Stupid is Stupid, no matter who is spouting it.
Antitheism is a spectrum of beliefs which have the following in common, they are all fundamentally against the concept of religion in some form or another.
I consider myself a weak antitheist, I think that there are some limited aspects of religion that are broken, namely fundamentalism, evangelicalism, hyper/neoconservativism (more of a political doctrine, but it’s prevalent in religious settings), tribalism/xenophobia (a symptom of some of the above), etc.
This also means that I think there are bits of religion which are good. Religion provides a frame-of-reference for us to connect with other people, it provides a social setting which has ritual- which in turn provides structure and predictablility to the lives of people who need it, it provides- even if nothing else- interesting stories and ideas that represent bronze/iron age thinking. I don’t dream of a world without religion, I dream of a world without stupid religion.
Many people, on the other hand, are much more extreme, feeling that religion is uniformly bad. This is strong antitheism. I won’t comment much on it, because I believe it is possible to be a strong antitheist without being a fundamentalist antitheist.
Oh dear, I used that nasty term “fundamentalist” to describe nonreligious types. Fear not, I’m well prepared for the inevitable shitstorm of hatemail.
Heres my problem with Fundamentalist Antitheism, besides it’s status as being as narrow minded and utterly silly as Fundamentalist Theism; I think that it’s also utterly ineffective, and actually counterproductive to both the atheist and weak antitheist goals, not unlike how fundamentalist theism is counterproductive to liberal theist’s goals.
Let me say this quickly, so there is no confusion, I do not support any legal or social benefits that are afforded to the religious any more than I support legal or social benefits for the non-religious. If an organization is doing real charitable work, then it is eligible for legal benefits, and social respect, no matter their stance on religion.
Heres why I think the extreme antitheist view is counterproductive. Consider the following hypothetical, I am trying to get an oil company to donate money to an environmental project. I think the oil companies are horrible, horrific, evil entities out to destroy the planet. Do I approach the company by saying “I think you people are stupid, misguided morons, so give me some money for my project?” Of course not, I butter them up, I shmooze, I finagle, I figure out a play up how it will be good for PR, etc. Moreover, I wouldn’t go to the hardest-hardline oil mogul, I’d find someone who’s already somewhat sympathetic to the cause. Every organization has someone who is least indoctrinated. This is not dissimilar from arguing against fundamentalism, we shouldn’t antagonize the people who are most capable of helping us. We shouldn’t yell at the liberals and the moderates, they’re the ones most amenable to rational thinking. If we make our case against fundamentalism to them, It’s generally well recieved, at least, with the liberals I know. Moderates too, they may be less inclined to do something about the “weak” fundamentalists, those who are closer to their own beliefs than the “strong” fundamentalist, those who have drank the proverbial kool-aid, as it were.
The reason I’m in favor of appealing to moderates and liberals is this. Part of the fundamentalist dogma is that every atheist, every dissenter, everyone who is not a fundie is a liar, and of satan. Put simply:
Anything you say or do will fall on deaf ears.
They are the quintessential true-believers, and some- only some- are beyond hope. Because most fundamentalists are not fundies. Most fundamentalists are simply followers, they do what their told by their preists and pastors, and think that that makes them right. If you want to end fundamentalism, you need to get those people to follow something else. A follower will always follow, it’s part of their nature, the issue is, they have a shitty leader. People like John Hagee or Pat Robertson are beyond hope, many pastors and preists who are fundamentalistic in nature are beyond hope- but their followers are most often normal people, who are all quite capable of rational thought, and just need to be told to think critically about what they believe. Most of the people I knew as a fundamentalist are like this.
So, how do we convince these closet moderates to come out? Simple, get the moderates and the liberals to make it unnacceptable in the respective religious circle to be a fundamentalist. This is what we need to aim for, the most powerful force in the religious social world is loud liberal, if the sentiment of the liberal relgious world becomes “We won’t tolerate this anymore.” and the liberal religous world actually follows through, then you will see the following happen. The core fundamentalist, puritanical, hyperconservative, xenophobic groups- eg the WBC, etc- will splinter off and be social outcasts, and die off within a generation or two, and the majority of the religious world will be a bunch of rational moderates and liberals. I would happily take a world full of clear-thinking moderates or liberals than a world which tolerates extremism. It would work simply because the other religious people would have some standing to say that the fundies are not to be tolerated, it would work because the people who were saying “this is wrong” would be saying it in the same language, mindset, and social world as the people who they were saying it to.
It’s not dissimilar from how one fights extreme patriarchy. In america, the method was “Be a strong woman, be loud, and demand equality”, and because of the kind of patriarchy that was in america- a weaker kind, more amenable to change- this worked. I know it seems blasphemous to feminists, but the only reason you have the rights you have (which you definitely deserved and should have been yours from the start) is because the patriarchy capitulated to you. That is, you convinced the men to give up the power they had. Now, this works in the weak patriarchy of america, but it doesn’t work in the extreme patriarchy of somewhere like the middle east. Consider what being a strong woman means there, it means that if you speak up, if you become a strong woman, you get killed. It means that demanding equality is demanding your own death writ. It’s horrible, I hate it, you hate it, I’d daresay all rational people hate it, but it’s the truth of the matter. It’s because the patriarchy declares you have no rights, no say, no standing. If you speak, they ignore you, if you continue, if you annoy them, they “solve” the problem, in the worst way possible.
So, we are left with two basic plans of action, one, all the women rise up and fight (physically) all the men, and there is a massive civil war, lots of people die, and generally shit hits the fan. No one wants that. The other option, is for the feminists of this country to use the patriarchy they have, to get the patriarchy they want. What I mean is, you know how to fight for your rights, and how to get what you want in a weak patriarchy, and you have a weak patriarchy handy, doesn’t it make sense to have the weak patriarchies of the world get together and say, “Enough.” The men have standing, the women do not, so- use the men. It’s the right tool for the job, and I like to think that the men of this country are evolved enough mentally to see that it’s a worthwhile cause. The analogy is this, the feminists are like the weak antitheists, the weak patriarchy is like the liberal and moderately religious groups, and the extreme patriarchy is the extreme fundamentalists. The same tactics ought to work on both sides.
Even if you are and extreme antitheist, it behooves you to carry out the weak antitheist plan first. After the real problem of extremism is solved, then you have a group of (hopefully) highly rational, clear thinking people to have a real argument with. Why wouldn’t you want that? The options I see are these; Either, you don’t really want to have a good argument, because you’re not sure how you could win it, you’re much more comfortable making the “lol, ur dumb” style argument which seems so prevalent. Or you’ve never thought about it in these terms. In the former case, you’re as bad as the people you purport to fight, not wanting a real solution, because you like the problem too much. In the latter case, then hopefully you find this idea, at the very least, a good starting point to getting to a better, saner world. There may be other cases, I freely admit, this is likely a false dichotomy, but I’m hard pressed to find them.
In any case, I just want to end by saying this. I dislike the term “weak antitheism”, it’s too easily confused with being against all religion, which I am not. I much prefer the following, (technically more general) term, “antistupidism”, that is.
Stupid is Stupid, no matter who’s spouting it, and stupidness cannot be tolerated in a modern, enlightened world.