The Meaning of “Atheist”

There’s been recent talk about whether non-religious peoples should use the term “atheist” to describe themselves, or what word is best to self-identify with. There is a plethora of terms that have accumulated: secularist, humanist, agnostic, freethinker, bright, etc..

The primary reason any of these terms have been invented or popularized is simply for the purpose of moving away from the ‘image problem’ that the word “atheist” has. Somehow, using a different is thought to be better. Let’s think about this situation for a second:

• A term used to describe a class of people has a negative or pejorative common usage among the majority of a population
• You consider yourself to be a member of this class, or a related classes that is often miscategorized or identified with this negative term.
• There is common misunderstanding as to what you “really” believe, and you wish that everyone outside of the class (“outsiders”) could better understand what it means to be inside this class of people – the philosophical, moral, every-day, intellectual, etc. implications.
• You wish to have a civil discussion about your differences with the outsiders, but it’s hard to do so without immediately inflaming their senses by merely mentioning this class you are a member of.
• What do you do?

There seems to be a few possible approaches here:

1. Re-educate the meaning: tell people what that term really means to you, and why you chose it. Try to dispel some of the negative connotations (unless they’re actually true, of course)
2. Change the term: usage of a neologism generally forces the other person to ask, “Hey, what did you mean by that word <x>”? This allows you to give them an impression of what you really are, that impression being the first on the ‘blank slate’ of what that word means to the other person.
3. Sarcastically embrace the stereotype: basically, you’re not in it to change people’s impressions, so you don’t care too much about what they feel. Act very xenophobic, and advocate the destruction of all others that don’t follow your path of justice, reason, and the correct way of thinking.

Approach #2 seems to be the basic movement as of right now. People are trying out the “bright” term with some success, but ultimately I think “bright” just underscores one of the more poignant philosophical points of atheism vs. theism: how we deal with and define the supernatural and/or magical thinking. As the “bright” term ages, I think it will gain the same connotation as “atheist” as soon as people catch on to what it means. The Bright’s creed is summarized quite well in this quote which I picked up a long time ago on the ‘net:

“There is no point beating around the bush. Supernatural concepts have no philosophical warrant.”
- Owen Flanagan

Perhaps an interesting conversation could start from this point, but it isn’t one I would want to have with every christian passerby. Once “bright” is explained, I believe it will offend the sensibilities of any christian just as much as “atheist”, so I don’t see much point in the re-branding.

Approach #3 I think is the basic idea behind much of the ‘New Atheism’ wave of books coming from Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. I am more partial to Sam Harris in this respect – he tends to stay more in the philosophical realm, and has done enough homework on the history of religions to generally know what he is talking about. He engaged in a very entertaining debate with Andrew Sullivan (gay catholic) that I enjoyed. Nonetheless, I see his public image as of a person who likes sticking a hot-iron prod into a christian’s side. His commentary – especially in the debate with Andrew Sullivan – is cutting and uncompromising; it is the rare individual that will voluntarily endure this as Sullivan did. I don’t see it happening in a face-to-face conversation.

Approach #1 probably gets the least attention, mostly because atheists consider this a lost battle. There’s just too many christians that perpetuate the evil-sardonic-atheist stereotype. There is perhaps good reason for this – generally, neither side is good at being diplomatic since our fundamental inclinations are in such conflict that it’s hard not to end up in a yelling match without a concerted effort. I’m pretty sure I came off as this stereotype when I approached some evangelists on the quad, but what can I say… imperialist philosophy really pisses me off. Then again, imperialism is the mission of said evangelists, so I guess I just stepped in dog shit either way.

However, at the end of the day I think such a campaign of re-education could be the best thing for atheism. Understand, I don’t necessarily feel the need to make sure that every christian knows what I mean when I say I am an atheist, but I would certainly like that information to be more accessible and less offensive. Also, I wouldn’t necessarily advocate a tolerance of “liberal” christianity as a valid philosophical position. Fundamentally, I think discussion about why we think what we do about the world, life, love, and everything is a good thing. There is definitely a growing amount of atheist media and discussion in this vein of thought:

• Hemant Mehta’s I Sold My Soul on eBay (amazon), and his blog FriendlyAtheist.com.

• Jim Henderson and Matt Casper’s Jim and Casper Go to Church (amazon), also see some of the blogs run by Off the Map, including the Church Rater, the eBay atheist.

• Norton and Emery’s A Christian and an Atheist podcast.

• I’d include Uncomfortable Questions in this category, partly because Sue Grandys doesn’t “discriminate” necessarily in who she interviews based upon their religious stance/ideology, though most of the interviews are more on the atheistic than religious side. It’s the kind of non-confrontational sort of conversation that I’d like to see more of.

I’d like to see more in this channel of thought. I hope I can contribute to it. Perhaps some interviews will be my first step into the water here.

To get back to the original point of this post though, there is great disagreement among atheists and their opposing counterparts as to the meaning of the word “atheist” / “atheism” is. I believe I should start refining my own personal expression of what it means to me.. this was the original thrust of this post but I’ve spent enough time writing the context of what I was going to talk about that I’m no longer sure what I was going to express here… so perhaps later on you will see an update here once I think this over again…

~ by David on 2007 October 6, Saturday.