Why I need to stop calling myself an athiest
Saturday, October 13, 2007
I can't call my favourite atheist an atheist anymore. And that's because he's asking me not to.
Sam Harris, one of my favourite authors on the subject of organized religion and the impact it has had on society has issued an open invitation to anyone who would call themselves an atheist to just stop labeling themselves, and he makes a very convincing argument why.
Basically it boils down to the idea that calling oneself an atheist sets up an argument where you have organized religion on one side and atheists on the other, and anyone who doesn't want to get involved abdicating completely. The argument, Sam feels, should be between organized religion and logical thought. And all this atheist organizing is only drawing attention to both sides instead of the the real issue that antiquated, outmoded beliefs about what happens to a person after they die have no place dictating policy in an enlightened society.
I myself am not what anyone would consider an 'organized atheist'. I have always felt that there wouldn't be a point in joining other people in declaring our non belief in god. After all, there aren't clubs for people who don't believe in Santa Claus. Okay, maybe there are. But that's beside the point. Bottom line is, I can see where letting go of labels completely might help. Instead of arguing with fundies about the place their various belief systems should have in society, we end up endlessly debating the same points of faith versus reason, and get nowhere. If we simply call out the tenets of each of the various faiths for the absolute bullshit that they are, and defend ourselves with the collective logical thought of the entire rest of the world instead of a few cranky atheists, maybe we'll finally get somewhere as a society.
In his argument, Sam also likens the social animal that is organized religion to racism, and that one day it will be like the scary, uncomfortable thing we did in the past of our collective memory that no one wants to admit to.
What a day that would be.
Here's a sample.
Here's the link to Sam's original article.
And here's his response to those who missed the point the first time around.
Sam Harris, one of my favourite authors on the subject of organized religion and the impact it has had on society has issued an open invitation to anyone who would call themselves an atheist to just stop labeling themselves, and he makes a very convincing argument why.
Basically it boils down to the idea that calling oneself an atheist sets up an argument where you have organized religion on one side and atheists on the other, and anyone who doesn't want to get involved abdicating completely. The argument, Sam feels, should be between organized religion and logical thought. And all this atheist organizing is only drawing attention to both sides instead of the the real issue that antiquated, outmoded beliefs about what happens to a person after they die have no place dictating policy in an enlightened society.
I myself am not what anyone would consider an 'organized atheist'. I have always felt that there wouldn't be a point in joining other people in declaring our non belief in god. After all, there aren't clubs for people who don't believe in Santa Claus. Okay, maybe there are. But that's beside the point. Bottom line is, I can see where letting go of labels completely might help. Instead of arguing with fundies about the place their various belief systems should have in society, we end up endlessly debating the same points of faith versus reason, and get nowhere. If we simply call out the tenets of each of the various faiths for the absolute bullshit that they are, and defend ourselves with the collective logical thought of the entire rest of the world instead of a few cranky atheists, maybe we'll finally get somewhere as a society.
In his argument, Sam also likens the social animal that is organized religion to racism, and that one day it will be like the scary, uncomfortable thing we did in the past of our collective memory that no one wants to admit to.
What a day that would be.
Here's a sample.
We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept. We will simply find ourselves in a world in which people cease to praise one another for pretending to know things they do not know. This is certainly a future worth fighting for.He makes a pretty good case for his point on all fronts. So I won't call him an atheist anymore. And I'll work on not calling myself an atheist, and just believe that someday there won't be a need to any longer.
It may be the only future compatible with our long-term survival as a species. But the only path between now and then, that I can see, is for us to be rigorously honest in the present. It seems to me that intellectual honesty is now, and will always be, deeper and more durable, and more easily spread, than "atheism.
Here's the link to Sam's original article.
And here's his response to those who missed the point the first time around.
posted by raistlinsghost at 10/13/2007 03:07:00 AM
8 Comments:
He makes a great case indeed. I've never understood the organization for the lack of belief.
But without being able to have a word for it, how would we connect to communicate with one another and discuss how wonderful we felt when Mr. Johnny-loves-jesus honks his horn at our Darwin fish? Or how when the same hypocrite gets caught for smoking meth and having sex with a gender-bending prostitute? Ah.
You are right: If we didn't have at least some way of communicating, how would we collectively make fun of all the fundies? Maybe we need to get a secret handshake or a wave or something...?
I feel like not using the word Atheist would be the same as simply abstaining from religion. I for one do not want to abstain. I want to argue with, ridicule and anger the Misinformed. For that, unfortunately, I need a label.
But I do so love the thought of a complete Atheist society devoid of all labels and their bullshit pretenses.
Hey poorgrrl, just FYI fundie is indeed meant as a derogatory word, yes. But I deleted your post because unlike the closed minded, ignorant, insert-skin-colour-here-only people that you represent I do not have any issues with people based on their ethnicity or geographic background. Racist slurs like the ones you feel compelled to sling not only demonstrate why people like you are idiots, but why you deserve our contempt.
And btw, The Black Book of Communism has about as much in common with the ideals of the average atheist as your bible has with those found in Clifford the Big Red Dog. Fundie.
What on earth did she say? Must have been pretty shitty.
Yeah I am not a big fan of racist slurs. Or people that think they need to use them to make their point. These are the same people that clearly don't read something before they comment on it. (Looks vaguely in the direction of poorgrrl). As I mention (in this post, btw) racism is going to one day be that thing that we are ashamed of and whose existence we don't even admit. And we won't need to: our kids won't even know what the big deal was/is because it will be a non issue to them. Some people in some places on this rock might say that we are there now. I don't but I'd like to be.
And I like the idea that religion might some day also be like that very, very much.
I'm not sure what poorgrrl said to herald her erasure (or even what the hell she was doing on such an atheist-tinged blog to begin with) but I read some of her blogs (there are something like 86 listed on her profile and - sweet zombie jesus - it's some of the most hysterically/terrifyingly paleoconservative ignorant racist xenophobic crap I've ever read.
After reading her drivel I went forthwith and started a petition to have Texas de-annexed.
Nice. Thanks for letting me know. I was planning on staying away already, but just in case. And who has time for that many blogs anyway?? I have a hard enough time staying motivated for two, and one of those is a once a month post.
But I'm still killing myself laughing over sweet zombie jesus. lol.
Post a Comment
<< Home