QED's Geoff Whelan caught up with author Ophelia Benson to talk about atheism, new atheism and, of course, QED.
The 'mission statement' of Butterflies and Wheels is 'fighting fashionable nonsense'. How wide is that fight? Who or what is the enemy? And how goes the war?
"Actually I've dropped that as a subtitle now, and re-written the 'About' page. The subtitle came from the title of a book by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont - Fashionable Nonsense; in French it was Impostures intellectuelles, which is really a good deal more elegant. Butterflies and Wheels was very focused on certain kinds of trendy academic fashions when it started, in 2002, but I've shifted direction since then. The core subject is still intellectual impostures, but there are many varieties of those, so the fight is very wide. (I don't really like claiming to fight them though - it sounds so grandiose - which is one reason I dropped the subtitle.)
"Still, having said all that, I think the core is the same, which is an abiding interest in credulity - in various ways people allow themselves to believe things when an impartial observer might expect them to know better."
What, if anything, is so objectionable about being strident? Should truth be wrapped in cotton wool?
"That's one of those irregular verbs, of course - I'm forthright, you're outspoken, she's strident. I was flattered when Madeleine Bunting wrote a piece calling me strident; it meant I was doing something right. In other words it's seldom used as a neutral factual description; it's a label for enemies. I suppose to the extent that being strident means 'shouty for no good reason' it's objectionable, but then what I take to be a good reason will not be what Madeleine Bunting takes to be a good reason, so we're back where we started.
"Some truth should be wrapped in cotton wool, if uttered at all; interpersonal truths are often of that type. Most public matters, however, should be open to honest (or forthright, or strident) discussion. Religion is the public matter that is most often wrapped in cotton wool, and given the power it has over people's minds and lives, that's a huge mistake."
Are atheists mean spirited scrooges, denigrating people's cherished beliefs and offering nothing positive in return? Is there now much more to atheism than simply not believing in god?
"Oh I suppose some atheists match that description, because there are a lot of atheists, so there are always going to be some who match any description. But the forthright/strident atheists I read are not like that at all. The atheist writers and bloggers I know are interested in the world, and have interesting things to say about it. Simply not believing in god is actually itself already much more, because it frees people from concentrating on an imaginary omni-being who is in fact very boring and stultifying to think and talk about. The real world is vastly more fascinating."
Getting atheists organised has been likened to herding cats. Are we a movement? If so where are we going?
"We are a movement of sorts, if only because there are so many people ready to call us strident. There's nothing like sticking nasty labels on people to make them form a movement. Where we are going is the happy land where all the labels fall off. Less facetiously, as a movement we are working to remove religion's special privilege and atheism's special stigma."
What is new about the new (or gnu) atheists?
"The short answer is, nothing at all. 'New' is just a pejorative label, which we mock by calling ourselves 'gnu.' The long answer is, nothing substantive, but a lot in terms of presentation and taking up space. New atheists are new in the sense that several atheist books have been best-sellers, and we are new in the sense that we refuse to be deferential toward religion or its truth-claims or its putative arguments. That's not unprecedented, but it's a lot more visible than it was ten years ago."
Does it matter what we call ourselves?
"Not much - provided we don't get silly and start calling ourselves 'spiritual.'"
Is the movement responsible for any own goals?
"Oh, sure - bound to be."
Who inspires you in the movement?
"Women - 'strident' women. We aren't supposed to be atheist, you know. Women like Maryam Namazie, Taslima Nasrin, Polly Toynbee, Joan Smith, Katha Pollitt, Wendy Kaminer, to name just a few."
Aside from Butterflies and Wheels (obviously) who else should we read on Freethought Blogs?
"Everyone! With that understood... It's so full of great stuff I haven't even sampled all of it yet, but to name just a few (apart from Pharyngula and Dispatches from the Culture Wars, which need no introduction) - Chris Rodda at This Week in Christian Nationalism does fantastic work on theocrats in the US; Justin Griffith of Rock Beyond Belief is a serving soldier who demonstrates that there are indeed atheists in fox holes; Greta Christina is another one of those strident women; and Maryam Namazie writes about women's rights and Islamism."
Is a scientist taking the Templeton prize equivalent to accepting 30 pieces of silver?
"It's tempting to say yes, but it's not really, because of course it's perfectly possible for a scientist to think the Templeton Foundation is doing great work and that the prize is an honour as well as a nice lump of cash. In a way it would be better if it were just a frank bribe, because then no reputable scientist would take it, which would make it that little bit more difficult for Templeton to persuade the world that religion and science are fully compatible in every sense."
Are you dismayed when those who you would think naturally would support a strong atheist position turn their criticism against those who directly challenge religion. Is there something about free thinkers that encourages dissent? Or are we talking about Dennett's belief in belief, in the sense that someone may realise on an intellectual level that religious belief is false but that they still have residual respect for an enduring institution?
"Yes I am, as a matter of fact. I wouldn't be if it were a matter of actual substantive disagreement or criticism, with particulars supplied - but it so seldom is. What we get instead is just a lot of hostile generalization about 'the new atheists' that's indistinguishable from the latest episcopal outburst on the subject. It's one thing when Madeleine Bunting or Karen Armstrong calls us strident, and another when an avowed atheist does. I don't think this is anything about free thinkers, because I don't think this reaction does encourage dissent - or if it does it does it indirectly, by irritating us into dissenting even more 'stridently.' I suppose some of it has to do with residual respect for religion as an institution, but that just pushes the question back a step - why have respect for that? Especially when it already gets so much respect as it is? I don't know what it is that motivates atheists who hate unapologetic atheism; I don't know what it is that annoys them so much; it baffles me."
In a crowded marketplace of ideas some commentators seem to be trying to define themselves against the most prominent voices of atheism. Is there something of picking on the big beasts in order to get name recognition?
"Yes, probably, or if not name recognition at least a marketable subject. Theologians, in particular, seem to find Dawkins a gift. A chance to write a book that might sell a few copies! Terry Eagleton (Manchester's own, so to speak) in particular has made a good thing out of this. He gained a lot of journalistic attention with his heavy jokes about God not being a toaster nor yet his left foot, not to mention the remarkably childish 'Ditchkins.' It was all very glib and annoying."
Is the 'I'm an atheist but... ' position intellectually honest?
"Yes, it can be. It isn't always, but it can be. It's reasonable just to be an atheist without wanting to be overt about it, let alone joining a movement. It's even reasonable, if slightly contradictory, to argue for that position. If it's reasonable, it's intellectually honest. What I think is less intellectually honest is the 'I'm an atheist but I'm going to direct all my ire at the tiny minority of vocal atheists while ignoring the much larger and noisier vocal theists, as if only theists had the right to be noisily vocal' position. I mean, be fair, as the Monty Python gumbies used to say."
You have developed a strong focus on human rights in your more recent works. Is this a natural progression from your earlier attacks on postmodernism in Why Truth Matters?
"Yes. The intersection is a shruggy kind of relativism that just says 'well that's their way of knowing/that's their culture/that's their version of human rights' and leaves it at that."
Have you found a better word for 'good secular thinking'?
"The closest was 'explanatory inference' - which is two words, but I should have realized all along that one word would never do the job. What I was trying to pin down was the difference between genuinely trying to get it right (whatever 'it' is at the time) and just winging it.
Hitchens was recently asked by a young girl what books should she read. Taking a slightly tighter focus to books directly relevant to secularism, atheism, scepticism and science, what would be on your suggested reading list?
"Philosophers Without Gods, edited by Louise Antony. 50 Voices of Disbelief, edited by Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk. The Secular Outlook, Paul Cliteur. Anything by Meera Nanda. The Secular Conscience, Austin Dacey. Braintrust, Patricia Churchland. Leaving Islam, edited by Ibn Warraq. Religion Explained, Pascal Boyer. Quiverfull, Kathryn Joyce. Whistling Vivaldi, Claude Steele. Delusions of Gender, Cordelia Fine. The Demon-haunted World, Carl Sagan. Unweaving the Rainbow, Richard Dawkins. Janet Browne's two volume biography of Darwin. The Unauthorized Freud, edited by Frederick Crews.
"I could go on and on and on, but there's a selection."
What are you looking forward to at QED 2012?
"Meeting Maryam! We're both looking forward to that. Also all the other participants, speakers and audience. I have a true nerd's enthusiasm for such encounters."
Ophelia Benson will be appearing at QED next year. Tickets are still available.