Dale recently made a very well written argument against Harris's recent spat with the Atheist title, and the
"secular humanist" club I belong to recently posted a
small snippet about why Harris is so great for doing so. So, I thought I'd carry on defending the title like Dale did, and here's what I had to say about this incredibly boring matter:
Sam Harris might be head and shoulders higher up on the intellectual stimulating level than a lot of the other "New Atheists", but that doesn't mean he's very lonely up there, or really bringing much new to the conversation.
He's big into conversational intolerance. It's not a new idea; he simply articulates himself very well and opens up the idea to a wider audience than those who came before him. He's big into the exploration of meditative studies and brain sciences. Again, that's not exactly new territory. He's bringing a slightly unique spin to meditation, but in medicinal brain studies, he's far from a forerunner in any way shape or form. He's also big into the let's-not-use-atheist-as-a-title bit. That's a tired, tired subject, and I'm so disappointed he's found nothing worth-while to talk about.
I don't think anyone's forgetting Dawkins' and Dennet's forays into new 'atheist' titles. They've thrown 'bright' out there and humanist, secularist, naturalist, and all those other synonyms. This isn't a new topic, and it's not something that's ever been received with any sort of sufficient enthusiasm. The people listenning to these lectures aren't oblivious to the field; they aren't disinterested, and they don't readily lose track of the ins and outs of the New Atheist movement. Could there be a reason the atheist name change hasn't been received well in the past?
It could be because it's stupid, and we really all should be spending our valiant secular efforts on something new, something interesting, and something relevant to the world.
A brief summation of why we should distance ourselves from the atheist title: some atheist have become dogmatic, and the name has a stigma attached to it.
Lawyers have all sorts of individuals within that umbrella term that all sorts of other individual Lawyers would love to be distanced from. The thing is: they're all still lawyers! The catch, though, is they're all freaking different lawyers! There are business lawyers, insurance lawyers, homicide lawyers, Denny Crane, and Alan Shore. The term "lawyer" doesn't actually typify anything. It's just an umbrella term that catches a broad spectrum of individual professions. It doesn't actually apply any "real" definitions other than that everyone categorized into the group practises some form of law. The stigma surrounding lawyers carries over unto these varying individuals only in the broadest sense of the idea. We all know for a fact that not all lawyers are blood-thirsty, money driven loons.
Stereotypes just happen, but that doesn't mean we should avoid the word that's been stereotyped; we should stop the stereotyping of the word!
Other similar umbrella terms would be: doctors, teachers, Christians (there are a lot of very different kinds of Christians), theists, philosophers, researchers, etcetera. None of these terms actually carry a stigma to all the parties involved with the term. The stereo-types about teachers in general do not follow when applied to those who teach the learning impaired. Different stigmas are attached to French teachers than science teachers. Should they really try and change their title to "education officer" to distance themselves from the teacher stereotype?
Atheist is simply another umbrella descriptor. It describes a large body of individuals and groups who do not necessarily agree or even relate in certain aspects of the relevant attributes. Carpe Diem is described as a secular humanist group. Not all atheists are humanists. Not all atheists, and probably very few, actually live their life by the motto "seize the day".
The term "atheist" (or doctor, or lawyer, or teacher, or whatever!) is an umbrella term used to describe a broad base of individuals. The actual term is meaningless in typifying any one atheist, as any meaning carried by the word outside of its definition (not a theist) is connotation. The connotation is what needs to be distanced from us, not the term. We should work at eliminating the stigma.
Atheist is a useful word in describing the people it generally is attached to. We, very simply, are not theists. Most everyone else is. If the majority of people were astrologers, then we would be very effective in labelling ourselves "not-astrologers".
Christian, as a term, unites a large group by one characteristic. Atheist, as a term, unites a large group by one characteristic. Why throw away a term when the term isn't the problem and the understanding of the term is? We didn't throw out Quantum Physics because we didn't understand them...
I respect Harris. He's one of my heroes. He's an exceptional speaker, a gifted debater, and extremely knowledgeable. But he's wasting his efforts on such a damnably tired subject. Dawkins failed to change the majority of atheists' minds; why should we really believe Harris will? And really, he doesn't have to change the title we unite under. He has to go out and tear up the religious fabric of society like he says he wants to be doing.
- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
Blogged with Flock
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
