Paul Kurtz: The Local Leader Who Happens to Be an Atheist

Maybe it's just me, but I think that atheists' "public image" in the USA isn't something that was fine but now is in need of repair. Our "public image" was up until very recently handed down to most people from their pastors and priests. I think we need to make an image of our own. And to do that, first we have to publicly identify ourselves. As someone already said in this thread, we're just beginning to form an identity.

Secondly, discrimination and prejudice against atheists needs to be frowned upon, not permitted for the sake of "good framing". If having atheists as good neighbors / coworkers / taxpayers would change people's minds, then it already would have. There are several times more nonreligious people in the USA as there are practicing Jews. Atheists don't live in communes, far away from the rest of the world. We already are good parents, neighbors, voters, etc. And it hasn't changed a damn thing.

Thirdly... a good number of atheists I've talked to value the truth, and prefer to speak what they see as the truth. If it comes up, yes, we will indeed tell you that we think religions are just a bunch of fairy tales. And hearing different people express that opinion many times is what makes an opinion normal. Saying that it's not alright to say in public what we believe isn't "normalizing" atheism. That is trying to silence atheism.

Lastly, I don't recall any minority-promotion movement (civil rights, feminism, gay/queer) succeeding because they made the majority feel comfortable. They made the majority feel UNcomfortable - because the majority opinion was wrong, and needed to change.

Since when is engendering the distaste of the U.S. electorate at large grounds for questioning the quality of one's "image"?

The fact that US wouldn't vote for an atheist is hardly a problem with atheism.

Maybe young black males should stop acting so threatening? They're scaring the US electorate.

But I see nothing polarizing in suggesting alternative ways forward.

Your suggestion of an alternative way forward was apparently incomplete without a backhanded snark at an attention-getting popular blog that uses a different way forward to the one you suggest - an alternative, in other words. That you don't see the irony here is proof positive that you are either A) deeply stupid or B) more concerned with your personal antipathies than with real communication.

Also - I deeply respect Paul Kurtz but find it strange that you extol his success in the same breath as you mention the deeply religious nature of his home city. If the goal is to advance secular humanism (which can only be done at the expense of religion) you would seem to be saying that he has been very successful at being unsuccessful...

I think people are missing the central point to the post

You say this kind of thing a lot when people disagree with you. It is deeply irritating and lacks intellectual honesty. Please consider that people may well disagree BECAUSE they understand what you are saying and STILL think it's wrong!

Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, a Holocaust survivor, is considered a moderate man in Israel. Yet, in his 2005 speech during the "March of the Living" at the former site of the Auschwitz death camp in Poland, while representing the state of Israel, he counted all evils one by one:

"Dont we understand it easily, what the snake understood? ... like poverty, like crime, like ignorance, like atheism, like terror, like anti-Semitism, like atom, like cancer, like AIDS, ... isnt a time that we understand we all must live together?"

Thus creating the equation: atheism = terror and cancer (or pick any other evil of choice).

Bud,
an atheist who lost several relatives in there.

Nisbet's attempt to use Paul Kurtz as the shining example of everything that Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers should be but are not is an utter joke.

First, anyone who has actually read Kurtz's work--in books such as The Transcendental Temptation and Living Without Religion: Eupraxophy--is well aware that Kurtz is every bit as vicious toward religion, and every bit as offensive to mainstream religious sensibilities, as Myers and Dawkins have ever been.

Indeed, and hilariously in the current context, Paul Kurtz was more-or-less singlehandedly responsible for the 1980 schism among American humanists that resulted in Kurtz and his allies leaving the American Humanist Association to found the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH--subsequently renamed the Council for Secular Humanism).

Kurtz's reason for leaving, and savaging, the AHA (where he had edited the house organ magazine, The Humanist) was that he could not tolerate the substantial fraction of the membership of the AHA who--then as now--declared themselves "religious humanists." Kurtz decided he could accept no association with such people, and his works on the subject drip with derision for them. In light of the events of the 70s and 80s, there are still plenty of AHA members who regard Kurtz as a disgusting, intemperate, monomaniacal anti-religious fanatic. I guess it was just the AHA's bad luck that they didn't have the services of a professional whiner to accuse Kurtz of alienating potential allies and thereby browbeat him back into the fold....

How incredibly amusing, then, that Matt Nisbet is trying to use Kurtz as a poster boy for inoffensive anti-religious advocacy. In his heydey, Kurtz had no qualms about detailing the horrors and irrationalities of religions of all sorts. His severe rejection of the AHA for the religious humanism it harbored is the direct predecessor of the Dawkins/Myers/etc. critique of appeasement-friendly schools of skeptical thought--a critique that Nisbet now, conveniently, reflexively bashes. The only reason that conservative believers don't hate Kurtz just as much as they do Dawkins is that, by and large, they have no idea who Kurtz is or what he's written.

As far as offensiveness to mainstream religious sensibilities is concerned, Paul Kurtz is Richard Dawkins, except that Kurtz is sixteen years older and considerably less well known. The idea that Kurtz is friendlier or more congenial to religion than Dawkins is is an utter misrepresentation of reality.

Moreover, Nisbet is mendaciously misconstruing Kurtz's own critique of Dawkins, Myers and company; the notion that Kurtz's critique matches Nisbet's is a full-blown lie.

Kurtz has an axe to grind, one that indeed is his life's work: humanism. I have yet to see Kurtz complain, a la Nisbet, that Dawkins and company are big anti-religious meanies who are therefore hurting the cause, boo hoo hoo. Instead, the sole complaint I have seen him voice about Dawkins and company (though, in Kurtz's real context, it's a very mild "faulting") is that they're not selling Kurtz's product. But of course they're not trying to sell humanism; they're trying to promote science and reason (which are different, albeit closely related, products to humanism). Given the difference in intentions and the difference in audiences, it's little wonder that there are differences in emphasis as well.

Nisbet's attempts, then, to twist the comments of Paul Kurtz--the fervent anti-religious loudmouth of a previous generation--in an attempt to support his own attacks on honest, forthright religious criticism like that of Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers are an embarrassment.

Nisbet should be ashamed of himself, and this ridiculous vendetta against all things P.Z. must end.

Actually, there are constant complaints that in the US atheists are discriminated against and in polls rank lowest among groups in terms of who Americans would support for president. With that in mind, I've presented a strategy for repairing the public image of atheists.

As with the way good little children are supposed to be - seen and not heard. And banished and spanked if they misbehave. From the, uh, popularity of your blogging, I don't think PZ is being the one being spanked.

"Actually, there are constant complaints that in the US atheists are discriminated against and in polls rank lowest among groups in terms of who Americans would support for president. With that in mind, I've presented a strategy for repairing the public image of atheists."

Matt,

There have been people making such complaint. However you are in record as saying they are wrong. Remember when you told us that atheism is not a civil rights issue ? Have you changed your mind ?

Nisbet, we know from prior experience that when given links to Dawkins- or PZ- authored articles about alternative sets of positive ethics, you will ignore them.

"I argue, like Kurtz, that the "something else" needs to include an alternative set of ethics and institutions along with leadership and involvement in local communities that bridge diverse publics, working on common shared goals and problems."

Since your post is obviously topical of Myers, why don't you explain why you feel that Myers doesn't have/do that "something else"?

Really, we all get it, you don't like Myers's methods and wish he would just sit down and shut up, but that you accuse him of being *just* a vocal critic of religion and nothing more is disingenuous at best.

"It is what you are for that counts, not what you are against!"

Balls. (Maybe in shallow PR terms it is.) My relatives and family friends who fought in the second world war knew what they were fighting against far more than they knew what they were fighting for.

I'm in the publishing business and very much value Kurtz's contribution to book publishing, and to the skeptics movement. But nothing shows the success of an idea (or "meme", if you prefer) than bookstore displays. In the past couple of years large chain bookstores (and, of course, smaller independents) have started to create "atheist" sections and atheist-themed book displays. I never thought I'd live to see the day! Stores only do that sort of thing once an idea has reached a critical mass, and atheism has now reached that stage. What has happened in the past two years to cause this change? We all know the answer to that question. You have to give credit where credit is due, to Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. Bookstores don't argue with success. If you want to argue with success, you are free to do so, but booksellers are my barometer.

Got the hint. :-)

On a slightly different topic, perhaps Framing Science could link to http://www.expelledexposed.com ?

Every little bit helps.

So the way of promoting a notion
Is to not show a bit of devotion--
Keep our thoughts to ourselves
And our books on our shelves
And use homeopathic promotion?

Since you have been close to Paul Kurtz, I am sure that you are familiar with this article. Perhaps you could learn something from him:

The recent publication of four books�The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins; The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both by Sam Harris; and Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett�has provoked great controversy and consternation.* The fact that books by Dawkins and Harris have made it to The New York Times best-seller list has apparently sent chills down the spines of many commentators; not only conservative religionists but also some otherwise liberal secularists are worried about this unexpected development. We note that the people now being attacked are affiliated with FREE INQUIRY and the Center for Inquiry. The editors of FREE INQUIRY, of course, are gratified that the views espoused in these pages have received a wider forum. What disturbs us is the preposterous outcry that atheists are "evangelical" and that they have gone too far in their criticism of religion.

Really? The public has been bombarded by pro-religious propaganda from time immemorial�today it comes from pulpits across the land, TV ministries, political hucksters, and best-selling books. Indeed, at the present moment, the apocalyptic Left Behind series, coauthored by evangelist Tim LaHaye, is an all-time blockbuster. Other best-sellers include The Purpose-Driven Life by Rick Warren and a slew of books attacking liberal secularists and humanists by religious conservatives such as Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly.

Let's be fair: Until now, it has been virtually impossible to get a fair hearing for critical comment upon uncontested religious claims. It was considered impolite, in bad taste, and it threatened to raise doubts about God's existence or hegemony. I have often said that it is as if an "iron curtain" had descended within America, for skeptics have discovered that the critical examination of religion has been virtually verboten. We have experienced firsthand how journalists and producers have killed stories about secular humanism for fear of offending the little old ladies and gentlemen in the suburbs, conservative advertisers, the Catholic hierarchy, or right-wing fundamentalists. It is difficult to find any politicians who are not intimidated and will admit that they are disbelievers or agnostics, let alone atheists. Today, there are very few, if any, clearly identified atheist personalities in the media�Bill Maher is a notable exception. The war against secularism by the Religious Right is unremitting. Even New York Times columnists are running scared. We note the column by Nicolas Kristof (December 3, 2006) calling for a "truce on religion." He deplores the "often obnoxious atheist offensive" of "secular fundamentalism."

And also this:

"Enough already," we say in disgust. Surely, there must be other sources of morality besides religion. From the fatherhood of God, one can deduce all sorts of contrary moral prescriptions, as one can justify bloodshed, torture, punishment, and death in the name of Allah. This is an old story in human history that has been repeated time and time again. When religion becomes dogmatic, when it becomes thoroughly entrenched in human civilization and institutions, the only way to overcome differences of creed seems to be violence. The best antidote for such devastating nonsense, in my judgment, is the cultivation of critical thinking and the administration of a dose of scientific skepticism to unmask the claims of faith.

Perhaps the reason that Kurtz is respected in Buffalo is that he doesn't have a science blog with a worldwide reach. The blog and the blogger you don't name, yet here allude to, has a worlwide reach and is very popular.

Can you, in your talks of framing science, challenge those you don't wish to offend as to why they take umbrage at PZ and Richard Dawkins; rather than take it as a reason to go back to PZ and try to tell him that he is "hurting the cause?"

You can't honestly continue to skate past the conflicts between religion and science, to separate them into "non-Overlapping magisteria" forever. At some point they will have to confront the indications from science that the world turns without a super being to keep it in motion.

We need Kurtz on that wall. We want Kurtz on that wall, and we also need PZ Myers. PZ's only enemies are the ones who haven't actually spent time with him and gotten to know him. If the Morris newspaper were to publish an article on his contribution to the community it would be as glowing.

You should be working with PZ rather than shooting him in the back from behind the lines.

Mike,
I think the point that Kurtz makes is that it is important to have something else other than just the negative attacks on religion. As he said in a recent Point of Inquiry podcast of the New Atheists:

KURTZ: I think they have had a positive impact, and I know most of the leaders, and they publish in Free Inquiry...so they have had positive impact, of course they are criticizing religion.

However, that is not enough. One has to go beyond that! You can't talk about abstract atheism, or merely a negative attitude. It is what you are for that counts, not what you are against! So I think on that point, one must affirm a positive humanist morality.

---

For more go here:

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/09/paul_kurtz_in_contrast_…

Do you want to gain attention through polarizing attacks at your blog or in public statements, alienating even your moderate colleagues in ScienceBlogs? Or do you want to be known as the builder and leader of scientific communication who happens to be a ScienceBlogs writer as well?

Matti,
I am pointing out a model for how atheists can effectively engage with their local communities. It's fine if you disagree. But I see nothing polarizing in suggesting alternative ways forward.

In fact, various people, including PZ, have asked me to provide suggestions for how to promote atheism. That's exactly what I am doing. I go into more detail in the podcast.

But the basic argument is that atheists need to leave behind identity politics and start to focus on connecting across diverse publics and working with others on collective problems. In the podcast, I call it the EO Wilson model.

But the basic argument is that atheists need to leave behind identity politics

Leave behind? We just *started* forming our own identity.

and start to focus on connecting across diverse publics and working with others on collective problems.

One of those collective problems is religion. I just don't think most theists like our solution.

In his letter from the Birmingham Jail, Dr MLK argued convincingly against the "narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea". I am not comparing atheists marginalization to anything that black Americans have suffered during centuries of oppression. I am saying MLK recognized that patience does not produce change.

Various factions of the Christian church are still as obstinate and as anti-science today as they were in the times of Copernicus and Galileo. Your message, Mr Nisbet, seems to be that atheists should keep doing science but keep quiet about what it might mean in relation to Genesis. Don't rock the boat. Don't challenge the status quo. Don't offer a truth that many find uncomfortable.

The real problem isn't how to promote atheism or how to do identity politics in a way that connects across diverse publics. The real problem is that fundamentalists are unwilling to recognize any fact that challenges their cherished belief in a 6000 year old earth.

Uncomfortable as you may find it, the Dawkins and Myers of the world have rightfully decided it is time to insist that we live in the 21st century and that hundreds of years of advances in cosmology, geology and biology should not be denied because a large segment of the population prefers believing in their invisible sky friend

Fair enough, Matthew, but the point you recently made in using the edited Expelled version of PZ's interview for Crossroads neglected to include that PZ had made himself available to talk to the producers of a film which explores the relationship between science and religion.

It has been my impression that you have focused on PZ's dismissals of religion and ignored his positive statements on ethics. Am I wrong? Am I being too sensitive on his behalf?

Or do you want to be known as the community builder and leader who happens to also be an atheist?

What does one have to do with the other? Shouldn't everyone aspire to a leader in their community regardless of religious belief, or the lack thereof? Are you a "community builder and leader" Matt? If not, why not? Are you excused because you're not an atheist? This definitely smacks of the old "he's a credit to his race" type of nonsense.

Cuttlefish:

Keep our thoughts to ourselves ...

Says who? Kurtz's atheism is no secret. It's just that there is more to him than just that. The point is to break the stereotypes about atheists being mean and arrogant, something that Dawkins and Myers are not so wonderful at doing.

kevin: "In his letter from the Birmingham Jail, Dr MLK argued convincingly against the 'narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea.'"

He also pointed out that he stood in the middle between "a force of complacency" and "one of bitterness and hatred." I've noticed that Myers hasn't quoted that part of the letter.

Wonderful post! You know, there's this guy in England who does a lot of science writing, actually was given a special chair at Oxford for increasing the public understanding of science... think we could get a London newspaper to run a similar story about him?

P. S.: Greg Laden points out that there's a scientist in Minnesota who's gotten similar press coverage. We should celebrate that!

J.J., do you remember the old stereotype of atheists?

My daughter, when she told her friend she was an atheist, was asked incredulously "You worship Satan?!?" At least now, Atheism has a few real actual flesh-and-blood examples. We need more. And louder, not quieter. So that we can point to lots of them and have them be household names. Just as believers can, justifiably, point out that not all of them are Benny Hinn or Peter Popoff, or even Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Any one of them is more extreme on the Christian side than PZ is on the atheist side, and by no small margin.

I am an atheist more on the Kurtz model than the Myers model--so what? When I become more well known (for being polite? For just being a good guy who happens to be an atheist? Front page news, that...), that may matter. As is, Kurtz's atheism may be no secret, but for the vast majority of theists that is because it does not exist at all. In my town, more people know me than know him. But some, at least, know Dawkins and Myers and Hitchens. If you think that is a bad thing, I put it to you that those who do not know them may think of atheists as satan-worshippers instead. Hell, even Hitchens is a step up from that.

Don't silence Myers. Amplify, say, Brian Pesta. When he is a household name, and people who don't think of atheists as Myers-like think of us as Pesta-like (rather than Satan-like), and the full spectrum of atheists (isn't it silly to think of "the prototypical atheist", when atheism is a privative category in the first place?), this silly framing debate will be something we can laugh about over beers.

After reading Paul Kurtz own statements(yea, I had to look the guy up), I find him to be a rational critic of religion and not the least conciliatory. Again I find myself taken aback at the tactics used to Frame the concept of Framing. I hope to see Mr Kurtz reaction to this use of his example as it seems to be an attack against others: PZ, Dawkins, and many other people. Personally I would be unhappily surprised(aka pissed off) as by implication Kurtz agrees with this criticism while I see no indication he feels this way from reading his work. Wow, I really have a bad feeling about all of this. It will not end well.

Its an extremely soft interview and I wonder if thats the point being made - make sure you only get interviewed by people on your side.

Couldn't agree w/you more; don't wish to name and shame but some atheistic scientists just don't know how to behave and discuss ideas with others without resorting and calling people ignorant fools. Here's a hint - they WEREN'T invited to the Konrad Lorenz institute / Altenberg 16:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0803/S00131.htm

The best way to promote something is *not* to attack the people who are doing the very same thing.

Perhaps it is a "Social Scientist - Scientist" thing behind the scenes, and that is something *you* need to work out for yourself.

You keep digging this hole deeper and deeper - to what end?

I think we can see very much how Nisbet utilizes his 'frame-by-willful-omission' approach in this entry. He ignores the fact that PZ and Dawkins participate (and have participated) in far more than religion-bashing and that Kurtz has done his fair amount of Dawkins impressions (not a bad thing) in order to 'frame' his point. Of course, there is always the possibility that he has made an honest mistake, but then this sheds light on the shoddy level of scholarship he brings to the table.

If you are interested in presenting the good side of atheists, Dr. Nisbet, why not highlight Dawkins' influence in evolutionary biology, his promotion of reasoned thinking, his foundation? Why not point out that PZ does a lot of high-quality blogging on scientific research and communicating scientific concepts or his own research and teaching? I'd give my guess, but it'd be far too full of snark.

I think people are missing the central point to the post:

If the goal is to repair the public image of atheists, to make us an accepted minority in society, this is exactly the type of local newspaper story that promotes that.

It's an example of an atheist who is much more than just a religion critic, but who has been a community leader and organizer, and who has crafted institutions and a message that offer a positive alternative to religion.

As Kurtz argues: "You can't talk about abstract atheism, or merely a negative attitude. It is what you are for that counts, not what you are against! So I think on that point, one must affirm a positive humanist morality."

We need to normalize the public image of atheism. We are not just the eccentric and smart critics of religion, but rather members of communities who work with a diversity of others on common challenges and problems.

If the goal is to repair the public image of atheists

see?

that's your problem, right there Matt.

Who says it needs fixing?

Only the creationists say it's broken to begin with, so have you so quickly come to the conclusion that we have to work backwards from their lies?

I say we move forwards instead, pointing out the lies as we go.

you're ten steps behind, chum.

Ichthyic,
Actually, there are constant complaints that in the US atheists are discriminated against and in polls rank lowest among groups in terms of who Americans would support for president. With that in mind, I've presented a strategy for repairing the public image of atheists.

"[R]epair the public image of atheists" is a bizarre... framing, since the public image of atheists has never been positive. But, by any measure I've seen, it's improving.

Personally, my goal is for us to become the majority, not just an accepted minority. And I think that will be easier than it sounds. But we won't get there by coddling delusion.

Doesn't "repair" indicate that at some point the public image of atheists was not "broken"? That's not the case.

On the other hand, the image of atheists are actually getting better in the US, or so the polls tells us - I wonder what has happened the last couple of years to cause that?

Nisbet,
Since I assume you've read Greg Laden's reply to this post, could you explain to me, in very simple terms, what the difference between Kurtz and Myers (and/or Dawkins) is, in your eyes? As far as I can see, they've all spoken out about religion in a way that would be offensive to many religious people, they're all liked and admired locally (even nationally/internationally; at least Myers and Dawkins are, I've never heard of Kurtz before), and they've all done admirable things in fields not related to religion or atheism, so I seem to completely miss your point (again).

Since that seems to be a recurring thing, I'm really starting to wonder if the problem is with me as the reader, or with you as the writer...

Actually, there are constant complaints that in the US atheists are discriminated against and in polls rank lowest among groups in terms of who Americans would support for president. With that in mind, I've presented a strategy for repairing the public image of atheists.

No offense, but it seems like your strategy involves the rank-and-file atheists keeping their heads down and sitting in the back of the bus, rather than at the lunch counter where they belong.

Look, my mere existence mortally offends and provokes certain people and no amount of playing nice-nice with them is going to change that - it never has. And while I don't define myself primarily as an atheist, it is part of my identity, and depending on the context of my interactions, it may become the focal aspect of my identity whether I want it to or not. I'm not papering my bumper with Darwin fish and "Your God Is Stupid" stickers or otherwise picking fights, but there is no way I'm going to hold my tongue for fear of upsetting some hateful god-fearing troglodyte when they start venting their godbothering bile.

I recently finished Phil Zimbardo's "The Lucifer Effect" which clearly illustrates how the seeds of unimaginable horror can be rendered sterile simply by speaking up, making people uncomfortable by asking straightforward questions about right and wrong. Because of that, I find it supremely counterproductive to suggest that anyone sit down and shut up. It is my responsibility to not let the public displays of ignorance and intolerance caused by religious bigotry pass unchallenged. There must be consequences to making those sorts of statements in public; individuals must be called to account for their statements and behavior, if only to show that our community is not of one mind.

Frankly, I'm tired of my community and my country being wrecked by believers in the pursuit of those beliefs. I'm tired of these destructive people getting a pass in the media and having nobody forcefully challenge them in the public sphere.

It takes all kinds to effect social change and it's guaranteed there will be disagreements on the methods and the means. You have your strategy and I have mine and I respect your right to do what you think is best. However, I don't intend to follow a strategy that has not and very likely will continue to not work. Believe me, I'd love for you to prove me wrong, but (no offense) I'm not holding my breath. Or my tongue.

One thing is to take back the word "faith" which has come to mean "belonging to a religion."

You do not need to belong to a religion to have faith, and "faith" is not synonym for "God belief".

"Faith" does not require doing any rituals. It doesn't require prayer. It doesn't require a congregation, and in fact it doesn't require any kind of public announcement, or any kind of public association with others at all.

I have faith in existence. As I understand evolution, it means there's an in-built mechanism that propels life towards becoming more intelligent, more able to solve problems, and more able to adapt to changing conditions. I have faith in that principle.

I have faith in the goodness of people. Sure there's dishonest people and crooks, but they are far, far outnumbered by honest folks. I have faith in that.

None of that requires believing in God, belonging to a religion, joining an association, or making any kind of public announcement whatsoever.

As an atheist, one thing that fills my life is faith and joy in my existence. I am absolutely happy, filled with bliss, and surrounded by people that love me.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Ask yourself: What's the best way you can promote atheism in your community or on your campus?

Do you want to gain attention through polarizing attacks at your blog or in public statements, alienating even your moderately religious neighbors? Or do you want to be known as the community builder and leader who happens to also be an atheist?"

Huh? Are those my only two choices? Why can't we be both?

Who are these "people" who are missing the point? Do you think my comments missed the point?

Matt: "But I see nothing polarizing in suggesting alternative ways forward."

Promoting the ideas and your image of Kurtz is in no way polarizing. However, pointing fingers at "bad" atheists and telling them to shut up is another matter altogether, IMHO. What is the rationale behind such framing?

There are, broadly speaking, 3 different approaches to defeat the creationists and the anti-science guys :

1) the PZ approach, the passionate atheists
2) the E.O. Wilson approach, the moderate atheists
3) the K.Miller approach, the moderate pro science theists

And you know what, it's simple, we need the 3 !
It is not "one is better", but "3 is better".

So Prof.Nisbet, are you encouraging the 3, or are you not ?

I always wonder why, in America, things always seem to be so black and white, it's always the same type of discourse, "you're either with us, or against us"...

Matt,

I generally sympathise with your position and I think you make a sensible suggestion here. However, I am slightly uncomfortable with your approach. In your reply to Ichthyic, you note that US atheists are discriminated against. This is one possible solution to that problem and one that seems reasonable. However, it is essentially defensive - asking to atheist to behave in a certain way to improve their image. Ok, fair enough, a little give and take is no bad thing. It seems more give than take though. I would hazard a guess that the discrimination arises more from the bigotry of believers than it does from the actions of non-believers. It seems reasonable that there should be an equal (or greater) move from the other side.

How can you normalize the public image of atheism without challenging the image of atheism put out by religious propaganda like the Expelled film? What I see PZ and Dawkins doing is plainly exposing these blatant lies about atheism for what they are, so the many other atheists out there can feel more confident in a) declaring their atheism and b) taking a stand against those misconceptions and lies themselves.

Sure, PZ and Dawkins may ruffle some religious feathers and may not be directly converting many 'moderately' religious people to atheism, but so what? Empowering the atheists that are already out there to be more vocal, reclaim the term and in that way 'normalize' the public image of atheism is a worthy objective IMHO.

Yes, Matt, atheist have an image problem in the US, but I'd argue that arose long before the New Atheists came on the scene. Moreover, I'd argue that having a lot of people writing hugely successful books about atheism is a far better way to normalize atheism among the public than suggesting we organize soup kitchens.

I wonder, will your model "repair" the image of atheists? Or will it hide the image of atheists?

The two are rather different.

Every movement has two groups. The "we're here and we're queer" crowd (with all due respect to the gay rights movement) and the "can't we all just get along" crowd. My view is that we need both. The loud ones make people know we exist in significant numbers. And the "can't we all just get along" crowd let people know that we make excellent dining companions. They're both necessary to move the debate forward.

I don't think either group should tell the other to keep quiet and keep their head down. Notably in this debate, PZ hasn't asked anyone to keep quiet.

Mr. Nisbet, you are inverting the problem!
The real problem is: a lot of theistic wingnuts (call their flavour as you like) are trying to forceluly shovel bad religion and bad science into the school curriculum of your country. They jeopardize their future and the future of your conuntry.
The problem is also that almost nobody stands up to defend good science in front of these ignoramuses.
Actually, one of the main protesters HAPPENS to be an atheist. Don't complain he's yelling too louud. You'd better yell together with him.

Re: the discrimination against atheists as evidenced in polls--

Is the "atheist" in the questionnaire a Dawkins/Myers/whomever? Or is the "atheist" in the questionnaire the satan-worshipping baby-eater with no human face at all? I suspect (pure speculation, I admit) that if you asked the average bible-belt churchgoer to name a prominent atheist, they would settle on "Hitler", unless they happened to think of a worse person first.

Unless you have evidence that the people whose tactics you dislike are also the reason for the poll position (and I have not seen such evidence), your argument is flawed.

Actually, there are constant complaints that in the US atheists are discriminated against and in polls rank lowest among groups in terms of who Americans would support for president. With that in mind, I've presented a strategy for repairing the public image of atheists.

So what you're saying here is "Atheists are being discriminated against, so the atheists should change", right? I agree with Ichthyic: consider that maybe, just maybe, it's not the atheists that are the problem here.

Compare: When black people are being discriminated against by white people, should they "repair their image"? When women are discriminated against by men, should they just adopt a "better public relations strategy"? If you think so, why? If not, why is it different from discrimination against atheists?

Either one of these statements is true:
There is one message and only one correct way to express it.
-OR-
There is one message and many ways to express it.

Now, those who do not hold atheists in high regard come in all flavors: patient, egotistical, blowhards, ignorant, highly intelligent, near-illiterate, and well spoken. They hardly ever spend their time debating that one with the anti-atheist agenda is going about it the wrong way. They have a common enemy and all attacks on that enemy are acceptable.

There is most definitely a place for your approach Matt, and most definitely individuals who would represent your strategy well. But there are those who do not represent your approach and do not accept it as personally fulfilling.

Personally, I like that we have more than one approach, but wish those who take one or the other would stop critiquing the other. Do what you do, and let others do what they do. As an atheist I do not feel conciliatory in a predominantly aggressive christian nation, and feel bound to approach this like a feminist: there is no reason I have to put up with your notion of "superiority" simply because I am different than you (spoken to a christian bigot, not you, Matt), and I'm not going to take your assertions of superiority with placid good-humor anymore.

We need to normalize the public image of atheism. We are not just the eccentric and smart critics of religion, but rather members of communities who work with a diversity of others on common challenges and problems.

That's best done on a personal level, by being a member of a community who's not afraid to say he's an atheist. Like it or not, it's the outspokenness of people like Dawkins and Myers that has empowered many of us to do just that.

Beowulf: "When black people are being discriminated against by white people, should they 'repair their image'?"

So, you are saying that blacks shouldn't have tried to put the lie to the racist image of them as dumb and primitive? Or that atheists shouldn't put the lie to the negative stereotypes about us?

I'm in the publishing business and very much value Kurtz's contribution to book publishing, and to the skeptics movement. But nothing shows the success of an idea (or "meme", if you prefer) than bookstore displays. In the past couple of years large chain bookstores (and, of course, smaller independents) have started to create "atheist" sections and atheist-themed book displays. I never thought I'd live to see the day! Stores only do that sort of thing once an idea has reached a critical mass, and atheism has now reached that stage. What has happened in the past two years to cause this change? We all know the answer to that question. You have to give credit where credit is due, to Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens. Bookstores don't argue with success. If you want to argue with success, you are free to do so, but booksellers are my barometer.

Beowulf: "When black people are being discriminated against by white people, should they 'repair their image'?"

So, you are saying that blacks shouldn't have tried to put the lie to the racist image of them as dumb and primitive? Or that atheists shouldn't put the lie to the negative stereotypes about us?

Matt,

As a framer, it doesn't surprise me that you miss the point. PZ, Dawkins and others who express unapologetic views on thiesm and athiesm have integrity in their beliefs and are unwavering in their expression of the same. We can't all subvert the truth in order to spoon feed our neighbors.

The idea we need to angle our ideas and leave in or out specific points of view and information so that we make the truth more "acceptable" to others is the essence of framing--and lying.

Let's not forget that framing is what brought us the filthy Bush Administration. It's also responsible for the millions of sheeple wandering through our country who are obtuse and uninformed.

How 'bout we just present people with the truth? And leave it at that? We could then build a nation of informed people.

But, I'm sure you have a more pragmatic view. Of course, framing is the unfortunate essence of our media. And we need to fight fire with fire.

In that case, I say that the people who confront PZ on his blog are looking for a fight and are no shrinking violets themselves. And, they are asking for it if they want to violate the constitution, change the education system, and present wholly and deliberately dishonest "science". Most of the sheeple wouldn't even have an idea that "creation science" is BS if their weren't opponents shouting from the high peaks.

For instance, if it weren't for PZ setting the record straight on Mark Armitage's hoax of an article in the ICR "Journal" the sheeple might accept it as legitimate science. There needs to be a strong voice against this shenanagans. I rue the day when I have to defend the integrity of science in my school district because of some mocked up garbage in the ICR Journal has made an authoritative claim at being true.

In this case I must concede. The fundies have done an excellent job of estimating the intelligence of the american people. A few research articles in mock journals that proclaim the proof of creation while using very "sciencey" terms will surely secure their veracity to the masses.

We need the likes of PZ Myers because framing can't cut through that type of bullshit. It would never make it through the noise. And, if it did, most people would simply shrug it off without realizing how dangerous it is.

As negentropyeater suggests we need all three types:

"1) the PZ approach, the passionate atheists
2) the E.O. Wilson approach, the moderate atheists
3) the K.Miller approach, the moderate pro science theists"

And of course, we need you...how else will we feed the sheeple?

Beowulf: "When black people are being discriminated against by white people, should they 'repair their image'?"

So, you are saying that blacks shouldn't have tried to put the lie to the racist image of them as dumb and primitive? Or that atheists shouldn't put the lie to the negative stereotypes about us?

Beowulf: "When black people are being discriminated against by white people, should they 'repair their image'?"

So, you are saying that blacks shouldn't have tried to put the lie to the racist image of them as dumb and primitive? Or that atheists shouldn't put the lie to the negative stereotypes about us?

So, you are saying that blacks shouldn't have tried to put the lie to the racist image of them as dumb and primitive? Or that atheists shouldn't put the lie to the negative stereotypes about us?

Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear. Of course they should speak out! That was my point: They should speak out, but not by staying respectful to those that are doing the discrimination, as Mr Nisbet seems to suggest. Why do people think that atheists should show respect to religious people who discriminate them? How do they deserve respect? They sure don't expect respect given to people who discriminate based on race or gender, or even to stay polite, do they? How is discrimination to atheism different? That is what I was trying to say.

Hi all,
Just a note on comment policy. See the editorial policy that has been in place since last year. I have rarely had to enforce it, but recently a few commenters have forced me to move to the moderation version of Movable Type. For more, see this post:

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/04/a_note_on_comment_polic…

Paul Kurtz?

Regardless of what a local rag decided to write, it's not Mr. Kurtz that decided to frame the issue. You either haven't read his work or you're ignoring it in favor of promoting a particular viewpoint. Paul Kurtz has been a vocal and irritating atheist (of the type you seem to deplore) for a long time.

There's a difference between spin and truth, and I think you're starting to forget the difference.

Just to reinforce the central point of the post:

It's not enough to be a critic of religion and just another voice in the argument culture, there has to be something more, especially if the goal is either to promote tolerance and acceptance of atheists or even to promote secularization.

I argue, like Kurtz, that the "something else" needs to include an alternative set of ethics and institutions along with leadership and involvement in local communities that bridge diverse publics, working on common shared goals and problems.

If readers are interested in more on this angle, I recommend checking out the Point of Inquiry podcast.

Best,
Matt

"Actually, there are constant complaints that in the US atheists are discriminated against and in polls rank lowest among groups in terms of who Americans would support for president. With that in mind, I've presented a strategy for repairing the public image of atheists."

Matt,

There have been people making such complaint. However you are in record as saying they are wrong. Remember when you told us that atheism is not a civil rights issue ? Have you changed your mind ?

No,no,no. Toleration and acceptance of atheists need not require "something" else. We are human beings. Casting off the image of women as mere caretakers of husbands and children did not require anything more than the realization that women are human beings with the same abilities and professional aspirations as men, who deserve respect as human beings. Nothing more than that, and certainly nothing less.

The promotion of secularization does indeed need a social and philosophical framework to compete with the religious traditions of moral responsibility, but I think that too is answered by those you criticize, just maybe not as calmly as you would wish. But I don't understand how that is antithetical or antagonistic to your approach. It isn't, it is simply different. Dawkins, Myers, et. al. do address moral issues and alternative secular philosophies, but not from the same perspective as Kurtz. Kurtz is a philosopher, while Dawkins and Myers are biologists, and Hitchens is a very literate gadfly.

Not everyone is geared toward the politics of atheism, and are not, therefore, qualified to do such work. Frankly, I don't understand your complaints, averred or implied, about those who take different but not opposing tacks.

Beowulf: "That was my point: They should speak out, but not by staying respectful to those that are doing the discrimination, as Mr Nisbet seems to suggest."

And my point was that if you want to fight stereotypes, it's smart to show just how wrong they are.

It's not enough to be a critic of religion and just another voice in the argument culture, there has to be something more

Something more - such as being a zoologist or a biologist? Such as contributing enormously to the popular understanding of science? Will that do?

And just to remind you, Matthew: in your post on 'Expelled' you said Dawkins and Myers 'need to' 'Lay low and let others do the talking.' You didn't say they have to be something more, you said they need to be less, they need to stop talking.

I know Paul Kurtz too. He is keen on something more. But I've never heard him say anything remotely resembling 'lie low and let others do the talking.'

One of those successful businesses you mention is The Center for Free Inquiry. Free Inquiry - geddit? As an organization it's really not very big on telling people to go hide in the closet and let someone else do the talking.

Matt, as for your point that atheists need to be more than anti-religious, I think that speaks to a need for us to be identifiable. After all, if the 'norm' is Christian in society, then when someone sees me doing a "good work", they will likely assume I'm also Christian. However if I'm identifiably atheist (or gay), then they will have more difficulty preserving their worldview with their biases about atheists (or gays). That's why I try to wear my 'Out Campaign' (a creation of Richard Dawkins) button wherever I go. As for PZ, I would argue that he does do work in the "positive" realm. He promotes the scientific world view, educates young adults, and (one would assume) increases scientific knowledge with his research. Perhaps he's so anti-theist because it's the theists who are always attacking his area of study directly. Perhaps if theists were working to have framing science removed from the public schools and decrying "framers" as immoral people out to corrupt children, you'd have a different approach to dealing with them as well.

It's not enough to be a critic of religion and just another voice in the argument culture, there has to be something more, especially if the goal is either to promote tolerance and acceptance of atheists or even to promote secularization.

Of course. If we are talking about Dawkins and Myers, they do much much more than just argue for atheism. Both of them are very good science teachers for one thing. Both take an active part in other issues too, as we all do. They may have different personalities than Paul Kurtz, but I think their work is of equal value.

One quibble -- I'm not so much interested in being "tolerated", or even "accepted"-- that's a very defensive and submissive attitude to take; it's so 2005.

There are a couple of comments on Greg Laden's blog that are reposts of comments that got stuck in the moderation queue of this blog, one by Rieux and one by Scote. I don't know if the comments were rejected or not. Here's Rieux's:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/04/it_is_ok_to_be_an_atheist_but…

If you scroll down further, you'll see Scote's. Rieux may have a point about Kurtz. I don't know if he's mellowed out, but I remember when thumbing through his book, The Transcendental Temptation and seeing the part about Jesus perhaps being homosexual, my brain flashed to the Daily Show segment where Colbert mocked cable news, saying "You see, you don't need the right facts when you've got the right inflection." As you can guess, I didn't think much of it.

Ophelia Benson: "Something more - such as being a zoologist or a biologist? Such as contributing enormously to the popular understanding of science? Will that do?"

I don't think that either of those things are all that helpful at getting people to think, "Hey, these atheists are actually (gasp!) decent people." It isn't breaking stereotypes.

I don't think that either of those things are all that helpful at getting people to think, "Hey, these atheists are actually (gasp!) decent people." It isn't breaking stereotypes.

So atheists have a duty or obligation or responsibility not just to be something more, but to be something more that gets people to think "Hey, these atheists are actually (gasp!) decent people"? Gets what people to think that? People who don't consider biologists decent people? People who assume atheists are not decent people? That seems to be a pretty uninformed narrow-minded bigoted set of people - so it's a pretty tall order for atheists to be the kind of something more that will do the task laid out here.

What is the point of all this wretched groveling? If people are that narrow-minded and ignorant, why is it up to everyone else to cut capers in order to change their minds?

Ophelia Benson:

So atheists have a duty or obligation or responsibility not just to be something more, but to be something more that gets people to think "Hey, these atheists are actually (gasp!) decent people"? Gets what people to think that?

The people who are suspicious of atheists, of course. The people who think that atheists are only moral because they absorb "Christian" morality from their peers. The people who think that atheists are angry at God. The people who have this nagging image in the back of their minds as arrogant and even sophomoric. Is that bigoted? Obviously--but bigotry is the problem you're trying to solve, isn't it?

Ophelia Benson: "What is the point of all this wretched groveling?"

What wretched groveling? Since when is community building wretched groveling? Since when is not being arrogant and sophomoric wretched groveling?

Extremely enlightening dialogue you have going here. I have to wonder though if the name of this blog should be "framing atheism" rather than "framing science"...or is there even a difference between the two to sciencebloggers?

It's difficult to tell sometimes...