RSS
Home
An atheist tells his fellows to leave the envelope un-pushed
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
There is an interesting discussion brewing among web-dwelling nonbelievers due to a guest post on BoingBoing (you know, the first place you look for atheism news) by Paul Spinrad concerning the pitfalls of "flag-flying" atheism. Elitism, he says, is not the answer.
Under a democracy, the elitist motivation is self-defeating: If your true aim is to distinguish yourself from the masses, you really don't want your side to win . . . With religion, I think atheists have the same dissonance going on. If they really think the world would be better off without religion, they shouldn't hate religion and call believers fools. Any successful new belief system must appreciate the beauty of what it's replacing and strive for backwards-compatibility.
Spinrad anoints "closeted atheists" as the future of atheism, those who keep quiet and go through the religious motions without investing real belief in the supernaturalism of it all. I suppose he hasn't read my post on James L. Gibson's research on the intolerance of the traditionally religious -- and what is he waiting for? :) -- because he seems to be under the impression that church-goers who discover an undercover infidel in their midst would be just fine with it:
In many places I don't think they would be kicked out or turned upon and beaten just for that.
That might be true in a UU church, but I wonder. I don't go to church (obviously) so maybe those who do can tell me what might really happen in their church in such a case.
I'm digressing. Spinard says that atheists need to offer something to replace the spiritual fulfillment of religion in order to gain converts. Even Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist agrees on this point. Hemant writes:
We won’t achieve success (in convincing others that there’s no reason to believe in a God) unless we can offer them alternatives to what they want from religion. If they want explanations, we must give them logical, honest answers (including “I don’t know”). If they want community, we must be prepared to provide it. If they want ritual, we must have options available to them.
I have a small quibble here. It's not that I think their oughtn't be such alternatives available, but I do question the "we" part of Hemant's position. Hemant is right that the explanations for existence are really not to be found in myths, and any nonbeliever worth their salt should be able to communicate this (particularly the "I don't know" part, an excellent point by Hemant). But I think it is by no means atheists' responsibility to provide the I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Church to potential de-converts. It would be mighty nice of us, and we shouldn't shy away from doing so, but rationality and reason are not good because they fill up our hearts with joy. Joy and fulfillment and a feeling of unification with the cosmos may be wonderful byproducts of reason (and for me they certainly are), but they are not the sole justification for reason's necessity. Just as the God hypothesis would be just as irrational, just as baseless if there had never been a Darwin, a potential lack of a fuzzy spirituality does not justify rejecting rationality.
But Hemant's point is of course that success in unattainable without those alternatives, and he may be right. I just don't think it's my job as a current nonbeliever to come up with it. But it may have to be. Sigh. But if people want these things after they have rejected the supernatural, surely they can discover it on their own. We are a dynamic and always-surprising species.
Anyway, I rejoin Hemant's way of thinking when he tells us that quiet conciliation is not a means to an end for atheists, nailing the point thusly:
The gay rights supporters did not get to where they are today because they kept quiet.
Zing! He goes on:
I don’t buy the argument that the future of atheism lies with the closeted ones. The future of atheism lies with the vocal atheists who aren’t afraid to say so. They vote, they protest, and they stand in unity when they hear of discrimination against other non-believers. They don’t have to be mean about it; they just have to be willing to say they don’t believe in God without fear of retribution.
Because the entire point is not merely to change minds of the religious about the existence of God. It is also, and for some most importantly, to change the minds of the religious about atheists. When you apply Spinrad's argument to any of the groups who are only now emerging from marginalization and oppression, one almost shudders. One thinks of homosexuals going about their lives pretending to be heterosexual, or, absurdly, racial minorities pretending to be white (or less absurdly, taking themselves out of the field of view) -- all of which would be tacit acknowledgments of the fictional idea that somehow their group is inherently "less than" or "bad."
It is a stirring indicator of where the atheist movement is that there are still so many of us advocating that we not make ourselves known, that we go along to get along. As I constantly argue, one's adherence to a religious dogma (or lack thereof) is not the same as one's genetic inheritance, which is to say that it is people who deserve respect and equality, not necessarily ideas. Atheists are marginalized because their ideas contradict prevailing beliefs. Some think that the position of atheists somehow makes them "bigots" or "intolerant" because they reject something so close to people's hearts. But atheists are not rejecting people for who they are as people, but rejecting notions, ideas, philosophies, invalid nonscientific claims.
In atheists' marginalization, however, they are being rejected as people for their ideas -- which of course means their ideas can't get a fair shake if they as people are considered non-citizens or undesirables. can reject Christianity without rejecting Christians, and you can reject atheism without rejecting atheists. Unfortunately, our culture right now has thrown out the atheists along with the atheism.
The point? Yes, I have one.
The challenge, as I've said, is twofold. We want our culture to think more rationally, to reject superstition and baseless mythologies so they can no longer be used as justifications for bad policy, violence, or oppression. At the same time, atheists want -- atheists require -- a seat at the table, an equal place within society, not for being atheists, but for being people. Nothing will change unless atheists make themselves heard. Nothing will change unless we make our case. If we do not push the envelope, we will simply remain enveloped.
Side note: I am weary of the overuse of the term "elitist." Click here for Sam Harris's defense of elitism in the case of the Palin/Plumber phenomenon.
Related Articles:
Comments
