The Guardian, Sept. 9,2010: Thank God (and Richard Dawkins) I'm no longer an 'angry atheist'

[highplainsdem]

Op-ed piece by Alom Shaha:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/sep/09/god-richard-dawkins-angry-atheist

The front page of guardian.co.uk recently featured a picture of Richard Dawkins with the headline "The Dick Delusion". It saddened me that anyone at the Guardian would think it was appropriate to ridicule Dawkins in this manner and I was further disappointed by the accompanying article by Jonathan Jones which was a weakly argued personal attack on Dawkins, using poorly researched material to deliver the pathetic notion that Dawkins "just wants to be the cleverest kid in the class". The irony of the piece was that it smacked of having been written by someone desperate to prove his own cleverness.

As much as I hated Jones' article, I can understand what might have prompted it. I have in the past criticised Dawkins' approach myself and I'd like to think I'm not part of the "angry atheist" brigade. It can be all too easy to fall into the trap of being perceived as a "dick" when challenging people's beliefs. Many atheists and "skeptics" seem to have a habit of implying, if not directly stating, that people who believe in god/homeopathy/psychics are stupid. They seem to think that tackling such beliefs is a question of dispelling ignorance, of educating people in the "right" way of thinking.

Sadly, it's not that simple. Such atheists and skeptics would do well to remember that we are all capable of holding irrational beliefs and that there are myriad social, economic, cultural and educational factors that determine what and how people think. Heck, I'll go out on a limb and suggest there might even be genetic factors involved in determining the extent to which people may or may not be susceptible to holding religious beliefs.

Atheists and skeptics can feel incredibly frustrated by the beliefs of others and feel that they have to "correct" them, and in doing so they can come across as condescending, patronising and aggressive. It's not always accidental. Several prominent atheists and skeptics have been accused of deliberately behaving like "dicks"; let's face it, calling believers "deluded", as Dawkins famously does, is not exactly diplomatic. The backlash against this kind of behaviour is not just coming from believers but also from within the atheist and skeptic communities – there are various corners of the internet where atheists and skeptics are engaged in heated discussions about whether or not to be a "dick". I have to confess to finding it somewhat amusing that much of this debate seems to have descended into the kind of argument you might hear in a school playground: "You're a dick", "No, you're a dick for calling me a dick".

On a serious note, I have been guilty of being a "dick atheist" myself, albeit unwittingly. I'm hoping this is a thing of the past, and for this I owe thanks to a good friend of mine who confronted me over my attitude by saying "you think I'm stupid because I believe in God". She was incredibly upset at some of the things I had been saying as part of what I thought was just casual banter over a cup of tea. She pointed out that, from her perspective, the views I had been expressing about religion were offensive to people like her. Of course, I don't think this friend of mine is remotely stupid but I had to concede that the things I had been saying might have suggested otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm more than happy to offend people when the circumstances demand it, but I've got no desire to go around upsetting people I like for no good reason. Seeing my friend upset really made me stop and think about how I was coming across to other religious friends and I have since made much more of a conscious effort to consider where other people might be coming from before spouting off about my atheism. Fanatical atheism can be as ugly as religious fanaticism.

-snip-