Friendly Atheist Can’t See the Elephant in the Room

The Friendly Atheist is dismayed by the fact that the 2016 Reason Rally was a flop:

That wasn’t supposed to happen. After all, our community has grown over the past four years, there was no rain this time around, and there were big-name celebrities on the speaking roster (though some of the most famous people on the list, including Johnny Depp, Margaret Cho, and Richard Dawkins, couldn’t ultimately participate for a variety of reasons).

No official crowd estimates have been released. But even in the early afternoon, when the crowd was likely at its peak, nothing I saw suggested “15,000 to 20,000” in attendance, as the organizers told Religion News Service. I’d put the range at about half of that, but we’ll see.

He then tries to explain such a low turnout with six excuses:

1) People didn’t know about the event.

2) The atheist “base” wasn’t particularly excited about the event.

3) Large segments of atheist activists were not represented onstage.

4) The event took place in the summer.

5) The novelty wore off.

6) There was no sense of urgency.

I find #1, 4, and 5 to be quite lame, as if Mehta was just trying to come up with as many possible excuses as he could regardless of their real world relevance.  Excuses #2 and #3 are just different angles on the same excuse, which happens to be the most interesting.  As Mehta explains:

Organizers made clear from the beginning that they wanted to appeal to a broader segment of the non-religious demographic. By inviting speakers who promote critical thinking in general, instead of ones who mostly focus on the problems with religion (like last time around), they hoped to draw even more people to the Rally. That may have backfired.

That’s not a criticism of the speakers. I’m just saying that if you want to draw committed atheist activists to the Rally, it helps to have speakers known for their commitment to atheist activism.

In other words, commitment to atheist activism is essentially the same as hating on religion (and we are told atheism is nothing more than a lack of god belief).   I mentioned before that the Reason Rally was evidence the New Atheists were being thrown under the bus and Mehta’s excuses work to confirm this. Basically, Mehta is arguing that many Gnus aren’t going to bother to show up at a rally that isn’t going to spew vitriolic anti-religious hate.  Yet the Gnus don’t seem to understand that such hateful speech has been damaging the larger atheist community by reinforcing the negative stereotypes about all atheists.  The Reason Rally was apparently designed to correct for that problem.

The Reason Rally along with Mehta’s excuses give us a glimpse of all the hand-wringing and infighting that is probably occurring in the activist atheist community.  We already knew about the ongoing war between the New Atheists and their SJW spin-offs.  Now we can see there is a third faction that is probably largely the old-school skeptic community that is trying to unite the community by appeasing everyone, but succeeding in angering everyone.  There must be a lot of finger-pointing going on.

Which brings us to Mehta’s last excuse.

I think this might be the most relevant one:

In 2012, marriage equality was still not a reality, and the Religious Right was still a powerful force in politics. While religious groups still have plenty of power, we’re currently in the midst of an election where Donald TrumpHillary Clinton, andBernie Sanders really don’t talk ad nauseum about their faith. They all claim to be religious, but I’m not worried about any of them making decisions based on the voices in their heads.

Even Trump’s bone-headed ideas aren’t idiotic for religious reasons; they’re just bad ideas, period.

I’ve been meaning to write a blog entry about the upcoming presidential election and how it spells deep trouble for the New Atheist community.  Put simply, because the atheist activist community is defined by nothing more than its hatred of religion,  the differing versions of atheism need a common enemy to unite them.  Take away the threat of the common enemy and the atheists are at each other’s throats.

Anyway, Mehta’s analysis simply shows that he doesn’t know how to think like a scientist.   Look, we have a simple hypothesis: since the New Atheist community “has grown over the past four years,” we would expect the second Reason Rally to be larger.  Thus, the 30,000 prediction.  But the data from the real world gives us a number closer to 10,000.  That is a huge discrepancy.  Instead of 50% growth, we see 50% shrinkage. At this point, instead of coming up with excuses to cling to the hypothesis, a good scientist might begin considering the hypothesis is fundamentally flawed.  Put simply, maybe there has been no significant growth in the New Atheist community.

The New Atheists often blind themselves to this possibility because they a) see an increase in the number of people who declares they are “Nones” and then b) ignore the simple fact that a “None” is not the same as a New Atheist.  The Gnus are victims of their own rhetoric.

What’s more, there is plenty of evidence to doubt any growth among the New Atheists.  The people who promote and defend New Atheism are the same small set of names we have seen for years.  There is precious little “new blood” among the New Atheist leadership.  What’s more, New Atheist books no longer break into the NYT bestsellers lists.  Dawkins last book was a flop.  Coyne’s book was a flop.  Harris is more focused on meditation and veganism.  And Boghossian’s army of street epistemologists exist only with the unicorns.  Add to this the fact that New Atheist’s like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are more likely to be criticized or mocked by the mainstream media than praised.  When you take this all in I think it safe to say that New Atheism is past its peak and is on the decline.  This hypothesis explains the low turnout at the Reason Rally with the greatest parsimony.

Look at it this way.  If  the New Atheist community has been growing the last four years, Mehta’s excuses don’t truly account for the low turnout. At best, they could account for a turnout that was the same in size as 2012, where new members cancel out the ones who didn’t attend for the reasons Mehta comes up with.  But if the community is stagnant in size, or shrinking in size, then Mehta’s excuses actually become relevant – explaining how a crowd of 20,000 was cut in half.


This entry was posted in atheism, atheist wars, New Atheism, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Friendly Atheist Can’t See the Elephant in the Room

  1. TFBW says:

    Mehta’s points #1 and #2 are related in a manner he doesn’t mention: the big names in atheism didn’t throw their weight behind the event, resulting in a lack of publicity. Last time, Dawkins got his little propaganda piece published in the newspaper, and gave a speech in person at the rally. This time, he dusted off his old article and posted it on his own website, then phoned in a five minute video segment (which I can’t even find on YouTube), and told the press he wouldn’t be attending (try to find coverage of that not attributable to Religion News Service).

    We already knew about the ongoing war between the New Atheists and their SJW spin-offs. Now we can see there is a third faction that is probably largely the old-school skeptic community that is trying to unite the community by appeasing everyone, but succeeding in angering everyone.

    Perhaps it’s actually just the New Atheists vs the SJWs again. Atheist perspective here: (found while attempting to find the Dawkins video).

  2. stcordova says:

    The culture has become secularized, thus New Athiesm got Old real quick, hence the lack of enthusiasm since it’s nothing new anymore.

  3. TFBW says:

    @stcordova, you think that the USA became secularised in between the first and second reason rallies, and this explains the relative failure of the second one? I think I must have misunderstood you, but I don’t see what else you can mean.

    In other news, I’ve finally come across the Richard Dawkins 2016 Reason Rally Speech on YouTube. It’s possible that the reason I couldn’t find it the first time is because it wasn’t online yet: the date of posting on the video is the same as the date of my earlier comment, above: June 8. Go figure.

    The Dawkins video is tedious and stale, brimming over with his usual fawning praise for Darwin, anti-religious politics, and face-palm philosophical incompetence. It may have been received positively by his fan-base, but most of the fan comments on YouTube lament the fact that he chose to endorse an event that’s been hijacked by feminists and SJWs.

    For my part, I have but one comment to make on the presentation. At 1:22, he says, “‘God did it’ can never be an explanation for anything.” This is the ultimate confession of a Closed Mind. If such a statement were to come at the end of an argument proving that God does not exist, or that God does not interact with the universe, then it would be a perfectly valid conclusion. But, of course, it comes in no such context. It is prescriptive, not descriptive; a demanded code of behaviour, not a logical consequence. He goes on at some length about how tempting it is to ascribe a God to all the wonders of nature, but we must resist the temptation and never do that, because that would be intellectually lazy and irresponsible (says he).

    The one key point he never addresses explicitly is, “what if it’s true?” What if all that temptation to believe in a God is simply the result of God flooding us with evidence of His existence — trying to make it conspicuous that He exists, and He created? What if “God did it” happens to be entirely true in this case? Must we, as good practitioners of science, commit to reaching the wrong conclusion if that is so?

    Clearly, that would be stupid. It is, however, the conclusion to which Dawkins’ prescription inevitably leads us. Ergo, Dawkins is promoting complete and utter intellectual stupidity. Sadly, this is not a new development, but just a stronger and clearer version of the same stupidity he’s been eloquently promoting for decades.

  4. carlosmoya79 says:

    > Put simply, because the atheist activist community is defined by nothing more than its hatred of religion, the differing versions of atheism need a common enemy to unite them. Take away the threat of the common enemy and the atheists are at each other’s throats.

    More like atheist activism is defined by nothing more than being hated by religion. Take away all religious privilege, and most atheist people couldn’t be any happier.

  5. Kevin says:

    “More like atheist activism is defined by nothing more than being hated by religion.”

    Let’s test that theory.

    “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins
    “Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.” – Richard Dawkins
    “Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that.” – Richard Dawkins

    “It is time that we admitted that faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail.” – Sam Harris
    “The problem with religion, because it’s been sheltered from criticism, is that it allows people to believe en masse what only idiots or lunatics could believe in isolation.” – Sam Harris
    “We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself.” – Sam Harris

    “Religion is but a single brand of superstition (others include beliefs in astrology, paranormal phenomena, homeopathy, and spiritual healing), but it is the most widespread and harmful form of superstition.” – Jerry Coyne
    “Somehow—and this will never happen, of course—it should be illegal to indoctrinate children with religious belief.” – Jerry Coyne

    “Faith is an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue.” – Peter Boghossian
    “We must reconceptualize faith as a virus of the mind … and treat faith like other epidemiological crises: contain and eradicate.” – Peter Boghossian
    “It is crucial that the religious exemption for delusion be removed from the DSM. Once religious delusions are integrated into the DSM, entirely new categories of research and treatment into the problem of faith can be created. These will include removal of existing ethical barriers, changing treatments covered by insurance, including faith-based special education programs in the schools, helping children who have been indoctrinated into a faith tradition, and legitimizing interventions designed to rid subjects of the faith affliction.” – Peter Boghossian

    Now then, do these sound like people who are unhappy religious people don’t like them? Or…do these sound like people who hate religion? Because every one of these statements will make religious people really not like them – particularly Boghossian’s Soviet-style beliefs.

    Another question – what is religious privilege?

  6. TFBW says:

    More like atheist activism is defined by nothing more than being hated by religion.

    That would be atheist passivism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.