…and this is a 
Letter to a non-atheist New Atheist
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 5, 2007 1:41 PM, by PZ Myers
Dear Sam,
I read your presentation to the Atheist Alliance. You were eminently successful in being a controversial contrarian, so your intent was well executed. Good work!
However, I do have to disagree with your argument (oh, right — you were trying to stir up dissent. Again, good work!). You say that using the term "atheism" is a mistake, and that "Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities" … and that atheism is entirely negative. You say that accepting that label means we are agreeing to be "viewed as a cranky sub-culture".
You say you never thought of yourself as an atheist before. And there, I think, is the major rebuttal to your own thesis. It doesn't matter that you don't call yourself an atheist. Sam, they're going to call you an atheist anyway. Your friends might be willing to accede to your wishes and stop calling you an atheist, but your enemies won't, and the media, which has promoted you as an atheist, probably won't … and if they do, you'll vanish from your influential position rather quickly. You don't get to choose what other people will call you.
It's true that labels can be used to marginalize a sub-culture, but they can also be used to unify a group, even the negative ones, sometimes especially the negative ones. Look at "Queer" and "Abolitionist", to name two examples — they're strange and negative, and using your metric of whether the name suggests something positive, the last is just unrelentingly against something; obviously, they didn't get a good focus group to help them with their brand identity. At the same time, though, those are groups who have and had proud memberships, who unabashedly embraced their identity. I'm sorry, Sam, but complaining about your name and fishing about in a dictionary for happy words you can appropriate is such a Republican thing to do. I much prefer the forthrightness of an out & proud movement.
The other futile side to your argument is that it doesn't matter: we live in a culture that has managed to turn "environmentalist" into a nasty epithet. Same for "feminist". I guarantee you that if you managed to get the whole movement to adopt a brand new label — say, for example, "rationalist" — we'd be hearing that word uttered with the same contemptuous sneer, the same dismissal to a "cranky subculture", and the preachers will still be fulminating from their pulpits with the same distaste for "rationalist" that they have for "secular," "humanist," "intelligentsia," and "intellectual."
Of course, you aren't advocating a new name. You are suggesting no name at all.
We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.
Well, Sam, you're welcome to do that. Stop accepting speaking engagements, stop giving interviews, and stop writing books. I won't respect you any less if you insist on doing good works with no fanfare — it's your choice.
It seems to me, though, that there is no conflict at all between being decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them and also finding common cause with like-minded people and working together to promote that same decency, responsibility, and critical thinking publicly. In fact, I think such coordinated (and proudly labeled) action by a group would be more effective than similar action by modest individuals.
Like you, I look forward to a post-theist future when the term "atheist" is a quaint relic that lacks any contemporary context, as silly as saying that one is an a-Zeusist or an aleprechaunist. That time is not now, and you are ignoring reality to pretend that it is. We do have a context that makes atheism relevant and appropriate: we are immersed in a deeply irrational religious culture. Those labels you denigrate — "atheists," "humanists," "secular humanists," "naturalists," "skeptics," "anti-theists," "rationalists," "freethinkers," and "brights" — are useful rallying cries for the tiny, scattered bubbles of rationality drifting in the sea of superstition and ignorance. It's how we find each other and grow. It's how we build whole communities working for a common cause, rather than acting as isolated individuals.
I'd like to see more openly secular communities and institutions forming, and I think to do that we have to accept labels and banners and symbols, and we have to be open about expressing our ideas and encouraging others to join us. That's how we'll make a lasting difference. That's also how we'll undermine the unfortunate insinuations imposed on us by the way the label "atheist" is used. It doesn't matter if you try to abandon the name, it's going to stick to you and us for a good long time; what we need to do is build our own positive values beneath that tag and change its meaning from within.
Yours in godlessness,
PZ Myers
Politics
Comments
/signed
Posted by: Deepsix | October 5, 2007 1:50 PM
I'm was so disappointed by Sam Harris' article, I worry all the time about the sheer number of agnostics and polite atheists, people who are almost there in seeing religiosity for what it really means, but who somehow get sidetracked and unwittingly help do religion's job of censoring outspoken atheists.
I'd honestly like to thank PZ for posting this, it lifted my despair of the future somewhat.
Posted by: Santiago | October 5, 2007 2:04 PM
"We should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."
----------
That's what decent, responsible believers do--they go under the radar.
In the U.S., Centrist Christians, who support church/state separation, are just as appalled at the aggressive antics of Christians on the radical right as atheists are. Something for atheists to bear in mind as they battle (rightly) to transcend the legacy of Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
Posted by: Dirkh | October 5, 2007 2:05 PM
Well said PZ. I'm a big fan of Mr. Harris but in this case i'm with you. Many people think liberal is a negative label. But not to me. I'm proud to call myself a Liberal and i'm proud to call myself an Atheist.
Posted by: Alexander | October 5, 2007 2:05 PM
So "under the radar" is the atheist version of "in the closet". Because that has worked out so well. /eyeroll
Personally, I prefer to use a-theist as an adjective, just says I am without religion. But that's only in my head. Out in the real world, that's the term. Sam really needs to clue in.
Posted by: True Bob | October 5, 2007 2:09 PM
I'm looking for a way to scream "atheist" at the top of my lungs - I'll wear that one with pride.
The nasty strains of racism tolerated by many in the modern left has made me a little reluctant to use that term for self-description despite being extremely left-wing.
Posted by: ryan | October 5, 2007 2:10 PM
Very well put, PZ. Particularly troubling, for me at least, was the first sentence of the last paragraph in Sam's piece:
We will have won this war of ideas against religion when atheism is scarcely intelligible as a concept.
Sorry to say, but if one replaces religion with "capitalism" and atheism with "Marxism"--to pick one haphazardly invented example--there's a good chance that Trotsky might have made the same remark to Stalin himself back in the day. As ever, Orwell never ceases to be relevant.
Posted by: Kevin Conway | October 5, 2007 2:14 PM
Hmm. For some reason, I am reluctant to apply my usual smart-assery to Sam Harris, probably because I gained so much respect for him from reading his online debate with Andrew Sullivan.
Instead, I'll just say I disagree with his position on this one.
Posted by: Brownian | October 5, 2007 2:15 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 5, 2007 2:18 PM
I, for one, think we should change our name anyways--to "Rationalist Smack Down Counter Strike Squad"! There's just no way to not make that sound cool!
Posted by: RamblinDude | October 5, 2007 2:22 PM
Uh oh, now your signature belongs to the Interwebs.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 5, 2007 2:23 PM
An example of the converse: "Gay" was chosen as a positive euphemism for homosexuality. Before this, gay was used commonly for "happy". The over-30's may not realize it, but "Gay" has become a generic (and almost ubiquitous) insult among adolescents and young adults who need to grow up. I'm not proud to admit that I used to say it all the time:
"Gas is 3 dollars a gallon?! That's so gay."
"Dude, don't be gay, just break me offa piece a that Kit-Kat"
It doesn't necessarily even mean "homosexual". It's use is more similar to "suck".
The worst thing atheists could do would be to pick a monosyllabic word to identify ourselves (i.e. "Bright"). It just gives the people who hate us an easier word to use. It's much better to just own the labels placed on us. After all, what are we ashamed of?
Posted by: BlockStacker | October 5, 2007 2:24 PM
I, too, was surprised and a little surprised when I read that he had said that.
If anything, the fact that some people actually sneer as they say the word 'atheist' means that the movement is starting to have an impact.
Posted by: Pi Guy | October 5, 2007 2:24 PM
Atheists who are decent, polite, and altruistic will be MISTAKEN for Christians, because such is the irrational bigotry of our culture. When I can, if I am helping someone, I try to find some subtle way of mentioning my lack of religious faith. And today when I received an email from the ONE campaign folks with the subject line "FAITH," I wrote them a quick note to explain that I support them because they are, like me, secular, and if that changes substantially, they will lose my support. There is literally no reason why a good reputation should attach to the religious or a bad reputation to the atheist--we know this very well. But Harris's tack here would allow Christians to claim any decent person as one of theirs, while pointing out the few rotten atheists as representative of the whole worldview. This won't do.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 5, 2007 2:24 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 5, 2007 2:29 PM
What I said before, deep down in a thread on something else:
Anybody who has witnessed Terrorism become the new Communism (to wax a little snowclonish) will recognize that new words can be given the emotional baggage of the old ones. Merely changing your label won't win the rhetorical battle. . . and if you don't give yourself a label, a person with less patience and tolerance for subtlety will stick one upon you. Consider that inane coinage of Wired, the appellation "New Atheist" itself. Do all the authors whose books are shelved together as "The New Atheism" agree with one another? No. Do the people who read those books follow their authors in all intellectual decisions of consequence? Nope. If I wrote a book, we'd have a "New Atheist" author who disagreed with Hitchens about the Iraq war, Dawkins about group selection, and Harris about "spirituality". Better call me a "New Atheist" of the Sokal-Blackford-Avalos-Nanda-Myers Reformation!
Yet, to the self-appointed professional pundit class, "New Atheists" we are, and "New Atheists" we shall always be — one equal temper of subversive heart. If you get any attention at all, that's the treatment you will receive, whether you call yourself a Bright or a Skeptic or a Secular Humanist. And if you choose the hermetic path, if you forsake the limelight and walk the Earth (you know, like Kane in Kung Fu) to provoke the faculties of critical thought one mind at a time — well, we've tried that, and look where it got us.
Harris's defense of the whole "spirituality" thing also lacked punch. Not only did it seem like a distraction from the tactical and strategic case he was trying to make, but also it missed the point of the complaints directed at him. I won't claim familiarity with the whole Satanic Talmud of commentary which has grown up around the Uppity Atheist Bookshelf, but I think it's fair to say that people like Meera Nanda are concerned with the way Harris imputes empirical truth value to the claims of the mystics.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 5, 2007 2:32 PM
Ah, sorry, here's the link which got lost.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 5, 2007 2:33 PM
Pi Guy,
But were you surprised?
Posted by: Mike P | October 5, 2007 2:34 PM
Well written as always, PZ.
Posted by: The Ethical Atheist | October 5, 2007 2:45 PM
A label has been assigned to people like that, as well: "Bums"
Posted by: BlockStacker | October 5, 2007 2:46 PM
I like "atheist." Most people take it like a punch in the face. Here in the UK the normal response tends to be militant agnosticism and lots of spat out platitudes that atheism is unreasonable/just-as-bad-as-religion/etc. That's fine by me. Under the radar is the last place we need to be.
Posted by: poke | October 5, 2007 2:52 PM
Brownian (#8):
On that note, see if you can count how many times in that debate (which I, too, think is Sam's finest hour to date) Harris refers to himself as an "atheist." It's at least four.Odd, no?
Posted by: Rieux | October 5, 2007 2:58 PM
Harris has clearly been replaced with a forced-clone body duplicate by the hordes of ID scientists.
What do you think they've been spending all that funding on?
Posted by: Caledonian | October 5, 2007 3:00 PM
Great writing and just dead on.
Posted by: NickM | October 5, 2007 3:00 PM
David Fuhs is happy to call himself an atheist, but then he's still moral because of his exposure to the 10 commandments. Consider the source.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 5, 2007 3:04 PM
Bring back the League of the Militant Godless.
Posted by: Sinbad | October 5, 2007 3:09 PM
Harris just isn't a "preach to the choir" kind of guy. He's a contrarian first, and whatever else he is (what is this, "the doubt that dare not speak its name"?) second.
Eschewing labels at this stage of the game seems futile. As many have noted, you can stop calling yourself an atheist, but a theist who understands your position will correctly identify it as "atheism." Words don't go away, much less when they've already been attached to a "cranky subculture." Which, by the way, there are worse kinds of cultures to be, like calcified, myth-bound mutual-appreciation societies --er, I mean, "churches."
Posted by: CJO | October 5, 2007 3:11 PM
Why I think Xians have reduced politicians to embarrassing appeals to the faithful is that they're willing, in herds, to say what atheists will not: If you are running for office and are Christian my vote is yours.
What atheist is willing to apply this litmus test to her politician?
Politicians are instruments. Trade in a little quality for quantity. Settle on a title for godless-sake. Gather. Find cohesion. Those fickle politicians will play along.
Posted by: caynazzo | October 5, 2007 3:14 PM
Blake: If I wrote a book, we'd have a "New Atheist" author who disagreed with Hitchens about the Iraq war, Dawkins about group selection...
Sorry for stalking, but let me try to point you to this article again. ;)
Posted by: windy | October 5, 2007 3:16 PM
I respect much of what Harris has done, but he lost me with this one too. The bit where he proselytizes for meditation didn't help either. It was hard to un-glaze my eyes and get through that section.
Posted by: foldedpath | October 5, 2007 3:16 PM
Can't I just call myself a superhero?
Posted by: Chris R. | October 5, 2007 3:21 PM
Sam Harris? Fly under the radar? Time to go door to door (incognito, of course) and try trading new lamps (or books) for old ones. He's being sarcastic, right? (I don't like him anyway, so it would be hypocritical of me to pretend that this had caused me to lost respect for him, but...)
Posted by: IanR | October 5, 2007 3:27 PM
He wrote "LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION"
a bestseller... who is he fooling?
Posted by: Steve_C | October 5, 2007 3:32 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 5, 2007 3:40 PM
Mr. Harris has convinced me. Instead of an atheist, I shall henceforth be a NULL (Not Using Lousy Labels).
Watch out deists, nothing is going to take you on now!
Posted by: drivel | October 5, 2007 3:43 PM
There will probably come a time (at least I hope so for the sake of the human race) when atheism will be the default assumption because so damn many of us have come to our senses. At that moment, I think he will have a point. But for right now, differentiating ourselves from the mindless hoard, to break free from the preconceptions that everyone believes in some worthless diety, some kind of label is absolutely necessary.
I don't think there is anything wrong with thinking about this question--indeed, challenging our assumptions is how many of us managed to break away from childhood indoctrination into religion--but that hardly means that merely asking the question implies an answer.
I listened to this speech live at the AAI convention, and many of the questioners made exactly the same points PZ does. If he's really never called himself an atheist before, I an understand why he might be uncomfortable with the label. After all, many atheists transition through "agnosticism" just because the label "atheism" is perceived to be so pejorative. I think in time, he'll come around and see "atheist" as many of us have come to, as a badge of honour.
Posted by: Betsy | October 5, 2007 3:46 PM
I had similar thoughts when i read what Harris had to say.
This is the first time in my life that i've really had a group of people that I consider friends and i met all of them through a local atheist group. Meeting with them regularly is what got me interested in reading non-fiction. And reading made me realize i needed to go back to school. I shudder to think of where i'd be right now if they hadn't been willing to openly identify themselves as atheists.
Posted by: Brian W. | October 5, 2007 3:48 PM
I feel like we're fighting against dictionary.com in a lot of ways though.I think this has been called "strong" vs. "weak" atheism. I know at least one person who identifies himself as agnostic simply because he does not deny the possibility of a creator. I remember thinking the same thing in my "agnostic" period. It's like the definition of "agnostic" has gotten too big and the def. of "atheist" has gotten too small.
If people who are atheist by our definition are not identifying themselves as such, they're not putting "atheist" on the census forms, and they're not being encouraged to join the community. How many erstwhile agnostics have we seen on forums accusing atheism of "requiring just as much faith."
I think we need to promote our definition more, simplify it, and bring it to the forefront. Put it on those scarlet letter t-shirts. Put it at the top of PZ's website. This way, the community grows and, if our definition becomes prominent enough, the dictionary definitions will be changed as well.
Posted by: BlockStacker | October 5, 2007 3:53 PM
I'm with Sam Harris on this one - at least in the UK. I can see how it might be different in the USA.
In the UK we (still) have a general tolerance of individual peculiarities, whether politics, hobbies or religions (or non-religious). Changes in our society tend to be carried on a groundswell of quiet opinion. We distrust organised groups, especially if they are weirder than usual.
If you adopt the big red 'Atheist' as your badge, you become a club of like minded people - but as Sam says the boundaries of your club are defined by people outside it. Their definition will be negative, and it will be easy for them to dismiss any rational argument from 'that bunch of nutters'. The debate becomes polarised and more difficult to change.
I recognise that Sam's view may not be so persuasive in the US, but over in the UK we have been becoming more secular for many years. Steady change works for us, but possibly not for you. One size does not fit all.
Posted by: Bunjo | October 5, 2007 3:58 PM
Ugh.
Atheism is GREAT word. Unambiguous. Uncomplicated. Direct.
All the worry-warts can go form their own little sub-tribe and do conferences where Nisbet and Harris drone on endlessly about the anxiety of non-influence and endlessly discuss "what's in a name". I won't be attending.
I AM AN ATHEIST!
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 5, 2007 4:01 PM
Thanks for this, Prof. Myers. You did not disappoint.
Posted by: andy | October 5, 2007 4:05 PM
I attended the Atheist Alliance International convention last month, and heard Sam Harris' talk. There were a couple interesting follow-up questions from the audience.
One or two people wondered what he thinks they should tell people they are, if they're asked directly. As I recall, Harris' response was not to give a response to that question, but change the subject to something else, something specific having to do with reason and evidence.
But of course, that's simply not workable -- and not particularly honest. I'm surprised that Harris even proposed it, because of course one of the major tactics of the religious is to respond to a clear, devastating, difficult question with "that's not important: instead, let me ask you something..." It doesn't fool us a moment, they simply look disingenuous.
There was also a follow-up point made by Daniel Dennett, that he does not dismiss the value of studying mystical experiences for either understanding how our brains compose our sense of self, or for personally helping one to achieve a sense of peace and contentment. In fact, Dennett said, he himself meditates and finds it very beneficial. He just disagrees that it gives someone insight into the nature of how the entire universe works, vs. into the nature of how the mind works. People who have spent years and years meditating don't come up with anything interesting beyond themselves ... or something like that.
Harris' response was still a bit confusing. He still seemed to push the idea that no, spending years and years in meditation would indeed tell you something important you couldn't learn any other way -- but of course he wasn't saying there was some sort of spiritual realm or that you learned about the universe. Then where is the disagreement?
Posted by: Sastra | October 5, 2007 4:08 PM
PZ,
Great letter; I think you may actually change Harris' stance with it.
-JF
Posted by: Jason Failes | October 5, 2007 4:08 PM
So ... he's against the label "athiest", Right? Not the word "athiest". It seems hard for me to believe he never thought of himself as an athiest. The word "athiest" means someone who doesn't believe in god and seems pretty specific to me. For a person, who doesn't believe in god to say he never thought of himself as an athiest, sounds a bit like saying I never thought of myself as a human, or (in my case) male, or (also in my case (caucasion), or (still in my case) heterosexual. They may not be labels I find pertinent or relevant to the .... oh, let's call it "essence of being me" ... but there is utterly no doubt that they are specific words that apply to me.
I've got nothing against labels, per se. But I'm not sure I see their point other than to obfiscate or cast innuendo. The label "pro-choice" softens the blow that they are pro-abortion*. The label "pro-life" implies anyone against them are anti-life monsters. The obiquitous success of both these labels, though, seem to me to be the rare exceptions. If our "movement" is one of a disbelief in god, why make up a term when "athiest" and "athiesm" mean precisely that? To call ourselves "brights" or "free-thinkers" or what ever seems to my to imply we want to hide or obscure our disbelief. I can't see us having any success if we appear to actually be ashamed of or dishonest in letting people know we don't believe in god.
Another example of a successful label, I suppose, is "gay" for "homosexual". I believe the purpose of this label is simply that the word "homosexual" sounds clinical and technical and thus makes the concept of "homosexuality" seem pathelogical rather than personal. We don't clinically refer to other humans as "humans" in a social context, so too, I imagine the argument goes, it would be clinically detaching to refer to homosexuals as "homosexuals" is a social context.
Maybe it's just me, but "athiest" has no such clinical conotation, at least no more so than "Christian", or "Jewish", or "Hindu"; perhaps a little more such conotation than "pagan" but less such conotation than "deist", "pantheist", "gnostic", or "polytheist".
I just can't object to simple word if it simply and accurately describes us. Do I believe in God? No. What's the word for a person who doesn't belive in God? "athiest." So am I an athiest? Well.... yeah.
Then I suppose, there's labels like "feminism" which cover a span of ideas and philosophies about women but isn't in itself simply "women". "feminism" is not the same thing as "pro-woman". If our "movement" isn't simply about stating our disbelief in God, but rather some other related tenets (is it? is our "movement" pro-science? anti exceptions on religious grounds? pro-vivisection while we're at it 'cause those PETA nuts irritate me?) then another label would be apropriate. Athiesm doesn't mean pro-science or anything else; just not believing in God.
[*]Although I still run up against the odd pro-lifer now and then who get offended when I say I'm "pro-abortion". They usually give some "you can't be 'pro-abortion'; that means you think every woman should be made to have an abortion" to which I usually point out I'm also "pro-brain surgery" and "pro-appendectimy". Others are deeply into acquiescing to the enemy mode and say "abortions a deep tragedy and in a perfect world would never occur; I could never have one myself but when someone finds themself in a tragic position of an unwanted pregnancy they should be given the choice; isn't that what you mean" to which I have to answer no, that's not what I mean at all; I mean abortion is a legitimate medicate procedure that can frequently be the best option and as such should always be available, and, no, I don't think an abortion is a tragedy and were I female, pregnant, and sure I didn't want kids (I'm none of the three) and have one with more or less the same trepidation I'd approach any-other equivalent medical procedure.
Posted by: woozy (pro- Wizard of Oz; anti-ozmopolitan) | October 5, 2007 4:22 PM
Yes, let's all lie low. Because that's worked so well so far. We should all just turn the other cheek, sit at the back of the bus, keep our dirty dealings to the bathhouses, and whatnot. Silent, passive nonresistance works out so well for every minority group who wants to gain recognition, find pride, and change the system.
Posted by: Tom Foss | October 5, 2007 4:31 PM
People like Mr. Harris don't get it; by merely existing we atheist are a direct threat to all these Mega-Church Evangelists and their fortunes. To protect their income source of the people they have duped they will resort to every trick in the book. He's in a fight, he's going to get hurt and showing pain like flinching when someone calls him an atheist isn't going to work.
Posted by: Bob L | October 5, 2007 4:35 PM
Sweet and gentle woozy:
The next time I see you misspell "athEIst" as "athIEst," I will accuse you of overweening pride, to think you are so much more athy than the rest of us...
Posted by: Sastra | October 5, 2007 4:40 PM
Well put PZ. I got nothing to add but that.
Posted by: Dahan | October 5, 2007 4:47 PM
Query: "What's your religion?" or "Do you believe in God?"
Answer: "None, I'm rational." or "Of course not, I'm rational."
I think Sam has a good point about defining ourselves as a negative, but I'll still proudly call myself an Atheist.
Posted by: Robert Thille | October 5, 2007 5:04 PM
You're an atheist if your answer is "None". Period.
By denying the moniker you're only making the rest of us upstanding atheists look less than desireable.
The best thing an atheist can do is state they are with a smile and fearlessness.
Sam's being pretentious and unrealistic. Sure no one really wants to be labelled if the label is tainted by ignorance. But it's cowardice to deny it.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 5, 2007 5:15 PM
Athy, athier, athiest.
"Jane is athy, but John is slightly athier. But that PZ guy is the athiest one of all."
(Sorry.)
There are two kinds of people in the world; those who think there is no spirit world, and those who think there is one. By definition, if Sam thinks there are zero gods, that makes him an atheist.
There's really no other way to frame it. Sam's essay is really all about framing, isn't it?
Posted by: MikeM | October 5, 2007 5:18 PM
Personally... meh, don't care. I don't believe I ever started calling myself an atheist in the first place, so it'd be hard for me to stop now. I tend to let other people make up names for me apart from very definite things like my proper name or my role as a student or researcher. They can call me a post-9/11 modernist pan-negentrodeist with a slice of cheddar cheese and dipping sauce on the side if they like, whoever they are this week. It doesn't change a thing. In my heart of hearts, I'll know that I'm out of dipping sauce.
Point is, people define everyone as "like me" or "unlike me." The specific name they attach to mark the differences or similarities always have, and probably always will, change over time of their own accord. Disagreeing with a label is still giving it some degree of influence over oneself. If I have to argue with someone that "I am an atheist" or "I am not an atheist," they've already made up their own mind. What I call myself hardly matters at all.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | October 5, 2007 5:21 PM
#15 Reginald Selkirk: "Is that why the God-bearing pledge is still in our schools, and an attempt to knock it down can't even get a fair hearing in the highest court in the land? Is that why "In God We Trust" is still on our money? Is that why organizations which openly discriminate against atheists, such as the Boy Scouts and the American Legion hold prominent places in our society, rather than being ostracized like bigots should be?"
Let's not forget that this is the country that imported then persecuted slaves, that conducted the Scopes Monkey Trial, that permitted McCarthyist hysteria, and that has twice allowed Dubaya into office. Your Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.
From the outside, it is intriguing to speculate how a rich and, in so many other ways, able nation has nurtured such intolerance, bigotry, stupidity, and anti-intellectualism.
Look beneath all those problems and you'll probably find a large measure of conservative greed and obsessive fundamentalist religiosity.
Posted by: scatheist | October 5, 2007 5:28 PM
woozy: three syllables: a-the-ist.
(Was that spelled with ï in the 19th century?)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 5, 2007 5:42 PM
If we all "flew under the radar," what would Debbie Schlussel and Dinesh D'Souza have to talk about?
Posted by: Alison | October 5, 2007 5:49 PM
Thanks, PZ. The way to overcome the label is to embrace it, since the opposition will slap it on you anyway, and the more you squirm, the more they will apply it.
As far as all of this meditation crap, I fail to see what the pursuit of subjective experiences is going to do for anyone beyond give them subjective experiences. You don't get anything out that wasn't there to begin with. What happens in ones' head does not affect reality--no matter how much one might want it to.
Otherwise,gods would exist.
I'm an atheist and what goes on in my head is a simulation.
Posted by: longstreet63 | October 5, 2007 5:53 PM
I love me some Sam Harris, but I count myself squarely in PZ's camp on this one. I get Sam's point, but I also think that, without labels to identify groups of like-minded people, organizing people to promote the rational worldview becomes exponentially more difficult. Best use of the word Atheist I've seen in a while was on t-shirts worn by the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, which proudly stated, "Hi! I'm your friendly neighborhood Atheist."
Posted by: Midwestern Gent | October 5, 2007 5:56 PM
I have used "We are all atheists; I simply don't believe in one more god than you don't believe in", which is correct and makes me smile inside, but does not amuse the bulk of the believers around me.
I do think it's funny that a man who is making a living writing books telling the world that their religions are wrong and dangerous is telling the rest of us to not do the same thing. Hypocritical, much?
Posted by: fupDuck | October 5, 2007 6:20 PM
Maybe he just wants to corner the market?
Posted by: BlockStacker | October 5, 2007 6:24 PM
"Atheist" is an okay term that I don't mind being called. I much prefer another label that describes me as well: "Apostate". Yeah!
Posted by: sinned34 | October 5, 2007 6:29 PM
Well, I think the point here has been a bit missed, and I think PZ, you have been very selective with what you mention and respond to in Harris' article: you mostly make it sound as if he is merely another advocate of "shut up atheists" framing, advocating an entirely milquetoast downplaying of that embarrassing atheism (which many of the commenters seem to believe too, perhaps not having clicked the link and read further), when in fact he's calling for some pretty balls-to-the-wall constant criticism of religious ideas. You then simply do not mention or respond to most of his actual arguments about why he thinks atheism is a distraction.
Though I'm an atheist who'll most likely go on using the term atheism despite Harris' admonitions, I still think he makes a lot of worthwhile points about how an obsessive focus on one word or identity can be a problem and a distraction. I'd like even to add to what Harris said.
Those who try to put forth their ideas as atheism, and use atheism interchangeably with their own anti-religious or rationalist opinions and commentary, are being counter-productively confusing. Understanding what atheism is, is often VERY difficult for believers, because they fall into the precise trap of thinking of atheism as a philosophy rather than a category of exclusion. This is why comparing atheism to "queer" or "abolitionist" is remarkably inapt and unhelpful (not to mention that both of those DID come with positive sets of values and goals). Atheism is fundamentally privative: it is a category of the outgroup. We really AREN'T a common people and we really DON'T have a common goal, or even necessarily similar opinions on virtually anything.
Every time we act to convince people that we, in fact, are, especially by obsessing over and insisting we all march under a single banner, we only deepen the confusion. And we pretty much concede half the battle to religious nuts who are TRYING to confuse people in exactly this way.
This is why I sort of feel like rolling my eyes a little at the idea of having "atheist" charities. It emulates what religious organizations do, when half the point is that they are wrong to do it, creating more artificial divisions between people and wasting time pushing ideology when all the focus should be the cause, not the providers.
As Harris notes, in many cases, focusing on and obsessing over the word "atheism" is like an invitation to waste a TREMENDOUS amount of time and have confusing discursive and almost purely semantic discussions that lead us, ironically, very far afield from the actual criticisms of religious belief we are interested in focusing on.
It's also a little tiresome to see every attempt at introspection or self-criticism treated so suspiciously (and in this case a little sneeringly "controversial contrarian, so your intent was well executed. Good work!"). Maybe Harris was wrong: maybe all anyone really wants is a lot of back-patting and red meat 24/7. I dunno: I find that prospect a little boring, and I can't quite imagine being the sort of person who'd pay hundreds of dollars to go to this conference to hear other people repeat what I already think and then cheer at it. I'm already arrogant enough to self-congratulate myself for free: if I'm going to pay money, I'm going to want to hear things that will make me think and challenge me.
Posted by: Bad | October 5, 2007 6:33 PM
Thank you, PZ, for getting to the heart of the matter.
I was not impressed by the transcript of Harris' speech, partly because I wondered if he was not merely choosing the more controversial position for the sake of carving out a niche for himself.
Harris seemed to be conveniently ignoring the fact that theists will label us 'atheists', 'infidels', or 'godless' regardless of what we call ourselves. Theists are in the habit, after all, of making highly emotional arguments and of resorting to ad hominem attacks. I suspect that this is because they either cannot make a good argument or because no good argument can be made for religious dogma -- or both. I think that it would be political and intellectual suicide to submit to their name-calling tactics.
If Harris wished to say that we should emphasize the more ridiculous and dangerous aspects of particular religious sects, then he should have said that. If he wished to point out that we need to emphasize the fact that atheism is the only rational position that fits all the physical evidence, then he should have said that.
The inescapable fact is that we either believe in supernatural entities or we do not. Whether we nonbelievers waffle and say that it cannot-be-known or whether we say that anything that interacts with the physical is necessarily physical (goodbye special 'supernatural' category) we appear to be mostly united by our belonging to the nonbeliever camp. Why toss that away?
As other atheist commenters have pointed out, rationality and factual information alone simply have not worked in the hundreds of years since the Enlightenment (which was confined, after all, to a smattering of attendees at fashionable salons) and the Scientific Revolution.
I suspect that Harris may have inhabited circles in which others were both reasonably intelligent and reasonably well educated. I say this because he appears to be blissfully unaware of the intellectual capacity of the average man or woman in the street. The average sheep-person is not really capable of assessing the soundness of an argument purely on its logical merits. Not only is the average sheep-person not particularly suited for critical thinking, the average sheep-person in America seems to have adopted a highly emotional, anti-intellectual attitude and will not respond well to rationality or to the term 'rational'. If you want to herd sheep, you need a sheepdog that will nip at their heels and not a shepherd who refuses to call himself a shepherd in case the sheep take offense.
Woof!
Posted by: arcanum | October 5, 2007 6:44 PM
I never trusted Sam Harris, because he is a muslim-phobe first, and an atheist second. Nothing in this essay does anything to change my opinion on him.
Posted by: inkadu | October 5, 2007 6:46 PM
I've begin using "assertive atheist" to describe myself (just last week for the first time), and I rather like that, as opposed, say, to "militant" atheist. It gets across the message more clearly and with fewer bullshit associations.
Posted by: RBH | October 5, 2007 6:48 PM
Atheists manage to establish a tiny influence in the cultural landscape and, once again, someone just has to tell them to STFU.
Very disappointing.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 5, 2007 7:00 PM
"As other atheist commenters have pointed out, rationality and factual information alone simply have not worked in the hundreds of years since the Enlightenment (which was confined, after all, to a smattering of attendees at fashionable salons) and the Scientific Revolution."
I also want to point out that these sorts of arguments the "well X hasn't worked in the past, so why should they work now?," which are common, are also to my ear pretty silly. The cultural, political, and intellectual environment today isn't the same one as "for hundreds of years." And as people seem to be convieniently forgetting, Harris is hardly advocating just milling around tamely asking people to be reasonable but not going after religious nuttery. I mean, have you READ "Letter to a Christian Nation" Or even the rest of his piece here?
And frankly, hasn't worked by what standard exactly? For most of human history, atheists have been hunted for sport. And now, suddenly, since that oh-so ineffective Enlightenment, we may not have a chance of getting nationally elected, but most of us can be out and even have some people represented in the media and so forth. Heck, an openly atheist superhero leads not one but two major comic book superteams. :) Also, women can vote, slavery is an anathema, and so on: all things that would have been utterly unthinkable for most of the several thousand year history of all human civilization. Doesn't seem half bad to me, frankly.
Posted by: Bad | October 5, 2007 7:05 PM
How amazing, we haven't define yet what the hell is the new atheism thing and we already have a schism. I don't know, to me the Harris speech sounds some contradictory of his efforts of putting in the public arena the criticism of religion.
Posted by: Rolando Aguilera | October 5, 2007 7:07 PM
"Atheists manage to establish a tiny influence in the cultural landscape and, once again, someone just has to tell them to STFU."
See: perfect example of the sort of response I was talking about. If people get this idea of what Harris is saying from PZ's response to him, then that response is not being very clear about what Harris is actually saying. Nowhere in his piece does he tell anyone to stop talking and stop criticizing religion.
In fact, the same article includes lines like "Mormonism, it seems to me, is--objectively--just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas." and has titles like "Science must destroy religion" and is from the same guy who wrote "Nature" to bash Francis Collins' skull in for thinking he saw Jesus in a waterfall.
Posted by: Bad | October 5, 2007 7:11 PM
I must say, however, that my personal preference (and the way I think of myself) is "heathen" (or "godless heathen").
A great Drive-By Truckers song, BTW.
Posted by: fupDuck | October 5, 2007 7:14 PM
I think you need to take it a step further PZ. You write that we should accept labels and banners, but your tone suggests that we can only tolerate it as a necessary evil. I think hip-hop culture provides an example of how a word that was once used only to demean and denigrate can be co-opted by the very people it was aimed at, put to fruitful (artistic!) purpose and spoken with pride, a word so famous and important I needn't write it. It is important to demonstrate how one can make a happy and proud connection to the label 'atheist.'
Posted by: Jake | October 5, 2007 7:17 PM
Now I feel like a real idoist!
Posted by: woozy (you know, someone who relies on id rather than intelligence or common sense? An idoist?) | October 5, 2007 7:19 PM
#60 Bad: "Well, I think the point here has been a bit missed, and I think PZ, you have been very selective with what you mention and respond to in Harris' article: you mostly make it sound as if he is merely another advocate of "shut up atheists" framing, advocating an entirely milquetoast downplaying of that embarrassing atheism (which many of the commenters seem to believe too, perhaps not having clicked the link and read further)"
As I read Harris, on the question of the 'atheist' label, he appeared chiefly to be trying to avoid the plethora of fallacious theistic anti-atheist ad hominem slurs.
. . . when in fact he's calling for some pretty balls-to-the-wall constant criticism of religious ideas. You then simply do not mention or respond to most of his actual arguments about why he thinks atheism is a distraction."
I agree with Harris that some religious beliefs are even more ridiculous than other beliefs and that some sects are more dangerous than others. Theists have been attacking science and knowledge broadly, and specific fellow citizens narrowly, for a very long time. He's advocating rationality, which has not worked and which I think will not work.
Let's look at why atheists have become more vocal and politically active, though. I'd be interested in knowing why others here are atheists. (Excuse me for asking this--I'm new here.) This is a self-selected population and I suspect that there are commonalities beyond being atheists.
I have been a nonbeliever since early childhood first because I thought that I was being taught illogical and improbable stories. This logical bent also resulted in my preference for science. So, logic first, then agnosticism, then science, then atheism, then increasing awareness of the harm that religious belief has inflicted on rationality, on science, on morality, and on politics. My other self-labels include 'liberal', 'secularist', 'humanist', 'empiricist-materialist', 'environmentalist', etc - all the qualities that are despised, and probably feared, but the Religious Wrong.
I have only recently sat up and paid any attention to atheism as a movement and this stems from my increasingly anti-religious feelings. More than ever, I see the controlling anti-intellectual ethos of the religious fundamentalist as dangerously subversive.
Harris appears to want to take away what I suspect may motivate and unite us as frustrated pro-rationals. Later in this movement, his points might be useful, but I think he's unhelpfully premature in his suggestion and, as I said in my earlier comment, I'm suspicious of his motivations. I certainly do not think that he is being politically astute.
Posted by: arcanum | October 5, 2007 7:22 PM
Brownian in #8 wrote:
That was good debate. Harris mopped up the floor with that poor guy. They kept it really civil and polite, which I appreciate. And I genuinely like both of them. But Harris cleaned Sullivan's clock.
...
On the topic of the post, I don't think I will fret about labels, but I won't necessarily fly under the radar. I can see why that would appeal to someone though. Not everyone should feel the need to wear a badge and that's ok by me too. I hope there are a lot of those people out there, because... they're sleepers.
I will admit though, I despise the "New Atheist" term. It's a) stupid, b) inaccurate and c) meant to be insulting from the get-go. I will not use it, except to insult people who do. Well, I have, but I won't again except to be sarcastic. Why dignify it? I simply say "atheist" (which is term I really like) and that's it.
Posted by: Leni | October 5, 2007 7:22 PM