Tauriq Moosa - October 4th, 2008 in Feature 0 votes Vote Up! Vote Down!

This is the first part of a longer article. Please note that some criticisms will probably arise later, due to space, your attention span as a reader and because I care about not giving you information over-load.

Like a path in autumn: no sooner is it cleared than it is once again littered with fallen leaves.

- Franz Kafka¹

Kafka might well have been talking about my problems as an atheist communicator. Once a set of misconceptions are cleared, more meander down to cover the path of reason.

Amidst the discussions involving faith and reason, words escape their denotation. Before delving into the thesis of my article, we need to understand the various terms being used. Words like ‘secularist’, ‘humanist’, ‘atheist’, ‘evolutionist’ all fall into a crevasse which our antagonists hope will boil into a negative transmutation, thus tarnishing those same words to be used against us. It is in this same vein that ‘militant’ atheism has become coated with this negative transmutation. I want to argue: Firstly, the arguments against (militant) atheism from thinkers (on the faith and non-faith side) are all poor; and, second, that ‘militant’ atheism does not exist as our antagonists suggest (this second part will be dealt with more exclusively in Part #3).

I began my investigation into ‘militant’ atheism by asking many people’s opinions on the subject. I have spoken with leading philosophers (some of whom are my friends and who I will argue against), colleagues in the fight against unreason, and the general public. I will attempt to classify their various positions on ‘militant atheism’ and debunk the claims. However, in my online research, I was irritated that criticisms of militant atheism are mainly directed at Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (hardly anyone attacking Mr Anti-theist himself, Christopher Hitchens. His brother has offered some insightful remarks, though). The comments – which I will deal with – are unimpressive and have no feasible position against the accessibility, lucidity, bravery and awareness of The God Delusion (these I believe are its four important points, as I will show later). I will generalize the terms – as I imagine that the criticisms apply to anyone who actively is against religious bullying and against viewing faith as a virtue, which means myself and colleagues – and debunk those, too. Finally, I will suggest the major thesis which is this: ‘Militant’ atheism does not exist in my work and colleagues’, in the closed-minded, yelling, evangelical notions as many consider. ‘Militant’ atheism is a charge directed to those atheists who are actively against religious bullying and the negative connotations must change. The tu quoque fallacy abounds here (which I will explain later) and I want to arm my readers with various forms of identifying the fallacies in IDGAFs (nonbelievers who are critical of active atheism) and theistic antagonists’ approaches.

I hope that by the end of this article, my readers will either have refined their criticism against us active atheists (I accept this description over the erroneous ‘militant’ atheism), or – as a cothinker – you will feel empowered to continue the rightfully placed criticism against religious intolerance, bullying and privileged status of belief without evidence (called faith). Even if I do not change your mind, I hope to give you an advantage to make better arguments against me! I believe this goal beneficial to everyone: colleagues and antagonists alike.

Let us begin our investigation:

Definitions of terms

As I highlighted above, we need to understand the various terms so loosely tossed around in these discussions.

(Secular) Humanist: Richard Norman’s On Humanism beautifully illustrates the definition of humanism (which is not necessarily universal, but is one I certainly uphold and defend, along with Professor Norman. There are many definitions, the rest of which are not relevant to this discussion). As he states², humanism is believing:

• “the things we value in human life are not an illusion
• that as human beings we can find from our own resources that shared moral values which we need in order to live together, and the means to create meaningful and fulfilling lives for ourselves
• and that the rejection of religious belief need not be a cause for despair”

It is thus not man as center, but rather the acknowledgment that man is part of a natural world; that humanity has the capacity to help, improve and save itself; to relish in the present moment as it is the only moment we have as a species. We are special, beautiful and wonderful – but we don’t need any deity to tell us so and we are no more special than other “forms most beautiful”³.

Evolutionist: This is an immediate (and mostly incorrect) labeling of a secular humanist or non-believer in the monotheist god. If their god is not the reason behind the incredible diversity, beauty and intricacy we see in nature, then you must believe in evolution by natural selection. This might be considered an either-or fallacy, namely giving only two options (design or natural selection), whilst forgetting there could be others. However, I will concede that in most cases my co-thinkers are believers in the Darwinian evolutionary process. It is a beautiful fact of science (yes: fact). It explains the intricacy of the eye and chaos of lion-hunting; it explains the beauty of a Benghal tiger and the hideousness of flatfish.

The world’s leading communicator of evolution (apart from Darwin’s “Rottweiler”, Richard Dawkins), Ernst Mayr, stated: “evolution [is] the gradual process of the living world by which it has been developing following the origin of life.”⁴ It unites genetics, geology, cosmology, biomedicine, chemistry, archaeology, anthropology and all the other disciplines that focus on our species, its relation to the world and other species. Darwin’s hand pulled us down from the pedestal we created for ourselves, showing us that we are indeed part of a natural order, one beautiful to comprehend. We are neither the goal of a god nor the goal of a process – we are part of it. I would contend that perhaps this is the main opposition to evolutionary theory: That we are not more special than other living beings, that ultimately the universe is uncaring, that we are alone.

Someone who embraces all forms of evolutionary thought – albeit the various dimensions it engenders – can safely be labeled an evolutionist. I would add however that it is more appropriate to a person who knows evolution to a larger extent than, for example, myself: a psychology and English student. Labeling me an evolutionist might be incorrect in that sense.

Atheist: Atheism does not mean you are a secular humanist, nor an evolutionist. You can be an atheist that hates evolution, science, and despises secular states. Indeed a majority of the world’s atheists do! Because we are all atheists. Atheism is simple: a lack of belief in a god. Everyone lacks a belief in other religion’s gods – unless you are a pantheist (I won’t comment on this flimflam in this article).

Therefore you can be an atheist about Tezcatlipoca and be part of the Discovery Institute in all its vainglory – why? Because as a Christian (not all DI IDers are Christian) you are an atheist about Tezcatlipoca, Loki, Zeus. This might sound ridiculous and stupidly semantic, but that is my point: It is. To say atheism (about which god?) is a position of ‘faith’ is preposterous because atheism does not entail belief in evolution, belief in humanistic outlooks, nor belief that science is beautiful. You are an atheist no matter who you are.

So before opponents decide to say: “a lack of belief is a faith position”, they should question what do they themselves lack a belief in? Fairies, goblins, the Invisible Pink Unicorn? If so, that is a lot of different faith positions! That dialogue – related to the tu quoque fallacy I will be dealing with later – gets us nowhere and is patently wrong!

We are all atheists/Passive Atheism

As an active atheist, I have dealt with many criticisms. An acceptable position says, “I am an atheist but x, y, z.” These are what we call passive atheists, or just atheists. We must remember that there is nothing special about the Judeo-Christian god, over and above other religions’ gods. I always find it amusing that when you tell someone you are an atheist, they assume you mean the monotheist god (how often are you asked: “Oh, so you’re an atheist? Of which god?”). In my case, it’s feasible considering I don’t believe in any supernatural, personal gods. But the fact that people don’t question which god you are an atheist of speaks volumes to our growing global culture.

However, the argument against this is quite simple: Everyone is an atheist of some god. To have to explain would simply be superfluous since we are all atheists.

I can accept this but I only want to make you aware that next time you are asked of your position on religion, reply as such:

Atheist: I am an atheist

Questioner: Oh ok.

Atheist: Aren’t you going to ask me of which god?

Your next line could be, “I am an atheist of all gods except the monotheist god.”

Assess the situation beforehand of course and see what happens (and I have yet to meet someone who has not begun a lame argument against me about my lack of belief, so the second line in this dialogue has never happened personally!). Let me remind you, dear readers, that even if you are a Christian, answer with “I am an atheist” to begin an interesting discussion – because you certainly don’t believe in Hujibi at the top of the mountain.

What on Earth is an IDGAF?

Passive atheism is an acceptable position and I know many such people (they erroneously call themselves agnostics, not realising I too am an agnostic about supernatural deities. However, my belief is in the negative, therefore I am an atheist – as are they but they think atheism necessitates active atheism. It does not). But there are two active lines that bifurcate the next step.

(1) It lends itself to my position as an active atheist:

• seeking the enlightenment (not ‘conversion’) of every person to secular humanism
• dispelling misconceptions of a lack of belief in the monotheist god
• the beauty of science
• the combat against religion obscurantism and bullying; and
• the welfare of every person to be respected as a human being.

Or (2) it contorts into something I call Idgaffery.

I have met many of these and I am sure my co-thinkers have too. IDGAF is an acronym for: I Don’t Give a Frack. These are active atheists seeking the disestablishment of the campaign against religious superstition. These are people who are angry that you are questioning others’ faith – on the faithfuls’ behalf! (How patronizing to believers – let them defend themselves.)  These are the major-league pitchers of the ad hominem: “You bigot, bastard, backward, bully, banal, buttheaded atheist!” They themselves do not believe in a god because they simply “do not give a frack”. Allow me to introduce the IDGAF: angry non-believers who speak for the faithful to keep faith treated with kid-gloves, who view active atheism as preaching, who view active atheism as no better than “other religions”. It is the culmination of active laziness and I believe one of the first such examples in our society: active laziness! Whoever heard of such a thing?

Laziness because most of these attacks are misconceptions, invalid, protective of religious faith and have little understanding of what active atheism entails. In my analysis of some upcoming writers, you can identify the IDGAFs (notably H. Allen Orr) from the faithful.

A critic can easily say the following: “You are making a false assumption, that either people are for you or against you. If they disagree with you, as an active atheist, they are either IDGAFs or faithful. You won’t accept a middle ground”. No. I will not. I have yet to be presented with a valid reason of why those who are active in this debate (passive atheism is fine, but IDGAFs actively speak out) choose the side of protecting the faithful instead of joining us in our fight against religious obscurity. I do not accept a middle ground because I refuse to give consent or respect to the belief without evidence, because a middle ground does not exist. Either you believe or you do not. When you are vocal about that opinion, what possible reason is there to then continue respecting faith? This is not intolerance, it is the position I hold because no non-believer has offered a viable criticism against active atheism. There are many good criticisms, which I will debunk, but they do not last. Why be an active IDGAF criticizing atheism, instead of being an active atheist?

Let me reiterate, I am speaking of no middle-ground regarding activism: passivity is another option and one I duly respect. But active entails writing, speaking and communicating in this debate. There are only two sides in the activism.

For this reason, I accept no middle ground. I am not trying to win hearts here, I imagine I am making fewer friends by saying this! I am attempting to find truth. And Idgaffery from people who should be helping us, only makes the job harder. Am I saying Idgafs should shut up? No. People must express and say whatever they want, but I ask only this: At least offer better reasoning for not being an active atheist and being an active IDGAF.

I hope I have established my position and that I have not created a Strawman. I will show examples of Idgaffery which should hopefully highlight why I feel so strongly about Idgaf nonsense.

END OF PART #1…

REFERENCES

2. Norman, R. (2008) On Humanism. London: Routledge Pp. 24-25

3. This quote is from the famous, beautiful ending of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species.

4. Mayr, E. (2002) What Evolution Is. London: Phoenix. P. 314

• Comments
• RSS
• Digg!
• Stumble
• Tweet

Tags: atheism, christopher hitchens, Daniel Dennett, end of faith, fundamentalist, militant atheism, religion, richard dawkins, Secular Humanism, violence