Atheism can be contagious: A PR problem for nonbelievers?

March 12, 4:35 PMSecularism ExaminerPaul Fidalgo

Previous Next

9 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Secularism Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

The struggle to end atheist marginalization is often compared to that of other minorities' struggles for equality, like those of African-Americans and homosexuals.

There are, of course, important differences. The first is in what form the marginalization manifests. While atheists do suffer blatant discrimination and bigotry, even some fellow nonbelievers are loathe to put our plight on par with others'. For example, as the Center for Inquiry's D.J. Grothe once pointed out to Daylight Atheism's Ebon Muse in an online exchange:
 

…our moral indignation, our anger, is not on par with those who marched on Washington in 1963 to end public school segregation, and for legal protection against police brutality, and to make it illegal to racially discriminate in public and private hiring, and the like. Our indignation is not about how oppressed we are in society, but about how wrong we think society is to believe destructive nonsense.

I'm not going to hash out the whole debate from both sides here (I probably will eventually!), but I want to make the point that there is no solid consensus on just how bad atheists have it and whether our plight really resembles that of blacks and gays.

Today, a piece by David Swanson in American Chronicle caught my attention by bringing up another important difference, regarding the distinction between a genetic accident or inheritance (race, gender, or sexual orientation) and a philosophy to which one subscribes:
 

There is a parallel in the campaign for equal rights for atheists with the campaign for equal rights for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people, but it is inexact. The more atheists can come out of the closet, the more they will be accepted, and the more they will then be willing to come out of the closet, etc. But, unlike the myth of gay proselytization, there really is a significant danger / promise that in opening society to atheism, more people will be converted to atheism who were never atheists before.

Interesting, no? While some backward folks once worried about whether their kid would marry an African-American or share a swimming pool with one, and conservatives and religionists espouse the absurd notion that "gayness" is somehow catching, there is no truth to the idea that these biological properties of a person (these benign, genetic properties) can be "spread." And so what if they could?

But atheism can be spread. One's sectarian allegiances are not embedded in one's genes any more than one's party affiliation. While we nonbelievers may scoff at theists' worries about the idea of atheism catching on, because we know it's a good idea, our opponents are fully correct to think that nonbelief can be learned, that atheism can grow as more people are exposed to it.

So what's the big deal? As far as we're concerned, this is a good thing; the less people adhere to myths and superstitions, the better off our civilization will be. But there are political implications to such a reality. For example, advocates for homosexuals' rights have the facts on their side when they tell people who are hopelessly intolerant of gays that, no, being around a gay person will not make you gay. It's "safe" to let gays adopt, it's "safe" to let them teach. If the spread of homosexuality is what these folks are worried about, the tolerant among us can at least assure them that homosexuality can't be transmitted to their poor, defenseless children.

I hate to have to clarify, but for the sake of thoroughness, this should not be read in any way to say that it would be bad if homosexuality were something that could be "learned" or "spread." That to me is irrelevant -- just as the homosexuality-as-choice versus genetic inheritance "debate" to me is irrelevant; people should be free to be born gay or just choose to be gay as far as I'm concerned. But it is a useful public relations tool to point out that it does not "spread" when we are trying to make it easier for gays to adopt, teach, and in general become full participants in a society that unfortunately contains a lot of people who will simply never come around. Okay: Liberal bona fides proved? Good. Let's move on.

Atheists don't have that tool, at least not to the same extent. We often try to use similar tactics, saying that we have no intention of de-converting folks from their precious faiths, but there can be no doubt that exposure to atheism raises the chances that people will adopt it, or at do a little more religious doubting. To religionists this is a very real threat, and one that they have every reason to fear. And it is a "threat" they can trumpet when trying to silence atheists who wish to have a voice in society that is equal to that of their theistic neighbors.

The fear is palpable. Religionists have learned that atheism is something they truly have to confront, and that the New Atheism in particular is something that they know can begin to cause their flock to wander. They write books, make videos, hold "debates," etc., all to assure the faithful that they had it right all along, and that the atheists, though clever, don't really know what they're talking about.

So it's difficult, maybe impossible, to reassure those who are afraid that by allowing atheists to hold public office or teach children, that people will not be moved to change their minds about religion. Surely, religion is often a frustratingly intractable thing, something to which people will cling no matter how many bestsellers are written by biologists and neuroscience students. But some will, in fact, have their faith punctured. And of those, some will discard it. In the broader picture, that's great news for us marginalized nonbelievers. Llike genes and memes, we really can "replicate." But evolution (even in this metaphorical sense) is very slow, and before we've built up sufficient numbers, the fact that our opponents know we have the potential to spread doubt can make things more difficult in the short term.