This will be the first of "What is Atheism?" posts. Though I mostly intend to use this blog to post positive and inspiring aspects of our natural world, examining atheism/naturalism and its opposition is also something I find interesting.
A response to to Terry Mirll:
Judging from Terry's Mirll's letter, there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding surrounding atheistic world views. I will attempt to correct this distorted characterization, not in a defense, but rather to educate.
Getting past the somewhat sardonic introductory paragraph, we get to the first assertion, and what can ultimately be defined as the thesis. “Philosophically, atheism is founded on a contradiction.” He then goes on to defend his premise by proposing that the “standard” atheist will defend his/her self using the problem of evil. Mirll then goes on to tie this back to the thesis, suggesting that the problem of evil depends on the existence of a god.
The first problem is Mirll is taking a hypothetical example, and asserting it as universal. Not all atheists come to their disbelief the same way, nor do they hold the same reasons for their atheism. The same is true of religion. If I asked a certain type of theist why is theism true, I could get the response: “Because Joseph Smith's writings are true.” It would be not only false, but also disingenuous of me to suggest I could disprove all theism simply by showing that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Anecdotal evidence, and straw man arguments are not great ways to contend worldviews.
The second issue is Mirll's explanation of the problem of evil itself. The problem of evil is for the 'omnigod' of Christianity. It goes as such:
If an all powerful, loving god exists it would, by nature, prevent evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore an all powerful, loving god must not exist.
It supposes the existence of a god to determine a true/false result, it doesn't hinge on it. It is also not an issue for an evil or indifferent god, which is why it is generally not used as an argument for atheism, but rather an argument against Christianity. It has some shortfalls, and strengths which are discussed at length many other places. If it were self contradictory, Plantinga would not have had to formulate his free-will defense.
Therefore, his conclusion is ultimately false. Atheism is not faith-based, nor is it a religion.
Because of the average person's definition and perception of atheism, which I seriously doubt will be changing any time soon, I have really considered that it may in fact be worthy to rebrand. A few years ago, when Dawkins' Brights movement was just getting started, I half-heartedly signed on to be considered as such and then went on my merry way. In the interceding years I have repeatedly witnessed religionists successfully using the word atheist as weapon. At this point, I'm just not sure what the right tactic is. I think I change my mind on this every other day. I know that it is possible to rebrand an entire hated minority group and I know it's possible to take a word with negative connotations and spin it to mean something positive, but I'm just not sure if any of this is possible with what we are up against. What do you think would be the more successful strategy? For the sake of the rebranding strategy, I have to say that I have witnessed reduced hostility from people when I'm asked what church I attend and I explain that I am a Bright. It seems that, by not singling out gods, it lessens the blow to start off by including nonbelief in all supernatural entities and forces.
ReplyDeleteOnce you explain that Bright means metaphysical naturalist, and then explain what that means, people balk and say "Oh you're and atheist!"
ReplyDeleteIMO ymmv
What I'm saying is that it is the idea of godlessness or irreligiousness which upsets people, not the label. If gays called themselves sodomites, the Kern family would loathe them only very slightly more than they already do now.
ReplyDelete