The New Atheists: Does Tone Matter?

As an outspoken and somewhat aggressive atheist who finds it effective to sometimes use ridicule to make strong points against often dishonest opponents, I often get the complaint that my 'tone' is objectionable...even from those who are also atheists or skeptics.

Often, we find ourselves in the skeptical community divided about 'tone', where some complain that the 'New Atheists' are too harsh, too polemic, and too sharp with our points to reach the masses. I've heard about this 'tone' argument pointed at Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Vic Stenger, the Rational Response Squad, Massimo Pigliucci, Aron Ra of YouTube fame and many other outspoken non-believers.

But, how harsh is too harsh, and why the focus on TONE over the actual points being made?

My response to that is this: Tone matters, but various tones are needed. Those who complain about tone might think they're just trying to make us 'nicer' in response to some imaginary, honest and sensitive listener with an ear for nuance, while ignoring the fact that many theists aren't actually thinking, but bleating and repeating verse or beliefs, never having reviewed them and not honestly listening to critiques of their ridiculous claims.

In effect, focusing so much on 'tone' makes many atheist arguments less effective, and creates an unnecessary divide between the 'New Atheists' and those who are more passively atheist or who eschew the term 'atheist' altogether but share the non-theist position. The last thing atheists need is senseless subdivision. We need unity in this movement against irrationalism and religiosity now more than ever.

As we know, not everyone learns at the same rate or in the same manner. In matters of mass delusion such as religion, this de-conversion problem isn't merely about a lapse in logic. If this were the case, the person holding delusional beliefs such as 'god' would simply have the illogic of it explained which would instantly result in dismissal of erroneous belief(s), and we'd all talk about something else.

Such is not the case.

First, the mass-delusion of religion is not merely a logical sticking point but a deep-seated emotional issue. This emotional defense comes out of an almost blind defense of tradition, family and familiar ritual, and lives in a compartmentalized part of the religious mind often impervious to logical review. This is why the term 'freethinker' is so important, as a freethinker is someone whose views on religion transcend ritual, authority and tradition, but scrutinize religion openly and 'freely'. Someone who protects his religion in a bubble exempt from logic is by definition not a freethinker.

Alas, religion is not the product of logic, but primary socialization of trusting children, brainwashing and inculcation, societal reinforcement of demonstrably false ideas and a protection of investment and an unwillingless to face the truth despite a discomfiting cognitive dissonance.

Explain to a rational adult that you hold a dear belief that you are, in fact, an elf and you will be met with peals of laughter, derision, outright mockery and endless ridicule. No matter how deeply-held your belief, it'll simply be rejected on all fronts, and with various tones....but all leading to the same end result: denial and rejection. Your claim could be subject to review by scientists who could sequence your DNA, observation that you do not resemble an elf in any fashion, and counter-evidence that you in fact are Homo Sapiens with a specific lineage which can be traced to specific geographic locales.

Does tone matter to the recipient of said ridicule? Sure, and it probably scales with the lack of evidence. The person on the recieving end of this ridicule, and who honestly believes himself to be an elf, would much rather people simply believed him so he could get on with the business of actually being an elf, unopposed and unchallenged, as he believes himself (or she believes herself) to be. The elf-boy knows he cannot prove his claim, so his *only* recourse is to simply attempt to silence his critics and hang out with those who either avoid the subject or accept it without evidence.

The point here is that with enough ridicule, the silly ideas can't survive unless they're proven sufficiently to attract support. Those who practice science and deal with real data don't care about tone....they either verify or falsify their claims. You can bet their harshest critics are often other scientists. It's not about tone, it's about content. Those who complain about tone are simply trying to make criticism more bearable in a vacuum of evidence.

Tell enough people that you are Jesus and the holy and all-powerful son of God and you'll generally be laughed at or deemed crazy (often with very harsh tone), and this is in a culture where most Americans (and much of the world) believe in God.

Why are most Christians so quick to harshly reject the claim from some who might say, 'I am Jesus' or better yet, 'I am God' so harshly, and yet protect other nutty ideas about religion that their fellow believers claim? It's funny how some ridiculous claims are sacrosanct, and yet theists will openly and harshly reject other claims, even in the purview of their belief-system.

Go ahead, name your kid 'God', and see how people react and what kind of tone they use. Name him 'Jesus' and it's ok (as long as it's pronounced 'hay zoos' and the child appears Hispanic). Insist on people calling your kid 'Jee-zus' and you'll be in for a tough road ahead. Why the inconsistency? It's just people with silly beliefs arbitrarily protecting them based on culture and blind-tradition, and yet properly skeptical of claims which lie outside the immediate protection of their established religion.

Why the tonal difference between the treatment of the god-claim and elf-claim?

The God myth is popular in our English-speaking, largely-Christian culture, and people claiming to be Elves isn't. There are enough adults who believe in a God with a son named Jesus that this nutball idea has wide support with more 'converts' being made every day as innocent, trusting children are lied to about how the world works, from well-meaning but delusional parents.

Popular religious memes get un-due protection from scrutiny, are blindly defended by many, there's a built-in rule against doubt or scrutiny and there's public pressure to slander or silence the 'opposition' (whether that's perceived as atheists, sciences such as evolution, secularism in general, etc.). The American government even gets involved, violating the Constitution to promoting certain religions (Christianity) and religion over irreligion, such as the National Day of Prayer tradition. Incidentally, this unconstitutional government-endorsed religious favoritism was roundly defeated in a recent case; The Freedom From Religion Foundaton (FFRF.org) vs. President Obama. The ruling was made by Judge Barbara Crabb in yet another victory for secularism, and ultimately, for all Americans. If there's no freedom from religion then people can hardly expect to have freedom *of* religion, as the forefathers intended and the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees.

As Sam Harris said, (paraphrased), the 'moderates' out there provide comfort and cover for the fundamentalists. There is nobody providing cover for the 'I am an Elf' claim, nor is there cover for any god someone will invent next week. Popularity in effect lends support to a silly idea, but as we know historically, popularity is not a measure of validity. The ideas that the Earth was flat and the center of the Universe were no less wrong when they were popular than they are today.

Why then, with all the evil that comes from religion, are some skeptics so afraid of 'offending' theists with tone? This is exactly what unfounded claims need: skeptical inquiry, harsh and unrelenting review, unmitigated investigation and yes, sometimes ridicule is useful and effective. Some people simply won't respond to a review which is too obtuse, or too indirect, or too 'nice'. We can directly see how crazy some people get when their beliefs remain unchallenged too long, after all, how do people get to believe they are Jesus in the first place? They've clearly held a belief that a God exists, and somehow warped the religion they were taught into something else....a mutant form if you will.

Most children in America and in some other countries are also taught that Santa Claus is 'true', and invariably, they find out that Santa Claus is just a lie at a fairly young age. No matter how gently you put it, kids will generally react badly to this harsh reality...not because they don't understand the illogic of a guy in a red suit traveling around the world in one night or squeezing down chimneys (even where there's no chimney to be found), but because they suddenly *do* understand. The phenomenon we're seeing is an emotional reaction to a sudden realization (often accompanied by tears), a spontaneous change in worldview, a loss of investment, etc.

Adults are no different when confronted with devastating arguments about their god-beliefs, other than the fact that most are less resilient than children finding out that there's no Santa Claus. Instead of bursting into tears (which can sometimes happen), they act out in other ways...often harnessing their political, manipulative or even physical power to silence or distract the messenger from saying something that offends them, and threatens their investment in the dangerous mind-virus we call religion.

Once someone reaches adulthood, it can be very difficult to deprogram that person and bring them back to reality. Adults become set in their ways, are not as used to being challenged, and often have learned bad habits with regard to critical-thinking or lack critical-thinking skills. Adults who believe in fairy tales, while they may be able to operate a computer or solve math problems, often have a sense of investment in their bad ideas, and instead of thinking logically, often resort to a blind defense of home and hearth rather than thinking they were wrong all those years. Facing false beliefs late in life takes a unique combination of courage and intellectual honesty. Children will cry and then get over Santa Claus...but adults can linger in a quagmire of silly beliefs for years before they're able to shake certain delusions.

That said, the elf story is true. In high-school, some poor kid who had been clearly deluded by his parents gave an empassioned oral report about the fact that he was an Elf. At the end of the report the class erupted in peals of laughter....and at the time, I was a good Christian boy who believed that an all-powerful space-pixie sent himself down in the form of his own son to die for my sins, which is just as laughable.

So yes, tone matters, but not for the reasons often claimed. Tone matters because different 'tones' are effective for different people.

If your style of skeptical review is to be gentle, nice and not create too much of a stir but instead gently plant seeds, so be it. You will get through to earnest truth-seekers, but some will intimate you, talk over you, lead you through logical ruses (if you let them) and play all kinds of intellectually dishonest tricks. You will get through to some, but be completely ineffective with others.

Likewise, the world needs people who charge in head-on, tackle ideas without any mitigating softness and slay delusion wherever they find it. The hard-charging new atheist might turn off the delicate believers who might be swayed with a gentle demeanor, but they will often get through to those who are sufficiently embarrassed into re-thinking their position, because few people enjoy looking silly or stupid in public. It's the same motivation which causes people to double-check their zippers when leaving a restroom or make sure they don't have toilet paper stuck to the bottom of their shoes. People go to great lengths to avoid ridicule, and crazy ideas about super-pixies are not in any sense exempt.

This is why I usually find it pointless to argue with raving fundies in private. I've found their arguments are often way more ridiculous when they think nobody's looking...but debate them in public where you can point out every dishonest ruse, every disingenuous strawman and every ignored point and you will find the Fundy either runs for the hills or backs down, because they will eventually look stupid or dishonest if you challenge every unfounded assertion they try to build upon. This seems harsh, but remember, people hate feeling\looking stupid, even when it's a result of their own dishonesty (or stupidity). If you point out the errors in someone's argument often enough (and in front of an audience), the dishonest person holding the clearly disproven views should eventually back down, or at least lose credibility.

The no-nonsense, aggressive (new atheist) approach works wonders for these belligerent and aggressive theists, who think that putting atheists on the defensive is a good tactic to 'defend' theism. Those refuting religious claims need a a certain amount of intestinal fortitude to deal not only with someone who believes irrational ideas, but who uses dishonest techniques or might simply talk over you or make unfounded assertions on top of assertions, if not challenged early and often when these mistakes are made.

Remember, just being an atheist is already offensive to most theists, and according to most Bibles, is reason enough for you to land in someone's Hell. You may as well speak your mind. I recommend avoiding Ad-Hominem (character attacks), but be relentless in your intellectual review of any idea you find objectionable. Don't fall for ruses or distractions, don't let people talk over or silence you, and don't let them run away until you've made your closing statement.

Arguing with theists can be comical sometimes....as the closer you get to driving home a devastating point, the more they wriggle away. It's also comical that some theists complain about the New Atheists not being 'nice' while their very holy books have slandered non-believers for thousands of years....the Koran even recommends that the 'Infidel' (non-believer), be slayed wherever they are found. Arguing against theists isn't just about ideas, in a sense it's about divesting people of dangerous mind-viruses which cause real harm in the world in often unforseeable ways.

It's important to vehemently and forcefully resist this nonsense, because people are going to keep believing crazy stuff until there's a critical mass of people who don't believe it and are out of the closet about it. Only then will some of these ideas fall out of favor, but it takes effort. The reason we New Atheists seem so loud and strident, is because generally, we're the ones with the gumption to actually speak loudly against the hordes of believers who have been under-opposed for too long. It's not for the faint-of-heart. As more people speak up, a wider variety of voices will be heard, and perhaps the debate itself will dull as religion ceases to be so important (and dangerous) a force to reckon with.

Historically, many of us with unpopular ideas have often been silenced, often on pain of oppression, injury or death. I am sure many more would love to silence us again, but those days are long gone (at least in most of the world). Enjoy the various tonalities in this symphony we call the skeptical movement....the fact that we're being heard is something to celebrate, not argue about.

dB