There’s A Memo? Who Knew?

old-atheists-vs-new-atheistsI have never been a big fan of Julian Baggini – he tends to be an accommodationist who  recites the Rodney King mantra, mistaking tone for temperament (and content), trying to bridge those vast schisms between believers and non-believers. It’s a nice thought, one I’d entertained many years ago but abandoned when faced with the ferocious tenaciousness and the unbelievable capacity for dishonesty that religious folk in general exhibit. Anyways, here’s his ‘manifesto’:

Atheists, please read my heathen manifesto

In recent years, we atheists have become more confident and outspoken in articulating and defending our godlessness in the public square. Much has been gained by this. There is now wider awareness of the reasonableness of a naturalist world view, and some of the unjustified deference to religion has been removed, exposing them to much needed critical scrutiny.

Unfortunately, however, in a culture that tends to focus on the widest distinctions, the most extreme positions and the most strident advocates, the “moderate middle” has been sidelined by this debate. There is a perception of unbridgeable polarisation, and a sense that the debates have sunk into a stale impasse, with the same tired old arguments being rehearsed time and again by protagonists who are getting more and more entrenched.

It is time, therefore, for those of us who are tired of the status quo to try to shift the focus of our public discussions of atheism into areas where more progress and genuine dialogue is possible. To achieve this, we need to rethink what atheism stands for and how to present it. The so-called “new atheism” may have put us on the map, but in the public imagination it amounts to little more than a caricature of Richard Dawkins, which is not an accurate representation of the terrain many of us occupy. We now need something else.

This manifesto is an attempt to point towards the next phase of atheism’s involvement in public discourse. It is not a list of doctrines that people are asked to sign up to but a set of suggestions to provide a focus for debate and discussion. Nor is it an attempt to accurately describe what all atheists have in common. Rather it is an attempt to prescribe what the best form of atheism should be like.

1 Why we are heathens

It has long been recognised that the term “atheist” has unhelpful connotations. It has too many dark associations and also defines itself negatively, against what it opposes, not what it stands for. “Humanist” is one alternative, but humanists are a subset of atheists who have a formal organisation and set of beliefs many atheists do not share. Whatever the intentions of those who adopt the labels, “rationalist” and “bright” both suffer from sounding too self-satisfied, too confident, implying that others are irrationalists or dim.

If we want an alternative, we should look to other groups who have reclaimed mocking nicknames, such as gays, Methodists and Quakers. We need a name that shows that we do not think too highly of ourselves. This is no trivial point: atheism faces the human condition with honesty, and that requires acknowledging our absurdity, weakness and stupidity, not just our capacity for creativity, intelligence, love and compassion. “Heathen” fulfils this ambition. We are heathens because we have not been saved by God and because in the absence of divine revelation, we are in so many ways deeply unenlightened. The main difference between us and the religious is that we know this to be true of all of us, but they believe it is not true of them.

2 Heathens are naturalists

Heathens are not merely unbelievers: we believe many things too. Most importantly, we believe in naturalism: the natural world is all there is and there is no purposive, conscious agency that created or guides it. This natural world may contain many mysteries and even unseen dimensions, but we have no reason to believe that they are anything like the heavens, spirit worlds and deities that have characterised supernatural religious beliefs over history. Many religious believers deny the “supernatural” label, but unless they are willing to disavow such beliefs as in the reality of a divine person, miracles, resurrections or life after death, they are not naturalists.

3 Our first commitment is to the truth

Although we believe many things about what does and does not exist, these are the conclusions we come to, not the basis of our worldview. That basis is a commitment to see the world as truthfully as we can, using our rational faculties as best we can, based on the best evidence we have. That is where our primary commitment lies, not the conclusions we reach. Hence we are prepared to accept the possibility that we are wrong. It also means that we respect and have much in common with people who come to very different conclusions but have an equal respect for truth, reason and evidence. A heathen has more in common with a sincere, rational, religious truth-seeker than an atheist whose lack of belief is unquestioned, or has become unquestionable.

4 We respect science, not scientism

Heathens place science in high regard, being the most successful means humans have devised to come to a true understanding of the real nature of the world on the basis of reason and evidence. If a belief conflicts with science, then no matter how much we cherish it, science should prevail. That is why the religious beliefs we most oppose are those that defy scientific knowledge, such as young earth creationism.

Nonetheless, this does not make us scientistic. Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, and that everything has to be understood through the lens of science or not at all. There are scientistic atheists but heathens are not among them. Science is limited in what it can contribute to our understanding of who we are and how we should live because many of the most important facts of human life only emerge at a level of description on which science remains silent. History, for example, may ultimately depend on nothing more than the movements of atoms, but you cannot understand the battle of Hastings by examining interactions of fermions and bosons. Love may depend on nothing more than the physical firing of neurons, but anyone who tries to understand it solely in those terms just does not know what love means.

Science may also make life uncomfortable for us. For example, it may undermine certain beliefs about free will that many atheists have relied on to give dignity and autonomy to our species.

Heathens are therefore properly respectful of science but also mindful of its limits. Science is not our Bible: the last word on everything.

5 We value reason as precious but fragile

Heathens have a commitment to reason that fully acknowledges the limits of reason. Reason is itself a multi-faceted thing that cannot be reduced to pure logic. We use reason whenever we try to form true beliefs on the basis of the clearest thinking, using the best evidence. But reason almost always leaves us short of certain knowledge and very often leaves us with a need to make a judgment in order to come to a conclusion. We also need to accept that human beings are very imperfect users of reason, susceptible to biases, distortions and prejudices that lead even the most intelligent astray. In short, if we understand what reason is and how it works, we have very good reason to doubt those who claim rationality solely for those who accept their worldview and who deny the rationality of those who disagree.

6 We are convinced, not dogmatic

The heathen’s modesty about the power of reason and the certainty of her conclusions should not be mistaken for a shoulder-shrugging agnosticism. We have a very high degree of confidence in the truth of our naturalistic worldview. But we do not dogmatically assert it. Being open to being wrong and to changing our minds does not mean we lack conviction that we are right. Strength of belief is not the same as rigidity of dogma.

7 We have no illusions about life as a heathen

Many people do not understand that it is possible to lead a meaningful, happy life as a heathen, but we maintain that it is and can point to any number of atheist philosophers and thinkers who have explained why this is so. But such meaning and contentment does not inevitably follow from becoming a heathen. Ours is a universe without guarantees of redemption or salvation and sometimes people have terrible lives or do terrible things and thrive. On such occasions, we have no consolation. That is the dark side of accepting the truth, and we are prepared to acknowledge it. We are heathens because we value living in the truth. But that does not mean that we pretend that always makes life easy or us happy. If the evidence were to show that religious people are happier and healthier than us, we would not see that as any reason to give up our convictions.

8 We are secularists

We support a state that is neutral as regards people’s fundamental worldviews. It is not neutral when it comes to the shared values necessary for people of different conviction to live and thrive together. But it should not give any special privilege to any particular sect or group, or use their creeds as a basis for policy. Politics requires a coming together of people of different fundamental convictions to formulate and justify policy in terms that all understand, on the basis of principles that as many as possible can share.

This secularism does not require that religion is banished from public life or that people may not be open as to how their faiths, or lack of one, motivate their values. As long as the core of the business of state is neutral as regards to comprehensive worldviews, we can be relaxed about expressions of these commitments in society at large. We want to maintain the state’s neutrality on fundamental worldviews, not purge religion from society.

9 Heathens can be religious

There are a small minority of forms of religion that are entirely compatible with the heathen position. These are forms of religion that reject the real existence of supernatural entities and divinely authored texts, accept that science trumps dogma, and who see the essential core of religion in its values and practices. We have very little evidence that anything more than a small fraction of actual existent religion is like this, but when it does conform to this description, heathens have no reason to dismiss it as false.

10 Religion is often our friend

We believe in not being tone-deaf to religion and to understand it in the most charitable way possible. So we support religions when they work to promote values we share, including those of social justice and compassion. We are respectful and sympathetic to the religious when they arrive at their different conclusions on the basis of the same commitment to sincere, rational, undogmatic inquiry as us, without in any way denying that we believe them to be false and misguided. We are also sympathetic to religion when its effects are more benign than malign. We appreciate that commitment to truth is but one value and that a commitment to compassion and kindness to others is also of supreme importance. We are not prepared to insist that it is indubitably better to live guided by such values allied with false beliefs than it is to live without such values but also without false belief.

11 We are critical of religion when necessary

Our willingness to accept what is good in religion is balanced by an equally honest commitment to be critical of it when necessary. We object when religion invokes mystery to avoid difficult questions or to obfuscate when clarity is needed. We do not like the way in which “people of faith” tend to huddle together in an unprincipled coalition of self-interest, even when that means liberals getting into bed with homophobes and misogynists. We think it is disingenuous for religious people to talk about the reasonableness of their beliefs and the importance of values and practice, while drawing a veil over their embrace of superstitious beliefs. In these and other areas, we assert the right and need to make civil but acute criticisms.

And although our general stance is not one of hostility towards religion, there are some occasions when this is exactly what is called for. When religions promote prejudice, division or discrimination, suppress truth or stand in the way of medical or social progress, a hostile response is an appropriate, principled one, just as it is when atheists are guilty of the same crimes.

12 This manifesto is less concerned with distinguishing heathens from others than forging links between us and others

Our commitment to independent thought and the provisionality of belief means that few heathens are likely to agree completely with this manifesto. It is therefore almost a precondition of supporting it that you do not entirely support it. At the same time, although very few people of faith can be heathens, many will find themselves in agreement with much of what heathens belief. This is what provides the common ground to make fruitful dialogue possible: we need to accept what we share in order to accept with civility and understanding what we most certainly do not. This is what the heathen manifesto is really about.

For the most part, it all seems fairly rational. The real red flag here is bullet point # 10, ‘Religion Is Often Our Friend’. No it isn’t. Religion isn’t a person: it can no more befriend us than be our enemy. Only another living being can be our friend. Religion inspires no one: it is an excuse for people to do what they wish to do, a prepared societally-sanctioned explanation for craziness.

Bullet point # 11: ‘We are critical of religion when necessary’. This is that ‘there’s-a-time-and-a-place’ jazz, where there never is nor ever will be a ‘time and a place’. We are at a critical juncture here: religion is telling people to spew forth as many children as possible, because their particular delusion has some cosmic babysitter coming down from on high to clean the planet up and wipe the boogers out of their hair. The issue of overpopulation by itself is an issue that threatens our species survival. So it is always necessary to criticize it, to ridicule it, to marginalize it.

We keep treating these mooks with kid gloves, pretty soon there’ll be too many people with too many feelings making too many problems (apologies to Phil Collins), and not enough space to live in.

Till the next post, then.

This entry was posted in America's image, And now for something completely different, Atheism, Education, Religion, Skepticism. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to There’s A Memo? Who Knew?

  1. Jack McCully says:

    In the eyes of a great number of religious people a heathen is something evil. I don`t think calling ourselves heathens would do anything to improve relations with the religious.

  2. JTD says:

    It’s just a word. In the eyes of a great number of religious people, an Atheist is something evil as well (didn’t think of that one, did you?)… In fact, it’s more tactful these days to call yourself a Non-believer rather than an Atheist which, thanks to the preaching Catlicks, is associated with the lower-than-low Godless, Satanic, child molesters and rapists who burn down churches and do unspeakable acts… Oh yeah, they’re really poured the shit onto “Atheist” much like, back in the 80s, Reagan emphasized the word “Liberal” as being Anti-American…

  3. Jack McCully says:

    I did think of that one JTD. I just that heathen would conjure up an even worse misapprehension than atheist. I think you are right about Non-believer though.

  4. Woody says:

    ‘ …that the debates have sunk into a stale impasse, with the same tired old arguments being rehearsed time and again by protagonists who are getting more and more entrenched.’
    This reminds me of an exchange that I stumbled across regarding religion in a comments section of The Skeptical Teacher blog. I had commented, addressing the ‘Christian’ commenter about my view on the sources and rise of the Christian faith. I was immediately accused of, “…just parroting the words of so-and-so…”.
    Indeed, i’m quite sure that almost everything I’ve got to ask about the subject has been asked before. The only things missing from the debate seem to be answers to those fair questions, even a half-fair answer that isn’t a line from the testament, or relying on some form of magic, would be nice. If further debate on the subject is unnecessary or ill-advised, it is because rational discussion, logical debate, is impossible when one side of the argument has nothing but magic (angels, demons, gods, devils, dogma and false history) to base its points on.
    Atheists, non believers or whatever you want to call us, we’re not facing the believers with dated examples, we’re not using the same old stories that have both a rational and historical and possibly ‘magical’ side.
    As anyone reading the posts of this blog knows, there is no lack of new stories, here and abroad, that show a clearly un-hinged effect of religions on all societies.
    If it makes the moderately religious folk feel better then, OK, we realize that you are almost never the problem, except for when you use political voting to support religious intrusion into politics.
    The most that we can usually accuse you of is being part of a team that is a starting point for many future, harmful religious nuts. Still, in a moderate church, in its very doctrine, faith is hailed as the important blessing. Belief without aid of appropriate evidence is raised up high in this way and I think this leads to many, many things, a lot of them horrible, abusive, destructive to human societal development and serving no cause greater than slowing human advance, often grinding it to a halt and taking on dangerous factors of an older world.
    Had to get all that out of my system, thanks for reading.

    All the best,
    Woody

  5. JTD says:

    Likewise “Agnostic” goes down much easier than “Atheist” to these boneheads…
    Apparently because Agnostics can still be “saved” with enough persuasion!

  6. Stonyground says:

    “the “moderate middle” has been sidelined by this debate. ”

    Gods either exist or they do not. If one or more gods exist then some of those religious folk might be right about some of them. If no gods exist then the atheists are correct. What exactly is this ‘moderate middle’ do gods partly exist and partly not exist?

  7. JTD says:

    Moderate Middle–that’s a good one…
    I’m guessing something like transpermia-on-crack or Space Aliens as Gods kind of thing… You know, that Zacharia Sitchin crap about Adam and Eve being genetically engineered “upgrades” of apes by these aliens to serve as a labor force for mining gold in Africa thousands of years ago… (well, you can read the rest of these wacko interpretations of Sitchin’s Sumerian tablets in his dozen odd books… The guy was basically a crackpot with Buck Rogers on his brain, as in “translating” a broken chain of pearls into being the Asteroid Belt between Jupiter and Mars!)… There’s an amazing Middle Ground here for accepting this kind of rubbish though by people who want to walk the line between the Bible and Science, or basically have their cake and eat it, too…
    This way they’re Accepted by pretty much everyone in the community as opposed to be hunted down by the radical Right or Infidelized by Allah loons…and they can still hold their heads up high while taking science classes, too!

  8. Stonyground says:

    Super advanced aliens, no matter how super advanced they might be, are still not gods though. So I think that my position is still sound, gods either exist or they don’t, this middle ground doesn’t exist.

  9. Stardust says:

    I don`t think calling ourselves heathens would do anything to improve relations with the religious

    Exactly. It doesn’t matter what we call ourselves. In the minds of the religious we are still seen as lacking something and in need of saving. No matter how “tolerant” or “moderate” a religious person professes to be, in the back of their minds they still think that we need to believe as they do. I refuse to call myself anything. Usually when asked about my religion I simply say I have none.

  10. JTD says:

    If you Really wanna piss em off, call yourself a Satanist!

  11. Jack McCully says:

    Yes JTD calling ourselves Satanist really would piss `em off but it is not an accurate description for an Atheist.

  12. JTD says:

    At this point, who cares?
    I’ve been ground down under their boots for far too long.
    I’ve lost my job and my career because of them…
    I want payback…

  13. JTD says:

    …and the weak-minded enslave themselves… I’m tired of trying to Reason with these god-lunatics… Might as well pick Any of their fictitious characters and act them out in real life just to push their buttons! Hey, wear a white robe, grow a beard and proclaim “I am Lord Jesus Christ returned from Heaven to say you all!”…

    Or you could have a field day on the Islam side with all of their fanatical fictitious shit loafs… “I got a genie in a bottle over here, sell it to ya for $5!”… Though I’d sooner let a truck load of wild boars loose in a mosque for some Real FUN! While all hell breaks loose there, announce on a load speaker in Arabese that “Satan has risen and enslaved Allah! He is in Hell in chains! There is no hope left! Prayers now go to Satan and make Satan grow stronger!”… Just let their own ignorance serve as their own doom…

Comments are closed.