For anyone who watches my videos strictly for discussions of science and critical thinking
and is not interested in the internal disputes in the atheist community, please stop the
video now. I don't endulge in these very often, and I have no interest in making this a primarily
atheist channel, but there are times when I have to speak out. I'll be back soon to
my usual format.
I've done my best to remain neutral or relatively objective in the recent disputes on the intersection
between atheism and feminism and progressive politics. However, I am concerned about atheism
plus. I'd like to make this video an open letter to the people behind the movement.
My criticism is intended to be respectful and polite, but nevertheless, to give voice
to the concerns that many people here in the YouTube atheist community have expressed.
My hope is that my concerns will represent others who have yet to be heard because of
having a smaller audience or being on the outskirts of the community.
Let me first say where I agree with the Atheist Plus movement, and then I'll get to my concerns.
I agree that the larger community of atheism online contains some real trolls and jerks,
and that they contribute little to a mature discussion. In some cases, they silence others
with their tactics, or make women or gay or transexual or people of a different race feel
unwelcome or intimidated. I agree that there should be a place where people can go to feel
safe and share ideas without fear of bullying, attacks and unwelcome sexual advances. I agree
that any movement that does not embrace diversity will never truly thrive, and any forum where
the conversation is intentionally hurtful will be deserted by all but the trolls and
jerks.
Here are my concerns 1. Tactics for enforcement
This really does worry me deeply. Whenever an ingroup is formed, the outgroup must be
excluded for the division to have any meaning. Heretics, apostates and pagans must be pressured
or punished. What we have in the atheist movement are the old religious tactics of shaming and
shunning. Shunning can be exemplified by the Amish practice of removing all contact with
members of the community who commit some crime. The shunned member is not invited to community
functions, no-one will do business with them, and their name is not spoken. Even friends
and family agree to comply. In the atheist community, this has already taken the form
of refusing to appear at a convention or meeting where a shunned atheist is invited to speak.
Shaming is similar, but more active way of heaping scorn upon someone who breaks with
dogma or orthodoxy. It refers in this case to any coercive attack that calls on the rest
of the community to mock or attack someone that has broken some code or taken an unpopular
position.
If Atheism Plus is to remain a force for good, it must explicitly disavow these tactics and
stop them when they get started. As I understand it, a guiding principle of Atheism Plus is
tolerance. My concern is that tolerance will not be applied equally to those who do not
conform.
2. Ideological tests Currently, you're discriminating against ideas
or positions, not actions. Not being a feminist is something that happens inside your brain.
Excluding someone for their thoughts or views isn't the right idea. You want to focus on
actions and behavior, not on thoughts and feelings.
I don't think this is a semantic point. There needs to be a distinction between excluding
people who hold racist views, and people who do something or say something hateful about
people of another race. It must be the action, and not the thought, that disqualifies someone
from participation.
This could change the whole tenor of the Atheist Plus movement for me. Instead of being a movement
of people who meet a certain test of ideological purity, it's a forum or a place or a set of
rules where hateful words or actions are not permitted. You can BE a racist or a misogynist
or a homophobe if you can manage to be polite, respectful and meet the requirements of the
forum.
Again, I know this seems a bit like splitting hairs, but it's really not. It's the difference
between a club that only permits non-smokers to enter, and a club that doesn't allow smoking
inside.
3. Dogma I know this is a touchy point for all of us.
Among the non-religious, dogma has a very negative connotation. I've heard the argument
that Atheism Plus has no dogma because the principles are subject to review, debate and
discussion. How rules are selected is unfortunately not the primary criteria for dogma. The untouchability
is. I think most of us from the outside see this very clearly, but it must be harder to
see from within. If you movement is founded on certain core, unassailable positions, possibly
positions that define the movement, then you have a dogma. The atheist dogma is simple:
"the evidence for the existence of a god or gods doesn't meet the burden of proof". If
you dispute that point, you simply aren't an atheist, Q.E.D.
This is why so many people object to mixing politics and atheism. You start with a very
simple position and make it very, very complicated. In the process, you take on board baggage
that cannot be unloaded without abandoning the whole idea. It's like religion in that
sense, and that concerns me for reasons that all former believers can understand.
4. The emergence of a power elite I appreciate that Atheism Plus is primarily
a web forum and chatboard and hence is democratic. In every democracy, though, there emerges
a ruling class, a power elite, a legislative and executive and judicial specialization.
There is no way to avoid the issue of resolving disputes between members, of setting the agenda
for discussions and votes, or of making tough decisions about allocating resources.
Like anyone, the people most involved in these functions dislike criticism and have their
own biases and causes. It would be a simple thing for Atheism Plus to evolve into ever
more specific set of ideological requirements. For example, Sam Harris and PZ Meyers disagree
on racial profiling. Sam Harris feels that there is value in it, PZ does not. How will
PZ handle this dispute? Will Sam Harris be allowed to speak at a conference dedicated
to atheism plus social justice if the talk involves this disputed topic? Christopher
Hitchens was famously intolerant of what he called "Islamofascism". He supported the Gulf
War, was at time a Marxist but had sympathies with the neoconservatives. Would he be an
appropriate speaker at an Atheism Plus conference... would he be allowed to pick the topic and
viewpoint?
What concerns me here is that once we have a dogma, a test of ideological purity, and
a group of people have the power to influence what Atheism Plus is and isn't, the potential
exists to create an atheist priesthood. None of us want that, I think.
Now I am aware that it is too late to stop this thing. The table is set and the plates
are filled. Any changes will need to be on the fly. So, I've come up with what I think
are the minimal reassurances I would want from
1. No naming and shaming, no exclusionary tactics for non-conformity or non-participation.
2. No ideological tests of purity 3. A stated commitment to tolerance and free
speech 4. Recourse/Appeals to the community rather
than heirarchical command structure.
If I were to append to your list of what Atheism Plus stands for, it would be this
We are atheist, plus we believe in tolerating people of all views so long as they are non-disruptive,
We are atheist, plus we have a deep commitment to free speech, especially as applied to unpopular
or offensive speech, so long as it does not threaten the safety and free expression of
others, We are atheist, plus we believe in ruthless
self-criticism of our most cherished beliefs. With those simple additions, I'd be much more
interested in joining your movement.
Whether you agree to my suggestions or not, be aware that I and many others in the larger
rationalist community will be keeping one eye on what emerges from Atheism Plus. We
will be evaluating your conduct and adherence to shared principles and expressing our opinions
here and in other forums. You will find that we can be either critical or supportive, the
investigative journalists or the cheering fans in the front row. We all have a vested
interest in seeing the movement advance on multiple fronts.
I wish you all well, and appreciate your patience.
Thanks for watching.