October 21, 2007
Organised Atheism
I’ve been holding off talking about Richard Dawkins’ “Out Campaign” for a while (yes, it’s probably all died down by now – you’ve either got a scarlet “A” on your t-shirt, website, car and baby, or you don’t) because I still haven’t figured out what I really think about it. On one hand, I applaud the effort to bring atheists together and to “out” themselves, but on the other, I still see the label “Atheist” as useful as “non-chocolate lover” or non-spice girls fan1.
Of course, the use of the word “atheist” (and therefore the need to “out” oneself) has been stirred up recently by Sam Harris at an Atheist Alliance conference in Washington2 – there are no “non-racists”, so “why are we defining ourselves by something that should simply be the case”3?
Every political or social group have certain beliefs and/or interests in common. A football team shares a love of sports, and possibly a belief that football is a worthwhile pursuit. A political group might share certain values and beliefs about how a society should function. A religion, well, they often share beliefs about a great many things: politics, sexuality, family values, etc. But more importantly – they share a belief in a supernatural being (or spirit, or afterlife, etc.).
What do atheists share? Nothing. Many of us can’t even agree on a definition of Atheism! I don’t mean to say that there’s nothing that we share, but what we do share is, quite literally, “nothing” – we share a nonexistent thing4: a lack of a belief in God. While this probably gives us a more common understanding of God than most religious people (even within the same religion or denomination, it seems every person has their own understanding of exactly what or who God is), this doesn’t seem to be a great foundation for an alliance.
Am I going to “come out”, well – yes, and no. I am without religion. I am, therefore, an atheist. I am also without racism, and am therefore non-racist. I have never killed anyone, and am therefore a non-murderer. I further have no love for chocolate5, no love of ABBA or the Spice Girls and most certainly no belief in fairies or celestial teapots. If you wish to define me by any of these “labels”, feel free – but I certainly don’t.
Popularity: 100% [?]
- Harris explains it much better than I could on his website [↩]
- Partial transcript available at Washington Post [↩]
- Hemant Mehta (Oct 1, 2007) Atheist Alliance International Convention 2007 (Recap) [↩]
- Nothing (n) A nonexistent thing [↩]
- I wonder if coming out as an atheist, or an non-chocoholic would create more of a stir? [↩]
Posts
mark said,
January 31, 2008 at 9:41 am
I use the term atheist to define myself simply because it’s the best term out there. I don’t see it as a “negative”.
It’s just that secularist, humanist, rationalist, and all the other terms don’t quite do it for me. And I’ve outed myself to my friends and co workers because I don’t want the myth that morality has anything to do with god. People know me to be moral and decent and they now know me to be an atheist.
Richard said,
January 31, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I agree that there probably aren’t any better terms (like you, I don’t feel secularist, humanist, rationalist, etc. quite describe me), but the word “Atheist” IS a negative one (I don’t mean it has negative connotations, but that it describes a negative).
Atheist describes the LACK of something, not the presence of something, like other theological and philosophical labels (such as secularist, christian, etc.). While I agree that there aren’t any better labels, my point is – why does it need a label at all? We don’t give labels to the many other things we might not have (except, perhaps, with “disabilities” – but then, many people frown upon these labels too!), so why have a label for a lack of belief?
mark said,
February 1, 2008 at 7:07 am
Yes, atheist does describe the lack of something, so it describes a negative. Some groups are trying to promote th use of the term “Brights”.
But I disagree over your suggestion that we even need a label. I want to propagate the notion that you can be a moral person and also not believe in god. In order to do that, I have to use the term that people understand. That term is atheist.
But I agree that we should not need labels, and that the term atheist is a negative descriptor. But I use it for lack or a better one, and I doubt there is another way for me to meet my desire to propagate my goal, as described above.
Ben Barnett said,
August 19, 2008 at 3:00 am
I liked Sam Harris’s comments on this topic from the AAI Conference in 2007. I agree that ‘atheist’ isn’t the word we should be promoting, although it is one descriptor we can be comfortable with. Why can’t we all just be… Reasonable? When people ask me what I “am”, I just say I’m Reasonable. If they press me further, I usually smile and say I’m a Fundamentalist, Evangelical Agnostic. Great blog you’ve got here. I’d love to get added to your blogroll (and of course I’d do the same). Check out mine at http://www.createcognitivedissonance.wordpress.com!
Ben