Hey Guys!

If there's another Sam Harris thread, I appologize, I looked around a little and didn't see one, though. I found Sam's speech here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html

And even though I heard Brian and Kelly discuss it a little, I thought it warranted a more in-depth discussion of perhaps why it doesn't quite ring to the same tune as my own thinking (and perhaps the same thinking as others, I don't know). Let me first note, though, that I'm aware Sam is probably a hell of a lot smarter than I, and so it is possible that I've got some screwed thinking here, so constructive criticism is welcome. And, though I don't know if he will ever see this, Sam, I'm still a fan!

Here is my response:

It seems to me that his case is that we don't need the word because other similarly valueless claims don't have a separate word for those who lack belief in them. But, I think he misses the point that it is due to our deviance from the majority that the label is necessary. Even though you don't have a-santaists, for example, we do have comparable dichotomized views that are based in rationality and irrationality: patriots and anti-patriots, cognitivists and non-cognitivists, varying ideas on social control and anarchists. These are things that I that I think might be more comparable to the situation at hand.

I think that Harris commits a fallacy when he says that "All we need are words like 'reason' and 'evidence' and 'common sense' and 'bullshit'" as we would need for astrologers. Barring the controversy over what would constitute 'common sense', even the remaining words are insufficient to explain to the masses precisely why we hold a different stance. I think the problem is that in this speech, Harris ignores exactly how language is formed with words like the word 'atheism'. Words like that are born of necessity. When we talk about clouds, since there are various types of ways that clouds present themselves within particular atmospheric conditions, we have different names for each form just so that we can easier describe what we are seeing. It is easier to say "cumulus" than it is to explain "popcorn-like, cotton-ball clouds that which are often contributors to and accompanied by cold fronts ... etc." Likewise, in an environment where there are varying types of philosophical stances, we have the need for the use of the term 'atheist' up until the other stances have close to vanished. If, by some odd condition, the physics of clouds were altered, then we may no longer need the term 'cumulus.' But perhaps that example is a poor one, so let me give another.

We live in a world where people hold a wide range of beliefs in the paranormal and other nonsense. We have homeopathic medicines, belief in alien kidnappings, belief in astral projection, telekinesis, runes, and on and on and on. Those who believe in or use those things often have words for themselves and words for those who disbelieve in those. Now, because each of those things are not nearly so prominent as religion, there *is* a blanket term used for non-believers, but that term is not necessarily widely used by those who practice them. We have, then, the word 'skeptic.' Outside of that, though, believers might call the skeptic 'insensitive,' 'imperceptive,' 'not gifted,' 'close-minded,' 'antagonistic.' The development of the term atheist was initially in the same class as those words. It was derogatory and intended as an insult. It was a way of classing an individual as outside of the group or clique. As skepticism increased, though, and credulity became less prominent, there came to be a need to easily describe the growing number of deviants, so the word was adopted in order to make the description more easily. It is much easier to say to someone, "I am an athiest," than it is to say, "I lack belief in any god according to the current definitions of the term."

As for the comparison to racism - there was indeed a term for those who fought it. We didn't say "non-racism alliance," but we did have terms like, "civil rights activist," for such a use and I hardly think those who labeled themselves as such were contributing to the ignorance by giving themselves such a term. Let's not make the mistake of thinking that this term wasn't negative, either. It was, there was a lot of negativity directed at civil rights activists. Likewise, other activists face a similar problem with stigmas linked to what they call themselves or others call them. Ever hear Rush Limbaugh use the word "liberal?" The same way he spits out the term as if it is something so distasteful that the slightest molecule on his tongue would cause it to rot is echoed by millions of people across the country. However, it remains to be the case that we can't abandon the term simply because he gives a false impression or even believes in a false representation of what a liberal considers the word to mean. We can't leave the term behind simply for the sake of avoiding the constant spittle of that word being flung out off the mouths of so many conservatives across the country, either. And giving a new name to it is unlikely to be very productive as the new name is likely to acquire similar connotations over time and/or may be less recognizable in its use so that those we are trying to send our message to are confused until we give the more lengthy description of, "I lack belief in any god according to the current definitions of the term."

Of course we are a cranky subculture! So are feminists, civil rights activists, and a number of other groups who have had something they felt the need to fight for. Racism didn't decrease because people just flowed into a new form of thinking rather easily. Even the actions of Rosa Parks was planned to an extent and she was herself an activist seeking to change things. She wasn't *only* a tired lady with achy feet. On the same note, M. L. King wasn't *only* a religious leader making a random speech. They were a part of a cranky subculture too, and it isn't a bad thing that they were.

Our labels and status hasn't been keeping us marginalized, either. We've been in the news more frequently, we're more visible, and the numbers of non-religious in the States, though still extremely low, have been increasing. Even as a cranky subculture, we are getting noticed, and occasionally, people are listening. That's the way social movements work, though. You have varying levels of noise that people make, and as we influence each other, even with a common label and intent - or perhaps, ESPECIALLY, with this common intent, it tends to get noticed.

Let me ask this, what would have happened if the term, "civil rights leader" or "civil rights activist" had just fallen under the radar? What would have happened if the term "feminist" had just fallen under the radar? If all those people had just lived their lives and been good people ... where would we be today? I think being openly against what we are fighting in name and action is doing precisely what has aided change in the past.

I will say, that I agree that generalizing religion is a bad idea. Indeed, the points on the differences between Islam and the Amish are entirely valid. This, however, does not mean that we should shed ourselves of our other traits, though. It means that we need to be aware of the many factors that affect our stance and how it relates to our audience. If we're talking to a room full of Muslims, then we need to be aware of how our stance relates to and affects them. If we're talking to a room full of Amish, the same applies. Naturally, the more immediate dangers lie in which group we're talking to in the moment, and that is why Christians feels so picked on by us right now. They're the immediate danger in the United States and are our most common audience. That being the case, I don't think we have been even-handed in our efforts at all.

(A quick note here: I do think there is some reason to think we could focus more on the problems with Islam, however, I also think we need some better means of reaching countries affected by Islamic people than what is available now - so perhaps we should be asking people repeatedly, "what do you propose to do about this dilemma in communication with Islam?" Perhaps we can find an answer to that particular problem. That, however, doesn't mean we should lift the pressure that we have applied in other areas.)

As for religious people having curt responses to atheists, abandoning the term 'atheism' is not going to eliminate those arguments. The moment we confront religion, those we are confronting are going to be asking us why and we will still have to give our rational responses in which the same arguments are likely to arise. We will still need to deal with the argument from ignorance and we'll still have to mention Russell's teapot. We will still have to deal with the greatest criminals of history being portrayed as just like us (mostly because that's a card that is brought up in nearly any debate over social issues - feminists see it; civil rights leaders saw it; and nearly every current political group sees it in debate, it even has its own classification as a fallacy, "the Nazi Fallacy&quot. We're attempting to move people from credulity to logic - something that is certainly not an easy task and something that involves stepping them right over the gap left behind when we deal with their reasons for having faith.

I'm going to briefly note that I think that meditation and related activities are indeed important - but I don't think they are relevant to if we call ourselves atheists or not. Meditation and other focal training have had promising results when examined in behavioral science and I think they have a future there from when anyone can largely benefit with their use. I also think that placing them there and recognizing them in that context is as useful as placing other elements of science from their philosophical past into their own genres of research.

I think, perhaps, we can find a meeting ground here, though, in regards to this term. I think rather than saying we should abandon the term "atheist" I think we should instead make that a future goal. I agree that a world in which we have reached our objective of eliminating the damages done by religion will be absent of the need of such a word. We don't need 'civil rights activists' in a world in which people share the same civil rights without tension or question. Likewise, we don't need the word 'atheist' in a word where what we represent is an extremely common stance. Right now, though, in this point in time, that is not the case. In perhaps a similar vein as Harris' article ends, we can acknowledge that haven't reached that world yet. But that is our goal - our goal is to make that term useless.

P.S. I realize that the term "valuless" is a misnomer in my opening paragraph. Though, since I've already finished this, and because I kinda like learning from my mistakes and letting others do so as well - I'm going to leave it there and just mention that I don't think Sam was implying that the word is completely valuless - I think that he was claiming that the word 'atheism' has a value that is different than what we intend it to be when we use it. This is a natural occurance, though, in language and especially in social environments where ingroup/outgroup behavior and labeling occurs.

[MOD EDIT - fixed link]