for non-toxic ideas as well, like humanism," don't map individually onto the counterpart sentence, "Cruelty can be justified in the name of love, science, freedom, and so on." The analogy between bringing up Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow and bringing up Stalinism definitely needs defending. In a nuanced discussion of the relationship between religion and misogyny, the murder of Asha can be a legitimate piece of evidence. In a nuanced discussion of atheism and morality as well, pointing out Stalinism can be useful as well, especially for noting that mere atheism is not enough to prevent people from doing the kind of atrocities that have been done in the name of religion. However, both the examples of Stalinism and Asha Dhuhulow can be misused, brought out as emotional non sequiturs to blackmail the audience into accepting a claim without sufficient support. In the case of Stalinism, the latter usage has become downright cliché. Now in Stangroom and Benson's book, the case of Asha may very well be tied with a clear chain of logic and evidence to her thesis. In Benson's reply to Bunting, however, this just didn't happen. Bunting complained about Benson overstating her case and making harsh claims about religion in general. Asha, however, was not only murdered by those of a specific religion, Islam, but of a radical insurgent sect of Muslims, al-Shabab, that have terrorized the locals of Asha's town as well as much of southern Somalia, and set up ad-hoc courts that "have shocked many Somalis, who traditionally practise a more tolerant form of Islam." Benson didn't even try to show a chain of logic between the murder of Asha and her more general conclusions that pertained not only to Islam, but Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Shinto, and well, religion in general.
Now contrary to Benson's mind-reading, I did not enjoy writing the thread posts criticizing her, especially when it felt increasingly like Benson was trying her best to drag me through the mud, however, I did enjoy letting off a bit of steam here.
