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
Arius
December 31, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Thus the Euthyphro dilemma remains a paradoxical thorn in the side of theists who assign fundamentalism without considering alternatives to their indoctrination.
Nice post.
The Exterminator
December 31, 2009 at 6:59 pm
I get so tired of believers characterizing atheism as some kind of movement. But I get even more tired of atheists who parrot that idiocy.
I guess I’m in Group C: Atheists who want to be left the fuck alone by all doctrinaire bullies.
seantheblogonaut
December 31, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Does he get the two kinds of atheists from data in the report or is it just some arbitrary division?
the chaplain
December 31, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Arius:
Welcome and thanks for the compliment.
Ex:
If they’d leave me alone, I’d be more than happy to leave them alone. That doesn’t change the fact that I wouldn’t mind if people who think that they – and, even worse, the rest of us – need religion would shed that idea.
Sean:
Silverman characterized the Group A and Group B division as his own “gross oversimplification.”
PhillyChief
January 1, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I find it insulting to say that those interested in intellectual honesty aren’t focused on morality or as Silverman put it, “being good”. What’s clearly missing in the discussion, and something I think the so-called “Group A” camp care about, is what is good. For instance, turning a blind eye to some of the more ridiculous aspects of religious belief in order to make nice with “moderate” theists shouldn’t be considered good in my opinion.
It’s also clearly a mistake to suggest that the intellectually honest have no interest in advancing the movement. Now I understand where Ex is coming from, but there is a movement, only I don’t see it as an atheist movement. I think there is a movement afoot to question a lot of traditional bullshit ingrained in out society. Referencing a god in our national motto, Pledge, citizenship oaths and oaths of political office and military service? An Executive office for faith-based organizations to get taxpayer money with little to no strings attached? Abstinence only education, and making that a hallmark of our AIDS work in Africa? I can go on and on, especially if we get into the religiously motivated efforts to deny gay Americans equal rights. No, there’s a movement afoot alright, but I don’t see it as necessarily an atheist movement.
the chaplain
January 1, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Philly:
I agree with you that there is a movement afoot. It may be best described as a movement for rationalism, rather than an atheist, or even humanist, movement. As you pointed out, there are many ways in which religious believers intrude on the lives of others. This is what I had in mind when I mentioned atheist and humanist causes in the OP, and, in my earlier comment, alluded to the idea that theists don’t leave us alone and go so far as to preach that everyone needs what they think they have. To me, the movement is not so much about converting people to atheism or humanism as it is about encouraging people to think (and, consequently, act) more rationally. If they think rationally and examine their religious creeds with the same scrutiny they give other ideas, atheism follows naturally, I think.
Cephus
January 1, 2010 at 8:25 pm
I’m definitely in Group A and have virtually no respect for those in Group B. The goal here isn’t to grow atheism, it’s to shrink theism. Turning non-belief into some sort of social club strikes me as absurd to the extreme.
Ebonmuse
January 2, 2010 at 12:06 am
I agree with the analysis that the division of atheists into “Group A” and “Group B” is a false dichotomy. It’s entirely possible to belong to both groups at once. I want to promote a positive view of atheism and humanism; I want to create a secular community based on human commonalities rather than faith; and I’d be perfectly happy not to criticize religion all the time, if only religion didn’t keep doing things worthy of criticism!
The errors of faith are an obstacle that we have to get past, if we’re ever going to make this world a better place. If we truly want to achieve that, we have to have people who have a rational outlook and aren’t hobbled by belief in dangerous superstition. In that sense, these aims aren’t opposed. They’re complementary.
The Exterminator
January 2, 2010 at 1:09 am
Ebonmuse:
What claptrap you speak. You want to “create a secular community”? By what authority? What if I don’t want to live in your community? In your “perfect” world, would you force me to join you?
The world would be a better place if people who “want to make the world a better place” would just shut the fuck up. History is filled with a long line of evildoers of all -isms who strove to make the world a better place. Each of them had their own agendas for doing so, and their own petty ends in mind. Pick your favorite villain of the past: he or she fits the pattern. The only way that the world will be a better place is for people to stop bullying others into doing things against their will.
atheismisdead
January 2, 2010 at 3:10 am
Looks like your website is under attack from supernatural forces…
http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,40909.0.html
you really need to add comment moderation to your blasphemy…
Atheist:
have you for but a moment considered that you have adopted a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present?
do you think you are RIGHT and they are all WRONG?
WRONG
now listen to this arrogant puffed up son of a bitch….
little scientist geek who would try to usurp God Himself!!!
That Other Guy
January 2, 2010 at 3:37 am
“have you for but a moment considered that you have adopted a position against 98% of the human race, both past and present?”
Oooh, sorry, that’s an Ad Populum. Large majority of people for a long time thought the world was flat. How’s that turn out?
“do you think you are RIGHT and they are all WRONG?”
In a nutshell.
Now spam someone else. We’re not interested.
PhillyChief
January 2, 2010 at 11:33 am
Looks like your website is under attack from an uncreative asshole who visits as many atheist blogs as he/she can leaving the same ridiculous comment and link.
Oh for the days when trolls would actually put some effort into their antics! Trolls today, they’re so lazy.
the chaplain
January 2, 2010 at 11:49 am
Philly:
You sound more like an old fart every day.
The Exterminator
January 2, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Philly:
Chappy’s right. Are those age spots I see under your headdress?
PhillyChief
January 2, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Get off my lawn!
Kagehi
January 2, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Actually, the “thought the world was flat” argument isn’t very useful, since its not entirely accurate (or even very). Better one would be that 100% of the world, during the plague, thought that it was caused by cats, and 98% of the doctors thought that wearing “beaked” hats would prevent them catching it, since birds didn’t come down with the disease. Turned out that killing the cats amplified the population of what *actually* carried the plague, and the beaked hats where just plain idiocy.
By the same token, at various points in time nearly 100% of people thought religion described some aspect of reality, and praying would get you something, except all the times that that didn’t work, and people died, en mass, some even as they prayed. And, prior to the so called “reformation”, 98% of them thought that someone wearing a funny hat and red robes meant they had a strong connection to “god”. Now, it turns out that prayer doesn’t do much of anything, and even the studies done *by* the religious show barely any, or *negative* results from it, and it turns out that wearing a funny hat means you lead the only major religion organization that opts to rape young boys, then hide this fact, instead of the (sarcasm) much more reasonable act of condoning rape, or stoning of young girls, while wearing slightly less funny hats(/sarcasm).
If 98% of people believe something, and they have **no** reason to do so other than tradition, or pure belief, not only are they likely *wrong*, they are probably doing, or will do, something ***completely*** stupid in the future, because of it. Witness how 98% of the US corporation owners have fallen for the anti-socialist/anti-communist ranting of people like Rand, which claims that markets can govern themselves without someone to watch them, and profits are all infinite, with the resulting idiocy of the housing market that resulted from **that** purely fictional belief system. You don’t need religion, as in “gods” to screw yourself, just unjustified “faith” in something that was made up by people that pulled it out of their asses, for their own glorification and profit. Religions are simply the same, dressed up in tradition and wish fulfillment, and have even married themselves, in some cases, to the same unjustified economic idiocies, via so called “prosperity gospel”.
Unjustified certainties, failure to be skeptical, even to the extent of asking, “Who thinks this, not just how many.”, and blind faith that, because you think it gets you want you think you want, it works. Those are some of the key factors in religion, and in every other system that fails to actually produce anything that works in the long run. But, in the short term… Someone, or even many, can profit a *lot* from such ignorance, right up until the point when the system hits an unexpected bottleneck, resource deficiency, or just a flat out failure to consider, and deal with, true human nature, instead of some utopian delusion about it, then everyone but the one running the circus, who escapes out the back door with the ticket sales, gets screwed.
Its just taken longer for religion to run aground on the reef of these things, because a) for most of history humanity hasn’t had enough of a clue to see the things it got wrong, b) its wasn’t as easy to tell who the con artists where, or keep track of the cons being pulled, and c) the only real alternatives have generally, for most of that time, always been someone else’s con game.
the chaplain
January 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Kagehi:
There are lots of ideologies and “…isms” that bring enormous benefits to the few who are in on the scam, and great harm to the many who are scammed. People need to be both rational and skeptical. The need for healthy skepticism corresponds in direct proportion to the audacity of the claims being made.
That Other Guy
January 2, 2010 at 5:17 pm
That was one hell of a post, Kagehi… enjoyed every word of it, I completely agree.
Kagehi
January 2, 2010 at 5:30 pm
I should note though, sometimes the ring leader *doesn’t* make it out. Its pretty hard to know when to cut and run when you have convinced *yourself* of the infallibility of an idea, and can’t see the oncoming train wreck.
ildi
January 2, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Exactly what part is claptrap? Some would say that current versions of representative democracies are a good starting point to creating a secular community. Unless you’re confusing “secular” with “atheist.”
Well, you probably have no problem saying that the vast majority of those people (i.e, the ones who didn’t/don’t worship your version of a deity) are wrong, so what’s your point?
The Exterminator
January 2, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Ildi:
Exactly what part is claptrap?
All of it — once there’s talk of of “creating” any kind of “community.” Who is the creator? And for whom does he or she speak?
By the way, who are the “some” who would say that “representative democracies are a good starting point to creating a secular community”? Are they the voters in the Middle East? Or the American South? Maybe you’re the “some.”
The sad truth is: Representative democracies are not necessarily secular, and not necessarily tolerant of all faiths — or those who are faith-free. Now, it so happens that the U.S. Constitution does, in fact, create a republic (not a democracy) built on the principle of secularity. However, if the country were a true representative democracy, we would likely have no strictures against forcing people to be religious. According to the Pew Forum Survey on Religion and Public Life, 71% of Americans say they believe in “God” with absolute certainty. That’s absolute certainty. If they were asked by some theocratic demagogue to vote their certainty democratically, how well do you think secularity would survive?
And, no, I’m not confusing “secular” with “atheist.” How dare you put words in my mouth.
PhillyChief
January 2, 2010 at 7:08 pm
Does owl taste like chicken?
Larry Wallberg
January 2, 2010 at 7:35 pm
Philly:
Only where appropriate. But actually birds of a feather flock together, no matter where they are.
I wanted to keep my blogging personae separate, thanks. Since I’ve abandoned my old guise except for commenting, I was hoping to create a whole new set of enemies under my real name. Now that I’ve inadvertently outed myself, I guess the old crowd of idiots are welcome to come by and rant, too.
the chaplain
January 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm
You know what Sun Tzu said, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” Of course, I first heard it when Michael Corleone said it in The Godfather II.
Lorena
January 2, 2010 at 8:48 pm
While I disagree with his classification, I will offer that not all atheists are similar. But, that goes without saying, doesn’t it? Since atheists are people, and there are no cookie cutter, robot-like humans around.
Perhaps that’s what needs to be pointed out. That atheists are a diverse group of individuals, like any other group, which is defined by what we have in common: the lack of belief in the supernatural. Other than that, our differences are untold, and to a point irrelevant.
cl
January 2, 2010 at 9:28 pm
There are certainly lines of demarcation amongst atheists, just as there are amongst any other group.
Ebonmuse,
Who said Silverman’s division was a false dichotomy? Even Silverman conceded that it was possible to belong to both groups at once:
PhillyChief
January 2, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Are you considered in the pool if you just have a foot or toe in the water?
Larry Wallberg
January 2, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Philly:
You may be considered in the pool, but you should get at least waist-deep before peeing in it.
the chaplain
January 2, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Hey, you guys! No peeing in the pool, the baptismal font or the parking lot.
jim
January 3, 2010 at 12:45 am
I like the term ‘functional atheists’. I wonder what percentage of avowed theists actually fall into that group. A significant number, I’ll betcha.
ildi
January 4, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Everybody does. What, are you living in Somalia, or something?
That’s nice to know.
Libertarians seem to be so easily offended…
beaudreaux
January 6, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Atheism is a refusal to assert the existence of God. Atheists have a wide array of worldviews. We get pigeonholed enough by theists. Let’s not start doing it ourselves.
the chaplain
January 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm
beaudreaux:
Welcome to the chapel. I notice you’ve got a brand new blog. I look forward to visiting you more often and hope you’ll come back here often.
PhillyChief
January 6, 2010 at 7:11 pm
No, that makes us sound like denialists. We refuse to accept the claims that there are any gods. Why? It could be because your gut tells you, or that’s what you see reading tea leaves, or it’s what your invisible friend told you, and he never lies. Hopefully for most though, it’s due to that trifling matter of lack of evidence for the existence of deities (not as sexy as having an informative, invisible friend, but it’s pretty good).