I recently read an intriguing article from Sam Harris, in which he argues that use of the term 'atheism' to describe ourselves is an obstacle to our secular goals.  He is. of course, among the 'four horsemen' militant atheists who are not just content to be free of supernatural superstition themselves, but who are actively trying to bring about the end of religion.  With that goal taken for granted, does labeling ourselves 'atheist' help or hurt the cause?  Here are some of Harris' main points, if you don't want to read the whole article. 

-Having a catch-all term to describe people with naturalistic worldviews creates an artificial sense of categorization, allowing atheists to be pigeonholed as a fringe interest group somewhere along the spectrum of religiosity (at the 'deficient' end, needless to say). 

-The very use of the term is granting the religious person's paradigm of the world unnecessary validity by assuming that man's natural state is religious rather than rational.  (Harris points to the fact that we don't need the term 'non-astrologer' today to argue against the validity of astrology, since this term is unnecessarily equal-handed to astrology and rationality; we may similarly never get far beyond religion while we use a term that means 'non-religious')

-A single term such as atheism belies the variety and diversity of people whose only common feature is their lack of supernatural belief.  We have seen countless historical instances of atheism, and other terms, aquiring certain unshakable associations that immeadiately discredit the bearers; we should perhaps acknowledge that the term, if it is to be used at all, should not be allowed to cary associations that allow other people to assume they know anything about an 'atheist' beyond one single fact.

-The term atheist, for reasons stated above, allows apologists and others to propagate the fallacy that 'atheism is just a secular religion'.  Any studious atheist will know how to respond to this, and the religious will make that arguement no matter what they have to do to describe us, but wouldn't it be convenient if 'atheists' were a group so loosely defined, so well-integrated into society, that it wouldn't even be useful to try to apply such a label?  Harris speculates that a similar end to racism will only come about not when everyone has had prejudice educated or beaten out of them, but when the idea of distinct races ceases even to be intelligible.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/sam_harris/200...

As you can tell, I'm pretty well convinced.  I'd primarily like to hear any arguements anyone has AGAINST this notion, since it is a rather radical departure from the normal form of evangelical atheism that I typically 'practice'. 

 

Views: 168

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree with the points listed.  I prefer Non-theist, Rationalist or Freethinker.  As you pointed out, Atheist plays into the Rhetoric of Theists.  God is possible.  But, it is very - very - improbable.  The thought of a Super Intellect - that exists beyond the boundaries of Space & Time - seems pretty nonsensical.  Of course, any God concept that tied down with Scripture - with all the absurdities therein - can be totally rejected.  It goes beyond God, anyway.  It is about attempting to live one's life based on Reason.  Which is very difficult.    

Interesting that I just used the word "atheist" with my nine year old yesterday and she immediately said, What's that?  It sounds bad?".  After defining it she had no issue with it but I was intrigued at her gut reaction to the word.

I agree with Sam but it's a far cry to imagine a society with no stereotypes.  People crave them and crave giving names to them.  Atheist, Fundamentalist, Humanist.  On and on we will always have the names of the groups.

I do agree that just being nameless and "under the radar" as human beings squashing nonsense and indecency would be a noble society.  

We need the titles though, especially in the digital world, to help us identify which side of reason we are on and who's on our side, don't we?

I've mentioned a few times here at TA, atheism would not even have significance as a movement or endeavor without thesim. I.e., extant theism largely defines current atheism.

RSS

Forum

Dr. Oz finally getting his due

Started by Unseen in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 44 minutes ago. 3 Replies

Books to read in 2015

Started by Belle Rose in Advice. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer 4 minutes ago. 6 Replies

Another philosophical question...

Started by Belle Rose in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Belle Rose 9 minutes ago. 9 Replies

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 15 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 2 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service