Just up at The New Statesman: Richard has written an open Christmas missive to David Cameron, “Do you get it now, Prime Minister?” It’s about the unholy alliance between the British government and religion, and especially about the divisive nature of faith schools. A snippet:
Token objections to cribs and carols are not just silly, they distract vital attention from the real domination of our culture and politics that religion still gets away with, in (tax-free) spades. There’s an important difference between traditions freely embraced by individuals and traditions enforced by government edict. Imagine the outcry if your government were to require every family to celebrate Christmas in a religious way. You wouldn’t dream of abusing your power like that. And yet your government, like its predecessors, does force religion on our society, in ways whose very familiarity disarms us. Setting aside the 26 bishops in the House of Lords, passing lightly over the smooth inside track on which the Charity Commission accelerates faith-based charities to tax-free status while others (quite rightly) have to jump through hoops, the most obvious and most dangerous way in which governments impose religion on our society is through faith schools – as Rabbi Jonathan Romain reminds us on page 27. . .
. . . A diverse and largely secular country such as Britain should not privilege the religious over the non-religious, or impose or underwrite religion in any aspect of public life. A government that does so is out of step with modern demographics and values. You seemed to understand that in your excellent, and unfairly criticised, speech on the dangers of “multiculturalism” in February this year. Modern society requires and deserves a truly secular state, by which I mean not state atheism, but state neutrality in all matters pertaining to religion: the recognition that faith is personal and no business of the state. Individuals must always be free to “do God” if they wish; but a government for the people certainly should not.
With my best wishes to you and your family for a happy Christmas,
Richard Dawkins
That’s telling him (so long as he reads it).
One almost wishes Richard had wished him a Happy Monkey….
Cheers,
b&
Haha!
But I did think the “happy Christmas” bit was a deft touch, nimbly cutting off any war-on-Christmas types at the pass (while subtly suggesting they’ve already lost the battle, anyway).
Oh he’ll read it.
Or his staff will summarize it for him, and alert him to its contents. The New Statesman carries enough weight among serious readers in the UK for people to take notice (not that it comes close to the impacts of the Daily Mail and the Sun!)
Dear Muslima…
I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make here, but i’m sure it wasn’t to distract from Richard’s excellent article.
Are you suggesting raising a fracas about carols would be a legitimate front in the battle for reason?
I don’t know what he’s suggesting, but raising a fracas about cribs (by which I assume Dawkins means nativity displays) – when they are on government property in the US – is worthwhile in the fight for church/state separation. They may be small fights, but they are worth fighting. It reminds Christians that this is a secular, not Christian, nation and that they no longer have free reign to do whatever they wish with respect to government property. Just like that good ‘ole boy Judge Roy Moore and his ten commandments down in Alabamy.
Of course Dawkins, being English, doesn’t have to deal this inanity every December.
Travis AFB has a huge nativity scene right at the base entrance. They tried to get away with it by putting a menorah, an atheist sign, and something muslim, I think it was, nearby, but managed to only apply bright nighttime lights to the nativity scene. That is, until an atheist alerted the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. While the commander at Travis still refuses to move the displays to the base chapel grounds, he’s at least been forced to provide equal lighting for all four displays. And, he’s now been legally notified that it was too little too late, as the initial inequality set the standard, clearly demonstrating military, i.e., governmental, support of Christianity for all the world to see. Photos are available, showing the dramatic difference in lighting, as is the legal letter, probably on the MRFF website. If you want and can’t find them, let me know.
Well done RD!
Thanks for articulating what many feel, & religious folk please note, not in a strident voice.
Agree! And actually Cameron did made a reply to Dawkins’ words about Keynesian child previously, so Dawkins did have a reason to write this letter (as if he needs one).
Being a modern person, having to bow to ancient religions, indeed is a rather complicated position. This letter is kind of enlightening in a way (not the xmas way).
And yes, unless some sarcasm passed me by, I do not think this letter is strident in any way ..
Happy Holidays!
I prefer “Happy non-sectarian midwinter festival”.
He’s got a point about secular christmas music, though. Painful. I really feel sorry for shop staff at this time of year, who can’t even use headphones to drown it out.
That’s very northern-hemispheric of you! For some, Christmas is a midsummer festival — or an aestival festival! (For those of us in the north it’s a hibernal festival, which doesn’t have quite the same ring…)
/@
You are quite right, I hang my head in shame.
“Happy non-sectarian post-December solstice festival”.
Viennese wit Friedrich Torberg (Viennese meaning Austrian-Jewish-Czech, and later: American) used to greet his editors with the splendid season’s formula:
I wish you a well-lit Feast of Lights, and a thoroughly New Year.
And no doubt many did get well-lit.
presumably meaning an offal repast?
Starter: Zuppa di Polmone
Main/Entrée: Calf Lung Provence Style
Tasty! Is it true that lungs (i.e., lights) are banned for human consumption in the US?
/@
Chanukah is referred to as the Festival of Lights. Perhaps, being Jewish, he was wishing them a happy Chanukah without them realizing he passed over Xmas?
(Passover pun intended.)
Have a cool yule!
Everybody knows that Jesus is born twice a year anyway, to save those in both hemispheres (and to save those near the equator twice).
You know, between all the rebirths, all the crucifixions, all the Tebow Touchdowns, all the appearances on toast, and the neverending reincarnation as wine and crackers, it’s no wonder he’s too busy to save people from tsunamis.
Cheers,
b&
Well of course, if it’s forced on them 24/7. The rest of the year shop staff have to put up with whatever other “edgy” music De Boss Man thinks will persuade customers to fork over a few more pennies.
Clark Gable thought Judy Garland’s “You Made Me Love You” was delightful the first half-dozen time he heard it. Then, the movie moguls decided to send the pair across the country on tour, she sick of singing it, he sick of hearing it.
True, but there is at least a tad more variety the rest of the year. All the way from Lady Gaga to people who sound like Lady Gaga, or from Coldplay to people who sound like Coldplay.
The only time it worked on me was when the shop was playing Rise by PiL and I bought the album.
That’s the one with John Lydon screaming “anger is an energy”. Which it is. Which logically must also mean that anger is mass. So if you get angrier, you get heavier?
I particularly liked the “This is good news.” paragraph, with its reference to Pinker.
(Maybe I should wear my “Good without God” badge/button more often.)
/@
There was a whining article in last weeks ‘Irish Catholic’ newspaper from a theologian lamenting the current Irish governments proposals to try to make Catholic schools (which in Ireland is about 90% of all state supported schools) more inclusive to other religious traditions. On proposal was to introduce comparative religion lessons.
“Mr Van Nieuwenhove said that, while Christians “should know about every religion, it is clear that the classes on world religion and ethics will be conducted from a non-religious perspective, i.e., a secularist perspective, and that is not a neutral perspective, but a deeply anti-religious one”.
The proposals to display religious symbols from a range of faiths and to celebrate the festivals of different religious faiths would involve having “a picture of Shiva Nataraja (a Hindu deity), Avolokiteshvara (a Buddhist deity), an Islamic prayer mat, and a star of David beside the crucifix”.
He also pointed out that children would be asked to celebrate a range of non-Christian feast days.
“Remember, we are talking about schools that allegedly remain Catholic, not about the schools that will transferred out of Catholic patronage.”
Mr Van Nieuwenhove added that “no worldview, be it religious or atheist, is neutral”. He says that “celebratrating the differences of an allegedly more pluralist Ireland” will ultimately make “all religions, in the end, a matter of indifference”.
Mr. Van N “…says that ‘celebratrating the differences of an allegedly more pluralist Ireland” will ultimately make “all religions, in the end, a matter of indifference’.”
And I say, god-willing! Pardon my “french”, of course!
Unfortunately, “state neutrality in all matters pertaining to religion” would be interpreted by most of the religious as state atheism.
This is why wishing someone a “happy holiday season” constitutes a “war on xmas.”
:/
Indeed, anything less than the unison recitation of the Nicene Creed by all in attendance at the next State of the Union address would constitute anti-Christian state-sponsored bigotry in the eyes of many of the faithful.
Cheers,
b&
Which Nicene Creed did you have in mind?
Why, the other Nicene Creed, of course! No — not that one, that’s the other other one. I mean the other one!
If you weren’t a heretic scum worthy of death, you’d know which other one I mean.
b&
+1
Some years ago, I read that England, with a state church, and Germany, with two state churches, had a lower percentage of the population attending church than in the Soviet Union, which frowned on church going. I have suggested, somewhat in jest, to atheist friends that the best thing to do in the USA, to diminish religion, would be to establish a state religion.
Yeah, but didn’t it takes hundreds of years of rule by “the Divine Right of Kings” and a couple of World Wars before England was thoroughly secularized?
We don’t have that kind of time in the US. What we need is a charismatic religious right leader who convinces his followers to start their own Utopian country in, say, Antarctica. They can be free of the shackles of science and have a vast area all to themselves. Of course he’ll also have to teach them that the colder they are, the closer to God they are. After all, if hell is all about brimstone, fire, intense heat, and burning then it’s opposite must be heaven. So Antarctica is the Christian heaven on earth.
Someone start this meme in the religious right blogosphere. You have to sound like you’re one of them though – spout evil, xenophobic, batshit crazy nonsense and they’ll accept you as one of their own. Oh, and you should probably throw in some Jesus said this and Jesus said that, too. Surely the Bible can be twisted to say that Antarctica is the new promised land.
Indeed! The latest British Social Attitudes survey, to which Dawkins refers, shows that only 20% of people in the UK belong to the state religion (compared to 40% in 1983); whereas 50% have no religion.
And yet the government proposes to increase the number of CofE bishops in the UK legislature (that is, in the House of Lords). Madness.
/@
* HTML fail! :-/
& reply fail!
I’ll get my coat…
I would rather have them work on getting real modern evolutionary theory taught in schools than to worry about which displays are at what political office.
And did I misunderstand, or did Dawkins just diss rudolf songs? Seriously? Well I celebrate Solstice and the folks in Finland would tell him what to do with his objections.
Listen – I get what Dawkins is saying. But his views on evolutionary theory are so out of date it’s not even funny. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve seen he has never addressed the new study that some weakness mutations survive, and that sticky point of coevolution.
My Atheist friends insist that Atheism is not a belief system, rather that it’s just a word meaning “does not believe in God”. However I’ve seen Atheists be as dogmatic as anyone else. And as Baggini says (I know, his name is a dirty word around here but this is true) Atheists act as though science is their best buddy, when in reality science is just science – and it’s objective when done right. Not anyone’s friend.
An atheist IS just someone who doesn’t believe in God. Whether individual atheists are or are not dogmatic is beside the point. It doesn’t change the meaning of the word.
Thanks for the response. However I am not talking about the dictionary defenition of Atheist. I am talking about the behavior of those who represent Atheism, and almost everyone else I’ve met who claims to be Atheist. There is a very real tone of dogma, and Richard Dawkins talks about an “evolutionary arms race” which is just patently false. Why do Atheists never discuss the unanswered questions about evolution so as to move the science forward into this century?
And for that matter, why do so many act as though they own the science? Science is not property of anyone. It is how the world works and should not be sullied by people clinging to it as dogma.
Why do you think that? What evidence of such behaviour do you see? What proportion is “so many”?
Many gnu atheists are atheists because of a worldview that is based on skepticism, naturalism, empiricism, rationalism, &c., which is formalised in science. So, their advocacy of science is not a consequence of their atheism, but springs from the same core convictions.
ANd there are certainly atheist who are not naturalists and not advocates of science; many “nones” believe in all kinds of supernatural and pseudoscientific woo.
Oh, and science is not how the world works; science is the way in which we (tentatively) develop models of how the world works. The world worked quite happily before there were people to practice science.
/@
Missed this initial comment, see my response below. 🙂
“science is not how the world works”
Well, biology is the study of how the world works, and all of science seeks to understand how the world works. Close enough in my book.
Biologists use a great deal of direct observation instead of just models.
You’re right, I do not know enough Atheists to judge even a large portion of them; I just know what I’ve heard from my atheist friends and seen in the media, and that’s what makes me nervous.
What have you got to be nervous about? Atheists don’t eat babies; well not many of them do!
Biologists use a great deal of direct observation instead of just models.
Sure. All science does. But “models” (laws, theories, etc.) are based on and must explain observations.
The theory of evolution is a model; but with or without a model, evolution happens. Just as no electron solves Schrödinger’s equation or interprets a Feynman diagram. The world just does what it does regardless of what we think. (Deepak Chopra would disagree hear, of course! 😉 )
That’s why it’s wrong to say that science is the way the world works.
/@
*here 🙁
* also blockquote fail
Oooooooh! :-O
That was a reply to amelie at 8:44 am about my comment at 10:08 am.
Firstly of all NOBODY represents atheism.
Secondly, what is the supposed relevance or talking about an “evolutionary arms race” to atheism? Besides, it seems to be quite an apt metaphor for describing the co-evolution of predators and prey; do you have a better one?
Thirdly there seems to be something ironic about asking “Why do Atheists never discuss the unanswered question about evolution.. ?” On a website where a good number of atheists spend a great deal of time doing just that.
“There seems to be something ironic about asking “Why do Atheists never discuss the unanswered question about evolution.. ?” On a website where a good number of atheists spend a great deal of time doing just that”.
I agree. I should have been more careful in my wording. However I am new to this site and consider it a blog about evolution, not atheism. I keep the two very seperate in my mind, and so should everyone else.
“Firstly of all NOBODY represents atheism”
Dawkins is doing an awfully good imitation of a representative.
“it seems to be quite an apt metaphor for describing the co-evolution of predators and prey; do you have a better one?”
Absolutely. The animal kingdom is not a victim of its environment. Elephants create grasslands by trampling small forests. Beavers create ponds out of streams. On a much smaller level, bacteria create soil from vegetable matter.
And everything else in between. The biosphere is a layer of Earth just like the atmosphere, athenosphere etc. It changes in response to every species on it and collectively as well. It is not an arms race for species. It is an interaction that is made into a macho, war-mongering spectacle by Dawkins. Scientists need to cut out the drama if they are to be taken seriously.
I left out a sentence.
Metaphor: If I had to choose I’d say it’s like quicksand that eventually swallows up those who cannot make it out alive (discounting any inaccuracies about quicksand, since I just made that up). However I’m not into catchy metaphors unless it helps someone understand exceptionally complex processes. Anyone who understands an arms race can certainly understand survival of the fittest.
“Atheists don’t eat babies; well not many of them do!”
Good to know! 😉
Not that there’s anything worng with baby eating, of course! In fact, I’ll be going to the local baby barbecue this weekend, and entering my latest recipe (mango chile marinade) in the contest.
Wanna come along? I’ve got an extra ticket!
Cheers,
b&
• No-one “represents” atheism. It’s not a movement or an ideology. (Nor, thus, can I see any reason to capitalise it.)
• I would characterise “dogmatic” atheism as emphatic atheism — there’s certainly no dogma, as there’s no authority to set down principles. Even gnu atheists, generally the most emphatic, who have some common ground in the basis for their atheism (scepticism, naturalism, empiricism), differ widely in other aspects of their disbelief.
• There are many less-than-emphatic atheists. Accommodationists for example. 😉 And probably the majority of the “nones” are apatheists: apathetic or ignostic atheists. If these are in the minority in your social circle, that’s a sampling bias.
• In what way is Dawkins’s “evolutionary arms race” patently false? Little in science is obviously valid or false, else quantum theory and relativity would be patently false (“How on Earth could such nonsense be true?”). Where’s your evidence that falsifies Dawkins’s claim?
• Some atheists do discuss the unanswered questions of evolution (which you should/would know if you frequent/ed this website). But it’s not atheists’ business to move the science forward. We leave that to the evolutionary biologists (who largely just happen to be atheists). And I think those folks have moved it forward into this century, since – what? — 11 or 12 years ago.
/@
“No reason to capitalize it”
Just a dumb habit of mine. 😉
Thanks for the information. I know little about the label (if that’s what I should call it) except that several of my Atheist friends insist that I am also an Atheist based on the fact that I do not believe in God either. That kind of ticked me off and made me think that Atheism indeed wants to forcibly include everyone in its circle.
Dawkins acts as though he represents science. This is why I agreed with the Baggini article. I appreciate (and support) people defending science but not speaking on behalf of the community.
And the media pays attention to it because Dawkins is speaking from a dogmatic point of view, instead of that of a biologist, which he is. This, tragically, gives the perception that science is a religion. We have enough problems with climate change and evolution being called a “belief”. We don’t need a dogmatic voice proving them right.
“In what way is Dawkins’s “evolutionary arms race” patently false?”
My lousy wording was for the sake of brevity. In fact “arms race” is not a scientific term and is not clearly defined by Dawkins in the article. However the general tone of Dawkins’ writings (that I have read) overemphasizes survival of the fittest with zero acknowledgement of “weakness” mutations surviving or coevolution.
If either has been addressed on this blog, I missed it. I am sure genetic evidence and all that has been discussed widely on this blog and by Dawkins, but I am talking about the influence of the biosphere as a layer of Earth and the give-and-take that is ignored in evolutionary forces.
“But it’s not atheists’ business to move the science forward” yet Dawkins puts himself out in the media as though he represents science. That is bothersome, to me anyway.
No offense to the intelligence or integrity of anyone here – just voicing my pet peeves, really. 😉
Well, he was the University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008!
/@
….And obviously a smart guy. If he wants to represent himself as a professor and/or biologist, that’s wonderful. If he wants to talk about his published work, any studies he has done, others’ work in his field or any other science, that’s great. But ask the average person who Richard Dawkins is, and they’ll say he’s an atheist. That’s where I object – I worry that the public will think that atheism represents science or that all scientists are atheists.
Well, that’s other people’s problem, not his!
/@
Well, almost all vocal atheists have a great respect for the scientific method and would advocate the use of empiricism coupled with reason as the ultimate guide for decision-making.
And, though it’s certainly not the case that all scientists are atheists, the overwhelming majority of them are, and there’s a very strong inverse correlation between one’s stature as a scientist and one’s likelihood to believe in one or more gods.
But what I’m more puzzled about is that, though you yourself don’t believe in any gods, you seem quite embarrassed at the possibility that somebody might discover that that might mean you’re an atheist. It’s akin to a woman who’s open about her sexual attraction to and relationships with other women being ashamed to call herself a lesbian.
Might I suggest? Do a bit of reading on the concept of “cognitive dissonance” and see if you can’t spot your own dissonant thoughts. If you can, it’s likely you’ll sleep better at night.
Cheers,
b&
Oops! Hit ( Post Comment ) too soon…
Yep, you are an atheist. That’s all the word means (Google “PZ Myers” and “dictionary atheist”).
No, but it seems to me to be an effective metaphor. Have you read The Greatest Show on Earth? He covers it there at some length, iirc.
One problem is that people (particularly, but not only, creationists) misunderstand “natural selection” in the first place, so I think that’s what he focusses on in his popular writings, at the expense of “genetic drift”, &c.
/@
@Ben
“you seem quite embarrassed at the possibility that somebody might discover that that might mean you’re an atheist”
First of all apologies if this was not a direct reply, the thread ran out! :0
I am not an atheist, and sorry but you’ll have to try harder than that to embarass me. I do not blush easily. 😉
Let’s suppose you played tennis one year for fun. From then on in, every time I introduced you to my friends or family, I said the following:
“Sis, I’d like you to meet Ben, the tennis player”.
Would you enjoy that, Ben? Of course not. It would annoy you. Therefore I am not embarassed, I am annoyed. And this is the atheist overbearingness I am talking about, forcing a label on people.
I cook, but I am not a Cook. I ride horses, but I am not an equestrian.
I am also a former Wiccan – I got out of it because I, true enough, do not believe in gods or goddesses. However that does not make me an Atheist.
When people ask, I either tell them that I have no religion, or that I am an amateur Buddhist.
So please be so polite as to not force a label on people.
No disrepect is intended by any of this. I am usually quite peaceful in person. 😉
amelie,
WordPress only allows so many levels of replies. The convention ’round these here parts when you reach that limit is to reply to the closest up-thread post you can. It ain’t purty, but it’s the least bad we’ve come up with.
Might I ask? What does the word, “atheist,” mean to you? I’m genuinely curious, as you would seem to be using a definition for it that I’ve yet to encounter.
Your tennis analogy would seem to be much less than perfect. A better analogy might be that of one who doesn’t drink alcohol — a teetotaler. You might have even been an alcoholic for a year when you were younger but haven’t touched a drop in a decade. To me, your protestations sound akin to somebody turning drown a proffered drink, saying, “Thanks, but I don’t drink — but don’t you dare call me a teetotaler!”
Cheers,
b&
Science is the enemy of religion, insofar as it falsifies religious truth claims (Adam & Eve, &c.)
And the enemy of my enemy is my friend… 😉
/@
@Ben
“almost all vocal atheists have a great respect for the scientific method and would advocate the use of empiricism coupled with reason as the ultimate guide for decision-making.”
That’s fair enough, they do point to reason often enough to be productive in what they do.
@Ant
Feh, the comment thread is messed up. 😉
See my response to Ben for the atheist issue.
Haven’t seen the greatest show on earth, I shall look it up! 🙂
@Ben If you mean the dictionary defenition, that’s pretty obvious. But if someone tells me they’re an atheist, first of all I try not to assume.
But a very devoted atheist, I usually presume, actively speaks out against fallacies such as intelligent design and so on. Furthermore, I assume they are huge proponents of science and simultaneously emphasize that as Atheists, they are somehow connected to the scientific community. Sometimes they take this too far.
“To me, your protestations sound akin to somebody turning drown a proffered drink, saying, “Thanks, but I don’t drink — but don’t you dare call me a teetotaler!”
Well no, because teetotaler describes only one aspect of my day to day life, whereas religion or profession describes a much deeper part of identity, at least in the Western world.
So let’s take another example. Let’s say your relative (or in-law, or whatever) was very old or infirm, but they wanted to attend church just once more. You reluctantly took them out of the kindness of your heart (true story for me, LOL).
Or let’s just suppose you went to church once when you were young and your family took you.
Now, every time I introduce you to my friends, I say, friends, meet Ben, the churchgoer. You object, but let’s face it, it’s true. You went to church. You are a churchgoer.
Would that not be annoying to you?
So there it is, I may have some non-belief in God, however that does not make me an Atheist. It makes me someone who does not per-se believe in God, but I am not an active Atheist. 😉
To be honest, I’d probably be annoyed at any out-of-context labeling in an introduction. “I’d like you to meet Ben, the guy who keeps his recycle bin in the back yard.” Um…unless this has something to do with a conversation we had recently had about recycling, I’d be looking at you like you were from Mars.
And, outside of the fun I have engaging in wide-ranging discussions on the ‘Net, mostly here at WEIT these days, the fact that I don’t believe in any gods has about as much significance in my day-to-day life as the fact that I only very rarely drink alcohol. Indeed, there are huge swaths of friends and acquaintances who have no clue what I think of religious matters for the simple reason that it’s never been relevant to any discussions we’ve ever had.
For the record, you would not be inaccurate in calling me an irregular churchgoer. As a professional musician (though, granted, one who pays the bills doing computer consulting), I’m in a church at least several times a year. Some years I’ve been in church more times than probably 80% of the self-described christians, though not recently. Still, about the only way it would be appropriate to introduce me as anything like a churchgoer would be something like, “Here’s Ben, who played trumpet a couple Sundays ago at our big kick-off-the-Christmas-season services. He’s been doing that every year for as long as I can remember.”
Why were you reluctant to take your elderly relative to a church service? It’s obviously a great source of comfort for him or her, and you should have been honored that he or she wanted to share something so meaningful with you. So long as you’re honest — and it’s trivial to be honest in a way that’s not hurtful or offensive — something like that should be a wonderful experience and a memory to treasure for the rest of your life. Sure, you’ll be thinking how silly the whole thing is, but, if you can honestly tell your relative, “You know this isn’t something I believe in, but I’m glad we’ve got a chance to spend some time together doing something you love,” you should be leaping at the chance, without reluctance or hesitation.
Cheers,
b&
@Ben I am going to lazily cut and paste my response to Ant for you, just because I think it’s relevant.
First though sorry for the miscommunication – I was not reluctant to take her to church, actually I love churches and I rather enjoyed it. I said reluctantly because in my scenario for you, you are only reluctantly going to church therefore you would not want to be called a churchgoer. The rest of the story is true. 😉
ps I should note an apology to the author of this blog, hopefully he does not throw me out for creating this long diversion!
Anyhow, here is that long copy and paste. 😉 Very much enjoy this conversation, by the way.
Well, then I am definetly not an Atheist. Because I would not rule out some type of a god if there were proof. Furthermore: see the following rant.
(Keep in mind this is not directed towards you; it is a quote from my friend who kept insisting on calling me an Atheist):
“Let me put this bluntly. I don’t know where you get off telling me what I am and am not. It is immature, overbearing and arrogant, and exactly the type of thing that rubs me the wrong way about Atheists in general.
So I would ask you to only call me an Atheist in your own head if you must, but stop calling me something I am not. I am the one who should define what I am or am not, not you.”
I think the problem here is one of defenition; you and Ant (and others) seem to insist that it is just a word, but the fact that you are teaching me various belief systems within atheism tells me that there is at least some type of organization.
Again I appreciate the lesson on gnu atheists, etc! And ps I would recommend Knocking on Heaven’s Door, if you have not already read it. Great book.
Reply
“very devoted”? Well, I guess you’ve just described gnu atheists: Atheists who willingly speak out against the flaws of religion, from the simple folly of its baseless beliefs to the odious crimes perpetrated in its name, with no care for the special respect the religious think it deserves. (Another commonly held principle.)
There’s a long history of such naked opposition – Robert Ingersoll and Mark Twain spring to mind — which is why gun atheism isn’t new atheism.
But gnu atheists are possibly a minority among atheists, and there’s certainly a gamut of atheist types. But anyone who does not believe in God or gods is an atheist*, whether they willingly self-identify as one or not. No, it’s not a label we should thrust upon anyone — we shouldn’t say “amelie, the atheist” any more than we’d say, “amelie, the blonde” (if you were!) — but it is an apt descriptor nonetheless.
So, you are an atheist, even in your passivity.
/@
* Of course, some people take atheism to mean “a belief that there is no God (or are no gods)”, which is a more specific view; for those who use atheist in the more general sense, these are sometimes described as being anti-theists.
A gnit to pick, if I may.
“Anti-theist” is used to refer to those who oppose religion, not necessarly those who affirm the non-existence of gods. And I personally greatly dislike that term, as it sounds like it’s the theists you’re against. I will never describe myself as an anti-theist, though I’ll happily accept the label of “anti-theismist.”
Those who declare gods to be nonexistent are often described as “strong atheists,” but that then leaves those who don’t declare gods to be nonexistent to be weak, which is rarely actually the case. I prefer leaving behind such labels and simply using the term, “atheist,” and leaving it up to the individual to worry about whether or not it’s important that he or she is or isn’t confident that confidence in the matter is or isn’t warranted.
There’s one more label that’s deserving of mention: “igtheist.” That would apply to somebody (like me) who has yet to encounter a coherent definition of the term, “god,” sufficient to determine whether or not such a critter might or might not exist. All the specific gods I’ve heard described (YHWH, Satan, Brahman, etc., etc., etc.,) are easy to dismiss as impossible and / or absurd. But even the descriptions of unnamed hypothetical gods boil down to things like “can do that which can’t be done” and other meaningless nonsense.
Cheers,
b&
Ah! That is so… Then the majority of people I’ve heard/read using it have been wrong then. Mental lexicon updated! I knew of the strong/weak distinction, but thought that that would be a rathole… Hey-ho.
But: Isn’t an igtheist better described as an ignostic atheist?
/@
Ah… I just came across a letter in the Dawkins issue of the New Statesman that states: “I am an anti-theist: the evidence from such sources as astronomy demonstrates that there is no god out there in the universe.”
Maybe this is becoming a mainstream sense of the term?
/@
Well, then I am definetly not an Atheist. Because I would not rule out some type of a god if there were proof. Furthermore: see the following rant.
(Keep in mind this is not directed towards you; it is a quote from my friend who kept insisting on calling me an Atheist):
“Let me put this bluntly. I don’t know where you get off telling me what I am and am not. It is immature, overbearing and arrogant, and exactly the type of thing that rubs me the wrong way about Atheists in general.
So I would ask you to only call me an Atheist in your own head if you must, but stop calling me something I am not. I am the one who should define what I am or am not, not you.”
I think the problem here is one of defenition; you and Ant (and others) seem to insist that it is just a word, but the fact that you are teaching me various belief systems within atheism tells me that there is at least some type of organization.
Again I appreciate the lesson on gnu atheists, etc! And ps I would recommend Knocking on Heaven’s Door, if you have not already read it. Great book.
ps the title is tounge in cheek, it’s not religious, LOL.
Nope. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll recall that one of the defining principles of (many) gnu atheists is empiricism.
Thus if such a gnu atheist were confronted by firm evidence for the existence of a god (if such an entity can be coherently defined – nod to Ben), then they would, if they were intellectually honest, accept the existence of that god.
/@
Still though Ant, you read my response, right? Telling me what I am or am not is at best, inappropriate. Now, in light of some people’s insistence that the word atheist ONLY means one who does not believe in a god, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it means nothing else. This in light of the other wrinkle that there are factions of atheism, which means it is at least some loosely based belief rather than a mere description. I am surprised you keep ignoring that fact.
Yep, I did. Did you read mine? I really don’t mean to be rude, but whether or not you self-identify as an atheist, and whether or not it’s right to label you as an atheist (you object to that, and rightly so), it remains a valid descriptor and you can – if you do not believe that any gods exist – legitimately be described as an atheist. (Another parallel may be – if you are/were unmarried – “spinster”; you might find it equally objectionable as a label, but it would still fit as a descriptor.)
Atheism is not an organisation. There are communities of atheists, and especially one of gnu atheists (and “gnu atheism” really labels this community, rather than describing a kind of atheism as such), but – and this is a standing joke – organising atheists is like herding cats.
None of what I described are “belief systems within atheism” or “factions” (which implies an organisation that just doesn’t exist). All the terms are descriptive, not prescriptive. And no kind of atheism is a belief system.
I’m not sure what would constitute proof that the word means what I said. I could cite any number of dictionaries (which, of course, reflect idiomatic usage), and any number of books about atheism. As already noted, it is an elastic term, but you’ll find most definitions embrace either or both of the meanings I outlined earlier.
Of course, a lot of baggage attaches to the term, for a variety of reasons. But really that applies to (some) people who are atheists rather than to being an atheist per se.
One thing to bear in mind is that atheism is really a consequence of something else: No-one exposed to theistic belief systems can legitimately claim to lack belief in any god simply because they lack belief in any god. (Did you Google “PZ Myers” and “dictionary atheist” as I suggested?)
Many gnu atheists are atheists (i.e., people who lack belief in any god) because they are skeptics or philosophical naturalists or freethinkers; it’s a logical conclusion of those initial worldviews. You (i.e., someone) may choose to self-identify as one or more of those (I consider myself all three), but if you come to that conclusion – however you come to that conclusion! – you are still an atheist. And that’s all that term, alone, says about you.
/@
Ah, I agree with much of what you said. It could be a description based on a strict dictionary defenition, if that’s what the dictionary says. And yes I shall Google Myers. I appreciate the help in understanding all this.
Incidentally, it ocurred to me that I should actually *look* at the dictionary defenition. Now, we could easily debate which sources are bogus versus legitimate, but I just used Dictionary.com. Here it is:
“a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. **An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.”
Now, notice it says “denies” and “disbelieves”. I do not actively disbelieve, and I do not really deny the existance of God. Never have. So by that defenition, I am an agnostic.
pfft sorry for the spelling mistakes, long day.
Well, by those definitions, yes. But if you look more widely you will find others.
Furthermore, it’s often contended that a/theism and a/gnosticism are orthogonal, see this discussion, for example.
(Ben’s atheism or apgnostic atheism is just an extension of such schemes.)
/@
*Ben’s aptheism … (iOS autocorrect fail!)
@amelie, you might find use in reading Dawkins’ seven levels of belief, from fundatmentalist religious person to absolute atheist. It’s on my list of things to read, as well. Dawkins does not, go I hear, grade himself at the end of the spectrum but near, leaving room for evidence to prove the existance of a god, should validity ever truly become available.
Here in Idiot America, a large percentage of the population dreams of having the power to impose their religious Christmas (and religious everything else) on all of us. The outcry is more often that the government is not requiring everybody to have a fundamentalist Christian Christmas/education/marriage/lifestyle/etc.