Recently Andrew Sullivan posted a reader's response on his column, The Dish, on the internet website, The Daily Beast. The reader was responding to an article written by Reza Aslan, in The Washington Post, entitled "Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett: Evangelical Atheists?"
Although the posted response on The Dish is, in fact, a good response, it allows two significant, albeit understandable, rhetorical errors to go unattested.
First, the reader's response perpetuates Aslan's conscious use of the loaded word: 'evangelical'; and, second, it misses the fact that Aslan presents these New Atheists not as they are, or as they speak for themselves elsewhere (clearly and prolifically), but rather as he sees fit. A logical fallacy known as the straw man.
First, the reader's response perpetuates Aslan's conscious use of the loaded word: 'evangelical'; and, second, it misses the fact that Aslan presents these New Atheists not as they are, or as they speak for themselves elsewhere (clearly and prolifically), but rather as he sees fit. A logical fallacy known as the straw man.
In his original article Aslan indirectly suggested that these four noted (and, perhaps, notorious) atheist spokesmen were possibly being 'evangelical' in their approach to theism. In his response to Alsan's article, the reader (Sullivan provides no name) continues to use the word 'evangelical'.
Why should reader's care about this?
Well, it must be understood that Reza Aslan’s original use of ‘evangelical’, referring to Richard Dawkins and the so-called ‘New Atheists’, is not only unsound it is disingenuous. Further to this I would argue that the reader, in framing their response using Aslan's choice of words, is unwittingly giving him tacit approval of this otherwise unsubstantiated perspective.
Why do I say this?
The word, ‘evangelical’, almost singularly pertains, and refers, to Christianity, Christian—fundamentalist—doctrines, and, historically, to Lutheranism and Protestantism. I will qualify my use of ‘almost’ in a moment.
But first, I would suggest that the more accurate and honest word to use--from Aslan’s perspective, not my own--would be 'zealous'.
Now before someone jumps and cries "hypocrit," and points to the 'fact' that the root of the word ‘zealous’ stems from the religious ‘Zealots’, please be aware that the common belief that 'zealous' is of religious origin is actually--at least historically and etymologically—incorrect. The root of the word ‘zealous’ comes from the Greek and refers to jealousy (zēlos) and those who act on jealousy or are jealous (zēloō). The 'Zealots' came later, in the 1st Century. Their name--in its proper noun form--comes from the word zelotes,
So, if one looks up the term 'zealous' in any dictionary, encyclopedia, etc., they'll find the religious use of the word appears amongst the last entries, if they are present AT ALL.
Why does the place of the entry matter?
Well, it matters because entries are presented beginning with the most common usage of the word to the least common (sometimes archaic) usage.
So, if we compare the entries for ‘zealous’ to the entry on 'evangelical' it becomes quickly apparent that the religious aspects (both denotative and connotative) of the word ‘evangelical’ is prominent and dominant whereas it is last, if present at all, for the entry for ‘zealous’.
So, if we compare the entries for ‘zealous’ to the entry on 'evangelical' it becomes quickly apparent that the religious aspects (both denotative and connotative) of the word ‘evangelical’ is prominent and dominant whereas it is last, if present at all, for the entry for ‘zealous’.
And, to be clear, in looking at the entry via a dictionary or an encyclopedia we’re not ascribing to a 'prescriptive' grammar, rather, its ‘descriptive’ use in the English language. That is to say, by referring to the dictionary or encyclopedia I’m doing so out of convenience and reference. Even the conservative Oxford English Dictionary has moved from being prescriptive (the dictionary as authority) to descriptive (dictionary as a reflection of living languages).
Why is this relevant? What is, to paraphrase Shakespeare, after all in a word?
Simply this: understanding the common usages of terms that have been consciously chosen and crafted provides insight into the motivations of those who crafted them. This is the realm of formal rhetoric. And, I think it safe to say that the motivation behind Aslan's original choice and use of ‘evangelical’ is simply to present Dawkins and the ‘New Atheists’ as being hypocritical or their position as being internally contradictory. In essence, Aslan has created a very sophisticated ‘straw man’. A straw man being a rhetorical device where opponent ‘A’ presents a weak version of the position of ‘B’ so as to then attack ‘B’s’ position. Note, however, that ‘B’ hasn’t presented his or her argument at all. This, then, is also an example of what the linguist George Lakoff calls ‘framing’.
And, although this is a rhetorical trick and is disingenuous, it is also very effective--especially if left unaddressed (in the previous example, by ‘B’).
I believe this is exactly the situation that the reader has unwittingly stepped into in their response to Reza Aslan.
Aslan has framed the arguments and, in so doing, presents Dawkins and the ‘New Atheists’ not as they are, rather as he sees them and, perhaps, simply as he wishes the reader's to see them. That is to say, he presents these ‘New Atheists’ as straw men. Here Aslan, a theologian, is framing not only the language or the argument, but also the position of the ‘New Atheists’ themselves. He is, then, setting the parameters of the debate to highlight only that which suits his purposes. Consequently, by using Aslan's 'evangelical', the reader is unwittingly promoting Aslan’s—and Aslan’s alone-- perspective of Dawkins and the New Atheists.
The effect of this, and what makes it such a powerful—however disingenuous—tactic, is that it sets the limits of not only what will be included in the ‘debate’ but such a tactic also allows him to construct what casual observers will take away from the debate.
This is exactly Orwell's thesis in his seminal "Politics and theEnglish Language." Orwell's observation were based not on theory, but from his first-hand and real world experiences, as well as their tragic applications in the hands of Hitler and Goebbels. This is the concept known as the 'Big Lie'. [I've written at length about this here: http://evidencebasedteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/2-2-5.html]
The effect of this, and what makes it such a powerful—however disingenuous—tactic, is that it sets the limits of not only what will be included in the ‘debate’ but such a tactic also allows him to construct what casual observers will take away from the debate.
This is exactly Orwell's thesis in his seminal "Politics and theEnglish Language." Orwell's observation were based not on theory, but from his first-hand and real world experiences, as well as their tragic applications in the hands of Hitler and Goebbels. This is the concept known as the 'Big Lie'. [I've written at length about this here: http://evidencebasedteacher.blogspot.com/2010/08/2-2-5.html]
To be fair, I’m not trying to compare Aslan to either Hitler or Goebbels!
More recently, we've witnessed the success of these tactics in the Republicans sound thrashing of the Democrats at the hands George W. Bush, and then, the Democrats failure to make head-way during the run-up to Dubiya's second term (the Democrats, by the way, brought in George Lakoff to help their campaign approach).
So, to return to the point, let's be 100% clear: what Aslan is doing is both an example of framing and creating a straw man of the so-called New Atheists.
So, what could the reader have done?
Well, he or she could consider quoting Dawkins or any of the New Atheists directly, or he or she could choose less loaded—more representative—words to refer to their approach.
This is, of course, an issue of editorial or authorial choice. And, as such, there are options readily available to writers as to how to do this while maintaining a specific tone or attitude toward your topic.
For example, if the reader wished to present the New Atheists more neutrally, then choosing words like ardent, fervent, enthusiastic, or passionate would more accurately and genuinely reflect that neutrality.
If, however, the writer believes that these New Atheists are too ardent--perhaps overzealous..?--in their approach yet wishes maintain fairness and balance, then a word like zealous is fine.
The only way to defeat such an approach is simply to be aware of, and thereby not allow yourself to fall prey to, such tactics.
This, of course, is much easier said than done!
