Richard Dawkins has a bright idea: Atheists are the new gays. Is he joking? Not at all. The bestselling author of The God Delusion has been suggesting for two years now that atheists can follow the example of gays. You see, gays have found a good name. Gays used to be called homosexual, but then they decided to pick a positive-sounding name like "gay." Suddenly the meaning of the term "gay" was entirely appropriated by homosexuals. Dawkins cited this example in advocating that atheists call themselves "brights." After all, atheist is a somewhat negative term because it defines itself by what it is opposed to. "Bright" sounds so much happier and, more important, smarter. "Bright" kind of reflects the high opinion that atheists have of their own intellectual abilities. Even the stupidest village atheist gets to pat himself on the back and place himself in the tradition of science and philosophy by calling himself a "bright."
Dawkins has also suggested that atheists, like gays, should come out of the closet. Well, what if they don't want to? I don't know if Dawkins would support "outing" atheists. Can an atheist "rights" group be far behind? Hate crimes laws to protect atheists? Affirmative action for unbelievers? An Atheist Annual Parade, complete with dancers and floats? Atheist History Month?
Honestly, I think the whole atheist-gay analogy is quite absurd. How bright is it for Dawkins to urge atheists to come out of the closet in the style of the all-American boy standing up on the dining table of his public high school and confessing that he is a homosexual? Dawkins, being British, doesn't seem to recognize that this would not win many popularity contests in America. And if Dawkins' public relations skills seem lacking in this area, they are positively abysmal when they come to building support for science. Remember that Dawkins is professor of the public understanding of science. He has a chair funded by a Microsoft multimillionaire. If I were that guy, I'd withdraw the support, not because I disagree with Dawkins, but because I think he is setting back the cause of science. Basically Dawkins is saying if you are religious, then science is your enemy. Either you choose God or you choose science. No wonder that so many Americans say they are opposed to evolution. They believe that evolution is atheism masquerading as science, and Dawkins confirms their suspicions. Indeed Dawkins takes the same position as the most ignorant fundamentalist: you can have Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can't have both.
Dawkins is in some ways a terrible representative for atheism, which I'm glad about because a bad cause deserves a bad leader. He is also a terrible advocate for science, which I'm sad about because science deserves all the support it can get.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 30)
1. --Even the stupidest village atheist gets to pat himself on the back and place himself in the tradition of science and philosophy by calling himself a "bright." --
LOL... What ever makes 'em feel good!
ManOfMettl at 12:43AM on Nov 9th 2007
2. I don't believe for a second that you are either devoutly religious or anti-gay. You are simply using these viewpoints as a vehicle to make money. I'm sure you probably learned this strategy from your ex-girlfriend Ann: that you may as well take advantage of the rampant stupidity and insecurity in America. After all, who in this country is an easier target than gay people or atheists? Both are roughly only 10% of the population and the root of all kinds of controversy, so you know you can count on a healthy amount of dumb people being on your side and buying into your crapfest.
Having said that, I do fully believe that you are a conservative because only a conservative would betray basic decency and human kindness in favor of making a buck.
You are obsessive. You think about atheists and gays more than gays and atheists think about themselves or each other. Every single post, every single day, is about one or the other, or includes one or the other. Or both. Do you eat? Do you sleep? It's obvious that you don't devote much brain space to any other issues, otherwise you would be a lot less ignorant than you actually are.
I am just going to sit here and patiently wait for the day when you get arrested for soliciting a gay atheist for sex in a bathroom somewhere out in the midwest. It shouldn't be too long.
Laila at 1:40AM on Nov 9th 2007
3. Wow Laila,
Keep in mind, it's his blog. You don't have to read it if you don't want to. That's the great thing about "Choice" and free will.
Now, to more important issues. I've been doing some thinking, and it is obvious to me that Atheists and Believers can all agree on one Thing:
And that is the fact the BCS is complete crapola, and College Football desperately needs a playoff system. Agreed?
botts at 1:48AM on Nov 9th 2007
4. Okay, it's time everyone who reads Dinesh's blog realizes that he is a man on a mission in the matter of atheists/religion. No amount of reasoning or argumentation will win him over because his intention is merely to belittle and provoke atheists.
I consider myself agnostic and realize that, perhaps because of nature, people in general accept religion. The human mind seeks to understand the world and is often content with any answer it can provide for itself, and the great many religions of the world are endless variations on the same answer. It is no problem to me that people are religious.
But the most interesting aspect of the God debate has always been the philosophical one, and the likes of Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins have offered cogent philosophical objections to the case made for God's existence. Unfortunately, it appears that Dinesh has been utterly incapable of furnishing an answer to these objections.
In a true, fair debate regarding God's existence between individuals equipped with the same rhetorical skills--clearly the atheist position would prevail by virtue of having Reason on its side. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but this is the truth. It's simply too easy to dismantle the case theists can make for God, and so I often find myself holding back from doing so because the act becomes as cruel as telling a child that there's no Santa.
And so when I come here and read Dinesh's posts regarding this matter, I am always disappointed because instead of substantive, intellectual rebuttals to Atheists, all I see is petty, irrational arguments that reek of desperation. I would not want to be in his position.
RunEba at 1:53AM on Nov 9th 2007
5. Actually botts, I believe college football has no place on national television. The students are supposed to be there to learn, not earn multi-million dollar contracts. This is one of the reasons why college degrees have no credibility in my book when I look to hire new people.
But, back to the topic at hand. Dinesh D'Souza is the next Larry Craig. You said it perfectly Laila.
clud at 1:57AM on Nov 9th 2007
6. I think this is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard (well, read about). Just because most of the souther half of the United States is(nearly) as dumb as this article, doesn't mean that those who believe in evolution are suddenly shunned by the rest of society, needing a way to 'come out of the closet' as if they were ashamed to do so before. Whether or not most people attend some sort of religious service or celebrate some holiday, doesn't mean they do believe in a god, or don't believe in evolution. Anyone with a decent amount of education (attendance to a college in the south, or passing the 8th grade in the north... I know I'm exagerating, so please feel free to take offense) accepts that evolution is what happened, that we are not the center of the universe, and cannot come back from the dead (or talk to fire-y bushes) and did not achieve consciouseness from some things that had gotten sucked up by some alien ship things and trapped in a volcano (that's right, I consider South Park's version of Scientology to be on the same level as Christainity and Jewdaism).
Maybe I'm sounding a bit "liberal" to you, but you know what that means? You probably aren't from the North-East or California or Florida, and haven't had a decent amount of education (that's right, I'm calling you stupid for not agreeing with me, because I am correct, we have proof, called science, and you have stories that have been changed hundreds of times to meet the convience of those before you who knew how to manipulate societies).
I DO APPOLOGIZE for those who are seriously religious people, who devote their lives to studying religion, and seriously believe that some 'God' exists that knows everything about everything and is everywhere, who understand the arguement behind science and evolution, and accept their faith. BUT to those who do not accept evolution simply because it would mean there is no 'God,' I have no respect for you.
This is the problem with having a president who is from Texas. We lose out of LIFE SAVING technology studies in order to protect the 'lives' of infants who have yet to develop the ability to think. (Sorry, but yes, I am pro-choice.)
Thank God we have candidates from the Republican party like Guliani who are fairly moderate. Just kidding. Thank science. (That was a joke, grow up.) On a final note, I am a Republican, living between New York and New England (yes, we do exist), and I acknowlege that I should probably have my own blog to complain about stupid issues like these on, rather than leaving responses that are longer than that articles themselves.
MJZimmer88 at 2:07AM on Nov 9th 2007
7. According to opinion polls, Americans would be more willing to vote for a Muslim than an Atheist. I suppose they think all atheists are evil. What bigotry! No wonder Hitchins compares atheists to gays. Some think all gays are evil.
As a former atheist, I can tell you that many atheists are very good people. We need to improve the image of atheists in America. This country is encouraging children to pledge allegiance to one nation under God. This is clearly unconstitutional, since the constitution says there is to be no establishment of any religion. Therefore no establishment of monotheism. With such a pledge, it is no wonder that many are still bigoted against atheists.
Tom Martin at 2:08AM on Nov 9th 2007
8. Call me strange, but I am a devout Christian (Methodist), and I believe in evolution. The minster that confirmed me points to Chapter 1 of Genesis, since it has man being created last. After all, evolution theorizes that man was one of the last creatures to appear on earth.
It would be interesting to know what Mr. Dawkins would think of the late Victor Weisskopf. He was a professor of physics at MIT, having been the department chairman for a number of years. He also worked on the Manhatten Project.
In other words, he was dealing with the kind of physics that was well beyond what we learned in high school.
I heard him deliver a lecture on the Big Bang theory, and he concluded by saying that God created the bang. He couldn't prove it; he only had his faith to reach that conclusion. But every other theory had problems that couldn't be explained.
My point is that Prof. Weisskopf was indeed a very bright fellow, as well as a man of faith. Can Mr. Dawkins say with a straight face that Prof. Weisskopf wasn't bright?
Kent at 2:11AM on Nov 9th 2007
9. MJZimmer, I do have a lot of education, but that does not mean I believe we cannot come back from dead. Maybe there is a God or gods who will resurrect us all. I certainly hope so, though I don't know.
Tom Martin at 2:17AM on Nov 9th 2007
10. Kent, it is true as you say that Genesis 1 has people created last. But it has reptiles created on the sixth day and birds on the fifth day. Yet according to science reptiles were here first. It has fruit trees created on the third day and fishes on the fifth day. Yet fishes were here long before fruit trees. So the Genesis account is inaccurate. Dinesh D'Souza says in his new book that the Genesis account is not to be taken literally, but if it is metaphorical, what would each detail mean? I believe Genesis is not from God. I don't know if any part of the Bible is from God, but not Genesis.
Tom Martin at 2:26AM on Nov 9th 2007
11. DD: "I don't know if Dawkins would support "outing" atheists."
Dawkins has explicitly said that he does not support outing of atheists, that it should be left up to each individual to come out.
DD, by the way, who seems to despise gays much as he despises atheists, is infamous for having outed a bunch of gays against their will back in his college days:
As editor of the Dartmouth Review, D'Souza stole correspondence from the school's Gay Student Alliance and published it, outing several gay students to friends and family and driving one to consider suicide. When The Nation published an article claiming that D'Souza had stolen the correspondence, D'Souza wrote asking for a retraction, calling the piece "lies from the loony left", and sending articles which he said would clear his name. But bizarrely, the articles he included showed that the claim was true - they included a piece written under his byline that featured excerpts from gay students' correspondence.
That's from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dinesh_D'Souza
Joe Bob at 3:20AM on Nov 9th 2007
12. Devil D'Souza has Dawkins 'declaring', "...you can have Darwin or you can have the Bible but you can't have both."
...like an "ignorant fundamentalist"(you Devil you, D'Souza, I think that you accidentally lost a few sales of your book...LOL)
Any ignorant fundamentalists that believe you can have the Bible or Darwin but you can't have both still think that DD is somehow on 'your' side... and not just hunting for Woodrow Wilson pictures($100,000 bills)?
Isn't Dawkins really saying that you can have science or you can have magic... but you can't have both? Or is that tom-ay-to / tom-ah-to?
Gotta love the image of the dancing floats though... atheists dying to cut the bum-cheeks out of their pants because... they don't believe in the supernatural... sounds kinda fabulo-natural to me.
I'da thought there were, in fact, a lot of Catholic priests who had way more in common with the float-dancers though.(if you know what I mean, wink, wink)
I don't know the actual size of the gay population or the size of the atheist population... but gay atheists MUST be some kind of really 'exclusive' club.
Hey, maybe they ARE those Catholic priests... how hard(no pun) could that job be???
pboyfloyd at 3:31AM on Nov 9th 2007
13. Tom Martin,
Just so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a Christian Studies major with a concentration in Biblical Languages, in my third year at California Baptist University.
I haven't read D'Souza's book, and I don't know if this is what he's getting at, but I just wanted to say that whether or not Genesis is to be taken literally, we shouldn't try to interpret the Old or the New Testament with our modern, probably Western mindset. The writers had completely different ways of thinking from us, and to understand certain things in the Bible, a lot of research is required. What I'm saying is, in Genesis, though it lists the creation of birds and reptiles and fish in an order that seems analogous with evolution, we should remember that chronological order was not necessarily the most important thing for someone to record at that time, in that culture, like it is for us now. I mean, the books of the Old Testament/Hebrew canon aren't in chronological order either.
Just to comment: almost all of my Christian studies professors are from the South, and they're the most intelligent and wisest people I've met yet. So I thought the comment about the South was pretty funny.
Laura at 3:34AM on Nov 9th 2007
14. D'Souza,
I usually try to ignore your comments on atheism, but I am sick of you bashing atheists. I may not be atheist right now (I am Buddhist thank you very much), but at one point I was. At that time I did not go around telling everyone around me that there was not God, but instead I would keep it to myself. To my surprise though, whenever people did find out (during religious conversations) they would tell me that I was going to hell and that I was evil for being an atheist. They would then try to convert me in an effort to, "save my soul." During these times, I began to wonder how I could have been a part of such a hateful group. I see now that it is people like you that spread that line of thinking. You continually make atheists out to be evil people that should be treated like dirt, and then you try and sell your book at the same time! What happened to the Christian saying of love thy neighbor? Why can't you just mind your own business and keep religion where it should be, within the hearts and minds of those that follow it.
James at 3:58AM on Nov 9th 2007
15. @ Laura...13
I automatically added "Keep in mind.." when I read your, "The writers had completely different ways of thinking from us."
Is THAT the latest excuse for the Bible being DRIVEL... oh, well, since the people who copied to the Septuaguint and the people who wrote the Masoretic Texts probably had different 'ways of thinking' too... and the next set of translators and the next had 'different ways of thinking' too..
... guess what, Laura... no matter what you come up with, it is still all DRIVEL. But I suppose you, being a 'wiseling' probably know that and know you're not supposed to TELL.
"Oh look, thousands of years ago, they thought that the world operated by magic. Who woulda thunk?"
pboyfloyd at 4:03AM on Nov 9th 2007