How NOT to Be an Atheist

A friend, knowing that I am openly nonreligious, sent me a link recently to the Houston Atheist Society, thinking I would find it interesting. He was correct, but I suspect not for the reasons he might guess. I certainly have no intention of joining said organization.

But why? The answer lies partly in the definition of atheism they themselves give and partly in the general tone of their web site, both of which are symptoms of a deeper cause. The HAS defines "atheism" on their "Our Positions" feature page (For which there is no direct link. I have corrected some punctuation.)

Atheism is the absence of god-belief [sic]. This is the simplest, most literal meaning of the word. "Theism" means god-belief [sic]; placing an "A" in front of "theism" means the ABSENCE of god-belief [sic], not "anti-god." Seen in this way, all people who have no god-belief [sic] are Atheists [sic]. Newborn babies are Atheists [sic], for example.

Note that I can already begin discussing the overall tone of the site even as I just begin discussing the definition of "atheism." The web site overall takes what I see to be a deliberately condescending, insulting tone towards those who believe in God and seems to go out of its way to bait the religious, particularly Christians. Let's leave aside the appalling punctuation and the silly use of the term "god-belief" rather than, say -- oh, I don't know -- "belief in God." Let's also generously, perhaps, assume that the term "god-belief" isn't just a chance to spell "God" with a lower-case "g." (You could certainly make the case that "God" refers specifically to the Judaeo-Christian one, and that atheism refers to a lack of belief in any god.) Note the superfluous capitalization of "atheist." This is, I am sure, one of many ways of rubbing their irreligion in the face of the random religious visitor. Being from the Bible Belt, I know how hostile some people can be to nonbelievers, but to be insulting like this on a web site to random strangers isn't a constructive way to deal with this problem. I'll talk more about the tone of the site momentarily. Back to the definition itself. This is a definition of a negative. I have some problems with their definition besides the ones I point out above, but all an atheist is, is someone who thinks that there is no god. This is a judgment about a single question, not the entire basis of a personal philosophy.

Nevertheless, the HAS presents a list of positions on a whole host of issues, some of which would indeed make sense for an organization that supports secular government, like their positions on separation of church and state and on the use of public property for religious displays. But none of the positions staked out by the HAS can really be defended solely on the basis of a lack of belief in god. Some atheists, not including myself, for example, have argued that "society" "needs"religion as a way of keeping the less-astute or intelligent from acting barbarously. So even the positions that make sense, at first glance, for the HAS to take are simply put forth in a vacuum.

Or are they? As Ayn Rand repeatedly made clear, all men act upon the ideas they hold, be those ideas explicit or implicit. Most men do not spend a great deal of time thinking about philosophical issues and so absorb what there is in the culture. In our day and age, of course, the political left is regarded by most as the home of secularism. Is it any surprise, then, that the HAS states its support for such things as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the U.N., public education, abortion (but as if the issue were noncontroversial), and gay marriage. Note also that another aspect of modern leftism surfaces with their support for gay marriage: nihilism and antipathy towards Western civilization (expressed through the surrogate of religion):

HAS supports Gay marriage on the grounds that the only objections to it are strictly religious, therefore unsupportable by secular law. If we allow laws to be based solely on religious objections, what will be outlawed next? Certainly marriage among Atheists (and Atheism itself!) would be high on that list. Therefore, we MUST support Gay marriage. We don't even need to get into a debate on privacy or morality.

(Umm. As far as I know, there is no big push to outlaw marriage between atheists. But back to the subject at hand.) How about traditional objections to the right to gay marriage? Homosexuality is taboo in many cultures of varying degrees of religiosity. And what is wrong with civil unions as opposed to marriage? Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children? If not, then there's a nonreligious reason not to have gay marriage! These are all very important issues that one's position on whether there is a god, taken in isolation and out of context, simply cannot address. In the end, the HAS smuggles in the usual tired, hackneyed, and silly positions taken by the left, because that's what they are really arguing from.

So the "Atheists," having only the explicit basic position that there is no god to build from, end up sounding suspiciously like the Democratic Party because of their implicit leftist premises! Is it any surprise that much of the rest of the site is devoted to making fun of Christians and conservatives? For example, there's an entire page devoted to the "Religious Goof of the Week." For example, there is a picture of a Chevy Suburban with a few conservative bumper stickers and the following lettering: "Communist Hollywood liberals promote terrorism. Not SUV owners, not gun owners, not N.R.A. members. Will the real "American Media stand up?" Their witty reply to what is pretty much spot-on (but for the badly-put final question)? "We actually spotted this ultra-conservative nut-job while on our way to see Fahrenheit 9/11. Irony..." What happened to the "Building bonds with our neighbors, secular and otherwise[emphasis added], to improve cooperation, community living and understanding" from their mission statement? How the hell do you "build bonds" with people you insult? Again, the HAS sounds like an arm of the Democratic Party. As with others who define themselves according to what they are not, the HAS ends up reacting to others around them in a childish and ultimately self-defeating way.

As an atheist, I regard religion, in its approach to issues of knowledge, as inherently dangerous: When someone else abandons reason for faith, there is no argument or persuasion with him: there can only be armed conflict in cases of disagreement. This is why our government should remain neutral in matters of personal belief: Among other things, it ultimately keeps us from killing each other in the kinds religious wars that have plagued Europe for much of its history. Certainly, there can be organizations formed to promote the continued separation of church and state. Unfortunately, in today's intellectual climate, it pays to be highly skeptical when one encounters an organization, such as the HAS, that purports to serve this goal.

The HAS is not what it should be: an organization devoted to a few narrowly-defined, specific goals pertaining to keeping our country's government secular. (This is, incidentally, something that one need not be an atheist to accept as a desirable goal.) Instead, it is a left-wing advocacy group whose members, by adopting an antagonistic attitude towards Christians (but, curiously, not Muslims), mainly make fools of themselves. Worse still, this group, gives atheism in particular, and secularism in general, a bad name by living up to every negative stereotype that Christian conservatives have of the far left. Not all Christians oppose separation of church and state -- yet. But with "friends" like these making the secular case, who needs enemies?

The HAS is also, finally, a prime example of why a political organization should always have specific, narrowly-defined goals. Within philosophy, the branch of politics follows ethics, which follows epistemology and metaphysics. Politics is highly derivative, and dependent on the answers to a host of other important questions: There are many opportunities for error. As a result, men can hold different positions on a given political issue though they accept similar premises on more basic issues. Conversely, men can agree on a given political issue, but hold contradictory positions on other, more fundamental issues. In other words, agreement about a political issue does not constitute philosophic agreement. When a political organization does not have a narrowly-defined goal, then it will end up pushing for the kinds of goals dictated by the dominant philosophical position of its most active members.

If the HAS can spout off about what its members don't believe, I'll take my turn: I don't believe that the HAS is a real friend of secularism.

-- CAV