A good friend recently started an atheism inclined blog over at http://www.rationaltruth.co.nz. I always recommend these sorts of blogs, so please go and have a look.
On 12 December, Wayne posted an article entitled What is Atheism?, in which he expresses some disquiet with the implications of the term “atheist” and raises some questions about whether or not we should be comfortable being thought of, simply, as atheists.
While I have a deep respect for Wayne, and have enjoyed his blog very much, I disagree profoundly with this particular post. I would like to express a few ideas that might explain why I am perfectly happy to be labeled as an atheist, and even carry the label with a degree of pride.
Central to Wayne’s thesis is the idea that atheism tells us nothing about what a person is, but only informs us of what they are not. From a logical perspective, however, this notion is fundamentally false. In data storage, a zero is not less significant than a one. The fact that someone identifies as an atheist tells us a bit about them, with no further enquiry. In fact, we know as much about them as we know about someone who proclaims themselves a methodist. In both cases, we can infer a lot of information about the world view of the person involved as it pertains to deities, and very little else. We know that the atheist might have a more flexible Sunday schedule than the methodist, but one fundamental quality of any “ism”, be it atheism or methodism is that claimed membership of a group tells us very little about the morals and ethics of the claimant.
Wayne comments that, with reference to the general grouping called “atheists”, “there are people and standards in here that I really don’t like.”
I am a member of a large number of groups in which I don’t like all of the people and standards. These include, but are not limited to, my family, South Africans, libertarians, former students of Stellenbosch University, Toastmasters, former scholars of Queen’s College, people who grew up in Queenstown, Alfa Romeo drivers, atheists, software developers, Cape Townians and Liverpool supporters. In fact, I don’t think that I belong to a single group in which I am comfortable with all other members, and all standards that might have relevance in the group.
I don’t think that any of us do.
Despite this, I remain proud to proclaim my membership of each of those groups, and many more beside, because the groups each represent a diversity of people who are united by one common quality out of the thousands that each individual possesses.
I understand exactly what Wayne was doing when he wrote his original post, and the fact that I have thought extensively on the matter is an indication that he has succeeded admirably in his goal. However, the conclusion of my thinking is very different from the one advanced by Wayne.
I am extremely happy to be just an atheist, and I am extremely happy to be thrown into the “everyone else” basket of people who do not believe in a god. While I am also uncomfortable with some of my fellow-atheists and the things that they do, I believe that not believing in god is the most important quality that binds us, and that this quality itself puts us in a position to demonstrate to the world that ethics, morals and the “goodness” of which Wayne speaks are indelible qualities of human nature, and not something that we need to learn from a god, or from a civilisation.
I also believe that, sometimes, human beings need to do things that might be considered immoral, or perhaps unethical, and that these moments help to define ethics and morals in the future. Because atheists experience matters of conscience internally, without the intervention of a god-like figure, we are in a position to be more flexible and to analyse this flexibility objectively rather than simply discarding questionable actions as “sin”. It might be thought that atheism is a very challenging and exciting place to be, and that its intractable and indefinable nature places it perfectly to explore and even define the future of the human race.
To fragment this amazing forum of human development in the name of comfort is tantamount to giving up your freedoms in favour of security. I would be comfortable doing neither, and I would mourn anyone who did as a fallen comrade.
Civilisationism, as espoused by Wayne, is not for me. I don’t believe in progress for the sake of progress, and I don’t believe that civilisation has brought any less human suffering than religion. At the heart of my atheism is personal freedom. Sometimes that means that I have to deal with a small amount of discomfort or unpleasantness, but I remain as much an acivilisationist as I am an atheist.
