The subject at hand?
"Atheism+."
What is Atheism+, you might ask? Atheism+ is the brainchild of Internet blogger Jen McCreight, who has spent enough time writing in the public sphere to have accrued a list of (I feel legitimate) personal gripes and peeves, outlined in her post, "How I Unwittingly Infiltrated the Boy’s Club & Why It’s Time for a New Wave of Atheism." The qualms she's expressed have triggered mixed sentiment and a divide in the subculture, boasting support from big names such as Richard Carrier, P.Z. Meyers, Greta Christina, and other high-profile figures most famous for spearheading the recent surge of activity in the rationalist movement.
I don't need to tell most people that the Internet is largely devoid of tact and rife with immaturity as though it were news, and even within atheist circles (notably Reddit Atheism or r/atheism), casual jokes about women, ethnic groups, homosexuals, and the mentally handicapped are thrown about with impunity for the sake of humor and shock value. Supporters of McCreight's proposed solution have what seems to be a two-fold approach. First, they call for "sensible" atheists to ostracize and disown even non-believers if they are spouting ignorance and bigotry. Second, they want to diversify and expand atheism's public image past the statistically prevalent white, academic male.
Atheism+ bills itself as a more refined group of skeptics raising the bar with the credo that:
We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.
Though all of this may sound well and good, I understand that many are ambivalent about the implications of creating a new tag for atheism. The word itself has been profoundly stigmatized, and many of us have experienced a great deal of frustration explaining such a simple idea as atheism is to believers who have been intentionally kept ignorant and misinformed (i.e., "So you believe in God but just don't like him?", "Does that mean you worship Satan?", et cetera).
Since Secular Humanism already details an ideology untethered to doctrine or faith, tacking on additional qualifiers to the word 'atheism' is going to be viewed as superfluous by some, and a dangerous antithesis of reason to others. After all, 'atheism' is a response to a singular question — where one stands on the probability of any given deity concept — and it entails absolutely nothing else by default. Though most atheists (including myself) have an idea of what constitutes or is most compatible with freethinking, rationalism, or skepticism, there will be those who attempt to draw parallels between atheism and a pet theory or idea of theirs, ideas which aren't grounded as mutually inclusive with atheism in and of itself.
People who are already attempting to discern for themselves what atheism is or is not may only find the issue further obfuscated by the additional terminology being thrown on the table. Religious demagogues will certainly not pass on the opportunity to use skeptic infighting, productive or not, as a means of convincing believers that "the group who claims to champion reason and evidence can't agree on what to think!" Part of being a skeptic is being a freethinker, and the moment anything which even hints at sectarianism evolves, it needs to be scrutinized rigorously. Greta Christina seems to concede that this is sensible enough, in saying that, "If you’re wary about Atheism Plus and want to see where it’s going before you decide whether to get involved… that’s fine with me."
Of course, we can express intolerance of intolerance without adopting an additional label. I'm a humanist, but when I dissent with less compassionate or enlightened humans, I don't say that I'm "Human+." In any movement large enough, there are mature and immature, educated and uneducated, caring and uncaring, because groups are comprised of humans, and it's tacitly understood that humans possess those attributes. I'm sure that there are people on all sides of this discussion with positive ideas born of good intentions, but there are those who find it prudent to be able to think as a group without succumbing to groupthink. Though Atheism+ purports itself to oppose groupthink by urging that we desist from giving fellow atheists who are ignorant and bigoted a free pass simply because they are fellow atheists, the elitist movement within the movement hints at the possibility of becoming ironic as the rift expands, and only time can tell.
Of course, I don't speak for all atheists when I deliver my personal opinion; and you know what?
That's the point.
-T.Hudson
As we remain skeptic of other ideologies, it is important that we all remain more skeptic of ourselves.
-S. West
No comments:
Post a Comment