Not all atheists are snobs

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

-Richard Dawkins

There's a blog I read with great regularity (whenever a new article pops up on my RSS feed), called Violent Acres; I like it so much, it's one of the few links in my sidebar. Generally, V (as the author is known) is astute and clever; often controversial, but generally she at least makes good points. But I feel that her recent post, Atheists are Snobs, misses the mark in a way very few of her others ever had. It's not because I'm an atheist myself (I am); it's because I think she falls prey to the exact same generalisations she preaches against.

Take this quotation, for example:

Atheists think they’re being clever with their spaghetti monster analogies and fairy tale rhetoric, but at the end of the day, they come off sound like condescending pricks.

This is where I think the first flaw comes in. She paints all atheists with the same brush. This includes zealots (and there are atheistic zealots) and moderates, intellectuals and dumbasses. She paints Richard Dawkins-a well-spoken, erudite opponent of organised religion-with the same brush as the mouth-breathers who decide that a facebook forum about Apple computers is the right place to rehash the same old creationism-vs-evolution argument again and again in stilted English and poorly-constructed critiques.

The problem is, there are many of us, and we're just as diverse as any other group. I'm an atheist, but I've been to Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and Protestant churches. I've been in love twice-once with a Mennonite and once with a Catholic, and have dated girls who were Christian, Hindu and atheist. I discuss religion frequently with my friends, religious and atheist alike. I think religion does some wonderful things in the world (charity, preaching morals, anti-drug programs and so forth), and does some terrible things (inspiring divisiveness, crusading against science, blocking the distribution of condoms to Africa and so forth). I have no problem with someone being religious, and am actually intrigued as to what compels them to their faith. Not so I can dissuade them from it, but because I think it speaks to a core need in ourselves, something V addresses when she says:

I, myself, have not been able to claim belief in a higher power for many, many years. However, I can still see the value in Religion. Perhaps growing up without a strong parental figure in my life made me recognize the possible value of a loving Father figure up in the sky watching out for me. And hey, I try my best not forget that sometimes we all need something to believe in.

So, I get it-I accept that faith in a higher power is an almost intrinsic characteristic of humanity. Hell, I often wish I could feel what religious people feel. That confidence, that peace which must accompany an unwavering belief in something bigger than us, with a plan for all of us, a glorified father figure who wants us all to be happy (despite plagues, famine war, and so on). I really do wish I could believe that. But too many things don't add up and I can't bring myself to believe (I won't go into the details here, you probably know them all by now).

Later on, V gets somewhat personal in her attacks, and pushes her stereotype further:

Most Atheists have the tendency to thumb their noses at Jesus, and then log onto World of Warcraft so they can pretend to be an orc for a couple of hours. They sneer at the Bible, but have no problem playing endless hours of vampire role playing games. The message is clear. Fantasies are OK as long as they include gratuitous violence and some sort of porn.

She has now labelled the majority of atheists as basement-dwelling anti-social troglodytes (not to mention implying that being a World of Warcraft fan makes one guilty of being just that). I don't play WoW, I don't even play much in the way of computer games. I'm a Ph.D. student in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, a nerdy profession indeed, but I nonetheless have a significant social life and the social skills to match. But again, that's not the point. The point is those last two sentences.

"The message is clear. Fantasies are OK as long as they include gratuitous violence and some sort of porn," she says smugly and-dare I say it-rather snobbishly. Putting aside the inherent superiority she touts over the 8.5 million people with the audacity to enjoy an online game, it is here that she shows her lack of comprehension. Because the message is clear, she just didn't read it right; the message is this: "Fantasies are OK, as long as everyone knows they're fantasies, and nobody tried to work them into broader life and legislation and as long as they do no harm". Nobody credible, or with any authority, believes that World of Warcraft is factual, and nobody proposes laws requiring that children be equipped with a helmet of +5 protection when leaving the house.

See, this is the main bone of contention amongst the atheists, to the extent that we can all agree on something: religion isn't science. Creationism has become one of the core battlegrounds in the brewing religious furor between the believers and we godless heathens. I have no real problem with people choosing to believe that the earth was created in seven days by an omnipotent deity. I think it's a little crazy, but I believe in their right to believe in crazy things. What bothers me is when school boards in Kansas vote to teach Intelligent Design (a thinly-veiled code-word for Creationism) in schools. What bothers me is when I get told I'm inferior and damned to an eternity of hellfire and torture because I don't believe. What bothers me is when religion gets in the way of common sense, ultimately causing harm. In short, what bothers me is the zealots, the religious extremists.

But you know what? I don't think all Christians are like this. In fact, I don't think the overwhelming majority of Christians are like this. While we're at it, I don't think the majority of Muslims are suicide bombers in waiting. I think, regardless of the religion, that the majority of the people who practise said religion are decent, moderate, often intelligent people who happen to believe something I don't. And you know what? It would be categorically wrong of me to classify all Christians as bible-thumping, evolution-denying wacknuts. But those are the ones that get the media attention; it is those squeaky wheels that get the grease and therefore many people castigate all Christians for the outlandish actions of a vocal few. And people who do paint with this broad are brush are shortsighted and quick to judgement. So why is it OK to paint all atheists with the same broad brush?

Most atheists are decent, moderate, often intelligent people. We are well-intentioned and tolerant, we work we play and we socialise. We just happen to not believe in something that religious people do. But you know what-the wacknuts, the extremists, the ones who are not just non-religious, but who are actively against religion in all its forms, and are on some misguided quest to annihilate it? They're the ones who get the attention; they're the ones you remember. But someone as smart as V should know better, should look beyond that and realise they are the vocal minority. They are the atheistic equivalent to the Creation-preaching Kansas extremist Christians, they are the atheistic equivalent to Al-Qaeda (only less well-armed and well-funded). Their reaction is natural-when confronted with a strong, vocal minority, it makes some sense to react with equal fervour, but they do the rest of us a disservice because otherwise-right-thinking people like V are misled by that very fervour into believing we're all extremist atheists. And we're just not.

V, if you somehow read this, I hope you will realise that your post describes a mere minority of atheists, albeit those you're most likely to notice and remember. Just don't make the same foibles they do, by blaming the many for the extreme actions of the few. That's ill-informed, myopic and-to be brutally honest-a little bit snobby.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-Albert Einstein.

Dear God, please save my son from TB

"If you can discover a better way of life than office-holding for your future rulers, a well-governed city becomes a possibility. For only in such a state will those rule who are truly rich, not in gold, but in the wealth that makes happiness-a good and wise life."

-Plato

OK, I just made a really long post at a message board I frequent, and thought I'd share it here as well so that a few more people might read it. The background is this: A Wisconsin couple is under investigation after their child died as a result of a preventable illness. The reason the child died? Instead of her parents taking her to a doctor, who could have easily saved her, they prayed for her to get better. In lieu of medicine, they chose prayer. I asked on this message board what people thought about this, and about other crazy cures (witch doctors, crystal healing, homeopathy, etc.). Eventually, the debate became about whether the state has a right to tell use how to raise our kids, given that religious freedom is a protected right. Essentially, can the state intervene if people's religious beliefs are causing danger to their children? And if so, will this lead to a slippery slope where kids aren't allowed to play sports because it's dangerous, and all kids are forced to wear helmets when they cycle, etc.

Here are my thoughts. Basically, it's this: the parents were negligent, and should be treated as such. I will address the major themes discussed within this thread, and will apologise (though not profusely) for the very debater-y tone this post is about to take. And its extreme length.

Religion versus science
Nobody reading this is likely to question that medical science is imperfect, but it's miles and miles better than religion and faith healing, so I'm not going to say much on this. The reality is, certain diseases are highly predictable and highly treatable, and this sounds like one of them. No, it's not 100% but it's pretty close.

The role of the state, and the social contract
OK, welcome ladies and gentlemen to debater-land. What is the role of the state? Well, when someone chooses to be a citizen of a given society, they enter into an implicit social contract: they agree to certain things or they remove themselves from the state. Essentially, you cede certain rights in exchange for certain benefits. In an anarchistic nation, you could rape, murder, pillage and more at will. In every civil society on earth, we eliminate those rights. On a less-extreme example, you lose to right to retain all your income (i.e. taxes), and you lose the right, in most western states, to live in a mono-religious theocracy, whether you want that or not. In exchange, you get protection via the instruments of the state-police, military, education, health care. You enter into this collective willingly as an adult or under the auspices of your parents as a child, and you have to accept those conditions, or work from within to change them.

This isn't (yet) about the specifics of this case, just establishing the groundwork. We do give up certain things to the state in order to gain the benefits that come from it.

The state's duty of care
The state has a "duty of care" regarding its citizens. This means that, because they have chosen to buy into the state, have fed the state, and have ceded rights to the state, the state has not only the right to, but a responsibility to care for its citizens. This takes different forms in different places. Saudi citizens may want their religion preserved as one of the duties of care; Americans might want freedom to practice any religion protected. But ultimately, the will of the people must be represented, and the members of the state cared for.

Further, the state has an extra duty of care to the weaker, and less able to protect themselves, members of the state. Certain members of the state are better able to protect their own rights without state intervention, but others are more vulnerable. It's why there are laws against con artists, against fraud and discrimination, and why we codify laws protecting the disabled, for example. Children, of course, are the centerpiece of all this: children are the weakest members of society, the least able to protect themselves, and the most open to abuse, especially by their parents and/or guardians. So, the state institutes additional protections for children: abuse laws, statutory rape, etc., because they are not rationally-thinking individuals the way we consider adults to be.

Again, nothing specific to this case, just saying the government needs to protect children. Again, something we can all broadly agree on, I'd wager.

Religious freedom
In the states we're talking about (i.e. Western Liberal Democracies-WLDs for short from now on), religious freedom is protected. Religion is seen as a spiritual, personal choice, largely ungoverned by logic and reasoning, thus incapable of being regulated in the ways other things are. Therefore, WLDs pass laws to protect the right to worship in the way you see fit, and the protection of religious beliefs, even where it might seem to contravene other regulations (for example, it is often a protected right that Sikh men be allowed to wear a turban, even where a hat is part of the uniform for everyone else).

However, these rights are not universal. Where they impinge on the health and well-being of others, we curtail them. We do not allow animal sacrifices or child sex, even if it's a religious belief. That Sikh man I mentioned? If he wants to work at a job requiring a hard hat, that's a safety issue, and it takes precedence over his religious beliefs. There are certain laws which cannot be contravened, even for religious reasons.

Parental Rights
When you become a parent, you have taken on arguably the most important role in society: shepherding the next generation of citizens into adulthood. This comes with a weight of responsibility, and its a mantle that we can ill-afford to let people shrug off. Therefore, the state grants a limited right to parent upon its citizens. Anyone can become a parent, and for the most part the state won't step in. You want to teach your kid that black people are evil? You're a StormFront (a NeoNazi group with whom some members of the message board linked above have tangled from time to time) idiot, but that's allowed. You want to plonk him in front of the TV for 8 hours a day? Goodbye brain, but that's your right. But the awesome responsibility you have cannot be unilaterally discarded; you beat your child, we take him away. Rape her-we take her away. Let your child go without food, adequate clothing and shelter? We take them away. The state's duty of care extends as far as ensuring at least a bare minimum of care upon those unable to provide for themselves; if you have taken on this duty, it is one you cannot fully abdicate. It is a limited right to parent.

Balance of harms and the concept of reasonableness
OK, here's where it gets interesting: where do you draw the line? There is, indeed, a difference between active and passive harms. Beating a child isn't the same as allowing them to be harmed by inattention. However, we do criminalise negligence. If you refuse to feed your child, they will be removed from your care. If you refuse to educate them, they will be removed from your care. If you allow their father to rape them, even though you did not yourself participate, they will be removed from your care. Because you have been negligent to their upbringing.

So how, then, do we decide where this line is drawn? Through the balance of harms and reasonableness. The balance of harms says "if doing an act causes more harms than not doing it, it should be stopped". This is ultimately measured with reasonableness. Lawyers probably know more about reasonableness in a legal sense than I do, but I think it's safe to say that in many cases, it ultimately comes down to a judge or jury deciding what's reasonable to the common man, or something to that effect. That's how we judge the balance of harms. Of course kids should be allowed to play sports-the harm of being banned from that is significant, in terms of health and development, and the risk is comparatively low. The harms of refusing a child necessary medical treatment, however, are a world apart. There is no real benefit to doing so (personally, I'd be in favour of Jehovah's Witnesses-at least JW children-being forced to have blood transfusions, their religion be damned, but that's another debate for another day) and the harm is as severe a harm as can ever be placed on a child-death. Major harm, no tangible benefit: religious freedom can be curtailed.

In this case, though the science may be imperfect, as is all science, it provided a clear and obvious solution, one with a proven track record, and one that was infinitely more effective than prayer or faith healing, or crystals or any other wacky crap the parents might have tried. Science could have saved this child, by any reckoning. The parents should have known this. Do they have the right to their religious beliefs? Of course, but not at the expense of their child's life, when that life could have so easily been spared.

Where would I draw the line in government control over parenting? Reasonable limits. I think bike helmets on kids are great. Their hair might get messy, they might have to deal with some discomfort, but forcing parents to limit the severe head trauma their child might endure is a reasonable risk-it doesn't make cycling any less fun. What about obese children-another known health risk-parents are currently allowed to let their kids get fat? Sometimes I think a government-mandated fat camp would save society a lot of trouble, make for better, healthier children, save the health care system a bundle and generally be positive. So I somewhat support this, though I'm not 100% sure. While I'm at it, yes I think parents should be required to make their kids wear seatbelts in the car; yes I think they should be required to have smoke detectors in the house and yes, I think they should do everything reasonable to ensure their child survives risks to their safety.

When the government does go too far, we vote them out, we push for change in the legislature, we protest, we do whatever we have to. But given a child's inability to stand up for itself, I see nothing wrong with a societal collective, enshrined in law, stating that there are certain minimum standards of care you must provide your child; if you accept this highest of duties, you had damn well better accept the responsibilities or the power of the state will descend upon you with great fury for so highly damaging the most vulnerable citizens we have that you have abdicated your rights as a parent.

"You rock a sobbing child without wondering if today's world is passing you by, because you know you hold tomorrow tightly in your arms."

-Neal A. Maxwell