I read “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris just over a month ago, and I just realized that I missed something huge in that book. In his article The Problem with Atheism, Sam Harris mentions that he doesn’t use the word atheist throughout the whole book. I am shocked that I missed that. The book is a never ending criticism of religion, but Sam Harris avoids the term atheist. Sam Harris
think[s] that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.
He also uses the example of racism. Our society doesn’t label people that aren’t racist non-racists. The label is only put on the racists. Being a non-racists is a default position, just like an atheist. He goes on to say that atheists should ditch any collective term and just dive under the radar and just ‘be’. While under the radar, atheists should try to do good to their immediate surroundings and eventually logic and reason will spread.
I respect this position, but I am not sure that I completely agree with it. We need to rid this world of blind faith before it blows itself up, and I’m don’t think that ‘diving under the radar’ is the best option. I just can’t see this method getting through to the masses. This method does have one huge asset. Spreading logic and reason person to person will not get criticized by the media or religious groups, because there is no public front to the movement.
I am going to leave this to further discussion and end on a John McCarthy quote.
“An atheist doesn’t have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can’t be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.” —John McCarthy
Copyright 2011. Waves was created in WordPress by Obox Themes.
12 Comments on this post
Leave a CommentI find that I am uncomfortable referring to myself as an ‘atheist’ as the term usually evokes a negative reaction from believers. I have long referred to myself as simply non-religious or a non-believer, as I have found this approach more successful in having a discussion. As soon as the ‘atheist’ bomb is dropped their defences go up, otherwise they usually just look at you as a sceptic or someone that needs more convincing. (Damn straight I need some more convincing, blind faith is ridiculous)
Comment left on 1.11.2008 by Tyler
Even though the thought of atheism as a default status seems like the way it should be, in the view of many non-believer’s, it is not the perspective of the modern consensus. Most people, even atheists, view religion as something that a common person is brought up with, and see atheism as the minority. This because atheists are very independent, and therefore remain unorganized. I believe that it would be a foolish move to stay ‘under the radar’ and make our views as atheists dampened even more, while religion stays strong and organized in our government systems, media, and many other aspects of our life.
Comment left on 1.12.2008 by Seth
Seth,
When I was referring to atheism as a default point of view, I didn’t mean that it is the default point of view for most people.
Since evidence can’t prove a negative, the only thing we have is a lack of evidence. Therefore, atheism is the only, and default, world view.
I agree with you that it would be foolish to remain ‘under the radar’.
Tyler,
I feel similar to you when referring to myself as an atheist. A better way of describing it for me is frustration. It is frustrating talking about it because, like you say, defenses go up and no progress is made.
If you are still feeling uncomfortable about referring to yourself as an atheist, just pick up a scarlet A t shirt from the Out Campaign.
Comment left on 1.12.2008 by Adrian Corscadden
If you are going to engage in discussions about ‘religion’ as such, proselytize for an irreligious worldview (which would seem to be a goal of yours as you mention ‘atheism’ not merely as a personal perspective, but as a “movement”), or otherwise make your identity dependent upon this issue, then you will either need a label or have one thrust upon you. People don’t label “non-racists” because, in general, there is no need to define oneself in those terms — and in cases where there is such a need, I’m sure you’ve often heard the claim “I’m not a racist,” wherein ‘not-a-racist’ *is* generated as an identifying label.
Also, the question of a ‘default’ state is most likely moot, but problematic, and I suggest that it be dropped from the discussion if you intend to be persuasive on this point. It raises epistemological issues that generate distracting digressions, and arguing from that ground will do nothing but turn away many of the people you would seek to ‘convert.’
Comment left on 1.12.2008 by David
If you are an atheist, I don’t know how you can hold your head up high and call yourself something more PC at the same time.
Guards do go up, you are not going to convince someone of faith that it’s all a fairy tale by referring to yourself as “Theologicly challenged”.
People that believe without question are not going to be debated out of faith. Making the effort to convert the faithful on average is a lost cause. I think most people NEED something to believe in, true or not, because it’s easier to understand the world in the black and white that religion provides.
Example:
I blindly believe the Eagles will win the Super Bowl next year, even though there is no evidence to support that. With out that faith I couldn’t bring myself to watch the playoffs this year. And no damn Cowboys fan is going to take that from me even if he is right!
Comment left on 1.13.2008 by The Passion of the Infidel
I find using the term “Agnostic” leads to less hostility from believers and especially if you say you’re waiting for an epiphany.
Comment left on 1.13.2008 by Craig
I am a non-believer cause i believe you should do the right thing just cause it is right not cause your going to get some reward after life, or if you do wrong you’ll get punished. To me, I see a lot of corruptions in the various faiths including the catholics, and I am not talking main stream such as the priest and little boys, but rather in their teachings. Although I believe that religion is just a crutch for those who can not do the right thing without a reward of some sort, so yeah I support religion for those people who need it, you also should not try to presuade someone to join a certain religion cause then your taking away their freedom to think for them selves.
Comment left on 1.15.2008 by josh
In the 16th Century a word was coined by Ben Johnson. So, let’s go with nullifidian – look it up!
Comment left on 1.24.2008 by Cowtown_humanist
For convenience, I think it’s better to keep the status quo. Non-atheists rarely understand our reasons and changing the label won’t make them any smarter. :p
Comment left on 2.6.2008 by benj
kp80k9yl8tcp89t3
Comment left on 11.12.2008 by Arleen Larsen
My mother really believes in the power of your astrological sign. I am not sure I’m completely convinced though.
Comment left on 4.29.2009 by DAMEKA
Your mom’s wrong Dameka.
Comment left on 4.29.2009 by Adrian Corscadden