The On Faith editors at The Washington Post asked panelists to answer a simple question today. What you see below is the question and the opening paragraph of Herb Silverman’s response:
I love that quote, which is one reason why I’m disappointed with some of what Silverman said afterwords. Silverman followed a brief discussion of the ARIS report that was released in March 2009 with a description of two kinds of atheists:
Group A: Atheists who don’t suffer fools gladly. They point out that religious belief should be treated as any other kind of belief, open to criticism, and that unquestioned faith is a vice with inherent dangers, not a virtue to be respected.
Group B: Atheists who prefer identifying as humanists, who would rather look for ways to make this world a better place than talk about gods in which they don’t believe. They try to find common bonds between theists and nontheists, and seek issues on which to cooperate. Their focus is on being good without God.
Group A’s take pride in being intellectually honest, while Group B’s take pride in helping a movement grow. Quite a few, myself included, have a foot or toe in both groups.
Silverman doesn’t do atheists any service by dividing us into two camps. In fact, doing so feeds the idea – which many theists will be only too glad to exploit – that there is a significant rift among atheists. It seems to me that most atheists who think about their beliefs in a serious manner identify with both of Silverman’s groups, as Silverman himself does. Intellectual honesty does not preclude finding common ground with people whose beliefs differ from ours, nor does humanism preclude behaving in an intellectually honest fashion. I’m sick to death of people debating whether agnostics are closet atheists, whether atheists are militant or mushy, hard or soft, strong or weak, whether they inhabit foxholes, and, now, whether they’re Type A or Type B atheists. These distinctions don’t do anything to advance the causes of
a) using the best tools we have available – intellectual and technological – to build better societies, and
b) helping the world rid itself – voluntarily, not by force – of the tools (many of which are religious in nature) that impede human progress.
Having pointed out where I disagree with Silverman, I want to note something he said that I’ve thought for a long time:
The message that needs to get out is how many non-atheists live like atheists, for all practical purposes, without belief in a judging god involved in the workings of the world. This would include all deists, almost all Unitarians, and most liberal religionists of all stripes…. I expect this category of “functional atheists,” those who believe that their actions in this life have nothing to do with how or whether they are treated in an afterlife, is larger than just about any religious denomination.
I know people who live as functional atheists. They may believe in some sort of creator-deity, but they don’t live as if that belief makes any difference in their lives. They don’t go to church or are, at best, C&E Christians, they don’t pray or fast or tithe, they don’t read their Bibles and probably couldn’t even tell you, at any given moment, where their family Bibles are located. The question is, does it matter whether these people identify themselves as atheists? On the one hand, it does, because doing so would be intellectually honest. On the other hand, if their minuscule theism doesn’t negatively affect how they function in society – in other words, as long as they make political and social decisions based on facts rather than creeds – it may not matter whether they attach labels to themselves. Overall, though, if functional atheists would acknowledge themselves and accept their nonbelief in dogma and superstition, the causes of atheism and humanism could take significant steps forward in a hurry.
Silverman concluded his post with these words:
Whatever parents teach their children about God or Santa, I hope it will include a message to be good for goodness’ sake, a message to live by in all seasons.
I agree that being good for goodness’s sake is worthwhile and never untimely, but I think that, as long as adults continue teaching children about God, they will have difficulty teaching children to be good for goodness’ sake. I won’t go so far as to say the two messages are incompatible, but I think any marriage between the two will be stressful and plagued by contradictions. Thus, I would prefer to see people jettisoning their god-beliefs and embracing their humanity. Being good for goodness’ sake is the best we can strive for in a world in which the omni-absence of deities is, to say the least, conspicuous. Humankind can be good and should be good, not because doing so pleases gods, but because being good is the finest expression of our humanity.
– the chaplain
