The Center for Inquiry is a longstanding organization that does a ton of excellent work in promoting a secular, humanist society. Based in Amherst, NY, it has branches in many other cities across the U.S., including here in Los Angeles. Many skeptics and most atheists I know respect and support the CFI, but things have been changing.
The New York Times recently published an article about CFI founder Paul Kurtz, whose hiring of Robert Lindsay as chief executive proved extremely divisive. The story describes a split between Kurtz’s preference for a gentle brand of humanism and Lindsay’s “angry atheism” — Kurtz’s words, denied by Lindsay and CFI employees. The split, along with other concerns, caused Kurtz to be voted out as chairman, and his later resignation from the board.
I know some of these employees, either from actually having met them or communicated over Facebook. And certainly, they are not all angry atheists, nor has CFI morphed into some kind of robotic uber-Dawkins, equipped with anti-secularist radar and lasers to eliminate the targets. It’s important to remember, too, that there are many branches and departments run by a variety of people.
But there have been some CFI-related incidents that have made me start to waver in my full support. The first was a statement about Park51, including comments by Lindsay, that sent waves of surprise over the skeptical/atheist community. The statement is no longer available to read in full, but Orac at Respectful Insolence gave a detailed (and opinionated) take on it. The controversy this statement engendered can be read in this comments of this post. Quickly, the original statement was replaced by another, clarifying CFI’s position that they oppose the building of any new houses of worship. It’s noted that “This statement supersedes any prior statement issued by CFI regarding the Ground Zero controversy.” This incident seemed like a very public example of the clashing ideologies within the organization.
CFI has a program called CFI On Campus, whose website includes blog posts written by various people. JT Eberhard, founder of Skepticon (about more which later), wrote a post that included statements like
It’s the 21st century and yet the leader of the free world, in order to ingratiate himself with the common man, must profess to believe that not only did a Jew rise from the dead 2,000 years ago, but that he is in communion with that Jew.
and
And rather than make people shudder that the president believes he can kneel in the oval office and run his policy through that 2,000 year-old Jew (and presumably get a cosmic thumbs-up regardless of the policy), it will actually make most people like him more.
The use of the word “Jew” here was pointed out in a Facebook post, and after reading the blog, I was somewhat annoyed, as you can see in the first comment. Coincidentally I had recently had several conversations about whether and why the term “Jew” is seen as pejorative, as compared with “Jewish.” Here I was at a loss to understand why the term was used with such disdain; “guy” would have been a perfectly good choice. What really made a negative impact, and drove me from the discussion, were all the comments taking a smarmy position that there was nothing even potentially offensive about it, proving their authors both closed-minded to their critics and ignorant of history. I realize JT Eberhard is not an official spokesperson for CFI’s policies. But their name is still at the top of that post.
And this year’s Skepticon, organized by Eberhard and sponsored by CFI, has a remarkably weird line-up of speakers and panels. Among respected speakers discussing questions about skepticism and atheism, there are talks called “Are Christians Delusional?” and, by Eberhard, “The Twelve Basic Arguments for God and Why They Suck.” I’m just going to assume the answer to the first question is “yes,” and the second title is simply childish, especially given the company it’s in.
I’m aware that many smaller, grassroots skeptical groups have developed rifts over their focus changing to atheism. The two do overlap significantly, though not totally, and Skepticon isn’t necessarily wrong to appeal to those skeptics who are also interested in discussions about atheism. But do they have to be smug and arrogant about it? I’m pretty sure Christian skeptics might be interested in the panel about whether skepticism leads to atheism, especially as moderated by Julia Galef. But will they want to go to ones that insult them in the very titles? Does atheism really need to be a bully to religious skeptics, and can we afford to run them off?
No, I don't advocate beating up Scientologists. Possible exception: Tom Cruise.
A blog post on the CFI situation by Greg Fish at weird things has made me examine again what is important to me about being an atheist. When I realized I was one, I did have a brief interest in locating others online and discussing this new part of my identity, but I quickly left the first atheist forum I found because of the constant angry invective towards anything non-secular. It so happens now that I know a lot of reasonable atheists interested in intelligent discussion, but mainly because of our shared interest in skepticism, which in the end I’d rather focus on.
Yes, I want to see religion beaten back by science and reason; yes, I want it out of our schools; yes, I believe the current Pope is a horrendous individual. There’s not much that the “radical” or “angry” atheists say that I don’t agree with. And oh just kill me now, you’re thinking, because she’s about to get into the tone discussion. And yes, that’s part of it. But it’s also about practicality. If atheists wish to convert religious skeptics, fine, but can you do that while insulting them at the same time? “Come on into the club, even though you’re too ugly to be here.” I don’t think that strategy is likely to pay off.
I know many atheists were mistreated or damaged in any number of ways by religion, and they are rightfully angry about it. They want revenge on the religious as payment. I can understand that and I’m not about to argue against it. But I don’t think that displaying that anger is beneficial to the CFI. Hurling back the same insults at the religious that they hurl at us is absolutely futile. (I’m referring to the examples I’ve provided, not characterizing CFI in general.)
Realizing I was an atheist was a joyful experience for me. My world finally made sense when I stopped trying to shoehorn various incarnations of God into it. Unfortunately, and more and more so lately, I haven’t found much joy in the work and discussion promulgated by some of my fellow atheists. My realization didn’t engender a need to lash out at those who believe; I understand that isn’t the case for many people, but I simply don’t identify with them.
The CFI is in a transitional state right now and I continue to enjoy and support their work. Despite everything I’ve said, I encourage you to look into their programs and projects. But clearly it’s not just me who is concerned about the mixed messages coming from the organization. I wish I could engage in discussion on one of their blogs without being blown off with ridiculous assertions like “You obviously wanted to be offended so I gave you what you wanted.” I want to know more about their work with humanism and secularism, without being surprised by things like the original Park51 statement. I honestly wish nothing but the best for the CFI. But I also wish there could be a consensus on which face of atheism they choose to show the world.
