September 30 (the anniversary of the original publication of the (in)famous Danish Cartoons) was International Blasphemy Day, whose website unambiguously reminds us exists “because your god is a joke“. While I of course agree that your god doesn’t exist, her non-existence gives rise to a plethora of choice in terms of responses – some of which are critical, some offensive, and most of which are somewhere in between.
On Blasphemy Day this year, I happened to be giving lectures on morality, which included a discussion on how religion isn’t necessary for morality (in fact, I argued that religion can be positively harmful to moral reasoning). In the course of the lecture, some implications of deriving morality from religion were teased out, and I did so in a manner which involved some teasing, which seemed to cause offence to a few of the students.
One came to me afterwards to indicate that he thought my treatment of the subject was inappropriate – I had “disrespected” something that he (and many of his peers) take seriously. I suspect that he was somewhat surprised by my response, in that I basically said that yes, I had disrespected his beliefs in this instance, and that was because they are beliefs that don’t merit respect. I reminded him also that one can disrespect beliefs without necessarily disrespecting the people who hold those beliefs.
But Blasphemy Day calls for us to go further than this, in that I raised questions which might offend believers, without setting out to offend them. I wasn’t merely mocking, even if my comments could be interpreted as disrespectful. Blasphemy Day, by contrast, has involved images and writing that seems to have little intent but to offend (not provoke thoughts, but merely provoke).
Given an existing climate involving a fair degree of hostility towards atheists for their perceived (and often genuine) militant nature, I remain sceptical as to whether this sort of thing is good strategy.
Opinions are certainly divided, with some of the “old guard” of the atheist movement speaking out against Blasphemy Day, saying that it “betrays the civic virtues of democracy“. Others, like PZ Myers, claim that “edgy is what young people like“, and that ”the old school of atheism is really, really boring”.
That may be so, and it may be that we should do “whatever it takes to reach people”, as Ronald Lindsay claims in the article linked above. But that leaves the question of how we reach people, and how they respond to what we do and say, completely open. If we care simply that they know we exist, then of course shock-tactics may be most effective, and free speech affords us the right to shock as much as we like.
But I don’t care about getting the attention of theists, so much as changing their minds. And I can’t recall many times that I’ve changed someone’s mind through teasing them – usually I’ve just made them more intractable.
We’ve certainly got the right to poke fun or tease whomever we like, and I think the offended parties are daft for getting upset over it. But I care less for getting my kicks than for the long-term evolution of society, and defending reason and rational strategy in general – and I don’t think that this aids the secular cause on balance. Believers will be further encouraged to ignore us, because we appear to be uninterested in debate, and those occupying some sort of middle-ground might ignore us too, simply because we appear to be intolerably rude.
On a rhetorical level, we should also remember that
the problem with ridicule is also that one cannot answer it. Cliched perhaps, but there’s no defence against laughter. The clown leaves everyone powerless because no appeal to any discourse normatively defined carries weight with the clown. I’m not saying the clown is always right, but the clown always causes anxiety exactly because the laughter cannot be subjugated. Anyone who has ever tried to have a ‘normal’ conversation, say, with [a clown], may know that anxiety or the loss of control over discourse.
Related posts:
- Good without god Progress is rarely easy, especially when it involves overturning centuries-old mistakes - but the difficult things are often the ones most worth doing....
10 Comments
The Blasphemy Day events might seem at odds with the goal of changing people’s minds, however that is not their goal. The art and writing of Blasphemy Day and others is for the purpose of humourous recreation, to be enjoyed by those who are already free from religious belief. It therefore does not form part of a broader strategy to diminish religion and does not target the religious.
While the antagonism of the religiously devout is to a small degree, as you point out, counterproductive to the secular strategy, is it not unavoidable if the secular wish to engage in irreverent comedic relief? Even though the public faces of the secular movement would surely prefer not to have to defend these representations, especially if they are claimed to characterize the entire group of secularists, they must be defended, in spite of the offense they cause, in spite of the wasted time and energy in doing so, because in light of the historical (and in some parts, current) prohibitions on and punishments for blasphemy, its production is a celebration of rights struggled for and won, and of changing times.
Different tactics (soft, seductive, persuasive / hard, blunt, argumentative) favoured by different agents will cater to different sections of the ‘mind market’ and we can support, or at least be unconcerned by, these different techniques.
P.S. I see that the Blasphemy Day website is currently suspended/offline, hopefully only for bandwidth reasons.
off topic –
I stumbled across a really good site, http://lesswrong.com/ and I think you might enjoy the articles there
Thanks Amy – a 10-second look (so far) indicates you may well be right!
This care that you have ‘for the long-term evolution of society, and defending reason and rational strategy in general’, where does it sprout from? I’m just curious
Kevin > it’s partly selfish, I think, in that I’d like live in a world that simply works better in terms of what people think, say and do. Much of my energy is wasted on being irritated with others, and I suspect I’d be able to enjoy myself more if less of that energy is wasted. But it’s also partly altruistic, in that I’d like other people to have better lives themselves. I know why this is for those I’m close to – for the rest, it’s most likely just programming.
I think the celebration of Blasphemy Day is generally a bad idea. It gives ammunition to people who complain (with accuracy) that evangelical atheists have disappeared up their own bums to continue their intellectual self-pleasuring with zero concern for the harm they do to feelings of other people.
The idea that cleaving people from their religions will make their lives better is pure and simple delusion, even though it obviously serves to make atheists’ comfort zones all the more comfortable. A far more credible approach is that of (the badly-named) Atheism 3.0, an avowedly atheistic humanism that nevertheless finds the sense to acknowledge the genuinely positive role that religions and faith have played and continue to play in many people’s lives, and which therefore respectfully leaves room for others’ religious beliefs.
These humanists can remain true to their atheism and let others remain true to their faith — unlike celebrators of Blasphemy Day, who cannot merely hold own their flag aloft but must try and tear others’ down, apparently in order to make them more reasonable. This misguided impulse arises from a ham-fisted and mistaken conflation of religious faith with imperviousness to logical reasoning, even though both history and the modern day are replete with examples of religious people who were also exemplars of reason and, most importantly, lived lives that were beneficial to themselves and to others.
In other words, the motto of the evangelical atheists who celebrate Blasphemy Day is something like: “the beatings will continue until you agree with us”.
Well put. Regarding Atheism 3.0, you may be interested in Nieman’s Moral Clarity – it’s not about atheism per se, but makes the point that many H.Sapiens do seem to need some idealism in their lives, and offers another pillar of support against the utterly condescending attitudes some “new atheists” seem to think is productive.
Thanks, Jacques. I was a student in some of your lectures — in fact a TAB tutor at one stage. So, hello again! I found your blog via Simon Halliday’s.
Yep, I remember – thanks for visiting!
We have the Blasphemy Contest winners!
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/news/blasphemy_contest_winners/