The Problem With Atheism (Sam Harris)

[Medic]

I never said it was a downhill battle, it's like this 'stairway to heaven' I ran up and down in my days in Korea. That is, a stairwell on the side of a big-ass hill. Anyway, even if it isn't atheist, secular humanist is a good start. It does capture much of what many atheists tend to believe.The more right-wing atheists... I suppose not but then they're as confused as right-wing gays.

[Darth Wong]

So you could call yourself a secular humanist instead. Oops, that term has been rendered perjorative too! This is what Mr. Harris doesn't get; it doesn't matter what the fuck you call yourself or refuse to call yourself; if you don't worship something, then Christians will treat you as a monolithic group and slander you accordingly.

[Covenant]

I understand his point, but he's got some kind of warped idea that people are going to slowly lose their religion over time simply by the introduction of better ideas. It seems like so much of what makes these bad ideas last so long is religion, so if you can't set yourself opposed to that then you've basically lost the fight. If you dispute their logic, and they reference God or the Bible, how do you proceed? Claim that's not factual enough? Now you've basically opened the question up--are you or are you not also a believer? If you are not, then how do you define yourself? Because they will have defined you if you don't.

By pitching a tent we allow people to come under the opinion that there are lots of non-theists out there who are all normal, rational, or irrational people. It weakens the grip that the insanity of faith has merely by there being a vocal opposition group. We don't need to assault them in their churchs, but why should I be afraid to let it be known that I don't buy their shit? Harris things we're causing some sort of damage by merit of speaking out against these people, but I've never seen that to be the case. The intractable group who simply will not budge on this will not be swayed by our efforts to breed 'better' ideas, and everyone else should be fought for.

This is a struggle between the primacy of the soul or the primacy of reality, and I've had my fill of hateful religious bigots. Sorry Sam, but the gloves have come off. They can be free of my ire once they stop putting their asinine ideas into act.

[Patrick Degan]

Besides which, the idea that atheists should call themselves by a silly label such as "Brights" is a basically stupid one.

[Darth Wong]

Also imagine what happens when a Christian figures out that your custom name is actually a euphemism for atheism:

CHRISTIAN: So you call yourself a "Bright", but you're actually an atheist, aren't you?

HARRIS: Well, technically, yes ...

CHRISTIAN: Uh huh. So if atheists have nothing to be ashamed of, then why are you pretending to be something else by calling yourself a "Bright" instead?

HARRIS: Ummm ....

[Patrick Degan]

Also, wouldn't you feel like an idiot calling yourself a "Bright"?

[Darth Wong]

Also, wouldn't you feel like an idiot calling yourself a "Bright"?

I don't think I could bring myself to say it out loud.

[Covenant]

The term 'bright' is such an awful, worthless, inflammatory term. Calling yourself Bright could either mean that you don't believe in God, think you're rather clever for reasons unrelated to faith, or perhaps calling yourself a Bright makes him think you're some kind of cultmember.

The term Athiest isn't loaded--it's as direct as you can get. Calling yourself a secularist, or a humanist, or any of these other candy-coated terms is fine but an a-theist is the most basic label you can assign yourself, and the one with the least about of political and ideological baggage. One can be anything and an atheist at once. I think that either way, confrontation will lead to labels.

Resisting the label of athiest, if you are one by definition, makes it seem like there's something wrong with it. Hiding makes it sound like there's something wrong with it. Even dignifying the idea that just because someone bad was an athiest that it's shameful is a terrible idea. I have no idea what he was thinking this day, but I sadly blame it on him being an American, and having a pre-existing amount of guilt, and the brainbug that by speaking out against someone you're somehow 'lowering yourself to their level' and 'letting them win'.

[mr friendly guy]

Also, wouldn't you feel like an idiot calling yourself a "Bright"?

I prefer the term Godless heretic myself. But atheist is a good enough descriptor of my lack of beliefs.

[Guardsman Bass]

Maybe Harris is thinking of taking an approach more similar to that of Carl Sagan. Sagan was an atheist, but he tended to focus more on the beauty and nature of Science, and to be an advocate for good science and skeptical thinking (at least, that's the impression I get from his books and what I've seen of his television programs) in public. He did come down hard on religion in Demon Haunted World, but that didn't seem to become a major public issue.

I don't think that will work, necessarily, but maybe Harris is thinking of something similar.

Also, while the "Bright" label is unusable (I like it, actually; it's simple and memorable), it would be nice to find some type of self-description that isn't defined simply by our opposition.

[FSTargetDrone]

Also, wouldn't you feel like an idiot calling yourself a "Bright"?

Speaking of "idiot," to me, "Brights" has always sounded like the perfect sort of politically-correct or polite-sounding term one might use to describe idiot savants.

[Flagg]

Maybe Harris is thinking of taking an approach more similar to that of Carl Sagan. Sagan was an atheist, but he tended to focus more on the beauty and nature of Science, and to be an advocate for good science and skeptical thinking (at least, that's the impression I get from his books and what I've seen of his television programs) in public. He did come down hard on religion in Demon Haunted World, but that didn't seem to become a major public issue.

I don't think that will work, necessarily, but maybe Harris is thinking of something similar.

Also, while the "Bright" label is unusable (I like it, actually; it's simple and memorable), it would be nice to find some type of self-description that isn't defined simply by our opposition.

Sagan was an Atheist? You ever read 'Contact'? That was like an Agnostic manifesto.

[Patrick Degan]

while the "Bright" label is unusable (I like it, actually; it's simple and memorable), it would be nice to find some type of self-description that isn't defined simply by our opposition.

Why? It is precisely correct and has been/will be far more simple and memorable than "Bright".

[General Zod]

Why? It is precisely correct and has been/will be far more simple and memorable than "Bright".

Has anyone ever actually heard someone identify themselves as a "Bright"? I've never heard of this term until this thread before. It seems like something somebody incredibly insecure about their stance would use to call themselves.

[Darth Wong]

Why? It is precisely correct and has been/will be far more simple and memorable than "Bright".

Has anyone ever actually heard someone identify themselves as a "Bright"? I've never heard of this term until this thread before. It seems like something somebody incredibly insecure about their stance would use to call themselves.

It actually sounds like one of those politically correct terms that are used to euphemistically describe something bad, like the way "Special" is used to denote kids with severe handicaps.

[FSTargetDrone]

It actually sounds like one of those politically correct terms that are used to euphemistically describe something bad, like the way "Special" is used to denote kids with severe handicaps.

That's what I was thinking of when I mentioned idiot savants above. I suppose it sounds something like, "Well, our son Billy can't interact with the family verbally and he screams when touched, but God Bless him, he sure can compose countless pieces of beautiful piano music! He's our Miracle Child, our "Bright."

Really though, I think secular or humanist or atheist are all perfectly acceptable. Inventing pretty-sounding terms as General Zod suggests to describe oneself (or rather, one's group) is rather contrived.

[Guardsman Bass]

Maybe Harris is thinking of taking an approach more similar to that of Carl Sagan. Sagan was an atheist, but he tended to focus more on the beauty and nature of Science, and to be an advocate for good science and skeptical thinking (at least, that's the impression I get from his books and what I've seen of his television programs) in public. He did come down hard on religion in Demon Haunted World, but that didn't seem to become a major public issue.

I don't think that will work, necessarily, but maybe Harris is thinking of something similar.

Also, while the "Bright" label is unusable (I like it, actually; it's simple and memorable), it would be nice to find some type of self-description that isn't defined simply by our opposition.

Sagan was an Atheist? You ever read 'Contact'? That was like an Agnostic manifesto.

I thought it was pretty obvious from Demon Haunted World.

I'm not saying anything particularly is wrong with Atheist. It's just kind of bothers me that we don't have a label that isn't defined by enemies, sort of like how non-Christians back in the Dark Ages and before were essentially slandered with 'Pagan' and a bunch of negative connotations. I'm not in favor of Bright.

[Guardsman Bass]

EDIT: Ignore my last point; I just got the part about other labels such as secular humanist being twisted.

[Covenant]

I'm not saying anything particularly is wrong with Atheist. It's just kind of bothers me that we don't have a label that isn't defined by enemies, sort of like how non-Christians back in the Dark Ages and before were essentially slandered with 'Pagan' and a bunch of negative connotations. I'm not in favor of Bright.

The term 'athiest' seems to be the most literal, least confused, and least cowardly definition for it though. It also applies the most generally and in the most un-loaded terms that you simply do not believe in supernatural creator forces.

The way I see it, regardless of what we may wish to call ourselves, we are indeed athiests by definition. Until we can derive some etymology by which a better and non-pejorative term could be create that means the same thing, we're just adding a layer of defensiveness to it.

I'm more of a 'take the term back' mindset. How often does the term really get used, honestly? How often is someone forced to defend themselves, unless you're an author writing books and going on TV? People could easily just call themselves skeptics, and say they're suspicious of organized religion.

There just seems to be something inherently self-defeating by admitting that athiest is a dirty word, and not admitting that any word we come up with wouldn't just be a cute euphamism for it. I mean, it's not a derogatory slur. Just because a word denotes a part of society that a lot of people dislike, like gay, doesn't mean you should have an aversion to it. At some point you need to stop surrendering the command of language to the opposition.

It's not like we're being mischaracterized. I'd take exception to ther term 'traitor' or 'hedonist' or 'amoral baby-raping communist,' or even 'agnostic'--not because those are bad people, but because I'm not one. I just don't see a need for the word. You also hear people in this country throwing the term 'socalist' around like it's got four letters anytime you mention any other sane country's Healthcare system. Like Athiest, the term only has barbs if you assume there's something wrong with being one. In their mind, liberal is enough to damn you to hell. I can't bother living my life around a lunatic's rules.

[Covenant]

EDIT: Ignore my last point; I just got the part about other labels such as secular humanist being twisted.

Ah, sorry. I think my post is still smart, tho'!

[TheKwas]

PZ Myers response to Harris reflects my general sentiments:

Dear Sam,

I read your presentation to the Atheist Alliance. You were eminently successful in being a controversial contrarian, so your intent was well executed. Good work!

However, I do have to disagree with your argument (oh, right — you were trying to stir up dissent. Again, good work!). You say that using the term "atheism" is a mistake, and that "Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities" … and that atheism is entirely negative. You say that accepting that label means we are agreeing to be "viewed as a cranky sub-culture".

You say you never thought of yourself as an atheist before. And there, I think, is the major rebuttal to your own thesis. It doesn't matter that you don't call yourself an atheist. Sam, they're going to call you an atheist anyway. Your friends might be willing to accede to your wishes and stop calling you an atheist, but your enemies won't, and the media, which has promoted you as an atheist, probably won't … and if they do, you'll vanish from your influential position rather quickly. You don't get to choose what other people will call you.

It's true that labels can be used to marginalize a sub-culture, but they can also be used to unify a group, even the negative ones, sometimes especially the negative ones. Look at "Queer" and "Abolitionist", to name two examples — they're strange and negative, and using your metric of whether the name suggests something positive, the last is just unrelentingly against something; obviously, they didn't get a good focus group to help them with their brand identity. At the same time, though, those are groups who have and had proud memberships, who unabashedly embraced their identity. I'm sorry, Sam, but complaining about your name and fishing about in a dictionary for happy words you can appropriate is such a Republican thing to do. I much prefer the forthrightness of an out & proud movement.

The other futile side to your argument is that it doesn't matter: we live in a culture that has managed to turn "environmentalist" into a nasty epithet. Same for "feminist". I guarantee you that if you managed to get the whole movement to adopt a brand new label — say, for example, "rationalist" — we'd be hearing that word uttered with the same contemptuous sneer, the same dismissal to a "cranky subculture", and the preachers will still be fulminating from their pulpits with the same distaste for "rationalist" that they have for "secular," "humanist," "intelligentsia," and "intellectual."

Of course, you aren't advocating a new name. You are suggesting no name at all.

We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar--for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.

Well, Sam, you're welcome to do that. Stop accepting speaking engagements, stop giving interviews, and stop writing books. I won't respect you any less if you insist on doing good works with no fanfare — it's your choice.

It seems to me, though, that there is no conflict at all between being decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them and also finding common cause with like-minded people and working together to promote that same decency, responsibility, and critical thinking publicly. In fact, I think such coordinated (and proudly labeled) action by a group would be more effective than similar action by modest individuals.

Like you, I look forward to a post-theist future when the term "atheist" is a quaint relic that lacks any contemporary context, as silly as saying that one is an a-Zeusist or an aleprechaunist. That time is not now, and you are ignoring reality to pretend that it is. We do have a context that makes atheism relevant and appropriate: we are immersed in a deeply irrational religious culture. Those labels you denigrate — "atheists," "humanists," "secular humanists," "naturalists," "skeptics," "anti-theists," "rationalists," "freethinkers," and "brights" — are useful rallying cries for the tiny, scattered bubbles of rationality drifting in the sea of superstition and ignorance. It's how we find each other and grow. It's how we build whole communities working for a common cause, rather than acting as isolated individuals.

I'd like to see more openly secular communities and institutions forming, and I think to do that we have to accept labels and banners and symbols, and we have to be open about expressing our ideas and encouraging others to join us. That's how we'll make a lasting difference. That's also how we'll undermine the unfortunate insinuations imposed on us by the way the label "atheist" is used. It doesn't matter if you try to abandon the name, it's going to stick to you and us for a good long time; what we need to do is build our own positive values beneath that tag and change its meaning from within.

Yours in godlessness,


PZ Myers

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007 ... h.php#more

[Rye]

The most hilarious example I can think of someone calling themself a "bright" (or should that just be bright?) is RocketGirl on SB, the same girl who thinks she's an alien. I think that alone makes me want to slap my forehead in disdain at the sorts of people such a title attracts.

But yeah, I think Harris has spent too much time with liberals and atheists to the point he thinks he can force a post-theistic world upon the modern one, and try and change the way things are with a more ideal version. Obviously, such things are frought with impossibility; culture is nowhere near "the end of faith" [thunderclap], and the media machine won't give up its treasured stereotypes and set arguments just because Sam Harris says so.

I'm not "proud" to call myself an atheist, almost everyone around here is an atheist, but I am proud to call myself antireligious. That position takes a lot more personal fire and conviction, I find, than mere lack of religion. I would wager in Britain at least, a majority of atheists will not be openly antireligious as much as they enjoy a joke at its expense, thinking more that religious people aren't driven bad by religion, just that people "corrupt" it, and due to personal responsibility, religion is all but irrelevent as a motivating force in negative behaviour. These same atheists will often also think that religion can do the opposite and promote good behaviour, and think that some people just need the false hopes and the fear of hellfire to keep them in line.

[Darth Wong]

I have to concur that it appears Mr. Harris has not spent a lot of time arguing with fundies or even "moderate" Christians lately (you know, the kind of "moderates" who typically vote 80% in favour of bans on gay marriage).

The first thing I thought of when considering the idea of avoiding the term "atheist" was that a typical fundie would seize upon that as a sign of insecurity, and press his advantage ruthlessly. The fact that this obviously did not occur to Mr. Harris is either proof that he is unfamiliar with fundies or proof that he's just not too Bright.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Mike, that pun... ouch...

[Metatwaddle]

Why? It is precisely correct and has been/will be far more simple and memorable than "Bright".

Has anyone ever actually heard someone identify themselves as a "Bright"? I've never heard of this term until this thread before. It seems like something somebody incredibly insecure about their stance would use to call themselves.

Yeah, I have. I met a guy at the student club fair who saw that I was carrying a Dawkins book and struck up a conversation, and he called himself a bright. He's the only one I ever met who did that.

Since Harris's speech at the convention (to which I am REALLY FUCKING PISSED I couldn't get tickets because holy shit the speakers list was incredible), my little Secular Student Alliance chapter has discussed his speech a lot. Hardly anyone agreed with him about dropping the atheist label (and all the other labels), because not calling ourselves anything basically prevents us from organizing ourselves in any meaningful way. We also rejected his idea that we shouldn't have to call ourselves anything - that "atheist" is as useless and trivial a term as "non-astrologer" or "non-racist" - because while non-astrology-believing and non-racism are widely assumed to be the norm in America, not believing in God certainly is not.

I think there's a different problem with secular labels, though: there's too damn many of them. Within my SSA group, we managed to come up with about ten, and then added Pastafarian and IPUist for kicks. They included agnostic (weak and strong), atheist (weak and strong), ignostic, skeptic, rationalist, (secular) humanist and bright, and maybe some others. At the meeting, we all wanted to see which labels everyone used to define themselves. Of course, people challenged each other's philosophical positions, and we had the usual round-and-round argument about whether it's actually possible to know with absolute certainty that there is a God: yes, technically we could all be brains in a vat, etc.

Anyway, the point is that we're all in the same student group, we all want the secular movement to succeed and for atheists/agnostics/any of the people I listed above to be less marginalized, yet we call ourselves any number of different things. It would be nice to have a catch-all term that people actually used. Bright has not filled that niche because it's obnoxious.

As for Harris, I don't think he's under any illusions about the virtuous religious moderates. He's railed against them (in The End Of Faith) more heavily than any other atheist author I've ever read, including Dawkins, and that's saying something. I don't know why he thinks that dropping the monikers will somehow make us more accepted; if we make the same "back-up-your-bullshit" arguments to theists that we're currently known to do (and which Harris advocates doing in everyday life), nothing will change. We will continue to be seen as offensive and aggressive for asking people to support their religious claims with evidence.