How to Suck at Being an Ex-Fundamentalist

 

Mr. Matt Dillahunty is an atheist who is an ex-fundamentalist. Watching clips from his show The Atheist Experience, where he mugs and grimaces at the naïve fundies who call in, I have come to the conclusion that being an ex-fundamentalist is something he sucks at.[1] I hope he does not mind my candor here but, as he pulls no punches with his callers, I will pull no punches with him. The worst atheists, bar none, are those who began as hyper-conservative evangelical protestants. That particular smell DOES NOT rub off no matter how many times you refute creationism or point out there is slavery in the Pentateuch. The smell is one of earnest, doctrinaire moralism and aggressive proselytizing. I don’t like that smell when fundamentalists emit it and I don’t like it any better wafting from atheists. I think though, that I have worked out the reason this is such a problem in the atheist community.

I can only imagine the misery of growing up a JW for instance. In my house, a fairly pious Catholic one, my curiosity was given free reign and, though it led to some clashes with my mother, that wise a wise policy. I read what I wanted to read and would never have ceded that right for anything. Suppose, though, I were to escape from the limited environment in which our JW neighbors were raised? What would I take with me if I left that community or one like it? Alas nothing. I would leave in the same ignorance and arrogant sectarianism in which I was raised. The very first thing I would need to do in this state is attach myself to another doctrine (preferably a simple and easy one) that fills the void left by the old belief system. Having done this, I, of course, will put enormous energy into defending this doctrine which is now my literal lifeline. I will defend it not out of confidence or the quiet poise of achieved wisdom but out of insecurity and profound anxiety. Indeed, I will invite showdowns with others so I can win arguments, not really to persuade them but to persuade myself. Of course, EVERY such victory is fleeting. This is because ALL victory is fleeting and, for that very reason, the feeling of victory must be constantly be renewed. Having disproved the tale of Noah’s ark ONCE I must do so again and again. Soon I may create a call-in show set up so I can win the same arguments over and over on a weekly basis using the same talking points and the same clever come backs I have memorized for just such a purpose! I will talk about science, of course, though I have no interest in it as a humane practice. I will talk about reason with no interest in, or knowledge of, any critical cognitive practice that might fall under that term. Science and reason will be magic words of power, talismans that protect me from backsliding into the community I have left. Science and rational, critical culture will be reduced to desperate apologetic tools.

I think though I have the answer to Mr. Dillahunty’s testosterone fueled chest thumping and belligerence. The answer is Buddhism. I am a Christian myself but Buddhism offers an excellent critical practice for people who are struggling with dogmatism and are desperately trying to escape it by means of an unproductive counter-dogmatism. If being an atheist shock jock gets boring, and inevitably it will, he might productively listen to the advice Siddartha Gautama gave to his monks. Self-knowledge, he told them, is not the product of a discursive chain of reasoning and not the product of winning an argument. It is not the product of a struggle grounded in some form or other of ego-craving. Truth is about putting the ego, the self aside and nothing will alienate us from it faster than the anxiety rooted craving to always win and always one up the other guy. If we are constantly anxious about our status as ‘knowers’ we will never in fact know. We will simply end up performing a toxic persona on a call in show. I would sit for coffee with Telltale, Melissa, Jenny, Pastor Mike or any of the other people I have discussed on this blog. I might even sit with Kelly Marie though I would probably sit as near the exit as possible. About Mr. Dillahunty though, if he is anything like the man he plays on his show, I would have serious doubts.HIS is a world I would NOT want to get dragged into.      


[1] It is clear that The Atheist Experience is Matt Dillahunty’s litter box.  This is indicated by the way he makes faces and fidgets while his callers are speaking, thus making sure he is always the focal point of attention. Further, he has a creepy ability to flip from aggression, nastiness and chest pounding to sweetness and reason just as a sociopath flips from abuse to love-bombing. I do not know the man personally but the character he plays on his show is a classic narcissist.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Suspicious: The Hermeneutic of Paranoia

  Religions, mythologies, ontologies, aesthetic movements, revolutions social or scientific, philosophical arguments and political institutions are all central for the program I teach in at Grenfell Campus (Interdisciplinary Humanities). These are what we study and we study them on the assumption (which I have rarely known to be defeated) that they repay close and serious examination. This means we proceed on the opposite basis to what many people seem to think is an educated attitude to the world. I refer here to what I have previously written about the hermeneutic of paranoia. This is the popular attitude that the purpose of education is not appreciation of the complexity of human culture but rather the rote ‘debunking’ of ‘claims’. For this view culture is all ‘bullshit’. Education, as we practice it, is ‘indoctrination’ or ‘brainwashing’. In the popular mind this attitude is what is thought of as ‘bold’ or ‘iconoclastic’ and is the attitude of ‘free-thinkers’. This is because cultu
Read more

Liar!

            We currently live in the throes of what I call a hermeneutic of paranoia or what a friend of mine has referred to as ‘malignant skepticism’. As educators, of course, we want to teach people to be skeptical, but it seems that something has gone seriously awry in this project. The skepticism we have sought to engender has, seemingly, consumed all standards of discourse and allowed conspiratorial, dangerous nonsense to proliferate. Skepticism has, seemingly, fulfilled the worst fears of critics of relativism and dissolved the very reason and public order on which a culture of intelligent critique rests. Worse, any return to older forms of dogmatism, whether religious or scientific, seems clumsy and forced, hopelessly compromised or even cringingly naïve. We can all see the effects of saying God, reason, or science in a louder voice to be null and, indeed, apt to breed their own kind of extremism. The result of all this is a world where greats swathes of people have lost any se
Read more

Cranks III

  In my last piece I alluded to a kind of crankiness that perhaps deserves more comment. This is the crankiness exhibited by scientists who comment on matters outside the domain of the sciences whether these be philosophical, religious or historical. The interventions of scientists in these domains are, almost without exception, cranky and it is useful to investigate why. What makes a scientist comment on these subjects in spite of a manifest unfitness to do so? Why do we need physicists commenting on the historicity of Jesus or chemists lecturing on epistemology or archeology? Why do we need the thoughts of ethologists on ‘poetry’ or of nuclear engineers on the ontological argument? Of course, we do not need such things at all yet specialists in THESE areas are deeply, existentially convinced we do. The first thing we must note is that ALL of these people deeply and correctly resent the intrusion of amateurs in THEIR domains. Yet at the same time they are incapable of exercising the s
Read more