cognitive dissident

Greta Christina's "Why Do Atheists Have to Talk About Atheism?" at AlterNet takes aim at theists' complaints about our participation in the marketplace of ideas, often expressed as a variant of "I wish atheists wouldn't talk so much about atheism." Her call is for a level playing field--one that does not privilege religion:

We see no reason to treat religion any differently from any other hypothesis about the world. We think it's valid to ask it to support its case just like any other hypothesis ... and just like any other hypothesis, we think it's valid to poke holes in it in public.

And we think one of the main reasons religion has survived for so long is that it's so impressively armored against criticism and indeed against the very idea that criticism of it is an acceptable thing to do.

So we therefore think criticizing religion is not only valid, but important. It doesn't just chip away at religious beliefs themselves. It chips away at the idea that religious beliefs should be immune to criticism. It chips away at the armor that religion has used so effectively for so many centuries to shield itself from any and all questions and critiques.

This passage is a great summation of why we need to keep talking:

Queer activists were "in your face"; civil rights activists were "hostile"; feminists were "strident." And now atheists who make our case are "intolerant" and "evangelical." When people speak out, not against atheism, but against the very idea of atheists persuasively expressing their views, I always want to ask if that's really the side of history they want to end up on.

We must contribute to the discussion, and help bend the arc of the moral universe ever closer toward justice.