Some further thoughts about in-your-face atheism

by Ed Buckner, Former President, American Atheists

[A response to Massimo’s post about the recent AA ad campaign]

I write here as one leader of American Atheists and as a friend and admirer of Dr. Massimo Pigliucci (hereafter “Massimo” because of my longstanding personal friendship — and not in any way to suggest that my awe at his intellect and accomplishments has declined) and of his blog. (While it is probably unnecessary for me to say so, I should nevertheless be clear in stating at the outset that my opinion is not necessarily the official position of the organization, in general or in any given detail.)

I agree with the David Hume’s quotation that Massimo includes in his header as a motto: “Truth springs from argument among friends.” I think and hope that Massimo’s latest Rationally Speaking column and the replies of those of us who disagree with him will be fruitful examples of that motto.

A few asides before I address the main issue: 

1. I cannot imagine that American Atheists would in any sense “excommunicate” Massimo Pigliucci over criticism of us that he offers, even unreasonable criticism (and his critique here is quite reasonable — though mistaken). If we start excommunicating wise and reasonable friends, I would quickly resign my own life membership.

2. I take Massimo at his word that his column is not meant to promote accommodationism or intellectual dishonesty, nor do I conclude that his intention is to advocate “any sort of wishy-washy position about the existence of god.” I have no doubt at all that some of those atheists who think an accommodationist arrangement is the best we can get or who prefer wishy-washiness regarding the existence of one or more gods will find some comfort in Massimo’s words, but it will be a false comfort.

3. I agree with Massimo that “the accuracy of the message [any public message, billboards included] and the way it is presented matter.”

4. I agree with Massimo that far too many of my fellow atheists are insufficiently skeptical of all sorts of ideas, including the ideas that science and reason can offer easy paths to all truth. He is right that “woo-woo stuff” all too often deludes too many of our number and that we are all subject to reading events in light of preconceived conclusions without adequate evidence. (One of the RS blog commenters provided a good example of this regarding coming too quickly to the apparently false conclusion that the deranged Jared Loughner must have been created or worsened by religion.)

Our billboard declares, “You KNOW they’re all scams,” and we stand by that declaration if the “they’re” is interpreted as referring to “major theistic religions,” as the context of the billboard makes most reasonable. We understand that the word “religion” does not always mean a theistic system or one we’d otherwise consider a scam. An easy to name example of a religion we do not consider a scam is one of our partners in the Secular Coalition for America, the American Ethical Union — American Ethical Culture often calls itself a religion, but it holds out no false hopes of supernatural assistance or future lives to its members. And the symbolism on the billboard clearly refers to Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Shintoism. We know, of course, that the five symbols shown oversimplify the real complexity and differences within those religions and leave out some powerful theistic world religions. A billboard is not, however, a place for making fine distinctions. A billboard message must communicate with startling speed and efficiency, and philosophical perfection will often not be possible.

The meaning of “scams” is also quite relevant, of course. Massimo declares that “an intentional fraud” is what one is claiming when one says “scam” and there are certainly elements of that intentionality implied at some level. But if one Googles “scam definition,” the very first things that pop up are:

1. Victimize: deprive of by deceit; "He swindled me out of my inheritance"; "She defrauded the customers who trusted her"; "the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change"; a fraudulent business scheme. (Ref)

2. A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, swindle or bamboozle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. (Ref)

Given such definitions, it is reasonable to argue that someone can be victimized by a scam even when the immediate agent for victimization is wholly unaware of the fraudulent nature of the transaction. My own late father, a clergyman, was kind, gentle, and honest; and, as far as I am aware, he sincerely believed that his promises to parishioners of salvation and ultimate justice were actually going to be fulfilled. I sincerely believe that he was not only mistaken in this but was in an intellectual position to have known, had he been willing to think carefully and investigate the matter fully, that his promises were unwarranted. I think he perpetrated a scam, one that had real destructive force in many people’s lives. I think he was part of “a fraudulent business scheme” that dangerously defrauded people “by gaining their confidence.” This cost them money, wisdom, and control over their own lives. But I never saw any intention on his part to swindle or con people.

I have firsthand testimony from a respected Atlanta area clergyman, a graduate of one of the most distinguished, respected Christian seminaries in America, that most — not just some, but most — of the professors in most of the mainstream seminaries in America are not themselves orthodox believers in religion. Does this constitute the “extraordinary evidence” that Massimo requires? Probably not, and my source, himself an atheist, continues to this day to earn his professional living as a clergyman, so he would not even be willing to testify publicly as to this. (I have other sources who have offered similar declarations, similarly confidentially.) Do I “know” that all major theistic religions are scams? I do, within a reasonable common definition of “know” and “scam.” If I were writing an essay like this one, with space and time to offer careful distinctions and shades of meaning, it would be intellectually incumbent on me to do that. I didn’t write the billboard copy, but I do agree with it as billboard copy. I reject flatly my friend Massimo’s claim that I must either be lying or deluded to approve of this billboard.

Three other slightly less important aspects of the Rationally Speaking column in question with which I take serious issue are Massimo’s claims that: 

1. The billboard is less effective in reaching atheists in the way we want to reach them.

2. His claim that the billboard is unlikely to affect the religious believers as we might want it to.

3. His assertion that this is a failure in terms of advertising or “PR strategy.”

We have some short-term, preliminary, but pretty good evidence that many (assuredly not all) atheists understand and appreciate what we’re up to. Attention to and attendance at the regional meeting in Huntsville seems quite likely to be good, and local and national membership numbers and financial support have improved. Religionists of various stripes are certainly paying heed to us, some of them, we think but cannot prove, doing more thinking than they would earlier have done. And getting a message, including humor about Dave Silverman’s appearance, onto national TV — onto three national TV shows, one right-leaning, one left-leaning, and one renowned for humor — has been a huge plus. Massimo concedes the effectiveness of Stephen Colbert’s satire of religious simple-mindedness; but how would that have been achieved if our billboard had had no bite?

The words of two writers of letters to the editor of the main Huntsville newspaper are noteworthy. Neither writer is known to me. The first of these two is from Ward P. Welty, who describes himself as “a retired professor of advertising and English.” Professor Welty makes the interesting observation that our billboard seems designed both to target “closeted atheists” and to induce “cognitive dissonance” in closeted atheists and, perhaps, in believers as well. He concluded that our slogan was “deliberately provocative.” And he noted. “I give it high marks for effectively communicating to ‘doubters’ that they are not alone.” He predicted a good turn out at our meeting there.

The other writer, Tom L. Williams, writes emphatically (and, I’d argue, quite illogically) that “even the forces of hell have a better theology than an atheist.” Whatever else his letter demonstrates, it shows we made him notice and think about it. Not that I want him to show up at our meeting, as I do the professor.

Massimo Pigliucci’s sincere disagreement and taking us to task for what he sees as an inappropriate (or worse) campaign is truly an argument from a friend. His public essay on the matter — like complaints and praise from Bill Donahue, Bill O’Reilly, Keith Olberman, Stephen Colbert, and many others — helps greatly in furthering our cause, in explaining our means and goals. We thank him for doing so, quite aside from whether he — or any of his readers — are persuaded by our explanations.

The final point I want to make is about strategy for “the movement” — a movement of skeptics, atheists, rationalists, scientists, agnostics, and many others with overlapping labels who read this fine blog. Our goal should indeed be, as Massimo wrote, to “build a better society,” one freer of irrationality and ignorance, one more likely to encourage or at the very least permit individual development and freedom. I am firmly convinced that there is no one right public approach, no exclusive style or image for organizations or individuals to adopt. We — all of us, not just fierce atheists like me — need to have, as a part of our movement a “wing” that is blunt, unambiguous about our own conclusions, unabashed, sure-footed and confident, willing and eager to do intellectual battle with the irrational theists. American Atheists has long been in the vanguard as the marines of the movement, the atheist wing of the atheist movement. We do not want to be, or to be seen as “superior” or to be eager to piss off the religionists. But we are willing to risk pissing people off to get them to think. If that’s “in-your-face atheism,” put us down as the proud leaders of that wing.

I welcome comments posted on this blog; I’d also appreciate direct comments via e-mail.