It is a well-circulated Christian fiction that Atheists represent some monolithic, strident force threatening to grind them all under its giant Atheist boot (see the cartoon image posted frequently by one fundie blogger). But is this anywhere near the truth? Hardly! Indeed, because Atheists come from so many different backgrounds (including religious) it is inevitable that they are likely to concur on very few things other than:
1) People can be good without religion, and 2) religion has too much influence. But they disagree about how vehemently to make those claims.
One of the oldest and most contentious contretemps has been between implicit and explicit Atheists. The former are defined by the basic definition of atheism from the Greek, a-theos, or “without God”. In other words, their atheism is predicated upon the withholding of belief in the claim of a God already made. Many of their critics (including Christians frustrated they can’t put them into an easy cubbyhole) mistake them for “agnostics” – not recognizing the latter reject all remote belief positions based on lack of knowledge. However, the implicit atheist merely withholds belief UNTIL evidence presents itself for the existence of a transcending God. Obviously, no one who stands on the conviction for an absolute lack of transcendent knowledge would ask for evidence! Hence, the implicit atheist can’t be a genuine agnostic, or even an agnostic atheist (who predicates his or her unbelief on lack of knowledge)
Meanwhile, “strong atheists” of the explicit type (mainly based in Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s American Atheists) actually deny a God can exist and actively disbelieve in all gods. They are also the ones who puckishly remind strong Christians (like the evangelicals) that they simply believe in one less God than they do! The evangelicals reject all the assorted other gods, from Brahman, to Yahweh, to Jehovah, to Allah, and so do the strong atheists…who also reject the evangelicals’ God!
The explicit atheists, to the implicit atheists, represent something beyond atheism and more a kind of anti-theism. Thus, explicit atheists not only want to stifle the appearance of religion in the public square but to snuff it out entirely. The implicit atheist, meanwhile, can live with religion so long as its practitioners don’t flout their sanctimony, salvation efforts or political agendas in the public square. “Live and let live” is the implicit atheist’s call.
All these differences came up at the recent atheist conference held at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. The conference, sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism, drew members from all the major secular-skeptic organizations, including American Atheists and the American Humanist Association.
The hundreds who converged on the scene came to hear panels that included several best-selling atheist authors, like Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” and Sam Harris, who wrote “The End of Faith” and is a rock star in the atheist world (he traveled with bodyguards because he receives death threats from both Christians and Muslims).
Though rumors have circulated about turmoil at the conference, and especially in the American Humanist Association (between diehard strong atheists, and more nonchalant unbelievers) and certain words, actions confirmed it (Some of the weekend’s speakers alluded to the turmoil at the council, where several longtime employees have resigned or been laid off.), a general consensus on some issues did emerge.
One of the major ones was that indeed a workable, practical morality was feasible without belief in a God. The other theme was in the recognition of common enemies: religious fundamentalism and “Intelligent Design.” Several speakers, more of the strong atheist persuasion, effectively stated any peace with the fundamentalists was impossible. Because the fundamentalists are determined to wipe out atheists, or demonize and dehumanize them, so also atheists had to treat them in kind and drive them back into the cracks and furrows from whence they came.
Where actual disagreements appeared at the conference, more concerned the manner by which the atheist/humanist case should be made in America. The central question was: central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?” Those trying to find common ground with religious people were called “accommodationists,” while the more outspoken atheists were called “confrontationalists” and accused of alienating potential allies, like moderate Christians.
Again, this isn’t new, but revives the decades old standoff between implicit and explicit atheists- and also why a number of splinter atheist groups broke off from American Atheists, Inc.
Science writer Chris Mooney’s panel advised that Atheists should be mindful of the perception that many Christians “are rejecting science because of a perceived conflict with moral values.” Atheists, Mooney argued- especially those fighting to keep the theory of evolution in schools- should reassure Christians that their faith is compatible with modern science.
“They resist evolution because they think everyone will lose morals,” Mr. Mooney said. “Knowing this, why would you go directly at these deeply held beliefs?”
This take was scoffed at by evolutionary biologist P.Z.Myers, who bluntly stated that “The word for people who are neutral about truth is ‘liars.’ ” Even as an implicit atheist, I recognize the inherent danger of placating Christians with fables that their "beliefs are compatible with evolution". In fact not, since no external supernatural agent is required to make natural selection work, and to indicate otherwise is to do a disservice to honest seekers of knowledge, and what science is really about. So, in effect, we do become de facto "liars" when we try to protect sensitive believer temperaments from the brutal, unadorned truth.
Victor Stenger concurred with this and also goaded unbeliever “softies”, accusing those who live without God of cowardice. “It’s time for secularists to stop sucking up to Christians and other religious people!” Stenger said
Singled out for special attack was Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. In the past, Prof. Myers has called Collins “a clown” because of his religious beliefs. When Chris Mooney pressed Myers to say exactly by what measure Collins was a clown, Myers retorted: “When it comes to the way he’s thinking about science, everything I’ve read that he’s written has been complete garbage,” adding that he will continue to employ the clown label to Collins, like it or not.
Myers' tactics may not have been for everyone, but his outrageous “way out in the open” stance obviously appealed to many attendees (mainly women) who confessed they “remained in the closet, as at their workplace, because by coming out they might damage their company’s reputation since so many believe atheists had no morals”.
But Myers stance was appreciated because he was so far out that he matched the extreme fundies' vigor and effectively saying: “We’re just as good as you, and get used to it. We’re here and not going away and we have science on our side!”
Of course, it always helps when one is protected within an academic environment, which isn't the same as being trapped in a corporate workplace where the promotion of false image is generally the rule. We do hope that Prof. Myers appreciates that, and also why many unbelievers may never be as daring do, or bold as he is!
1) People can be good without religion, and 2) religion has too much influence. But they disagree about how vehemently to make those claims.
One of the oldest and most contentious contretemps has been between implicit and explicit Atheists. The former are defined by the basic definition of atheism from the Greek, a-theos, or “without God”. In other words, their atheism is predicated upon the withholding of belief in the claim of a God already made. Many of their critics (including Christians frustrated they can’t put them into an easy cubbyhole) mistake them for “agnostics” – not recognizing the latter reject all remote belief positions based on lack of knowledge. However, the implicit atheist merely withholds belief UNTIL evidence presents itself for the existence of a transcending God. Obviously, no one who stands on the conviction for an absolute lack of transcendent knowledge would ask for evidence! Hence, the implicit atheist can’t be a genuine agnostic, or even an agnostic atheist (who predicates his or her unbelief on lack of knowledge)
Meanwhile, “strong atheists” of the explicit type (mainly based in Madalyn Murray O’Hair’s American Atheists) actually deny a God can exist and actively disbelieve in all gods. They are also the ones who puckishly remind strong Christians (like the evangelicals) that they simply believe in one less God than they do! The evangelicals reject all the assorted other gods, from Brahman, to Yahweh, to Jehovah, to Allah, and so do the strong atheists…who also reject the evangelicals’ God!
The explicit atheists, to the implicit atheists, represent something beyond atheism and more a kind of anti-theism. Thus, explicit atheists not only want to stifle the appearance of religion in the public square but to snuff it out entirely. The implicit atheist, meanwhile, can live with religion so long as its practitioners don’t flout their sanctimony, salvation efforts or political agendas in the public square. “Live and let live” is the implicit atheist’s call.
All these differences came up at the recent atheist conference held at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. The conference, sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism, drew members from all the major secular-skeptic organizations, including American Atheists and the American Humanist Association.
The hundreds who converged on the scene came to hear panels that included several best-selling atheist authors, like Richard Dawkins, author of “The God Delusion,” and Sam Harris, who wrote “The End of Faith” and is a rock star in the atheist world (he traveled with bodyguards because he receives death threats from both Christians and Muslims).
Though rumors have circulated about turmoil at the conference, and especially in the American Humanist Association (between diehard strong atheists, and more nonchalant unbelievers) and certain words, actions confirmed it (Some of the weekend’s speakers alluded to the turmoil at the council, where several longtime employees have resigned or been laid off.), a general consensus on some issues did emerge.
One of the major ones was that indeed a workable, practical morality was feasible without belief in a God. The other theme was in the recognition of common enemies: religious fundamentalism and “Intelligent Design.” Several speakers, more of the strong atheist persuasion, effectively stated any peace with the fundamentalists was impossible. Because the fundamentalists are determined to wipe out atheists, or demonize and dehumanize them, so also atheists had to treat them in kind and drive them back into the cracks and furrows from whence they came.
Where actual disagreements appeared at the conference, more concerned the manner by which the atheist/humanist case should be made in America. The central question was: central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?” Those trying to find common ground with religious people were called “accommodationists,” while the more outspoken atheists were called “confrontationalists” and accused of alienating potential allies, like moderate Christians.
Again, this isn’t new, but revives the decades old standoff between implicit and explicit atheists- and also why a number of splinter atheist groups broke off from American Atheists, Inc.
Science writer Chris Mooney’s panel advised that Atheists should be mindful of the perception that many Christians “are rejecting science because of a perceived conflict with moral values.” Atheists, Mooney argued- especially those fighting to keep the theory of evolution in schools- should reassure Christians that their faith is compatible with modern science.
“They resist evolution because they think everyone will lose morals,” Mr. Mooney said. “Knowing this, why would you go directly at these deeply held beliefs?”
This take was scoffed at by evolutionary biologist P.Z.Myers, who bluntly stated that “The word for people who are neutral about truth is ‘liars.’ ” Even as an implicit atheist, I recognize the inherent danger of placating Christians with fables that their "beliefs are compatible with evolution". In fact not, since no external supernatural agent is required to make natural selection work, and to indicate otherwise is to do a disservice to honest seekers of knowledge, and what science is really about. So, in effect, we do become de facto "liars" when we try to protect sensitive believer temperaments from the brutal, unadorned truth.
Victor Stenger concurred with this and also goaded unbeliever “softies”, accusing those who live without God of cowardice. “It’s time for secularists to stop sucking up to Christians and other religious people!” Stenger said
Singled out for special attack was Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and an evangelical Christian. In the past, Prof. Myers has called Collins “a clown” because of his religious beliefs. When Chris Mooney pressed Myers to say exactly by what measure Collins was a clown, Myers retorted: “When it comes to the way he’s thinking about science, everything I’ve read that he’s written has been complete garbage,” adding that he will continue to employ the clown label to Collins, like it or not.
Myers' tactics may not have been for everyone, but his outrageous “way out in the open” stance obviously appealed to many attendees (mainly women) who confessed they “remained in the closet, as at their workplace, because by coming out they might damage their company’s reputation since so many believe atheists had no morals”.
But Myers stance was appreciated because he was so far out that he matched the extreme fundies' vigor and effectively saying: “We’re just as good as you, and get used to it. We’re here and not going away and we have science on our side!”
Of course, it always helps when one is protected within an academic environment, which isn't the same as being trapped in a corporate workplace where the promotion of false image is generally the rule. We do hope that Prof. Myers appreciates that, and also why many unbelievers may never be as daring do, or bold as he is!
No comments:
Post a Comment