Why this intense hatred simply for disbelief? It’s important to address this before one can deal with the question of whether (or not) to call oneself an atheist.
Biochemist Jacques Monod probably comes as close as anyone to a decent answer in his chapter, ‘The Kingdom and the Darkness’ in his book Chance and Necessity. He notes that the “prodigious developments of knowledge” over the past three centuries or so have forced an “agonizing reappraisal of Man’s concept of himself”.
This knowledge is based on objectivity and reductionism, which on the one hand conferred enormous material power and efficacy, but on the other hand sowed the seeds for destruction of all the hitherto accepted myths, especially supernatural beliefs. None of these could withstand the scrutiny of science’s “postulate of objectivity”. For, at root, when one looks simply at the basic infrastructure and methods of science, it is a wholly value-less enterprise. In this enterprise, as we saw, all supernatural additions and confabulations turn out to be so much superfluous dross. To use Monod’s words[1]:
"In the course of three centuries, science, founded upon the postulate of objectivity, has won its place in society in men’s practice. But not in their hearts."
Sure, there’ve been weak attempts to patch over this chasm, but all of them are transparent. The most recent one is the religious’ acceptance of evolution as “God’s means to create the universe”. Of course, this is nonsense. At root, the naturalist theory of evolution in its full mold of natural selection and mutation has no need of any external agents, especially supernatural ones!
External agents do not enhance our predictions (from astronomy-astrophysics) or explanations (from genetics), nor do they help refine methods. They present no new evidence or insights for our inspection and hence, all other things being equal, they are redundant. The only reason they’re retained is to assuage and pacify the existentially timid, who otherwise may lose their bearings and minds when confronted by the brute fact of being orphans in the cosmos. As one co-lecturer told me in Barbados: "If I accepted for one second that only evolution operated, without the need or governance of a deity, I'd go kill myself right now!”
Multiply this pathetic response millions of times, and you have the reason atheists are detested so much. We are the nasty “messengers” coming to tell the villagers that their “Emperor” (the deity they believe in) has “no clothes” (doesn’t exist). Why wouldn’t a happy, more or less content villager not want to kill the messenger after hearing or seeing his pet delusions bushwhacked?
Despite the remark of the aforementioned Bajan, in none of the places I’ve lived or traveled, even in highly religious third world nations such as Barbados and St. Lucia, have I beheld the venom for unbelievers as in the U.S. It’s as if there’s absolutely no give, no acceptance or even the most minimal respect afforded. Once you declare yourself an atheist, you are immediately the enemy, and not much better than Osama Bin Laden or one of his cohorts.
Why is this? A first hint of the reasoning has already been given in the previous section. With atheism a whole new way of facing the cosmos is embraced. It relieves reality of supernatural managers, special designs and cosmic purpose.
The bald outcome is that only the most tough-minded rationalists and realists can confront such a universe and thrive in it. For the remainder, fear and chaos threaten, and they’re mentally unable to come to terms with a universe minus a Cosmic Controller. Rather than examine the subtext for their own mental and psychological deficiency, they take it out on the “messenger”, i.e. the friendly neighborhood atheist!
Two factors drive this: 1) a brain architecture that favors an optimism dynamic and “hope” even when reality testifies to the contrary, and 2) a pernicious culture of “positivity” that reinforces this brain defect, recently highlighted by Barbara Ehrenreich.[2] As Ehrenreich notes, American mass culture is saturated by a saccharine “cult of positivity,” with children brainwashed from an early age that they can do anything, and adults brainwashed to believe if they just work hard and long enough they’ll become super billionaires like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. That no one has slain the insipid “Horatio Alger”myth up to now is really a testament to America’s individualist hubris and false optimism.
What has this to do with atheism? Mainly that a culture of positivity will perceive the atheist as an agent of irreversible depression, pessimism and negativity! After all, what could be more of a downer than the notion that all the fun ends once one’s physical being expires? When you’re dead, you’re dead, and there’ll be no reruns or afterlives. Factor into this the brain’s natural tendency and drive for optimism at any cost, and you have a ready-made cultural and biological axis to deny and thwart atheism! The most expedient way to achieve this is by casting atheism in the most disreputable and inhuman terms possible, and the atheist as little short of a Satanic entity, if not the ugly bearer of mass depression.
Thus, every mental deficiency, perversion and inadequacy in the cultural positivity clique is projected onto atheists. We 're the “evil ones.” We’re the ones trying to “subvert” the grandiose scheme of the country as propounded by the Founders in the Constitution. In fact, that document was intended to keep the state from establishing a religion and to protect the minority from the excesses of the majority.
Many call the U.S. a “Christian” nation, but in reality it is a faux or pseudo-Christian nation. It postures Christian beliefs, values and tenets, but hasn’t the foggiest clue what they’re really about, or translating them into hard action. Look at the response to the health reform bill! (If that isn't helping those, "the least of one's brethren" - the uninsured- I don't know what the hell is). A recent survey released about American religious beliefs and habits casts the country in a particularly bad light.
The survey noted that fewer than 1 in 4 Americans could name even two authors of the New Testament. A stunning plurality also thought that the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” came directly from the Bible, rather than the actual author, Benjamin Franklin. More appalling, at least two-thirds believed the saying “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” came from Jesus, as opposed to the Golden Rule that existed from the time of Hammurabi’s Code.
It is fairly clear that this dichotomy between posturing and actual Christian teachings has bred a sense of hypocrisy. It makes sense that this hypocrisy will fuel and reinforce any anger toward outsiders, especially atheists who might have the chutzpah to point it out. What I’m saying is that in a nation replete with posturing pretenders (or what used to be called “Pharisees” in the New Testament gospels), these pretenders will invariably show more anger, rage against outsiders than genuine Christians. This is certainly the case, if one examines closely the American religious tableaux and experience.
By contrast, in Barbados, a nation with more genuinely Christian folk (perhaps because it harbors no military-industrial complex!) I used to experience frequent opposition to my views, but seldom if ever outright hatred and hostility. There was less reason to do so, because the people were more secure in their own beliefs, so that my unbelief didn’t bother them.
By contrast, it does bother many in this country. I believe for this reason, millions of American unbelievers hide under absurd labels or euphemisms to conceal their atheism. They figuure if they use a word less known, or not widely used, it will camouflage their atheism. It helps to look at some of these terms:
a) Freethinker
This is perhaps the most popular term, because it denotes an underlying positive subtext as opposed to the negative subtext for ‘atheist’. Being “free” is good, and so is “thinking”. What's to complain about - never mind it's nearly useless since it can apply to so many aspects of cultural or academic life. Being a “free thinker”, therefore, shows that one enjoys the full latitude of his or her thoughts without being subject to artificial censorship. Certainly, if you ask a thousand unbelievers randomly chosen on the street what they profess to call themselves, I’m fairly sure the plurality will tilt to “free thinker”.
The other benefit is that there are many more freethinker societies and clubs scattered across the country, than atheist ones. Thus, say for someone in a backwater of religious conservatism (like Dallas, Mobile, Miramar, FL or Colorado Springs) it’s far easier to link up with freethinkers than atheists.
b) Secular humanist
This term used to be widely popular in the 1990s but for some reason has more and more fallen out of favor. One of the reasons may be that it doesn’t really say very much. I mean, anyone for the progress and welfare of humanity (including the use of government tax dollars to provide social safety nets) is clearly a “humanist”. Being secular is also no real descriptor, since one might say that the whole of our modern society outside of the religious domain is secular.
More troubling, is the fact that there are religious secular humanists too, who from time to time make their views known. A perfect example of such a group is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They acknowledge a divine force or deity, but at the same time believe (in accord with the Constitution) that the state must not meddle in religious affairs or promote one religion over another, even indirectly.
Again, there are often many atheists also in secular humanist groups, such as I found when I belonged to the Washington (D.C.) Area Secular Humanists (WASH). But they opt for the use of the term because it eliminates having to use the dreadful term “atheist.”
c) Eupraxopher:
This term was coined by Paul Kurtz in his excellent book: Living Without Religion: Eupraxophy (Prometheus, 1994)
I can see what he’s trying to achieve, but don’t believe this word will ever come into wide usage, certainly not like freethinker. For one thing, it just doesn’t roll off the tongue like freethinker. There is also a great chance that, having told someone that you’re an Eupraxopher, ten minutes later he or she will return to ask you:
“What exactly was that you called yourself again?”
This can really get tedious over time. though Kurtz must definitely be given an “A” for effort.
d) Naturalist
This is a more recent appellation coined by Paul Kurtz in an issue of Free Inquiry some years ago. HIs goal is in attempting the age old trick of avoiding definitions forged “by what we are against” as opposed to what we are for. This is admirable, again, just like his earlier “eupraxopher,” but ultimately fails at the task. It is also confusing since it:
- Conflates a scientific (e.g. from biology) usage with a normative philosophical one
- Flees from an obvious and uncluttered identity rather than embracing it.
Kurtz, of course, would argue against all the above and insist he’s attempting to expand the purview of atheism beyond merely being atheists! Yes, we are committed to the pursuit of free inquiry, critical thinking and also the scientific process that emphasizes naturalism as opposed to supernaturalism. We also value the application of logic in arguments and discussions, dispassionately presenting our cases to any who would hear. However, all of those represent necessary conditions to the core identity that Kurtz (and I’m sure others) seek, and not sufficient conditions.
The sufficient condition is that we disdain and forego any belief in an extra-physical force or intelligence, or invoking such to try to account for physical phenomena and natural laws. This particular sufficient condition makes one an atheist as defined from and take from the ancient Greek usage: a-theos, or without God.
In other words, that we may be critical thinkers, “naturalists” or scientists as well is all secondary not the primary criterion by which we are distinguished from the rank and file of humans. Does this define or limit us in terms of what we are against? Possibly, but there is never ever anything wrong or less valued about negative information anyway. This is particularly true when the entity one is set against is ab initio not well defined.
For example, for most UFOs no positive knowledge is readily available as to what the aerial entity is, so negative information is most frequently employed to decide what the entity is not. For the practicing scientist (and certainly “naturalist” of the Paul Kurtz depiction), negative information concerning a collective set of data or observations is often as important as positive information at arriving at what an entity is. So, my point is we ought not flee from definitions embodying a negative information format.
An analogous situation applies to -G-O-D-. The term is so vague, ambiguous and subjective, that we're only able to say with any degree what it is not, in terms of existing epistemology. By the same token, defining oneself in terms of non-belief or non-investment of intellect is perfectly legitimate. Thus, by accepting and circulating the word “atheist” as applicable to ourselves, we at once signal to others that we don’t operate in the realm of miracles, invisible all-powerful Beings, special invisible domains (Heaven, Hell), or secondary invisible agents (demons, angels, souls, Satan). In other words, the very simplicity of usage in conveying our position (in terms of the field of artifacts omitted) is what makes the term “atheist” superior to the term “naturalist.”
e) Agnostic Atheist
This term is kind of a hedge between using merely the blunt term “atheist” and moderating it with “agnostic”. Think of it as a “buffered atheist”. Somehow it doesn’t come across as cold, or harsh as simply saying “atheist” (again, this is to most of those who have a dislike of all things atheist!) The term was probably first used by George Smith, where he distinguished the various forms of agnostic[3]. As he noted, this form of atheist implies a person who “maintains any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind.”
In other words, even if such domain as the supernatural existed in some ethereal extra dimension of the universe, no one would ever know about it. Thus, it makes no sense to discuss it, or to even acknowledge any kind of ‘Supreme Being’ within it. Thus, if the supernatural domain is itself “unknowable” than any subsets (or supersets) within it are likewise unknowable.
Obviously, if one elects to use this term, then he or she must be aware that it refers to a specific context of atheism. In other words, one isn’t necessarily disavowing a supernatural entity, only asserting that it can never be known, hence is not worth discussing.
All the above allow some breathing space for the squeamish, those who for one reason or other can’t bear the thought of outright saying they embrace atheism or unbelief without the window dressing. For my part, however, I will continue to use the term that effectively and concisely says exactly what I do: withhold belief in an unsupportable entity that has no empirical benediction.
That word is ATHEIST!
Maybe one day, the squeamish will become more courageous in their use of terms, but I'm not holding my breath in the most godmongering, god-aholic, industrial nation in the world!
[1] Jacque Monod, Chance and Necessity, 1972, Wm. Collins & Sons, UK, p. 158.
[2] Barbara Ehrenreich: “Pathologies of Hope” in Harpers, Feb., 2007.
[3] George Smith, The Case Against God, Prometheus Books, 1989, p. 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment