Actually, I suppose this is my second Facebook nonsense post, since I could count this one as number one. But I’ll start with number two and call it number one. Why not? Who’s counting?
First up, then (consider the Reagan post a pre-game warm-up), is an excerpt from Dinesh D’Souza’s recent book, Godforsaken:
My goodness, where do I start with this one? I’ll begin by noting D’Souza’s claim that Richard Dawkins isn’t actually an atheist – just an ordinary (brilliant and famous, but otherwise ordinary) guy who doesn’t believe in gods. Instead, according to D’Souza, Dawkins is actually a wounded theist – someone who believes in god(s) but doesn’t like him/her/it/them very much at the moment. Apparently, either Dawkins doesn’t know he’s wounded, or he knows it and isn’t admitting it. D’Souza’s claim raises some questions for me.
1. The first one has to do with rhetorical strategy: what does D’Souza gain strategically/rhetorically by renaming Dawkins (and his unnamed cohorts, a group that may include, for all I know, you and me)?
2. Another question has to do with ethics: what gives D’Souza the right to label Dawkins (or anyone else) as something other than what he claims to be?
3. A third question is evidentiary: how does D’Souza know whether Dawkins (and others) should be classified as “an ordinary atheist” or a “wounded theist?”
I don’t know if any of you are interested in reading D’Souza’s book, but I’ll pause here to make a public service (or perhaps it’s a disservice) announcement and inform you that the book is currently available as a free Kindle download from Amazon.com. I’ve downloaded it and may actually read it. The only things stopping me at the moment are
a. I’m still reading The Ultimate Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (five books in one volume – convenient!), and
b. I’m not sure I’ll be able to stomach D’Souza’s arrogance. Anyone who thinks he has the right to classify nonbelievers into categories he prefers rather than accepting their claims at face value strikes me as someone with an enormous amount of hubris.
Unless it’s actually weakness hidden behind fake hubris. Maybe D’Souza can’t argue effectively against the actual atheistic claims of Dawkins and others, so he has to reconstruct their arguments into positions that he can argue against. Could this be the rhetorical advantage he seeks? If so, then I’ve answered question number one. And that leads to the answer to question number two: is D’Souza behaving underhandedly (i.e., unethically) by recasting his interlocutors and their claims? If I’m right about number one, then the answer to question number two is yes, he is. He has no right to redefine people or their positions; he appears simply to be staking a claim and hoping that no one catches him crossing the boundary. If I’m right about those two issues, then the answer to question number three is a no-brainer: D’Souza has no evidence for his claim that Dawkins (and who knows who else) is a wounded, angry, perhaps even hateful and vengeful theist rather than a straightforward atheist as he claims to be. It’s just easier for D’Souza to argue that Dawkins himself is flawed than it is to address flaws in Dawkins’ (or anyone else’s) actual atheistic claims, which brings us right back to where we started – question number one.
Damn. Now I’ll have to read the fucking book to find out whether I’ve sussed out D’Souza’s game. Wish me luck. And send me a few bottles of French wine; they’ll make the bullshit go down easier.
– the chaplain
Lithp
June 15, 2012 at 12:38 pm
1. He’s not actually speaking to atheists, he’s speaking to theists. The existence of unbelievers & their arguments pose several problems to unbelievers, which this nicely solves. It nicely solves the Problem of Hell by making it the willful fault of the unbeliever. But whether “wounded theist” or “ordinary atheist,” both imply that witnessing is useful, & intentionally or not, witnessing exploits the bias that supporting a position makes you believe it more strongly yourself. It also prevents you from looking too deeply at the trickier arguments of atheism, because they simply aren’t worth your time.
2. The fact that he’s a dick.
3. There is no ordinary atheist. They will never name anyone who is such a person. The implication of the “ordinary atheist” is that they refute the arguments of a genuine atheist, but do not bother with the “wounded theist,” who just needs to “accept the facts.” Of course, anyone they can’t convince inevitably turns out to have been a “wounded theist” all along. Even an “ex-atheist” is framed as a “believer all along.” The only possible exception is that sometimes they will explain that atheists wouldn’t bother to attack theism, a sort of “silent majority” argument. How convenient.
I could be off-base, since I haven’t read this guy’s book in particular, but I’ve seen arguments like the “wounded theist” before, & these seem like the general ideas.
the chaplain
June 15, 2012 at 5:30 pm
1. You’re right – he’s addressing theists. He could care less what atheists think about his crap. He’s only interested in keeping the faithful firmly planted in their pews and buying his books.
2. You’re right – he is a dick. Too bad so few of his followers see that, and also fail to see the tricks he’s pulling on them in order to exploit their gullibility.
3. You’re right – I think he and his ilk would recast nearly everyone as wounded theists and thereby continue justifying their failure to address substantive arguments. Religious apologists specialize in the old ad hominem ploy. Distractions are very useful to apologists and politicians.
John Evo
June 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Everyone knows D’Souza is a “wounded atheist”. Even though he clearly knows there is little likelihood of a god and zero likelihood of the one he brandishes, he feels the need to comfort himself with the one he has made up. It’s OBVIOUS!
the chaplain
June 15, 2012 at 5:31 pm
“Wounded atheist.” I love it.
ubi dubium
June 15, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Oh my FSM, what a straw-man argument! But I see this sort of thing all the time from theist apologists, directed at any atheist who shows anger, or even irritation, at the actions of gods fan-club. “You’re just angry at god”.
So they must be angry at the Invisible Pink Unicorn for rapturing their socks out of the laundry. What other reason could they have for claiming they don’t believe in her? They’re all really just “wounded unicornists”.
I don’t know if I could stomach reading that whole book. Maybe you could save some of the Hitchhiker’s Guide, and alternate it with the D’Souza, to keep your head from exploding. At least have a towel ready to cover your eyes with to protect them from the most intensely stupid parts of the D’Souza.
the chaplain
June 15, 2012 at 5:34 pm
Thanks for filling me in on the IPU’s sock trick. I’ll stop looking for them now. While I’m in such a grateful mood, I’ll also thank Douglas Adams for filling me in on how handy a tool the humble towel is. I’ll never take a towel for granted again.
ubi dubium
June 15, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Oh yes, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (may Her holy hooves never be shod) is uninterested in people, only laundry. When she visits your laundry room, she might bestow her holy color upon your whites. She may investigate your laundry with her horn and you will find holes as evidence. And any sock she finds particularly worthy she will rapture directly to sock heaven and you will never see it again.
I use this with the kids I teach at the UU, as an example of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. I tell them all about the IPU, then show them an odd sock, and a sock with a hole in it, and ask them if that’s good enough for them to believe me.
the chaplain
June 16, 2012 at 11:27 am
LOL! The sad thing is, you have more evidence for your claim than most religious followers do.
Lithp
June 16, 2012 at 12:25 pm
I encounter most of my apologists on the internet, so they can just kind of claim I’m angry or depressed whenever.
It probably doesn’t help that a normal conversation with me includes at least one reference to a shiv.
Ahab
June 18, 2012 at 10:32 am
I take offense at the idea that disgust toward man-made deities makes someone “wounded.” D’Souza conveniently ignores the many reasons why people reject belief in a deity.
the chaplain
June 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm
D’Souza conveniently ignores the many reasons why people reject belief in a deity.
You’ve predicted the subject of an upcoming post.
Lorena
June 18, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Exactly, wounds make a person examine the beliefs deep enough to find out the stinking truth.
Brian M
June 21, 2012 at 4:34 pm
I’m not sure there is anything wrong at all about being angry at Yahweh. He’s a right bastard, even if He did exist.
Lithp
June 21, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Yeah, the argument also rests on the false premise that people can’t form emotional responses to fictional characters. 8/10 gamers cried when Aerith died. Fact.