Interview with Becky Garrison, author of The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail

I may not agree with you on everything, but you’ll probably be one of Dawkins’ more interesting “fleas.” 🙂 Anyway, I have three questions:

First, what did you specifically expect Dennett to get from N.T. Wright, Jürgen Moltmann, or Walter Bruggeman that would relate to what he was talking about?

Second, what are some examples where you found the “New Atheists” to be just plain factually wrong?

Third, what are your thoughts on the “Courtier’s Reply”?

Thanks for posting this. This view certainly gives a different kind of angle on the debates.

Regarding the issue of the argument that people should not have the “right” to believe in God it is true to your point that no one ever says it directly. However, it is certainly a strong implication of the probable end of the argument, for instance, that Dawkins makes regarding “liberal” or “progressive” beliefs in God. He makes a very unambiguous point that beliefs in God of the liberal or progressive sort actually justify and legitimate those of the more fundamentalist and exclusionary sort that he more clearly argues against. By flattening the distinction he is clearly arguing that all faith is therefore dangerous based on the assumption that it is impossible to engage on rational grounds. It is not rational to say that you have a right to believe in something that will legitimate beliefs that are dangerous to human welfare. He therefore flattens the nuances in faith and reason in order to make a rhetorical distinction between them.

However interesting the rhetorical strategy is, it is wrong. There are indeed nuances and there is no evidence to suggest that a progressive or liberal believer in God legitimates the fundie as much as there is evidence that an atheist legitimates that kind of belief. I use the debates (if you want to even call them that) regarding the Golden Compass. Liberal/progressives are not the ones making the claims that it is a hostile film/book to God. Rather on many a blog of this character I have read of pastors taking youth groups to see the film, seminarians now prompted to read the book, etc. in clear opposition to Catholic League and so many Baptist injunctions to boycott the film. Why do they engage it? Because it makes a critical commentary on the church and especially its political manifestations of God that have clearly lead to human atrocity.

So did the liberal legitimate the fundie here? No. The atheist gave the fundie fuel to refocus and further reify the reason for their existence, those who do not believe the way they do. For that level of legitimation Pullman and Rowan Williams as well as the Dalai Lama and Christopher Hitchens are likely all of equal “guilt” for perpetuating the faith of the fundamentalist. And it’s not their fault. Thus the rhetorical strategy betrays the evidence since none is presented. This is a classic “straw man” argument made by Dawkins and I have seen it take on numerous forms with the same powerful rhetorical punch that is empty of any meaningful content whatsoever. Kind of like an argument Coulter would make (although I would much rather spend my time with Dawkins any day, nor is Dawkins a blemish on civilization 🙂

What the “New Atheists” fail to do consistently is connect their epistemological claims with the social effects and probable ends as evident in different manifestations of belief. That is why this argument which flattens any kind of distinctions between types of faith and how beliefs are rendered in different social phenomenon ultimately fails.

She sounds like an idiot to me. Sorry to be frank, but I started reading the interview to see what she would have to say in response to Hemant, and to see if I might want to read her book. But her responses here are just a load of crap. I wouldn’t waste my money to hear any more of what she has to say. If she’s a satirist, she’s not a good one.

Oh, Hemant, about “citing the opposite of a Bright as a Dim (instead of a Super),” I’d say that while “Super” is the quasi-official opposite of a “Bright,” it is overly charitable to say that the noun “Bright” is not meant to imply that non-Brights are at least “dimmer” or less smart on account of their beliefs.

My suggestion to those who don’t want to be called “Brights” is to take it up with those that taught me the term.

My suggestion is that she should do her own research instead of relying on other articles for her “facts.” There’s no secret about what a Bright is and who uses the term.

It’s a basic requirement of any writing – satire or not – to at least get the terms correct and spell peoples’ names right. That she gets the terminology wrong off the bat is pretty telling in terms of her integrity and professionalism.

You equate Sam Harris to Ann Coulter

That’s completely absurd, and I agree with Hemant – it is infuriating and wrong for so many reasons. I have to wonder if she even bothered to read Harris’s books?

As I noted in my book, how anyone can publish a book filled with anti-God diatribes and then not allow the person who penned this poison to get into the ring and go the distance with a seasoned satirist remains a mystery.

I have to laugh at this innuendo that Hitchens is scared to “go the distance” with such a seasoned satirist; it’s more likely that he would eat her for breakfast. Hitchens answers his critics and debates constantly; it’s his prerogative if he doesn’t want his work excerpted in a book that’s outwardly hostile. His online writing is more than sufficient to serve as fodder for her “satire” if she had the chops to take him on.

Here I would beg to differ. I see no difference in the New Atheists’ tone and tactics from that of say Focus on the Family.

Riiiiight. Because Dennett and Harris are so busy building up huge political organizations, and soliciting donations, and founding state subgroups to effect changes in the laws, and lobbying politicians, and talking to the White House, and campaigning, and trying to get their agendas into public schools ….

To even begin to make that comparison is absurd, and further evidence to me that the author is too sloppy to take the time to research either group (NAs or FOtF).

If Harris believes the latter, then I’d suggest he refrain from penning articles with inflammatory titles such as “There Is No God (and You Know It)” (The Huffington Post).

The author claims to be a satirical writer. If that’s true, how could she be unaware that writers do not put headlines or title on their articles? In this case, it’s likely that HuffPo put the most inflammatory, attention-getting headline possible on the article, which states quite clearly that it is “an excerpt from An Atheist Manifesto.”

We can’t explore this question in a meaningful manner dialogue as long as Christian fundamentalists or their secular counterparts choose to demonize the other.

So why is she writing something so antagonistic? Even if she’s not a Christian fundamentalist, she’s certainly contributing to the “demonizing” going on – and kicking it up, in fact. Where’s the meaningful dialogue in that?

This is a very disappointing effort. As a Christian, I was a big fan of the Wittenburg Door way back when it first started. They used to hold one of the few small niches of reason and liberal thought within Christianity (though they ventured into that territory through satire rather than through outright argument).

They are the kind of place that could do a great job of helping Christians understand atheism and what motivates the new militancy amongst atheists. It seems that this is a major missed opportunity to do that.

So, please don’t take everything I say at face value. When fellow satirist Jonathan Swift penned “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public” back in 1729, he never intended that the poor actually eat their own children as a means to alleviate poverty. Rather, as an Anglican clergyman living in Ireland, he employed his satirical skills to address the massive ills he saw before him. Likewise, while I make my statements with my tongue firmly implanted inside my cheek, buried beneath the literal text are golden grains of truth.

This woman irritates me. First, there’s the rather transparent “hey guys I’m just joking only I’m not” security blanket; if anyone is offended by her words, she can simply claim she was joking, but then she can turn around and claim that the exact same text makes legitimate points.

Sure, Swift did do that, but she’s no Swift, and calling Swift a “fellow satirist” doesn’t make it true. As long as we’re on the subject, is there any particular reason that she felt the need to write out the entire title of A Modest Proposal, other than to be a pretentious twit? It’s like me saying, “Hey, have you read The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders, Etc. Who was born in Newgate, and during a life of continu’d Variety for Threescore Years, besides her Childhood, was Twelve Year a Whore, five times a Wife (whereof once to her own brother), Twelve Year a Thief, Eight Year a Transported Felon in Virginia, at last grew Rich, liv’d Honest and died a Penitent. Written from her own Memorandums? It was pretty good.”

She called herself a satirist four times in that article. And all four times, it was completely pointless and awkward. I get it, you think you’re funny. Let’s move on, shall we? It’s worse than those college-jocks with slicked-back hair and school jerseys that try to call themselves “punk rockers.”

And yes, while I think she’s annoying, I have to agree with the thing about Dawkins and religion/rape. That’s pretty messed up. I mean, using religion to justify horrible things is bad, but why would he choose to remove a corrupt medium over one of the very symptoms of corruption that medium is used to justify?

Feel free to correct me if I’m out of context; I haven’t read the book in question, so I’m just going on what I read here.

Garrison chose to take on the “Four Horsemen”, a crowd of easy marks to say the least.

Why did she ignore the work of serious atheist scholars and philosophers instead?

To use her own words, how can anyone pen a book critiquing atheism and yet refuse to engage with serious atheist thinkers like JL Mackie, Bertrand Russell, and Andre Comte-Sponville?

Or did she, just as those she criticizes, pick her targets based on what she wanted to write about?

Yes, Ramsey, Courtier’s Reply indeed.

Becky Garrison wrote:

So, perhaps certain contemporary Darwinians could take a page from Darwin’s playbook and follow not just his methodology but also his manners.

Becky Garrison, this is a REALLY weird segue. I thought we were talking about atheism and atheists… and then you slide over and describe us as “Darwinians”? Is is really the same thing in your mind? Has Christianity gone so far out into fantasyland that the word atheist is synonymous with “people who aren’t in complete denial of modern biology?” Because, silly me, I do try to separate the two. I don’t say “creationist” when I mean “Christian”. I don’t say “Christian” when I mean creationist.

But also, listen, you chose to write about the “Four Horsemen”. That was your choice.

Care to write something to and about average atheists? Regular people who don’t care to make you believe something different. Real people who love their families, pay their taxes, serve their country, work for peace and justice just as hopefully you do…

You do know that these Horsemen are not our elected representatives. They were not chosen by us to speak for us, and they do not. They speak for themselves of their own thoughts and desires.

You wrote:

“Doesn’t look to me like they’ve come up with any comprehensive anti-God evangelism campaign whatsoever.”

I say YES! GOOD! We’re not evangelical “convert the world” missionaries. Hurray! I hope we never, ever do come up with anything of the sort. Can’t you give us any credit at all for this? Isn’t this a good thing?

This is good! We’re not the Borg. We’re not the hivemind trying to get you to assimilate. For all your Darth Vader Stormtrooper analogies about atheists, you missed the point: We’re not locksteppers… never were.

Organizing atheists is like herding cats. God bless atheists for that point.

Becky Garrison, sorry, but you are missing the clarity of a good satirist. You lack the ability to set yourself apart of your own prejudices and see human folly for what it is, even (and especially!) when it’s your own.

You seem well practiced in vollying attacks then claim them to be merely japes when someone disagrees. For instance, is this next quote hyperbole as jest, or is it an actual claim?

As an outsider looking in, “select” New Atheists seem to have proclaimed Darwin as their God. If that is not the case, then I suggest they dial down their rhetoric and allow for a more nuanced discussion instead of speaking in absolutes.

I’d say that is not only an absolute statement on your part, but gross, gross, gross hyperbole.

This is EXACTLY the kind of non-nuanced, extremist malarkey we face all the time, just for saying “sorry, ma’am, but we don’t follow your religion, please listen to us, as we share the world with you too.” How can you make a plea for a nuanced discussion in the same graph as saying we’ve proclaimed one 19th Century British naturalist as a God on Earth? I have no reverence for Darwin. He’s nothing but an old dead guy. I’d take a shit on Darwin’s grave if it wasn’t in the middle of a church, ironically, whose sanctity I respect. With all due respect, and with much undue respect, you seem to be the one with the polarizing language here.

You don’t want nuanced discussion or a dialed-down rhetoric. If you did, you would talk in a nuanced way with dialed-down rhetoric. You’d show us by action that dialogue can and should be nuanced and gracious.

The “Four Horsemen”, or three of them anyway, seem to have learned their style from their opponents. You set your style based on theirs. A pity neither them or you seem to want to break that cycle.

I guess cheek-turning is so first-century.

I’m annoyed she has no answers for many of your questions. It seems she just wants to say “some atheists are mean”. So what? Some Christians are mean. It’s irrelevant to why we believe the way we do.

Take this one for example:

HM: There’s a part where you quote someone saying “The scientific method… cannot measure love and joy in a family. But it can measure a growing bank account, larger cars, and increasingly sophisticated gadgets.” You go on to say “In the end, which matters more?” This is a false dichotomy. It’s not that atheists want science to be the end-all-be-all for everything. But it’s the best method we have of discovering the truth. By using the quotation, you seem to be implying that the reason people use the scientific method is for their own self interest.

BG: I am quoting from Ron Sider’s seminal book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. Here you raise the question that has plagued scientists, philosophers and theologians throughout centuries – “What is truth?” We can’t explore this question in a meaningful manner dialogue as long as Christian fundamentalists or their secular counterparts choose to demonize the other.

You raise a valid point, and she waves it off with a “we need to be nicer to each other before we can talk about that”. Which is lame.

Not only that, the part about not “measuring love and joy in a family” bit is wrong. Science can explain why those make us happy, we’ve evolved to like them because they’re beneficial to us.

And this statement is just obnoxious:

HM: Obviously, no atheist considers evolution or science to be a religion. Hell, with proper evidence, good science can be overturned, whereas God is always supposed to be perfect and never changing. When do the New Atheists treat science as a religion?

BG: In a nutshell, there are limits to every discipline, a point those with a humble heart recognize and accept. As an outsider looking in, “select” New Atheists seem to have proclaimed Darwin as their God. If that is not the case, then I suggest they dial down their rhetoric and allow for a more nuanced discussion instead of speaking in absolutes.

If she’s been talking to atheists, she hasn’t learned anything. She doesn’t even attempt to understand your position (“outsider looking in” is code for “half-assed ignorant statement”). Hell, I have a good understanding of why people are religious, I just think they’re wrong.

You raise a good critique of her logic, and she goes right back to the hand-wavey “but they’re meeeeeeaaaan”.

It’s disappointing. You can’t satirize something if you don’t understand it, and it’s obvious she hasn’t done her homework.

Garrison’s tactics are deplorable. Then when called to account on her glaring distortions, she responds with still more distortions. Her book may serve to prolong the smugness of intellectually bankrupt theists just a little bit longer. But a finger in the dike can’t turn back the ocean forever.

In the end, the aggrieved theists will have to either retreat from rationality altogether or come around to the correctness of the prescient “four horsemen.”

Funny how Garrison, like other atheist-bashers, continues to use the language of religion in her attacks. Then the disgustingly cliched idea that those who oppose “god” should be “nicer” about it. Well there’s no nice way to call someone delusional, nor is there a nice way to call someone a liar.

Garrison’s strategy will backfire, and she will become merely a footnote among other apologists with her hackneyed, poorly researched, slippery, and profoundly unfunny book.

Sorry, Mike.. I wasn’t noticing the possibility that I was not part of those you were condemning.

I thought I was automatically busted for not immediately and forthrightly condemning Hitchens as an outright cad at my first opportunity!

One note about Becky Garrison’s writing. I think the wheels came totally off the wagon with this phrase:

Likewise, while I make my statements with my tongue firmly implanted inside my cheek, buried beneath the literal text are golden grains of truth.

Someone needs to learn the power of self-deprecation. Possibly all satirists are their own biggest fan. The good ones almost convince you that they’re not. She’s not even trying.

One has to be humble when one’s so great as I. And that’s a golden grain of truth from my font of infinite wisdom, you filthy pigs. Lap it up.

Did I mention that like Swift I am a brilliant Satirist? You remember Swift don’t you, or shall I share my wonderful knowlege about my colleague, the genius satirist Swift from my wellspring of “the one thing everyone knows about Swift from 10th grade English Literature”?

Allow me to educate you, pigs!

BG wrote,

These four horsemen of the Atheist Apocalypse come off just as odious and obnoxious as the most obstinate “family values” fanatics.

I haven’t read Hitchens’ book yet, but I have read the recent books on atheism by the other three “horsemen”. Is my perception so warped and biased that I have completely missed the “odious and obnoxious” bits? Can anyone help me find which parts were so horrible?

Has everyone watched the two hour conversation between the four atheist authors? (You can find it on the Dawkins site or on Google video.) To me they seem to be having a perfectly civil and polite discussion.

It’s often said that Dawkins and co. are just as extreme as religious fanatics on the other side. I don’t see such a balanced symmetry. Who is the most extreme atheist out there now? Maybe members of the RRS? But I don’t think they have even wished for anyone’s death, let alone bomb an abortion clinic or picket a funeral. Yet great numbers of religious people have wished damnation on their enemies, which is a fate worst than the pure oblivion of death as most atheists see it.

BG wrote,

Meanwhile, this scientist ridicules the efforts of fellow scientists Francis Collins, Joan Roughgarden and Keith Miller when they discuss the intersection of science and religion.

I think she meant Kenneth Miller, the Catholic Biologist involved in the Dover trial. He has some great presentations on evolution if you search on YouTube.

[Hemant says: BG acknowledged this error. She did mean to say Kenneth Miller. I made the change above.]

So you guys are seriously just going to give Hitchens a pass on refusing to let his book be used by a critical author?

According to her book AND what she said above, it wasn’t Hitchens who refused but his publishers, so yes, he gets a pass. So, not only was it a mighty quick jump to a condemnation, it was unjustified on the facts as given.

If she had really wanted to quote him, she could have, regardless of his publisher’s wishes, as both satire and parody are considered fair use. Of course, they might have wanted her to prove that her writing was either, and that might have a little too much to ask.

Sorry, Hemant, I’m all for dialogue, but after the way she blew off your questions, it doesn’t seem worthwhile to ask her anything. All it would do is give her another opportunity to bloviate.

Drew, you said:

It is not rational to say that you have a right to believe in something that will legitimate beliefs that are dangerous to human welfare.

I’m going to have to interpret this, as I can’t actually parse it, but I’m assuming you mean that it is not rational to believe that people have a right to believe in something that you have legitimate reasons to believe will be dangerous to human welfare.

Given this, does this mean that it is not rational to believe that Christian Scientists have a right to believe that they should refuse blood transfusions? It would certainly seem to be the case that there are legitimate reasons to believe that refusing a blood transfusion could be dangerous to their welfare.

What I would really like is an answer to a question that Hemant asked but didn’t get a real answer to, which is where Harris said anything like “an event such as 9/11 proves there is no God.”

How about a citation of the source, instead of criticizing him for the one part of an article that he didn’t write (the headline, as Karen pointed out)?

Unless, of course, he never said it…

I don’t have questions for her after seeing how evasive and shallow her responses were. The “I’m joking, no wait I’m not, no wait I am” fallback rigmarole is dishonest and lame.

The comparison to Ann Coulter is ridiculous for Harris (who you must admit develops powerful and well-reasoned arguments even if you don’t agree with him) but pretty much fits her pretty well: the breezy and quotemine heavy refusal to actually engage seriously with arguments, using humor as a means to ring emotional bells but avoid substantive issues, and so on. I use humor in my pieces too. But I don’t use it as a substitute for making sense or as a cover for misleading people. When I poison the well, I make it obvious, not try to couch it as a serious critique.

If you consider her a friend, Mike, then I hope you see her as a friend who needs a lot of help.

which is where Harris said anything like “an event such as 9/11 proves there is no God.”

That statement doesn’t even make sense. The first thing an atheist knows is that there’s no way to prove – or disprove – the existence of god. I cannot fathom that he would have said that, or intimated it.

Of course, he does distinctly say that 9/11 made him recognize that faith is dangerous and needs to come to an end. That’s the premise of his book, The End of Faith.

How about a citation of the source, instead of criticizing him for the one part of an article that he didn’t write (the headline, as Karen pointed out)?

I can’t guarantee that he didn’t write that headline, but it would be highly unusual for him to have written it. Something this author should know, if she’s an editor. Headlines are the responsibility of the editors, not of the writers. There’s nothing more annoying to writers than to get yelled at by an irate reader for some dumbass headline that you didn’t even write …. 😉

HM: You write:

“I fully understand why New Atheists like Sam Harris believe an event such as 9/11 proves there is no God.”

(p. 84)

When did Harris write that? Do you know the difference between saying there is no god versus not believing that one exists in the first place? The New Atheists never say the former, just the latter.

BG: If Harris believes the latter, then I’d suggest he refrain from penning articles with inflammatory titles such as “There Is No God (and You Know It)” (The Huffington Post).

Well, she’s right there. He should not have written that. Her other answers seemed kind of confusing and all over the map….

Karen said:

The first thing an atheist knows is that there’s no way to prove – or disprove – the existence of god.

You know that, I know that, apparently someone didn’t do her research. Maybe ‘satirists’ don’t have to.

Headlines are written last, by the editor, because they need to fit into whatever space is available. Or at least that’s how it used to be, in newspapers. I’m not sure how the internet has changed that, if it has. But either way, her answer wasn’t an answer, it was just using the question as a forum to say something else nasty about him.

I’ll still never understand militant when referring to atheists. Strident, passionate, etc, but never “militant”. Nor fundamentalist either.

Atheists have never blown up buildings, rammed planes into buildings, blown up or shot up abortionist clinics, or waged war for centuries over “holy land”. If atheists are militant, what the hell, used for irony :P, does that make theists?

moebius2778

I think you misunderstood the part of my argument that you quoted. What you quoted was my summary of the argument that Dawkins specifically makes in The God Delusion and that others make in different forms as well. I am making the case that this is an incorrect assumption to make given the flattening of all manifestations of faith that Dawkins makes in his argument. It is this flattening rhetoric that erects a classic straw man on his part.

Hope this helps. I did post this argument in a much more nuanced fashion over on my blog under Atheist Inquistions in a few different posts if you are at all interested in pursuing it.

‘Garrison turns aside the atheists’ assault without ignoring its real criticisms, namely, the church’s inadequate response to war, evolution, medical ethics, social justice, and other important issues in the post-9/11 world.’

I see.

So these atheist books never have any real criticisms of the arguments that God exists?

‘You don’t argue against Christopher Hitchens because his publishers did not let you excerpt any material from God is Not Great.’

It was his publishers, not Hitchens, who refused to allow excerpts.

Perhaps they were acting under orders from Christopher Hitchens.

Who can say?

As to whether scientists agree with the idea of memes, has she read Dan Gilbert’s “Stumbling On Happiness”? Gilbert is a psychologist (thus more qualified to discuss the process of belief than either a generic “scientist” or a philosopher) and he comes up with an idea strikingly similar to the meme apparently independently from Dennett. His explanation is also almost certainly better written than Dennett’s and easier for the layperson to understand.

Further, does she herself understand the idea of a meme? The comment she references that a meme is indistinguishable from a belief is particularly telling – a meme is a belief. To complain about that betrays a huge misunderstanding about what the concept of a meme is supposed to convey. If she herself understands that concept, then why quote someone who lacks the ability to? If she doesn’t understand it, in what sense does she think she can satirize it? I’m sure she wouldn’t appreciate me satirizing the Trinity because I’ve never taken the time to understand what appears, on the surface, to be a truly insane idea.

Let me be clear: generally I think Dennett is kind of a nut. A lot of his most serious arguments that I’ve read are either fallacious, meaningless, or both. With memes, though, I cannot see him being mistaken. I have yet to hear a convincing attack on the meme, and I’m hoping she might offer one (or, at least, point me to one).

I wonder what Garrison’s response would be to what Daniel Dennet said recently (discussed at http://www.atheistethicist.blogspot.com in this post).

In short – that people are justified in criticizing certain aspects of religious faith in harsh tones because of the particular dangers they pose to others.