Richard Dawkins has been touting his Out Campaign for a little time now—urging atheists to stop hiding, and let the world know where they stand. It's a sensible idea. The fact is that there are a lot more atheists around than anyone would guess. Particularly in the redder states, they have a tendency to take on protective coloring in public, fearing the backlash of disapproval. The world of discourse profits from openness and honesty, and this is no exception.
So why haven't I put a Scarlet A on my site, and rallied to the cause?
There's no one answer to that question, but here are a few that come to mind...
- The first—and least interesting—reason has to do with my temperament. I never put a fish on my car when I was a Christian. I've never had a bumper sticker on my car for a political candidate. I don't like the idea of branding myself—I'd rather just wait around and see what I turn out to be.
- A slightly more interesting reason is that I'm already "out". I don't think anyone who reads this blog has any question about my lack of traditional theism. Putting up a Scarlet A seems to be a bit redundant (though I am tempted, as a gesture of support for others).
But there are more fundamental reasons, as well:
-
One reason I left the religious world was that I could not tolerate the tendency there to believe things for reasons that had nothing to do with evidence. "We believe this because it is part of our tradition." "We believe this because it gives us comfort." "We believe this because it gives us hope." This is closely related to the claims (mostly based on highly questionable data) that religion makes people healthier, or happier, or more generous. That is not, for me, a good reason to believe something.
Not all Christians think this way all the time, but there were enough around—even in the relatively liberal circles I traveled in—that I found it stifling.
Unfortunately, I see some of the same kind of thinking among atheists. There are many atheists around who seem to think that there are only two worldviews to choose from: the stupid-religious-old-fashioned-superstitious-bigoted-racist-tradition-bound worldview, or the enlightened-atheist-naive-realist-materialist-scientifically-based-free-modern worldview.
For many of these people, atheism comes in a package with a lot of other beliefs—which should be accepted, not on the basis of proof, but because they are enlightened. If one doesn't accept all of those beliefs one is stuck in the middle ages—or worse yet, a closet theist. Never mind that they have no more evidence for them than a religious person has of god. (In some cases, rather less evidence. Religious people do have experience of God, even if I believe it's being misinterpreted.)
Not all atheists think this way all the time, but there are enough. And, just as is the case in religious circles, they seem to be the most vocal, and the most objectionably vocal.
I find this just as stifling, and I don't want to do anything to make anyone identify me with that group. -
A closely related problem has to do with the tendency, in some religious circles, to see the world in terms of us-versus-them. When I was a teen-age fundamentalist, they were Roman Catholics (idol worshipers), liberals (communists), and atheists. By the time I traveled in more liberal circles, we were all very ecumenical, so Catholics were taken off the list, and most of my close friends in the church were feminists (liberals). But the churches we were connected with still had plenty of people who
believed that communism and atheism were, well, ungodly—which is to say, evil.
I found that difficult to deal with, as well: the constant dividing of the world into two camps, with the assumption that most of the problems in the world were created by those nasty people in the other camp.
Unfortunately, this stance also seems to be shared by many atheists. Only, of course, the shoe is on the other foot. It's those stupid, mean-spirited, religious people who are spoiling everything.
I particularly don't want to be associated with this stance, because (get ready for your brain to tie into a knot here) there's so much truth in it. The fact is, in our current world, we would have significantly fewer terrorist attacks, better health care, a stronger economy, fewer unwed mothers, and fewer abortions, if it weren't for extremely religious people. Unfortunately, that's undeniable.
And that's exactly where the danger lies.
The case is too easy to make, and because it's so easy to make, it greases the way for an irrational leap to two other conclusions: that religious people behave this way because they're bad or stupid, and that all religion is to blame. Neither of these conclusions are justified. It's quite true that extreme conservative religious fanatics tend to believe they have the right to use terrorism—whether that means bombing abortion clinics or bombing Iraq—to advance their god-given agendas. It's also true that conservative churches have had some very unwise political agendas, and a disproportionate political clout in recent years.
But it's also true that there is a long standing liberal tradition within the religious community as well. There are Christians who, because of their religious tradition, stand for feminism, gay rights, caring for the poor, and against war and racism. It's very likely that the next time you find yourself marching for peace, or for the rights of the oppressed, the person marching beside you will be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a practicing Jew, or a member of some other faith.
So I don't particularly want to be identified with the "all religious people are stupid and evil" strain among atheists, either. -
On the other hand, in spite of conservative propaganda to the contrary, there is a heavy bias against atheism in this country. All you have to do is ask yourself how many atheists are running for president. It's tantamount to political suicide to admit that you don't believe in something that can't be proven. This seems to me to be a dangerous state of affairs on its face.
There are parts of the country where atheists are treated as social outcasts.
And I've always had a weakness for the underdog. -
Finally, the purpose of the campaign is to redress a false impression. The social stigma attached to atheism has led to a strange subtext—the unspoken belief that people who believe in god are somehow better people than people who don't. This, in turn, leads atheists to keep silent and hidden, rather than deal with the stigma. And this, in turn, creates the impression that there are far fewer atheists than there actually are, which makes it easier to discount them—oh, all right. Easier to discount us.
This does make sense. The ongoing public conversation needs to include accurate representations from every side, and part of that is an accurate representation of how many people actually share a particular point of view.
I guess I've convinced myself. In the next few days you'll probably see a Scarlet A somewhere on the front page of this site.
On the other hand, I may change my mind again. I reserve the right to put it up, take it down, or move it around, as often as I like.
At least, that's what I think today.
