But what scientific issue could possibly divide men and women of reason and logic? What intellectual debate could cause such a rift in the world of the Godless.
The answer is simple.
ELEVATOR ETIQUETTE. (Or to my British friends "LIFT ETIQUETTE")
The story is a true tour de force of childish bickering and shrieking, hysterical overreactions.
Let me introduce the heroes/villains of the story.
First there is Rebecca Watson, a 30 year old Boston native divorcee and atheist of no discernible expertise or talents. Well-known amongst skeptics and atheists as the founder of "Skepchick" a group of skeptical, feminist, "chicks" (figure that one out), and regular podcaster. Her claim to fame is being both a skeptic and a female. Her average looks and frequent, crass, sexual comments afford her generous attention from the legions of drooling, geek-lord fans at events such as Dragon*Con and TAM, not to mention weekly audiences in the tens of thousands for her podcast contributions.
Next we have the atheists' "god" himself Richard Dawkins. 70 year old Kenyan born British evolutionary biologist, educated at Oxford, a 2 time divorcee, AKA Darwin's rottweiler. Hater of all religions, atheist activist, author and media personality.
Now the stage is set, lets explain the story. Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson, (the one who is always talking about sex on the "Skeptics guide to the universe"), was giving a talk at a Hotel in Dublin (the subject of the talk was feminism and the objectification of women), on her way back to her room she was allegedly, possibly propositioned by a man in an elevator.
He said he "found her very interesting", and would she like to get some coffee in his hotel room?
Well, aghast at this, she declined, then proceeded to blog about how all men were insensitive meanies.
Richard Dawkins, presumably drunk on port, or sherry perhaps, decided that he would chime in on the video blog with an incredibly childish and sarcastic post about how Muslim women should stop complaining because of poor little Rebecca's plight.
After confirming it was in fact Dawkins and not a 13 year old troll, it turned into an all out flame war. With all the big names coming down on Skepchick's side. Phil Plait, the bad astronomer, former president of the JREF, hysterically claiming that she was a hair's breadth away from being raped. Even PZ Meyers chimed in with a critique on Dawkins, as did of course, any and all atheists without penises.
Watson, presumably emboldened by her new found and somewhat more mainstream attention encouraged her drooling, hairy palmed male fans and fellow female skeptic(s) to join hands in boycotting all things Dawkins until he apologises. She declared him to be a thing of the past who they did no-longer need.
So in conclusion. After one idiotic comment on an online blog, the world's most famous atheist has managed to marginalize himself, Dawkins is now a relic, with no respect even among his own. He is not needed anymore, after all, they now have the Skepchick!
Moving up in the atheist community is Rebecca Watson, a woman of limited charisma, with no expertise, no relevant qualifications, no publications, no credentials of any kind.
Survival of the fittest? On the contrary.
This is a lose/lose for the Godless, don't these people claim to follow science and evidence? Looks like they are following their heroes wherever they may lead them. I've seen more mature debates in a schoolyard.
"Following our heroes wherever they lead"? Huh? Atheism is not about "following" anyone. If it was, then we'd all still be "following" (however you're defining the word) Dawkins.
ReplyDeleteThat's the domain of the religious. If Rebecca were to do something that people would disagree with, we would be free to disagree with her, too.
So what? For instance I don't like everything Myers or Phil Plait say, that doesn't affect my atheism in any way.
Do you think that we have popes or something? That if one person falls out of "favour" then atheism as a "movement" is endangered? Keep reading Kil's TAM updates to see just how we're falling apart...
You're applying the religious mindset to something that it doesn't fit.
That, coupled with wishful thinking it seems.
Dawkins may be popular among the atheist community but we don't all agree (nor have to agree) with everything he said. ex) his idea of "brights".
I've never even read any of his books.
Atheists will disagree with each other a lot. So what? At least we don't close ranks if one of us is caught doing something unseemly....
We never did have a unified movement...again, that's the province of the religious (well, at the level of each particular denomination or sect at least!)
So there is no "movement" to have a "schism" in in the first place.
I disagree. Dawkins is the Keynote speaker at TAM this year, he is a best selling author, he is not a "pope" but he is no different from a pastor or an imam. People listen to him, he motivates people to his anti-religious cause. He has a purpose and a following. People will always follow ideas, authority and charisma. Atheists may claim to be different, but they are still human beings.
ReplyDeleteYou ignore the part where I said: Dawkins may be popular among the atheist community but we don't all agree (nor have to agree) with everything he said. ex) his idea of "brights".
ReplyDeleteHow many pastors or imams do you know of who have people within their own "faiths" actively disagree with them?
You're tying to conflate popularity with authority, probably to make atheism look like just another "religion" in your view.
How many pastors or imams do you know of who have people within their own "faiths" actively disagree with them?
ReplyDeleteReligious folk disagree all the time. I didn't use the word "Schism" by accident.
If Dawkins can be compared to any figures in the world of religions, a much better comparison could be made to popular religious authors, speakers, and apologists like C. S. Lewis, who are not formal authority figures such as actual imans and pastors.
ReplyDeleteAtheist, skeptic, and secular humanist groups do not have formal leaders that correlate in function and purpose to clergy. The closest we come are leaders of organized national and local groups. Again, none of those leaders have formal training in the way that clergy have degrees in theology/Bible studies/etc. In local groups, those leaders are typically volunteers who are democratically voted in and change all the time. They just organize things to keep the group running, they don't preach or serve as a moral or philosophical guide to their members. And on the national level, again the leaders just organize the group - they keep mailings going out, edit publications, and plan conferences. They are administrators.
There is no "schism". In a schism, a clear break within a group into two clear sides can be defined. The closest thing I can think of as a sort of "schism" in the modern secular movement was when Paul Kurtz founded the Council for Secular Humanism in 1980, partially because of differences he had with the American Humanist Association. Those two organizations have since then often been rivals for members and serve many similar functions. However, there is a huge overlap in membership, both groups have participated in the same coalitions, and have featured many of the same speakers and authors at their conferences and in their publications. Pretty un-dramatic as "schisms" go. In fact, I can't even find any way in which the two groups disagree. The separation basically happened because the people who started the Council wanted to do things their own way, and as a result, secular Humanism gained a new major national player to help out with the cause.
What is going on here with Elevatorgate is not a schism. It is a controversy that stems from not "elevator etiquette", but rather, from gender tensions. The same gender tensions that exist in most of modern society. It doesn't really reflect much that is unique to the secular and skeptic movements, except that men tend to dominate at conferences like TAM, which inevitably increases the changes of things like this cropping up. This will not change anything regarding the missions of any of the various national groups. It isn't going to cause any factions of people to leave any particular group and start a new, separate group. It's just a simple controversy that resulted in a bunch of lively arguments, mostly online, and then fizzles out, leaving people more aware of the issue than before - some more sensitive, and some more frustrated. I'm sure it'll come up again as it does in all sorts of communities, religious or not.
I still don't understand the obsession some atheists have with Rebecca Watson?. I think the reason this incident is leading to a schism is because she really is a singularly polarizing figure in atheism. People seem to either love her or hate her, and those extremes can get pretty disturbing.
ReplyDeleteShe's also shown some chinks in the armor, hints as a religion-based morality that her haters find threatening.