Misused and Abused: Intolerance

A fairly common criticism of atheists, especially the "New Atheists", is that we are intolerant. Ironically, this assessment may actually be technically correct. However, the term is often falsely used as a synonym for discrimination. It has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination.

According to Chamber's 21st Century Dictionary:
"Intolerant

adjective: (often intolerant of something) refusing or unwilling to accept ideas, beliefs, behaviour, etc different from one’s own.

Derivatives

intolerance noun.

intolerantly adverb.

[18c: from Latin intolerans, from tolerare to endure.]"

Put simply, you do not have to accept the beliefs of others in anyway in order to be respectful of their right to believe whatever they wish. You certainly do not have to agree with another individual's views in order to support and defend their rights. Being intolerant has taken on a number of meaning that the actual defintion does not support.

If theists want to verbally attack non-theist for not buying into their bullshit they can but that does not give them any moral higher ground. In fact, what it really does is expose their own ignorance and hypocrisy. They not do not understand the terminology they choose to make use of they do not apply it to themselves.

Note: I will admit that on occasion I have made the same mistake. I try to catch myself but I do sometimes slip.

 

Not the definition of a Rabbi

Most definitions of Rabbi include something along the lines of a religious scholar. Though, I do not doubt that Rabbi Adam Jacobs is religious is he is certainly not a scholar. As his most recent piece, "The God Test: Why Really Everyone Believes," on the Huffington Post makes clear he is not only incredibly ignorant he lacks even rudimentary critical thinking skills. Most of the arguments he makes are so preposterous it is hard to believe the man can walk and talk at the same time.

Right from the start he makes assertions that are blatantly foolish. His complete lack of thinking is clear early on. In the first paragraph he offers this gem, "Often, I've inquired of non-believers if it at all vexes them that nothing they have ever done or will ever do will make the slightest difference to anyone at any level?" What?! Apparently, if you do not accept a one-size-fits-all meaning of life your life can not possibly have any meaning at all. It seems that Jacobs can not grasp that atheists have family, friends, interests, causes, etc... He goes on in much the same vein. The implication is that atheists must, by their nature, be miserable nihilists or else emotionless robots. I seem to recall that being a favorite tactic among anti-semites. Characterize Jews as less than human so you can then attack them with impunity.

Jacobs' piece only gets more absurd from there. He list three major points that he seems to think make his case that we atheists must either really believe or else be less than human. The points are framed in rather childish scenarios. The first is entitled, "Would you be willing to sell your parent's remains for dog food?" It seems that respect for the recently deceased requires belief in God. He seems to think that atheist have to think simply in terms of unemotional uses and needs. Atheist do have personal ethics and morals. In fact, I'd argue ours are stronger since they are primarily internal. We do not require any sort of external force to make us behave. The "God is watching" scenario is not necessary for us to do what is right. As for bodies, I personally do see burial and/or cremation as a waste. But I do not feel that I have any say over what happens to other peoples bodies. My own, I intend to be made useful. I am an organ donor and have thought about donating what can not be harvested for medical or scientific purposes. To me this "argument" is a rather negative reflection on Rabbi Jacobs both in terms of ethics and reasoning.

His other scenarios are no better. The next has to do with the imminent death of two enemies who happen to be stranded together on a desert island. A natural disaster is going to kill both men. Jacob asks whether it matters if they comfort each other or kill each other directly. He asks, "As no one will ever know what transpired and it will soon be over in any event..." Basically, he's gone back to the idea that you need some sort of big sky daddy to make you behave. He fails to see that in fact some one will know, at least briefly. The two men will know how they behaved in the face of their deaths. What they choose will matter to them. As a human being, I see that every choice I make matters. It matters regardless of there being no God.

His last point is probably one of the older canards routinely dredged up by fools like the Rabbi Jacobs. "Is love, art, beauty or morality intrinsically significant?" Yes, and it does not require belief in God to think so. He tries to use, in a rather distorted way, a naturalist perspective to show that if we are just "an arbitrary series of chemicals, atoms and other blind and indifferent forces..." that atheists should not find such things valuable. In terms of the big picture they do not have any ultimate value or meaning. But, once again, from the point of view of an individual they most certainly do. We have minds. Our perceptions are what give us meaning. It is from the individual point of view that love and all our emotions gain their power over our lives. That does not imply nor does it require the divine. It also does not mean that a materialistic/naturalist view is wrong. Try feeling anything with a severely damage brain.

I'm left with the impression that Rabbi Jacobs article is more about soothing his own fears by childishly attacking others than it is about making any points of substance. He does seem to dwell on death quite a bit. Whether it is his direct intention or not he also in various places implies that atheist are devoid of some of humanities most basic traits, that we are sub-human. The piece is essentially a work of bigotry without any support outside of myths, stereotypes, and other baseless misguided opinions. He is not a scholar and not, as best as I can tell, a very happy person.

Christians do "have it both ways": or why the AVN are a bunch of assholes

I recently became aware of the American Values Newtork's "Ayn Rand or Jesus" Campaign. It is thoroughly despicable. Aside from being incredibly ignorant and extremely bigoted it is also irrational, unethical, and plain old false. It is premised on demonizing atheists as a whole. The basic idea is to bash conservative Christian politicians for their praise of Ayn Rand. It is both amusing and irritating that the AVN ends up acting as a mirror image of those they attack. Conservatives who praise her politics completely ignore her personal life while the AVN focus on one aspect of her personal life to the exclusion of all else. In any case, I've never understood why people insist on using the ridiculous "guilt by association" political attack. Personally, I think Ayn Rand was a horrible human being with terrible political views. I don't see what either has to do with her having been an atheist.

If these idiots want to get into generalizations and the guilt by association tactic they would do well to fact check. Ayn Rand was conservative (libertarian and/or fiscal conservative) but the overwhelming majority of atheists tend to lean liberal. Rand was an adulterer. There is a correlation between fidelity and higher levels of intelligence, as well higher levels of secular attitudes and/or non-belief. There is also a correlation between non-belief and lower rates of crime. Attacking her personal morality, or lack there of, says nothing about other atheists once you start generalizing. If you pay attention to studies and statistics, on virtually every measure commonly used to verify morality atheists fair far better than theists.

The AVN also seem to be a bit off the mark when they claim that you have to choose between Rand and Jesus as role models/idols. If they weren't so ignorant and self-deluded they may have noticed that Christ isn't that wonderful. They attack Rand and through her conservatives as being selfish and greedy. Apparently they skipped over:
"And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? She hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always." Mark 14:3-7
Translation: The poor are always around so screw them. Me, I'm more important than the rest of you slobs so I deserve to be pampered.

Sounds to me like you can be Christian and still be an arrogant, greedy, selfish prick. Conservative Christians can have it both ways. In fact you can "have it both ways" on virtually anything you want within Christianity since the New Testament is loaded with contradictions. So why does the AVN find it necessary to demonize atheists. In politics, we could be allies. Instead, they have to behave like the scum they attack.