Over at Pure Pedantry, Jake Young has recently posted two long, thoughtful, and civil entries in the New Atheism debate (he must have a thesis deadline, or something). The first follows John Dewey in arguing that a tight link between science and atheism is counterproductive, while the second collects and responds to criticism of the first. they’re both well-thought-out, and argued calmly and carefully. Jake’s a better man than I am.
I say that not just because he managed to keep his cool after entering this argument, which I’m demonstrably not able to do, but also because I’m going to pick up one piece of his second post, and use it to cause trouble. Specifically, I was struck by some of the material in Jake’s Point 2), specifically the analogy between “New Atheists” and gay rights groups, as put forth by Jason Rosenhouse among others.
Now, this is a better, or at least less offensively silly, analogy than the previous attempts to draw parallels between atheists on the Internet and civil rights activists in the 60’s. It still doesn’t really hold up, though Jake does a very nice job of using it to discuss his points. As I said, he’s a better man than I am, because I’d like to offer up instead a different analogy to a group with a passionate belief in their cause and tactics that many people find counterproductive: PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
There aren’t a great many people around here who would disagree with the core principle of ethical treatment of animals, in the same way that you won’t find many science bloggers or science blog readers advocating for the immediate imposition of theocracy. Most scientists will happily agree that animals should be treated as humanely as possible, and many people in the life sciences probably feel more strongly about the, well, ethical treatment of animals than the general public. And if you look, there are plenty of admirable items along those lines to be found among PETA’s list of uncompromising stands (humility, sadly, is not one of their virtues).
And yet, many scientists have a rather low opinion of the actual organization, because they’ve squandered any goodwill they might’ve earned through a mix of extreme positions and theatrical in-your-face tactics. They’re fond of things like really tactless billboards and high-profile publicity stunts, shading into criminally stupid pranks and vandalism. Even people who basically agree with their goals tend to say “Oh, Jesus, not them” whenever the group comes up, and they’re a frequent object of mockery in the general public.
They argue that their extreme positions are a moral imperative, and that their theatrical tactics are useful for keeping the cause in the public eye, a sort of “There’s no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell your name right” argument. Their critics claim that their actions are counterproductive, because, really, you have to work pretty hard if your message is “Be nice to animals” and you’re going to end up a target of mockery and derision. (Guess which way I lean…)
And I think they’re a reasonable analogy for how the “New Atheist” camp appears, at least to those of us on the “Neville Chamberlain” side of the argument. Or at least an analogy that will make it a little more clear to some of the partisans how things look from over here.