New Atheists vs. New Humanists— Fight!
Greg M. Epstein is the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, and although an atheist himself, he has recently spoken out against the harsh tone employed by some so-called “New Atheists” such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Brian Flemming. Unfortunately, he did not just speak out against harsh language used against religion: to make his point he called people who do either “atheist fundamentalists” or atheist “fundamentalists”, depending on where you prefer your scare quotes. Flemming has taken Epstein to task, and Epstein has refused to recant for reasons that clearly don’t impress Flemming.
The following is my comment to this post on Greg M. Epstein’s blog. I’m trying what I hope is a slightly different tack.
As an atheist and humanist, and at the challenge of a religious fundamentalist, I recently wrote an extensive defense of my moral foundation, largely based on the Ethic of Reciprocity (”Golden Rule”.) You can read it here.
While I understand you do not necessarily hold to the same ethic, let me assume for the moment that you, as the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, do (in general) hold to it.
You say that you, “would absolutely be willing to consider apologizing for using harsh words to make my point…” Personally, I do not even consider apologizing for things I do that I do not believe are harmful. I therefore conclude you do believe that using harsh words to make one’s point is a harmful thing.
I believe that you are violating the Ethic of Reciprocity in your refusal to apologize for something that you believe to be harmful (i.e., using harsh language such as the f-bomb, “fundamentalist atheist”), simply because someone else also refuses to apologize for the same thing, i.e., Harris’ and Dawkins’ use of harsh language in criticizing religion. The “I won’t apologize until he does,” attitude is quite juvenile. Either you recognize the tone you used as harmful, or you do not. If it is harmful coming from others, then it is harmful coming from you, and deserves your apology.
As a leader in the Humanist community, are you choosing to lead by example? Or are you, by using the f-bomb so publicly and prominently choosing to sink down to the level of Harris, Dawkins, and Flemming? (Personally, I like their level: if you read my blog you will find both passionate reason and passionate satire.)
But what I cannot stomach is someone who decries the tactics of the “New Atheists” in the same breath in which he employs them.
See here for my update.
