What kind of diversity?


On Values








On Diversity














7 Responses to What kind of diversity?

  1. YAY TOM!
    This kind of thinking is why, even though I don’t generally participate in “movement atheism” (I don’t object to individualized religion, it’s just not for me, and as I go to a Christian university for grad school, if I did object, I’d be at it all day, for example), I would be proud to be classed as part of A+. People only call this sort of thing “divisiveness” when they know they’re wrong >:(

    (p.s. your link is busted somehow – it’s taken over half the post.)

  2. Bravo! I’d like to think that if we could get a few of the people who are stubbornly against the concept without having thought very deeply about it to read this it might change their minds, but if I’ve learned one thing from the last few months it’s that atheists aren’t necessarily all that interested in thinking very deeply about anything now that they’ve realised gods don’t exist.

    But for every white d00d who’s mocking it on Twitter there are ten comments on blog posts from people for whom it’s a positive step. And that’s great.

  3. Bronze Dog says:

    Glad to see you’re also on board, Tom.

    It’s been disturbing to see some of the fallacies and straw men in particular thrown up by the opposition. Had one named Azrael something over at Greta’s who expressed being incredulous about how being more selective about who we accept would lead to greater diversity, and I explained the point about how excluding bigots (a small group) would make us more inclusive to larger, more diverse groups (women, LGBT people, minority races). So then he asserted that I was arguing in favor basing our morality on popularity, not merely explaining how discriminating against bigots “counter-intuitively” (a ‘well, duh!’ to anyone paying attention to human society and these issues) leads to a net gain in diversity. Head, meet desk.

    It’s also a bit disturbing to see these people apparently learn nothing from being in a minority. We usually don’t have it as bad as other minorities, but I would think that would still provide a basis for some sympathy when the same discriminatory tropes used against us are easily interchangeable with the tropes used against those other minorities. Reminds me of Jefferson assuring a Baptist church that the wall of separation would protect their minority religion from government discrimination. Now we’ve got Baptists who’ve conveniently forgotten that lesson.

  4. skeptico says:

    I agree with everything here, of course. Except, isn’t “Atheism+” just “Skepticism”? (Or perhaps “Skepticism+” since many skeptics, apparently, aren’t when certain subjects are discussed.) Or maybe just critical thinking? I’m just not sure why social justice, non discrimination etc is especially attached to atheism rather than critical thinking in general.

  5. skeptico wrote:”Except, isn’t “Atheism+” just “Skepticism”?”

    You’d think so, but considering how many people in the atheist/skeptic community have made it clear they disagree (both directly and indirectly), presumably those involved in the breakaway decided it was easier to rebrand than to keep on fighting what appeared to be a losing battle.

  6. Doubting Tom says:

    @Dust.Wind.Bun: Thanks for the help on the link. I do think this is divisive, in that it explicitly leaves some people out. But then, what movement isn’t? Every group that forms around something other than holding hands and singing kumbaya is going to leave some people out, usually by definition. Lots of people are left out of dictionary atheism (i.e., all non-atheists), and even more people are left out of movement atheism (atheist religionists like the Raelians, golden-mean agnostics, litigious assholes like Patrick Greene, wannabe religionists like Alain de Botton to some degree, etc.), and Atheism+ exists specifically as a label for the people who have sided against (or been sided against by) the anti-social-justice wing of the atheoskeptical movement.

    @Bronze Dog: I’ve had some seriously bizarre arguments over this. One on Twitter had a guy trying to condemn all of A+/FtB because Richard Carrier used an ableist slur in a comment section (which I’m glad he’s apologized for and repudiated, though I think he misses a lot of the point about what a slur is), but defending the slur-hurlers among the anti-feminists because he judges groups by group actions, and individuals for individual actions, or something. It was the most bent-over-backward bit of special pleading I’d seen in awhile.

    And every example of that sort of double-standard, or the kinds of distortions that people are making, which appears to be necessary to argue against these social justice ideals, convinces me further that this is the more reality-oriented position. If you have to distort reality to make your case, it suggests your case is not very strong.

    @Skeptico: I think that social justice positions result (at least in part, at least for some) from applying skepticism/critical thinking to social conventions and statuses. Like, questioning the assumptions that gender roles are inherent or positive, questioning the idea that gender is a perfect binary system, those sorts of things. I think other stuff has to go into it–examining the evidence and realizing that gender isn’t naturally or necessarily as simple as male/female or genital shape doesn’t get you to pro-trans* activism; for that you need also a commitment to truth and equality and empathy and so forth.

    So yeah, skepticism-plus-values, which is what organized skepticism has always been about. Skepticism is simply the refusal to accept a claim which has not been supported by solid evidence, but organized skepticism–the kind that forms the basis for magazines and conferences and blogs and books and podcasts–has been described as “the intersection between science education and consumer protection.” Education and protection are values, or at least rely on them. Nothing about “skeptic” suggests that you must or ought to speak to the media, debunk stupid claims, or educate others. It just means you have standards of evidence for your beliefs.

    The reason for “Atheism+” is much the same as the reason for “atheism.” Atheism is (for many) the result of applying skepticism to the god question. Movement atheism, I think, simply builds on the methods and values of organized skepticism, but with a shift in focus. The consumers they’re protecting are largely religious believers and the people duped and victimized by religionists, and the science education focuses mostly on counterapologetics and branches of science opposed by religious groups.

    The other reason has more to do with the leadership of organized skepticism, which has largely gone out of its way to avoid tackling religious subjects, in favor of increased diversity. The old guard of organized skepticism has carved out a niche arguing against certain subjects and is quite happy staying there, thank you very much. Movement atheism chose the term because it implies a different focal point, and rejects the arbitrary boundaries set up by the comfortable skeptics.

    And that, I think, is one of the points against “Atheism+” as a term, because it suggests the same focal point, just with other stuff on it. And I share some of Natalie Reed’s worries on that point. I think she was spot-on with suggesting that some atheists call themselves that because it’s the only way that they, as white middle-class cisgendered straight men, can legitimately claim to be part of a disadvantaged minority, or that they think theism is the most important civil rights issue. I agree that it’s important, I even agree that it’s foundational for a lot of the other problems, but I’m not sure that it’s the most important–at least, not with how movement atheists tend to focus on addressing it.

    But it does do the other thing that “atheism” as a term does with respect to organized skepticism: suggest a rejection of the arbitrary lines in the sand drawn by various movement atheists. And I think that’s a good thing, that’s valuable, and that’s something that was already happening and really just needed a name.

    Wowbagger: I think that’s a big part of it too. There’s a certain “let the assholes have the old term/movement” sentiment that I don’t wholly disagree with. But I remember conversations among skeptics about the same thing–“let the climate deniers and antivaxxers have it” and such. And the Gnu Atheists have more or less done just that with the term “skeptic,” as there are places where the term–for good or ill, accurate or inaccurate–carries connotations of conservatism/libertarianism and anti-social-justice positions, and reluctance to address religion.

  7. @blamer says:

    Some of the support for A+ in the OP seems to suggest the vast majority of groups are keen to accept anti-harassment policies for their conferences, even if major players like TAM are rejecting the idea.


    This means A+ is a description of what’s already happening within the movement, which is essentially a collection of groups hosting their own conferences, blogs, etc.

    So what sounds like a call to action for readers/members to make an explicit stand with or against what the Big Boys are choosing for themselves (weak on feminism, lax on threatening comments), is roughly translating to a gentle reminder that all groups/blogs great-and-small ought to choose their own policies autonomously and ought to care about their own future membership/readership.

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: