Atheism is not a club, a community or a movement

Today, I came across something that seemed very strange to me - a group of atheists over on Freethoughtblogs.com are creating (or have created?) a new "movement" called "Atheism+". In essence, it seems like a fairly sound premise underneath it - they would like an atheist community without a bunch of bigots spouting hateful comments. Fair enough. Perhaps I am missing something, though, but the solution to this seems to be to post somewhere else or - like Skeptic Blogs - start a new site where hateful commenters are not welcome. In contrast, trying to create some kind of super-atheism - "Atheism Plus" - that combines atheism with (as far as I can tell) liberal Humanism seems, well, somewhere between pointless and just plain wrong.

For one thing, Freethoughtblogs.com is not atheism. (I'm an atheist and until today I am not sure that I had ever spent any real time of FTB.) Calling something "Atheism+" as if you are trying to take atheism and make it better, as if it is yours to make better, makes me feel rather uncomfortable and slightly insulted. It also seems to miss/misunderstand a fundamental point about atheism.

Atheism is not a religion. It has no creed. It is not a club that you join. It is not a community and it is not a movement. Sure, there are atheist communities and atheist movements - plural - but that is not what atheism is. Clubs and "movements" that seem to be trying to redefine or own the word "atheism" are not helpful.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods - particularly theistic gods. Everything else is up for grabs. Yes, atheists are more likely to be rational, skeptical, pro-secular and/or Humanist than religious folks but atheism in neither necessary nor sufficient for any of these things - and vice versa.

There are people who are atheists for irrational reasons. There are atheists who embrace other kinds of superstition. There are definitely atheists who oppose secularism and think that religion should be banished from, well, everywhere. There are sexist atheists, racist atheists and homophobic atheists. Unlike religion, atheism itself has nothing really to say on any of these things - it is the philosophical and political views of those atheists that determine these things. I do not want to be tarred with the same brush as other atheists just because we both happen not to believe in god. That may be the only thing we have in common.

That's not to say that atheism does not influence these things - it does. (Well, if you want it to - some people actually don't care and don't think about it. It does for me.) But I am fairly sure that atheism is a consequence of the underlying philosophy of atheists and not the cause. (At least, if you are being a proper skeptic/rationalist/materialist it should not be a cause.)

Perhaps the Atheist+ers (what do you call someone who has signed up to Atheism+?) would agree with that and say that's why it's Atheism plus - it has extra stuff. But that's just pointless. We already have Atheism+ with words like "liberal", "socialist", "Humanist" - or whatever else you need to describe your political, philosophical and/or moral stance on various issues. Just adding "plus" alone, makes no sense.

Although I agree with many, even most, of the liberal inclusive - Humanist - views of Atheism+ (although I am not 100% sure what they stand for), I do not consider these to be an inevitable consequence of, or necessary requirement for, atheism. I am also more that a little concerned by the rejection of Humanism by Atheism+ on the grounds that it is not atheist enough. Humanism has some room at the table for people with religious views. These are mostly secular Deists as far as I can tell but, either way, I fail to see how their presence is a bad thing if they otherwise hold (largely) the same ethical/moral views. The "echo box" criticism of online communities is a valid one and the smaller you make your box, the greater the risk of self-reinforcing superiority and bigotry. For all these reasons, I for one will not be calling myself an "Atheist+".

Is secularism good or bad?

There was an interesting article in the last edition of New Humanist magazine by Richard Smyth, "Down with Secularism", in which he argues that:

"It compromises democracy, it promotes and rewards hypocrisy and doublethink, it reflects a crippling failure of imagination on the part of its proponents and it’s founded on principles that are cynical, unempathetic and deeply un-humanist."

The argument seems to revolve around the fact, in a democracy, everything should be open for argument - including religion. Well, no argument there but I am not really sure that secularism stops arguments about religion, it just stops the state performing or endorsing - or stopping - certain activities because they are religious. Surely, the cornerstone of secularism is not to sweep religion under the carpet, it is to stop religious discrimination - negative or positive - in civil life.

He does make some good points and I suggest reading the article but I think the points he makes are not against secularism, they are against particular manifestations and misunderstandings that surround secularism.

Take abortion, for example. Richard writes:

"Perhaps the argument here is that a gay marriage or an abortion, say, is in some sense a personal matter, and nobody else’s business. If so, it’s an argument that crumbles as soon as you spin it around and take a look at it from the other side. If I believe that human life is sacred, then an abortion is essentially a murder. A woman has no more right to terminate her foetus than a mother has a right to strangle her three-year-old son. And a person who believes this has a moral obligation to prevent it wherever possible. The same goes for a person who believes that human society is being irreparably damaged by buggery and opiates (or whatever) – and the same goes, too, for a government.

It is deeply dismaying that so many liberals struggle with this basic empathetic step. Anti-abortion activists and their ilk are not (necessarily) evil or wicked or heartless. They’re just incorrect. They have made an error in reasoning. They have got their sums wrong. That’s all."

Well, I would agree with that. What I wouldn't agree with is the idea that secularism results in religious views on gay marriage and abortion from being rejected. They are not being rejected because they are religious. Yes, indeed, some of the individual opponents to "pro-life" organisations and religious homophobia may have a problem with them because they are derived from an irrational belief in what a certain deity likes and dislikes, but that does not mean that a secular society rejects those views because of that. Quite the opposite! That's what secular means, isn't it? The religious belief - or otherwise - of the proponents are immaterial, it is the actual outcome that is important.

If pro-life lobbyists can convince enough people that a blastocyst is a person, they have every right to get abortion banned as murder. But the crucial point is that the reason for that ban should be that the democratic choice of society is to side with that idea and make that choice. It should not be because Britain is a "Christian country" with a Christian monarch and bishops in the House of Lords that can force through Christian views despite being a minority position. (With so many children forced by circumstance to attend a Church of England school and bishops in the House of Lords, we are not secular enough in the UK, sadly.)

Quite recently, I did a course at work on "Equality and Diversity" and the principle of secularism strikes me as very similar to that of equality and diversity at work. No one should be unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged because of their religion (or lack thereof). This does not mean that no one can ever ask for something for religious reasons (such as a feast day off work) and it does not mean that every religious request has to be pandered to and approved. It's about avoiding discrimination, not about eliminating religion.

The same goes for religion in society. If a religious practice - such a circumcision - is deemed to contravene the law or human rights as laid down by democratic society, it should most certainly not get a get-out-of-jail-free card just because it is religious. But, if a religious practice - such as keeping your head covered - does not constitute an actual problem it should certainly not be banned or discouraged just because it is religious either.

The confusion, I think, comes from the working definition of secularism that Richard Smyth is using. I disagree that:

The basic premise of secularism is that religion should be kept out of politics.

The basic premise of secularism is that religion and politics should be kept separate - it's a subtle but important distinction. Political decisions should not be made because they are religious but that does not mean that religiously-motivated views should not be aired - you just need to convince enough people that they are right before they are acted upon.

I also think that Richard Smyth might be touch a naive about religious views and how wrong they are. Another one of his criticisms is one of hypocrisy:

"The Princeton Professor of Religion Jeffrey Stout has pointed out that “some people in liberal societies hold religious views which will influence significantly the contribution they wish to make to public debates... But these [people] recognise quite pragmatically that their religious motivations and justifications are not shared by everyone else. So they present their views in ways which can be agreed with by people who do not share their religious perspective.” (The quotation is from Graeme Smith’s Short History of Secularism.)

That is, they practise hypocrisy and cant. And the secularist lobby is quite happy for them to do so."

I would disagree here. Although I think that all religion is ultimately irrational and faith-based, this does not extrapolate out to all of the individual positions and beliefs held by religious people. Indeed, one of the big arguments against Christian morality is that it depends very much on cherry-picking which bits of God's Law still apply - it is put through a modern rationalist filter, up to a point. So, stoning to death of disrespectful children is out. Homosexuality may be in or out depending on your interpretation but, generally, there is some (albeit often post hoc) rationalisation of why something is good or bad. Abortion is bad because it is murder, not because the Bible forbids it. (Not surprisingly, I don't think it is explicitly mentioned anywhere. It all comes down to interpretation of where life begins.) If you belief that God is good and God demands X then you also believe that X is good and look for reasons to support that belief. It is not hypocrisy to then pull out those reasons to try and convince someone else that you - and God - are right.

The fact that they have to come out with reasons other that "God said it" is a good thing. It opens debate, highlights issues and keeps the discussion real. Secularism avoids it becoming an argument of "God says" versus "No He didn't" or - worse - no argument at all because the earpiece of God makes all the rules.

Long live Secularism and making political decisions based on their merits not their source. And long live freedom to discuss, promote and oppose religious beliefs!

A great intro to Humanism by the BHA

Continuing this month's celebration of things that make me proud to be British, here is a lovely (and short) video by the British Humanist Association explaining (a) what Humanism is, and (b) why you don't need religion to have morals or to give life meaning.



I particularly like the quote from Richard Dawkins:"Science is the poetry of reality."

No stars for NOM bigots thanks to Marriage #EquaLatte campaign

The issue of same-sex marriage has been getting a lot of attention recently, both sides of the Atlantic. Highlights have included a Scottish Cardinal who is so out of touch with reality that he believes legalising gay marriage would “shame the UK in the eyes of the world” (not the part whose opinion I would care about) and, in a mind-boggling statement of inverted intelligence, declared it to be a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”. (What?!) Of course, this was followed up by the greatest quote of all by Chief Executive of Stonewall, Ben Summerskill:

“If Roman Catholics don’t approve of same-sex marriage, they should make sure they don’t get married to someone of the same sex.”

It seems that things are a little more sinister across The Pond, and the (unfortunately not-ironically-named) "National Organization for Marriage" (for marriage, are you sure?) has called for a nationwide boycott of Starbucks for supporting Gay Marriage. Happily, we don't live in a world where conservatives get to enforce their narrow-minded bigotry on everyone else unchallenged, and Sum Of Us have started a counter-campaign to thank Starbucks for standing up for equal human rights, in their #EquaLatte campaign. (Who can resist a good pun, eh?) So far, over 640,000 people have signed up versus 29,000 on NOM's "Dump Starbucks" pledge site. Job done, I think. Well done, Sum of Us! (You can sign up here.)