(Originally posted in my Web
log on September 3, 2007.)
The luxury of a three-day weekend afforded me catch-up time for some of my
reading, including a stack of skeptic
and freethought magazines
that have been collecting dust and cobwebs (more dust than cobwebs) on my dining room
table. It took very little time to peruse them, skipping, as I did, not only entire
articles but entire chunks of each periodical; contrasted with my normal literary
appetite, this is a sign of either flagging interest or, more likely, a lack of solidarity
with not only the authors but also a good chunk of the atheist community.
This is not an uncommon predicament. Unlike other cultural
positions, atheism is not based on a "positive" belief. To clarify and
avoid the suggestion that atheism is a negative attribute (although, no doubt, many people
believe it to be), I mean to say atheism is a position that is not needed except in the
presence of alternative viewpoints; while such labels as "Methodist,"
"liberal" and "animal rights activist" carry self-contained
definitions, "atheist" is only important, and produced, when a contrasting point
of view is present. In an entirely Catholic world, people would still attend church,
utilize ritual and express their faith. In an entirely atheist world, the subject of
atheism would rarely be mentioned, and then only in scholarly discussion.
Thus, it's not unusual to see an atheist who lacks the zeal to actively
associate and engage in discourse about atheism with other atheists. It's
not uncommon to see atheists with other atheist acquaintances, if only because they're
more likely to agree on other subjects, but rarely do two atheists sit and talk about just
how much they don't believe in deities. To be honest it's just not that important to
us. It would be like two friends sitting and talking about how much they both
dislike cats; unless there's a third person present who does like cats to spur the
conversation, it's just something trivial to note, certainly not something they'll discuss
on a daily basis.
I've made efforts in the past to associate with atheist-specific groups,
with largely dismal results. Although my experience with them is limited, I imagine
it's typical. They are often criticized for exhibiting the same attributes they
criticize in other groups (appeal to authority, adherence to preconceived notions, etc.),
and quite frankly those criticisms are, in some cases, accurate. Secular groups
rarely gain any sort of prominence and are prone to fracturing due to the variety of
atheist templates, which I present here as a basic field guide:
The Recent Convert. Atheists of this stripe were,
until some point in the last several years, members of another, usually religious, group.
They're still discovering the basic responses to theist claims and have, sadly,
usually substituted accepting religious doctrine without question with accepting the
beliefs of prominent atheist writers without question. They can usually regurgitate
the refutations of Pascal's Wager and the like and know the basics of evolutionary
biology. They're usually not able to adapt when faced with an unfamiliar and
on-the-surface plausible argument. The vast majority of atheists the average person
knows are in this category, if only because the recent convert is one of the only
templates that goes out of his or her way to let other people know of his or her status
and actively challenges and provokes theists.
The Born-Right-the-First-Time Atheist. Born to
nonreligious parents, these atheists are atheists by default, having never been
indoctrinated into a religion ("indoctrinated" has come to have a negative
connotation, but I'm using
it correctly). Most of these people have no idea what the fuss is about and
are a step removed from any societal discussions. They tend not to take much
interest in discussing atheism with religious adherents and are usually unfamiliar with
the basic discussions, although they may have good grasps of logic that allow them to spot
flaws in arguments intuitively. Unless it comes up in conversation or by some event
(a nonreligious wedding, for example), you'll never know these people are atheists.
The Know-It-All. Another visible class of
atheist, the know-it-all has read many, many books on not only atheism but also science,
logic, history and philosophy. Their visibility stems from their (well-intentioned
but often untactful) desire to share what they've learned and "enlighten"
others. They give rise to the common atheist labels: "intolerant,"
"abrasive," "militant." Many of them honestly mean well, but
alienate people looking for discussion rather than lecture. Many recent converts
flock to and look up to know-it-alls, at least at first, and learn to repeat the
know-it-alls' points of view without fully understanding them. Know-it-alls are
often frustrated by people who aren't immediately swayed by their arguments and have
trouble letting discussions go. Being an atheist is, in contrast to some of the
other archetypes, very important to them and they tend to be more involved in political
and social activism that relates to secularism. They often form the core of an
atheist group.
The Jaded Observer. Evolved recent converts,
jaded observers have usually gone through more than one reorientation of position
(flirting, for example, with Objectivism or hardcore atheism or know-it-all status) before
settling into a more reclusive role. They're more pragmatic about discussing
religion and atheism, often desiring an agreement on "rules" beforehand,
insisting on politeness and a conversant tone and avoiding debates they believe will be
frustrating and result in no change in either side. They're often frustrated with
the conflict-oriented methods of other atheists and avoid associating with them.
While still disagreeing with many actions by organized religion or its overzealous
members, they tend to be more tolerant of divergent religious opinions and work to find a
consensus, or at least identify the key points of disagreement, rather than seeing
discussions as a "winner take all" conflict, an approach they believe
(accurately or not) to be more "open minded." They're also pragmatic about
atheism's place in society, acknowledging without outrage that secularism is often
unpopular and unlikely to be widely accepted through debate (instead, they put their hopes
in future generations' exposure to multiculturalism). Their knowledge
base isn't as large as the know-it-alls' and they usually avoid arguing with them in the
same way they avoid arguing with fervent religious adherents, but they're knowledgeable
enough to participate in most reasonable discussions. [Author's note: I'm possibly
biased in this entry, as I consider myself a member of this group.]
The Circumstantial Atheist. While most atheists
have a good understanding of logic and come to be atheists through that method, some
people simply decide to be atheists for personal or emotional reasons (it's
"cool," peer pressure, it absolves one of worrying about consequences, personal
trauma or hardship, etc.). Some religious adherents will contest that all
atheists secretly hold this position (giving rise to the old, and false, adage "there
are no atheists in foxholes") and the logical arguments are merely scaffolding built
to support a position atheists want to, but don't really, believe. Circumstantial
atheists usually have no desire to study secular topics or associate with other atheists
simply because they're both atheists.
The Closet Atheist. Much like members of other
minority groups, closet atheists fear the disapproval of their family and friends and
either avoid the topic entirely or lie to cover it. Many closet atheists simply
don't want the drama or dislike conflict, especially if they have strongly religious
family members. Instead, they express their atheism passively, and often participate
in their family's religious rituals without making waves. Unlike other
"closet" minorities, closet atheists can often go their entire lives without
discussing atheism with anyone else (especially their families), due to the lack of
"positive" actions required to be an atheist (see the second paragraph of this
article).
The Unconcerned. These atheists accept their
secular state as a matter of course and neither make an issue of it nor go out of their
way to hide it. They rarely discuss it with people unless asked honestly "why
aren't you religious," and even then answer in vagaries. They tend to be
confident about it and even make jokes (my college advisor used to joke about inscribing
"Warm, at last" on his tombstone, as a combination joke about always being cold
and going to Hell for being an atheist). Many scientists are in this group,
"defaulting" to atheism as a result of their scientific paradigm without really
giving it much thought; it's just not that important.
While I'm sure there are other types, these are the ones I'm familiar with
personally. I must admit these descriptions do not paint atheists in a very positive
light, especially given my own secular position. I think it important to note that
atheists are, in the grand scheme, just people, prone to the same foibles and quirks as
everyone else, certainly not the unified order sometimes alluded to by those in
opposition. In fact, beyond the statement "atheists don't believe in
supernatural deities," there is no universal descriptor that can be applied.
It is unfortunate, then, that the most visible atheists are the ones who
present atheists in the worst light (the recent converts and know-it-alls). In some
ways, this is equivalent to judging religions solely by their most zealous adherents (as
if all Christians could be represented by Pat Robertson or Kent Hovind). It is
perhaps ironic that the secularists most likely to engage those who disagree (in court
cases, the media or personal discussion) are the ones most likely to engender eye-rolling
from less-zealous atheists.
The articles I read (or, more often, skimmed) this weekend reinforced that
belief. To be blunt, I'm an atheist and I had no desire to read another
article talking about our persecution and how the judge in court case X was biased and why
politician Y is a coward for catering to the religious vote and the like. Most
atheists don't care about being atheists enough to make those discussions a priority.
I'm also sad to say that many of the "visible" atheists are not
good representatives for other reasons. A strong motivation for my exodus from the
secular groups I used to frequent was the often petty attitudes toward religion in general
and religious adherents specifically (accompanied, ironically, with the occasional
discussion about the lack of new members). The number of Bush jokes bandied about
far exceeded discussions on Voltaire, and I was quite frankly ashamed at some of the
things said at the expense of evangelicals, young-Earth creationists and any number of
other "opponents" (as much as I disagree with their position, there seems little
benefit and much damage to open discourse to simply call them names). It is sad
commentary on human nature that even those who claim to be ruled by logic lapse
unconsciously into ridiculing the opposition. For my part, I like to think I, like
many other "quieter" atheists, am more open-minded than that. I've had
many a polite and constructive theological discussion with people who openly disagree with
me, including several with an acquaintance pursuing a career as a youth minister who has
used me as a "sounding board" for shoring up his discussion abilities; we had
one particularly good discussion on whether Jesus would have endorsed humanism.
While I've had my share of "disagreements" with my family, I've never yet
"started it" (I swear, I don't even bite until the second round of provocations,
and even then only if the subject is particular blatant, like God supporting racism, which
actually happened once), and I even put Bible verses into my brother's wedding
presentation (since, after all, it wasn't about me). While I'm not shy about my
opinions in my Web log, I note that it's a passive media; you have to actively click to it
read it.
I've heard atheism called a religion on many an occasion. While I've
disagreed with that before in my Web log, I'll be the first to admit that many atheists,
as much as they'd hate to seriously consider the idea, never received that memo.
There are more than a few atheist groups with distinct religion-like properties,
including "unquestionable" tenets (they aren't actually unquestionable in the
same way religious edicts are, but rather they're considered "settled"), the
adoration of high-profile atheist writers, the appeal to authority, an emphasis on the
lecturer-students relationship (especially if there is a know-it-all in the group) rather
than open discourse, whether the members like it or not, and the "absolute
truth" mentality (especially among recent converts) exemplified by a certainty that
precludes actually considering the merit of opposing viewpoints (the trap, which most
atheists ironically criticize in others, of dismissing an idea solely on the
ground that it conflicts with your own paradigm). I've yet to fully understand how a
person can spend years on the difficult path of rejecting one deeply held set of beliefs
and discovering a new paradigm through self-discovery and logic, only to cease using that
self-discovery and logic as soon as a comfortable new position is reached, but the number
of true life-long learners is, apparently, vastly outnumbered by rigid thinkers on all
sides. My only defense here is that these rigid and often impolite paths are not
secular tenets; rather, they are human tendencies, seen throughout the fabric of
society and history, and the popular image of the militant atheist comprises only a part
of the actual secular population.
“Freethinkers
are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to
understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of
mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking."
-Tolstoy
|
|
Wikipedia's Take on
Atheism |
