Has Peter Boghossian Disqualified Himself from the Adult Table?

Richard Carrier has written a brilliant article addressing yet another astoundingly ignorant statement made by Peter Boghossian, this time on the issue of gay pride. Last year on Twitter, Boghossian expressed his inability to understand how one can be proud of "something one didn’t work for." As if this weren't evidence enough of the man's right-wing politics, he followed up in response to a wave of criticism directed at his tweet by saying: "Questioning that one can be proud to be gay is a leftist blasphemy."

Boghossian is quite fond of telling others how to think and feel, and denouncing them as not even worthy of being taken seriously when they don't meet his standards. He says in two other recent tweets:

Feminists will be taken seriously when they spend at least as much time criticizing abuses of women in the 3rd world as they do in the 1st. 7/30/14

As long as philosophers like Derrida and Zizek are taken seriously, the discipline of philosophy won't be taken seriously. 3/10/15

Carrier points out in his post that Boghossian has a bad habit of not listening to his critics. As the examples above indicate, he speaks in radically divisive tones, and then either goes silent in the face of objections, or reiterates his views with yet more party-line rhetoric. This is quite unbecoming for a philosopher, especially one who emphasizes critical thinking and doxastic openness, as Carrier seems to agree:

Good naturalism, good philosophy, and thus in fact good atheism, means finding out how reality works first, before declaring notions that reinforce the attitudes and ignorance that perpetuate social injustices like homophobia and anti-gay bigotry. Which means if this kind of failure on Boghossian’s part is typical, then it means professor Boghossian is a really bad philosopher.

This appears to suggest that Boghossian does a lot of opening his mouth before he thinks. He tends to draw the lines and point the finger prior to the actual conversation, certainly before things have been anywhere near as resolved as he takes them to be. Let's look at three other prominent examples of this:

1) In his Manual for Creating Atheists, Boghossian recommends that we, "Stigmatize faith-based claims like racist claims," and, "Treat faith as a public health crisis." He suggests a line of children's comics and TV shows starring Epistemology Knights and Faith Monsters. Notably, his book is devoid of any talk of actual philosophical epistemology, so his advocacy of demonizing religious belief at the outset is problematic for its close resemblance to sheer, uncritical propaganda.

2) In his debate on Unbelievable with Tim McGrew (a distinguished Christian philosopher), Boghossian upheld his definition of faith as "pretending to know what you don't know," against the understanding of Christians familiar with the literature, like McGrew, and against an overwhelming consensus poll taken by the show. Of course, Unbelievable is a Christian podcast, but the poll included atheists as well, and more bothersome is that Boghossian really didn't try to defend his definition at all on the show, aside from broad sweeping generalizations about its use - which the poll quickly put to rest. Interestingly, Peter also shied away from endorsing on the podcast his own characterization of faith as "an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue."

3) Last year, Boghossian came under fire for tweeting the following: "Being published in the philosophy of religion should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table." The fallout from this was fairly significant, as multiple voices (including my own) spoke up to disagree with Peter, who almost entirely neglected to respond to criticisms, save for sharing his general thoughts with his pal and self-professed 'bulldog' John Loftus (one may wonder how eager Loftus will be to defend his friend on these recent remarks).

It's been over a year now since I wrote my review of Boghossian's book, and I've had plenty of time to mull over its aims and arguments. I feel that many of the reservations I had while reading through it have been not only confirmed by Boghossian's subsequent behavior, but have been trumpeted loudly in a manner I wouldn't really have anticipated. The whole project frankly seems to be that of a person who is not interested in dialogue, who cares nothing for critical thinking except where it will bolster his own side, and who clings to his own doxastic closure with pride (which he did not work for) as a means of ridiculing and manipulating others into agreeing with him. Don't get me wrong, Boghossian will say he favors the objective route, but his actions and comments increasingly seem to conflict with his verbal assurances.

This is not the sort of model we should be encouraging in the atheist community. Just as there can be "wolves in sheep's clothing" among the religious - people who talk the talk without walking the walk - there can also be those among the non-religious who speak in a way that sounds appealing to us, yet behave in inconsistent ways that may reveal a lot about a person's character. I do not intend to imply that Boghossian is willfully dishonest or anything of the like, but there is a danger in embracing people as role models based primarily on how they sound to us, the familiar language they use, and so on, especially when atheists are already not the most beloved figures among society. Again, that's not to say we should be striving to win some popularity contest, but there is truth to what Boghossian, Dawkins, and others have said about the need to speak up against problematic voices within one's own community.

John Loftus once said to me, in discussion of Boghossian's controversial tweet over philosophy of religion, that he hates to see division among atheists. In fact, I do too. I hate to see atheists attacking each other for political differences. I hate to see atheists not utilizing the tool sets they've developed in thinking about religion to also think about other things, like sex and gender, race and sexual orientation, culture and history, and much more. I wish we could talk about the variety of diverging ideas among us with civility and respect. But Boghossian is not just polarizing the religious and the non-religious, he is divisive to atheists, and his rhetoric often dispenses with civility and respect. Who is he helping with all his language about "the adult table" and being taken seriously? It certainly isn't causing many believers to take him seriously, and even many atheists are finding it hard to do so.

As Carrier says at the conclusion of his article, "Ending religion will do us no good whatever, if all we do is replace it with an atheism that’s just as bad." Our goal shouldn't be to win at any cost. In retrospect, perhaps the title and intent of Boghossian's book should have given it away that this is his aim. He wants to convert the irrational and make them rational. We have a serious problem, though, when the "irrational" are simply defined as those who Boghossian says are not to be taken seriously. As it turns out, that group includes a lot of people, and is growing more and more to look like it consists merely of all those who disagree with Peter about things that are important to him. A Manual for Creating Atheists is starting to look a lot like A Manual for Creating Egotists.

Sexism in the Atheist Movement

I started attending meet-up groups within the atheist movement back in 2007. Almost from the very beginning, I met men who would often tell everyone about how we need more women in the movement. One person in particular has made mention of this at just about every gathering he's been at, typically to anyone that talks with him. It's always frustrated me that his remarks (and those of many others) usually are accompanied by references to how women will make atheism more attractive, how he'll finally be able to date again, and so forth. In other words, atheism needs more women because women have sex appeal.

Well, women have started to become more prominent in the atheist movement. Ayaan Hirsi Ali joined the voices of the 'New Atheists,' Susan Jacoby has taken to defending church-state separation, Valerie Tarico has published some excellent works on the psychology of religion, Eugenie Scott is a potent thorn in the side of creationists, Rebecca Watson and the women at Skepchick are doing wonderful work promoting skepticism, Julia Sweeney is drawing attention to atheism in her comedy acts, and the Atheist Experience streaming live show often features Jen Peeples and Tracie Harris as rotating hosts. In short, these men got their wish; more and more women are participating in the atheist movement.

Over the last year or two, some of these atheist women have begun to speak up about the things that make them uncomfortable in the atheist movement. There are too many stories to recount here, but sexual propositions, misogynistic statements, and generally crude and thoughtless behavior are recurring themes. Much of this conflict has come to a climax around "Elevatorgate," an incident in which Rebecca Watson found herself alone with a man in an elevator at an atheist convention, and this guy felt it appropriate to invite her to have coffee with him in his room at 3 o' clock in the morning. Rebecca's polite and cordial request for men not to do this sort of thing at conventions unleashed a firestorm of insults and threats. Jen McCreight expresses her frustration with it all in a recent blog post.

I personally know some of these women in the atheist movement who have received threats of rape and been treated like dirt for sharing their honest feelings. In general, a lot of the vitriol against them tends to revolve around their support for feminism. I noticed this especially when interacting with other people in the comments section of my video defending feminism and equality from mischaracterizations of it made by imbeciles like TheAmazingAtheist. The video wasn't up for five hours before other atheists were accusing me of being a self-hating male, a homosexual, or having ulterior motives, like wanting to get laid. I imagine some of these same people are quick to criticize religious believers when they dismiss an atheist by accusing them of "just wanting to sin" or being "blind to the truth," and yet they're quite comfortable with making such wild presumptions about anyone who supports feminism.

For the most part, I do my best to educate myself on a subject before I form an opinion that I will debate with anyone. But conversing with some anti-feminists has never given me the impression that they know what they're talking about. The claim is frequently made that feminists are man-haters who vilify male sexuality, want to control men, and seek to abolish all pornography. Although some of these attributes may fit certain women, I'm never given examples, and it really wouldn't say anything about feminism anymore than citing Stalin or Mao tells us anything about atheism. There are always those fringe nuts who take things to an extreme, but it would be ludicrous to assume the extreme is the norm. I have read Stanton, Anthony, Steinem, Goldman, and other well known feminists, and I've found nothing akin to misandry. Many of these historical feminists advocated the rights of men while they fought for their own rights.

These women of the atheist community are being attacked for the terrible crime of asking for common courtesy. They don't want to be invited back to your hotel room. They don't want to be hit on by every guy they meet at a gathering. They don't want to be objectified just because they title an awareness campaign "Boobquake," as a jab at a sexist Muslim cleric (it's pretty sad that some of these men didn't recognize the hypocrisy in behaving like a misogynist at an event designed to speak out against misogyny!). But most outrageous of all is the unwillingness of conventions and organizations to adopt anti-harassment policies. Though many have, the fact that there's also been a backlash is depressing. In her blog post mentioned above, Jen McCreight notes that she no longer feels safe in the atheist community, and she calls for a new wave of atheism to root out the sexist element.

Some will argue that atheism is not an ideology, so it can have no "waves," perhaps no movement either. However, a movement was initiated through the efforts of the New Atheists circa 2006, and being that it centers around atheism, I find nothing wrong with calling this what it is - a movement of atheists. Likewise, the different waves of feminism did not depart drastically from their overarching concern for women's liberation, though they did each focus on distinct goals that were relevant to their time. Atheism is not an ideology, but neither does it need to be one to have "waves" within the movement revolving around it.

But whether a new wave of the movement begins or not, it is clear that things need to change. If women are beginning to feel unsafe or uncomfortable participating in events and hanging with other atheists, then something is wrong. This is not just the complaint of a few man-hating feminist bloggers, but is a story I'm hearing from more than a few atheist women. I understand that common courtesy doesn't come naturally to everyone, and I think these ladies understand it too. Yet when someone asks you nicely not to proposition them, or when they specifically tell you they feel unsafe, you need to pay attention and respect their wishes. It's not an infringement on your "rights" to be considerate for the feelings of another person. In fact, I'd venture to bet it will get you in much better standing with women (and men) than the alternative will.

I am not a freethinker because I reject religion. I'm a freethinker because I value reason and critical thinking above faith and prejudice. Part of that means seeing past the irrational and misogynistic nonsense of anti-feminists, just as it means seeing past the irrational nonsense of religion. I count myself among the true freethinkers like Robert G. Ingersoll, who understood the full implications even when blacks were not free and women could not vote. If you have deluded yourself into believing there is some conspiracy of man-hating feminazis out to spoil all the fun for men - and these feminazis have infiltrated the atheist movement too - you may still be an atheist, but you can hardly call yourself a freethinking atheist.