An atheist for president?

Georetown University's Jacques Berlinerblau has some strange ideas, but they're usually provocative and sometime worth sharing, which is the case today with his slightly tongue-in-cheek proposal that atheists run a candidate for president. The goal: "This is not about winning or losing. This is about figuring out who nonbelievers are. This is about learning where they are." Hmmm.

Berlinerblau's list of possible candidates is perhaps too silly for his argument -- several of his choices don't qualify as they weren't born in the U.S. (Christopher Hitchens, Salman Rushie). But what's really interesting is his breakdown of the atheist community. To wit:

The flora and fauna of contemporary nonbelief is astonishingly variegated. There are the Big Science Secularists (who sometimes have a creepily cocksure, pre-postmodern, faith in the possibilities of reason). There are the Refugees who are escaping dysfunctional Fundamentalist homes. There are the Church-State Lifers who would rather immolate themselves than endure another breach of the Wall of Separation. There are The Philosopher Kings who are in it for intellectual thrills and who might be reading anything from Ayn Rand to Heidegger to the Death of God Theologians. There are The Lone Rangers who see "Stop" signs as infringements on their personal civil liberties and will ferociously resist being wrangled by any institution, organization, campaign, etc. There is a small--too small, I think--Gay contingent. There is The Lunatic Fringe composed of those who--speaking in secular tongues--equate all Evangelical Christians with the Taliban. And lots of others too.

So where do you fall?

From my cocksure perspective, Berlinerblau may be mischaracterizing the Big Science gang. Perhaps there are some misinformed science geeks who hold a "pre-postmodern, faith in the possibilities of reason." But I would think that if they do, they belong in one of the professor's other categories. Or maybe they're just Laurie Anderson fans.

Tags

More like this

Blogger R. Joseph Hoffmann recently posted a stunningly idiotic essay lamenting the present state of atheist discourse. It's standard fare for him, this time expressed in especially pretentious and contentless prose. For example, I defy you to discern anything sensible in these two paragraphs:…
I have no idea if the staff at ScienceBlogs anticipated just how popular the religion vs. atheism debate would be on these pages, but it would seem we're not the only home of passionate and often thoughtful argument over the God Question. Over at the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog, there a…
By now you have no doubt heard that MSNBC, apparently fretting that their ratings were not low enough, has fired Keith Olbermann. Brilliant move! They have replaced him with the milquetoast, CW spouting Laurence O'Donnell, meaning that reruns of NCIS are probably now the best option for…
I don't mean to pick a fight with a fellow Science Blogger, but I'm afraid I have to. If not a fight, at least register a strenuous remonstrance, if I may frame it that way. The object of my displeasure is Matt Nisbet over at Framing Science, who seems to have a bee in his neurons about what he…

Post-modernism being utter crap (and just as eighties-ish as feathered Duran Duran haircuts and jackets with rolled-up sleeves), I would label myself a post-postmodernist.

By Christophe Thill (not verified) on 20 Sep 2007 #permalink

I guess I'd fall under the big science umbrella. I'd love to run for office - but I know I cannot win. I'm unelectable at this time.

Half way between the Refugee and Philosopher King camp. But definitely in the Postmod/Poststruct is complete bullshit camp.

Faith in the power of reason? I don't think so. Confidence, now, that's a whole other story.

By Caledonian (not verified) on 20 Sep 2007 #permalink

You asked: So where do you fall?
So I will tell!
I get the feeling that I am going to be the only one under this banner, but I am in the God crowd. It might be funny, a God guy on a science blog.
I am not an overly emotional guy, but I do feel emotions when I see how a lot of the God crowd feel it's OK to beat up on the science guys!
I believe in the Big Bang and most of the major theories in vogue in many different fields. Physics, chemistry, genetics and on and on.
I feel a part of the brotherhood with the God people, but just as much with the science guys who are fortunate enough to have the mental capabilities to delve into the wonder of it all!
As the only one under this banner here I would like to apologize for the other millions of people under this banner.
I have read the whole bible through 7 or 8 times, and once cover to cover in 6 weeks. You are supposed to love people and be grown up enough to know some of them are going to think differently than you do.
You are supposed to be kind and considerate of their feelings! The old do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
You and I see a theory or experiment with the result staring us right in the face and say, gee this obviously must be the answer.
Some people will take a bible passage, with their own idiosyncratic interpretation and then try to beat you over the head for what you think, from solid evidence right in front of you.
I am new to Science Blogs.com and have been on lots of blogs making comments but this blog has me making more comments than a lot of the others put together.
You seem like a bunch of real good, tell it like it is guys and I hope to particape more in the future.
Once again from the God people. Sorry about that guys! Sometimes they know not what they do!
Dave Briggs :~)