I can't wait to see this

Totally unexpected results from trap tree poll

Here's the poll at GoodMorningGloucester. Who could have foreseen this?

Words!

Jerry Coyne is asking about beautiful words. Here’s a list of 70 (or thereabouts - I hate counting). ...Of the moment. I’m mercurial.

anemone
aquifer
bacilli*
balm
bazaar
calamitous
caravan
conjurer
dancehall
deft
eucalyptus
faraway
froth
glazier
gravelly
gypsum
harbor
hooch
impostor
inkwell
intrigue
jowl
kiosk
languid
lemony
mahogany
mariner
mineral
mystic
nebula
oblivion
oyster
pamphleteer
parabola
perfunctorily
preposterous
quahog
quixotic
ramshackle
regret
revel
saffron
satellite
scallop
schooner
scurrilous
serene
snout
souk
sultry
swagger
swizzlestick**
taffy
tambourine
tawdry
thalassic
tisane
tonic
trinket
tropic
tryst
ubiquity
vagabond
vainglorious
vaudeville
vexatious
wanton
whelk
zinc

* The list of lovely biological terms is endless (Delphinidae? Mellifluous!).
** I declare this to be a single word.

Social Science, the Right, and the AAA

The Right’s relationship with academics, and social scientists in particular, has two sides: trying to make use of them (the Human Terrain System, encouraging psychologists’ participation in torture, “security” centers, efforts to use scholarly credibility to burnish propaganda efforts, and corporate influence on the functioning of universities in general) and attacking them (seeking to withdraw funding to Middle Eastern Studies programs or social science funding by the NSF, generally rejecting social scientific research other than that viewed as useful). This week’s news has highlighted both prongs, neither of them good, of course, for the social sciences, and both of which continue to be resisted. Unfortunately, it’s also brought to light some confused social scientists who seem to be playing into this strategy while apparently believing they’re doing the opposite.

The attempts to utilize academic credibility for propaganda purposes have been revealed by Adrienne Pine in her work on FIU’s “Strategic Culture” Initiative, in which “anthropology's analysis and cultural capital are appropriated in order to facilitate and legitimize military violence.” As she argues:

The concept of "culture" is being used to justify the violent actions of the U.S. military throughout the hemisphere. Culture is also used to justify U.S. training of and funding for Latin American military forces that engage in torture, targeted assassinations of dissidents, and carry out coups d'etats. But the abuse of the culture concept in the service of empire is neither new, nor unique to the militarized university. In the case of Honduras, groups like the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) have promoted the idea that Honduras suffers from a culture of violence—rather than a neoliberal policy of state violence in which poverty is criminalized and the victims of structural violence are blamed. This difference is crucial; if violence is cultural, then "security"—in the form of increased U.S. military aid and training—is a logical solution for disciplining an unruly, uncivilized population. However, if violence is the explicit policy of a militarized client state protecting corporate profits from falling into the hands of the Honduran people, then democracy—however the Honduran people should choose to approach it—is the solution.

I’ve read quickly through the Bolivia report, and it’s astonishing. It would be hilarious if I didn’t fear its potential effectiveness. In this attack on the Bolivian Left, the entire history (and present) of exploitation, oppression, terror, greed, and destruction is purported to be – I said it was astonishing – essentially a set of notions concocted by an authoritarian “culture of victimization.” It’s pure propaganda. There is, in fact, no science here. The author, making several patently ridiculous suggestions, offers a handful of citations, of a quality people can judge for themselves. This isn’t scholarship.

The other side of the blade is the outright attack, represented most recently by the efforts of Eric Cantor. As PZ describes:

He wants people to search NSF and report back to him with grant numbers that they don't like.

...And then he gives hints on searching the database, listing words that might yield boondoggles: "success, culture, media, games, social norm, lawyers, museum, leisure, stimulus, etc."

What’s important to recognize is that this has nothing to do with spending or waste. These attacks are, in some cases, mere posturing, and in many based on a genuine fear of the production and dissemination of real scholarly work contrary to their interests.

In this ongoing context of active efforts by those on the Right to derail the social sciences by co-opting or eliminating them, I found the reports of the past few days concerning intended changes to the American Anthropological Association’s mission statement troubling. This appears to be an effort to distance anthropology from science. (I’m unimpressed by Hugh Gusterson’s suggestions (in the comments here) that the changes aren’t significant and that the process has been democratic because, well, “The Executive Board is elected by the membership to make these kinds of decisions” and the document was sent to the section heads.

Sadly, science has for many people come to be conflated with imperialism and oppression, state and corporate power. It’s one thing to say that anthropology as a discipline has been used for statist, imperialist, and corporate ends (and this includes not only the content of anthropological works but, as Foucault made clear long ago, the practice of anthropology itself). It’s quite another to suggest, as these changes would, that this is somehow inherent in science.

I’m most distressed that the terms central to the discussion are not being defined, leading to unintentional misrepresentations. Science is a means of building knowledge about the world through reasoned and systematic empirical investigation and analysis. It’s the only valid or reliable means we have to assess fact claims. I’d like to think – realizing this would be naïve – that anthropologists wouldn’t seriously reject this as a description of their discipline, but I fear I might be wrong. I was recently watching an interview with Derrick Jensen (not an anthropologist, it should be noted) on Democracy Now!*, which contained this exchange:

AMY GOODMAN: Derrick, what is the influence of Native Americans in your writing, in your work, in your activism?

DERRICK JENSEN: It’s another great question. And I have tried not to romanticize them, which is another form of objectification. And what I do know is I know that the Tolowa Indians, on whose land I now live up in way northern California, they lived there for at least 12,500 years, if you believe the myths of science. And if you believe the myths of the Tolowa, they lived there since the beginning of time, using a myth as stories that we tell ourselves that make the world fit together. So, in any case, the Tolowa lived there for at least 12,500 years....

No. Science is not simply a “story we tell ourselves to make the world fit together.” It’s a method of discovering reality. The Tolowa have been there for an amount of time, and that is a fact. If you want to say that whenever “they” arrived there was, for them, the beginning of time, OK, but you’re merely poeticizing that fact. And seriously, you’re first sentences offered empirical claims about environmental changes (which I haven’t confirmed) that are the products of science.

On the other side, what are the “ways of knowing” these anthropologists wish to place alongside science? Concretely, as a method – what are they? Personal revelation? The interpretation of ancient texts? As much as “science” needs to be defined in this discussion, so does “ancient wisdom.” Is this term being used to refer to sets of ideas or to the “method” of referring to elders or texts? I think that in contexts in which practices that have allowed people to live sustainably in the world for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years, ecological ideas or practices should be taken and investigated very seriously. There’s a great deal that’s unknown about ecosystems and our role in them, and practical knowledge that’s been developed in essence scientifically over generations is potentially highly valuable. That does not mean that we should accept any fact claims wearing the mantle of “ancient wisdom.”

Nor do I understand the line some people seem to want to draw between advocacy and science (in which I include history). The idea that advocacy is in essence un- or anti-scientific is simply wrong. Advocacy, to be effective and to be ethical, needs to be based on an accurate assessment of reality, and for this we need science. I understand (and frequently make) the argument that scientific practice is generally organized to serve corporations and governments; I understand that corporations and governments have effectively worked to claim “science” for themselves. But we need to distinguish between the current, transitory, situation and the meaning of science. We should criticize scientific work on its questions, methods, data, and analysis, and promote good science. It’s sad that those who are buying the “culture/activism = anti-science” line don’t seem to grasp that the conception of science on which this is based is fundamentally flawed, and that accepting it contributes – intentionally or not - to a right-wing political project.

I think – and I’m in the good company of Sokal, Chomsky, and Mills here – that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that science, as the means of establishing knowledge about reality (including social reality), is a tool of liberation, and ignorance and anti-science means of oppression. It’s a catastrophic error to allow others to define science in such a way that people are led to reject it, and it plays Right into the hands of the (corporate, political, religious) oppressors.

*(Which I otherwise found quite interesting, particularly his challenge to the “Gandhi shield,” though I have problems with some of his arguments.)

WikiLeaks' Honduras cable: "an illegal and unconstitutional coup"

People are talking about this revelation (including Adrienne Pine on Telesur, which I haven't yet been able to play).

From truthout's "WikiLeaks Honduras: State Department Busted on Support of Coup" (read the whole thing, including the cable itself at their link):

By July 24, 2009, the US government was totally clear about the basic facts of what took place in Honduras on June 28, 2009. The US embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable to Washington with the subject, "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." The embassy listed arguments being made by supporters of the coup to claim its legality, and dismissed them thus: "None ... has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution." The Honduran military clearly had no legal authority to remove President Manuel Zelaya from office or from Honduras, the embassy said, and their action - the embassy described it as an "abduction" and "kidnapping" - was clearly unconstitutional.

It is inconceivable that any top US official responsible for US policy in Honduras was not familiar with the contents of the July 24 cable, which summarized the assessment of the US embassy in Honduras on key facts that were politically disputed by supporters of the coup regime. The cable was addressed to Tom Shannon, then assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs; Harold Koh, the State Department's legal adviser; and Dan Restrepo, senior director for western hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council. The cable was sent to the White House and to Secretary of State Clinton.

But despite the fact that the US government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the US did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by US law....

Thanks to everyone who's forwarded me information about this.

Interlude - From the Book of Embraces

Today is my birthday, I'm gorging on films, and I'll soon be having dinner with my sister and close friends. I am lucky. Here are two passages from Galeano that both capture my mood:

THE FIESTA

The sun was gentle, the air clear, and the sky cloudless.

Buried in the sand, the clay pot steamed. As they went from ocean to mouth, the shrimp passed through the hands of Fernando, master of ceremonies, who bathed them in a holy water of salt, onions, and garlic. There was good wine. Seated in a circle, we friends shared the wine and shrimp and the ocean that spread out free and luminous at our feet.

As it took place, that happiness was already being remembered by our memory. It would never end, nor would we. For we are all mortal until the first kiss and the second glass, which is something everyone knows, no matter how small his or her knowledge.

*

ART AND TIME

"Who are my contemporaries?" Juan Gelman asks himself.

Juan says that sometimes he comes across men who smell of fear, in Buenos Aires, Paris, or anywhere in the world, and feels that these men are not his contemporaries. But there is a Chinese who, thousands of years ago, wrote a poem about a goatherd who is far from his beloved, and yet can hear in the middle of the night, in the middle of the snow, the sound of her comb running through her hair. And reading this distant poem, Juan finds that yes, these people - the poet, the goatherd and the woman - are truly his contemporaries.

***

And a sweet one, from my birthday mate:



RIP.

HONDURAS UPDATE 11-25-10

* Here's a solid piece on the terrible coverage of Honduras in the US media (which I've written about previously): "Media Distortions Legitimize Honduras Regime."

* While women and journalists continue to be denied justice within Honduras, it appears the International Criminal Court is beginning an investigation into crimes there.

Four Lions - recommended

It fails the Bechdel test miserably. But it's an intelligent comedy about Islamic terrorists.

Good grief - you're doing it again!

One of the responses to “HOW TO WRITE ABOUT THE GNU ATHEISTS, a Guide” has been from a Be Scofield, “How to Write about the Religulous, A Guide.” (There was some borderline spamming in my comments, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that there were real or perceived technical problems.) The thing is long and confused, and I’m not devoting any significant time or energy to replying. (As a sociologist studying the history of social movements – writing a post about religious movements right now, in fact – I'll admit to my amusement at suggestions concerning our ignorance or neglect of sociological definitions of religion and the history of religious movements.*)

But good grief! “Remember: this is about the religulous”!? You’re doing it again! A primary point of my post – both implicit and explicit – was that people often make extraneous matters the focus in any discussions of belief.** We are arguing for the formation of beliefs based on reason/evidence. That is science, and atheism is the only scientific position. There is simply no basis or defense for the belief in any gods. It’s that simple, that is what we’re saying, and that needs to be established. That is a central part of the substance of my argument as a gnu atheist, whatever that of my arguments as an anarchist or sociologist or feminist.

Instead of engaging that substance, and indeed as a means of avoiding substantive debate on the question of gods, many people divert attention to completely separate issues. I don’t know how many more times this can be pointed out: it matters not a whit to this question what the benefits or drawbacks (evolutionary, historical, contemporary) of belief or religious community, however defined, are. The socio-historical role of religious beliefs is absolutely in need of attention, but people arguing honestly and intelligently should be able to distinguish these issues – a scientific epistemology of belief and the truth of religious fact claims on the one hand and sociological and historical questions concerning religion on the other - and deal with them separately. Further, it isn’t until the former has been addressed that any honest discussion concerning the ethics, tactics, or strategy of the atheist or related movements can happen. It is entirely dishonest to pretend to a debate on these questions without first addressing epistemology and truth claims concerning the existence of gods.

I am blissfully happy to continue conversations about the history and sociology of religion, which are part of my work, and I’ll note that I’m not the sort of scholar who’s dissuaded by the mere mention of Liberation Theology or Civil Rights or the struggles of indigenous peoples***, so be careful what you wish for. But the point, and it’s a key point that I’m angered to see consistently evaded, is that these are separate questions from that of scientific epistemology and the existence of any gods. (Of course they are also questions that need to be considered scientifically; it's territory where religious and accomodationists seem to believe themselves to be more secure, but they're wrong.)

I would love to think that the response to this might include an explicit acknowledgement of this evasive conflation, but I’m not optimistic on that score.

* I’ll note one statement that irritated rather than amused me, and that was: “[The religious person] may challenge the idea that the casual drinker isn’t responsible for alcoholism, liver disease and ruined marriages. Or that the pot smoker sanctions the heroin addict.” It’s not that this (along with the other silly analogies drawn) fails to understand the fundamental argument concerning the defense of religious epistemology and demands for respect for a set of fact claims. Such failures are typical of the entire piece. I do not believe that drug use, much less drug addiction, requires sanction.

** The impetus included, it should be noted, representations and stereotypes that feed prejudice and discrimination toward a marginalized group in my country - atheists. I'm rather amazed and distressed that this status and the pattern of portrayals of gnus in this context was minimized.

*** The most telling portion of the post was this: "And lastly, never make exceptions for the religions of Native Americans or other Indigenous people, however superficially attractive their ideas might be....They deserve to be subjected to the same scrutiny and attack as any other religion." The beliefs certainly do deserve the same scrutiny, and the reference to superficial attractiveness is a dead giveaway. Understanding what makes a fact claim attractive to a gnu atheist is a start, and a hint is that the attraction is anything but superficial.

The REAL truth commission in Honduras

...now has a web site!

(I'm adding it to the list of informational sources, which is just to the left.)

Mass Extinctions and How We Wrecked the Ocean

Over at Deltoid, Jeff Harvey just posted a link to this recent post at Climate Progress about mass extinctions and particularly the unprecedented devastation wrought on marine ecosystems in the past century. It contains a link to this 18-minute TED talk by Jeremy Jackson, “How we wrecked the ocean”:


A few contextual perspectives on the environment and fisheries: I’m currently reading J. R. McNeill’s Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World.



While a bit dated with regard to some of the major problems – published in 2000 – and, like many works, lacking sufficient attention to the oceans, it offers a startling overview of the distinctiveness and significance the past century’s environmental destruction and its actual and potential effects.

I also recommend David Dobbs’ The Great Gulf: Fishermen, Scientists, and the Struggle to Revive the World’s Greatest Fishery.



Finally, I’m just starting Decline of Fishes, Peter Anastas’ new novel (not yet on Amazon, but I believe it will be shortly) about the politics of “development” and fishing in Gloucester, Massachusetts.

I plan to have much more to say on the subject of the history of fisheries and the environment in the future, particularly my position that key to an effective approach is the appreciation and revival of local/indigenous traditions of marine resource use.

On a lighter note, I’ll leave off with my favorite line of the past few weeks (even with the mistaken “your”): “You know what else...deep-sea fish think your f’n ugly too!”

Dogs Decoded

***
On PBS now!

***

Link Gnus

Just recently I thanked Ophelia Benson and Jerry Coyne for linking to my post, and now Richard Dawkins has, too. (I guess he still thinks I’m male, but I’ll live with it.) I appreciate and am enjoying the comments and suggestions – may have to write up a Part II of the Guide.

And now PZ has linked to my remarks about the possibility of evidence for a god (and also to this excellent essay). I think our position continues to be misunderstood and misrepresented. If I keep asking “Evidence for what?” perhaps it will help….

No, there can't be evidence for a god.

(First, my sincere thanks to Ophelia Benson and Jerry Coyne for linking to my previous post!)

After debating the subject on the Pharyngula comment threads for several days recently, I’m going to re-enter the fray (for background, see below*). I don’t think I’m necessarily adding anything beyond what I’ve already said, but this format allows me to better organize and present my thoughts.

I think the central point is getting lost. This has nothing to do with proving naturalism or dismissing scientific claims out of hand. There can’t be evidence for a god because it’s simply a fictional notion. It’s merely a product of the human imagination, like any fictional character. (We can of course to some extent trace the literary-mythical development of the Abrahamic god-idea, but it’s not necessary to do so.) I’m perplexed by the arguments that some god concepts are more amenable to evidence than others. None of them are, from the most “personalized” to the most nebulous. The crucial aspects of a definition of an entity – What is it? Of what does it consist? How does it operate? – are not answered in the case of gods, ghosts, angels or demons.

Pointing to some characteristics of a fictional character – loving, angry, jealous, large, simple, powerful – doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of developing a concept of an entity for which evidence for or against existence could be brought to bear. Of course, god-concepts, as imaginary constructions, are all completely plastic: features can be added or subtracted at will because they’re completely made up and have no referents in reality. It’s nonsensical to accept any particular complex of such features as a description worthy of science, since these types of features have nothing to do with the sort of definition necessary for empirical consideration.

Nor does it make any sense for scientists to accept that any observable phenomena would provide evidence of the existence of any fictional notion. “If a god exists, it will be purple.” “A god will bring storms and plagues for years on end.” “If a god exists, prayers to it will be answered.” “A god can raise people from the dead.” What do such claims even mean? How could they have any place in science? We can certainly measure whether there are purple things or storms or distance healing or reanimation, but this has no bearing on the existence of imaginary entities. Any phenomena, including those that appear to violate physical laws, could be attributed to some fictional entity or process, any fictional entity or process (bound only by the limitations of the human imagination). Some fictional entities already form part of the various human cultures, but this fact doesn’t make it reasonable to accept that empirical observations could provide evidence for them.

The best way I can think of to explain what I’m getting at is to suggest imagining a situation in which the notion of gods – in the specific or generic sense – didn’t exist. (This is the actual situation scientifically – these fictional inventions do not exist in the scientific sense.) All we would ever have are observable phenomena, potentially explained in any number of ways.

People keep asking about the past and present situation: “Isn’t the lack of evidence for any deities to some extent evidence that none exist?” If I agreed with this, I would have to accept the possibility that future evidence may appear. But I don’t agree. It’s a strange idea altogether. There’s no more sense in talking about evidence in relation to these imaginary notions than there is in talking about it in relation to the Ghost of Christmas Past or the Cat in the Hat or Pinocchio. There can’t be evidence or a lack of evidence for something that lacks any basic definition. To the extent that some confluence of phenomena resembled, or resembled the claimed modus operandi of, some particular concept, it would show nothing other than that some people invented a non-referential concept that happens to share (superficially, as it has to be) some features with observable reality.

I’m not agreeing with Eugenie Scott at all. This isn’t about any supposed limits of science in studying supernatural entities. These “entities” and “realms” aren’t. They’re simply inventions without even imagined referents in reality. There’s nothing there but a parade of colorful literary characters and abstract notions. Science can’t possibly consider them, has no reason to consider them, and has to dismiss them. That’s the situation. Would it be possible for someone to develop a real definition of a god entity that could plausibly be amenable to a reasoned analysis of evidence? I don’t think so. But that would be different from the situation now.

*The fray:

PZ Myers, “It’s like he was reading my mind”

Jerry Coyne, “Can There Be Evidence for God?”

PZ Myers, “Eight reasons you won’t persuade me to believe in a god”

Jerry Coyne, “PZ Myers on Evidence for a God”

PZ Myers, “There aren’t any zogweebles, either”

Sean Carroll, “Is Dark Matter Supernatural?”

Jerry Coyne, “Methodological Naturalism: Does It Exclude the Supernatural?”

Ophelia Benson, “For When the Agent Gets Here”

Greta Christina, “Can Atheism Be Proven Wrong?”

Ophelia Benson, “Alien Epistemology”

HOW TO WRITE ABOUT GNU ATHEISTS, A Guide

Over the past few years I’ve read many articles about the Gnu Atheism in major media venues. I’ve seen a wide range of quality, and it seems that some, though with the best of intentions, are unsure about the best points to hit and how to hit them most effectively. It’s for them that I’ve written this guide.*

HOW TO WRITE ABOUT GNU ATHEISTS

Gnu atheists should be presented as uncivil, strident, aggressive, arrogant proselytizers and rigid fundamentalists. Don’t worry about finding concrete examples to support these generalizations. If you absolutely must quote from a gnu, keep it short and divorced from the complex background and context which would only confuse the reader. You’re firmly within the consensus, so you’re on solid ground. At the same time, whenever possible – as when discussing large-scale surveys showing declining rates of belief – present nonbelievers as merely having “doubts” about God. This is perfectly consistent.

Similarly, gnu atheism shouldn’t be presented as an intellectual position. Repeatedly emphasize their hostility to organized religion as the source of their disbelief. It helps if you acknowledge that there are some legitimate reasons for this hostility – shows you to be fair and balanced while leaving aside those pesky ontological matters.

You’re also safe presenting gnu atheists as cold, hyper-rational, solitary automatons who lack an appreciation of beauty or sense of wonder. Pay no attention to those who are artists, writers, or musicians, or to any of their works describing the wonder of scientific understanding and the sense of cosmic connectedness that follows from this deeper empirical knowledge. Leave aside the enormous spectrum of atheist writing on any number of ethical issues. And no need to discuss gnu atheists as people with families, friends, and communities. There’s nothing dishonest about this. You’re writing about that one dimension that is the guiding focus of their lives: rejecting religion.

In fact, the analysis of gnu atheism not as a position concerning reality but a symptom of something larger, an expression of a (post)modern spiritual malaise, will vault your article right up into the top intellectual ranks, all the more so if you can present this spiritual condition as the root of many contemporary problems. This lends a profound, dare I say existential, element to your writing, and people will take you very, very seriously.

Contrast is always good. Look for critics! Starkly oppose the gnu atheists to more accommodating figures. Sagan is a great standby. He’s not around to speak for himself, so present his positions as you understand them. One oft-used approach is to refer to The Varieties of Scientific Experience – just the title, not the content or context. It’s common knowledge that Sagan is very generous with religious ideas here, so there’s not much point in looking for parts where he isn’t, or where he notes his fear of a growing religious fundamentalism. And of course his political activism has no place in this discussion. Sagan was a hero. He was beloved. The gnu atheists have nothing in common with him.

To keep the story focused, be as presentist as possible. Neither outspoken atheists of the past nor the history of atheism in radical and social-justice movements, including feminism, are relevant to your contemporary portrait. (It is, however, standard to talk about “faith traditions” as unchanging and free of conflict.) Leave out anticlerical and other atheist movements (including those fighting anti-Semitism, fascism, or dictatorships) and rational education efforts and their history of repression at the hands of organized religion. If you need to talk about atheism in the past, Stalinism is a great fallback, but be sure to leave it vague!

Another winning comparison is to the religious. Gnu atheism is so obviously religion-like, the differences so negligible, that it suffices to assert it without caveats. It’s convenient to point this out, but be aware that it’s a bit touchy. You don’t want to insult your bosses and moneyed readers by bringing any negative aspects of religion into relief, so tread lightly. It helps to distinguish the simplistic folk religion you think the gnus reject from the sophisticated, rarefied theology of the religious leaders and experts. Again, there’s no need for any specifics here, and abstract terms are best. Common believers aren’t your readers of, ahem, interest, and probably won’t understand you anyway, so you can dismiss their silly, primitive beliefs. It’s also widely-accepted practice to minimize substantive belief altogether, focusing on either some studies claiming the evolutionary benefits of religion and/or the value of religious community.

With regard to community, there are several directions in which you can go, and all are effective with your audience. As noted above, it’s perfectly acceptable to discuss atheists as outside of communities. (Readers will naturally judge that only religion can offer a certain kind of community, and that neither atheism nor any other basis for camaraderie – interests, fun, social struggles - is equivalent. Atheists therefore have to construct a substitute for this religious benefit or fail.) Don’t bother looking for atheist-skeptical or other nonreligious communities - they are few and far between.

Alternatively, and perhaps more enjoyably for you and your readers, you can focus on real atheist-skeptic communities, portraying them as either monolithic or riven by conflict. In the unified variant, the community is white, male, very old or young, right wing, and sexist/racist. The lack of norms is a distinguishing feature. There are few women or minorities, especially in leadership roles, and they are not respected. This is of course specific to gnu atheism and religion, and due to the exact same causes. Respected atheist women, minorities, and leftists in leadership roles have spoken eloquently about representation. Using quotations from them about their nonexistence is fine, as long as it’s done with a delicate and subtle touch. In the conflict version, disagreements over politics, tactics, or representation are acrimonious Deep Rifts. Deep rifts sell!

Keep in mind that you’re writing about gnu atheists. There’s no call to blather on about contemporary religious oppression or violence or deference to faith claims. Leave this in the background. It’s reasonable to talk about the ethics of civility (apocryphal pious grandmothers on death beds especially), but the ethics of belief are beyond the scope of your piece. If you do wish to discuss religious beliefs, be sure to present “God” as a clear, well-defined, unified concept. Spelling out that concept would require too much space, as would harping about the differences amongst different factions of believers. There probably won’t be room for discussion of contemporary investigations into cosmology, biology, or neuroscience, either, so leave those out. “We don’t know” is usually effective.

Remember: this is about gnu atheists. The focus should be on them. Questions concerning the existence of deities or the epistemic status of religious beliefs are vulgar and hurtful.

*Inspired by this, itself inspired by this.