atheism+: if you're not with us, you're against us

This is not a mentality to which I can subscribe.

Richard Carrier has weighed in on atheism+, and though I find myself nodding my head in agreement with the majority of his post, I can't get behind the us vs. them mentality. That some atheists choose not to get on board with atheism+ does not make them our enemies. We still have more in common than we have differences.

Among those who choose to eschew adding the 'plus' to their atheism will be the misogynists, the racists, the homophobic and the transphobic, the privileged with no recognition of it.

But also among them will be those who think the name is dumb. Those who want to remain dictionary definition atheists. Those who identify as atheists but aren't part of the movement at all. Among others.

So I disagree with Carrier when he claims, as he appears to do in one comment, that anyone not joining a+ is voting for misogynistic douchebaggery. Some of them are. But not all of them, not by a long shot.

And as we go on, each side of the schism doing its own thing, I'm convinced that our side will grow. Many of those who remain as non-plus atheists will eventually be turned off by the harassment, the victim blaming, the misogyny, and will see our side for the positive, accepting force that I hope it will become.

For obvious reasons I think that most of these will be women. Again, not all of them. But many.

In the meantime, I intend to go on more or less as I have been. I'm well and truly on board with a+, but those who are not are not automatically my opponents. Those who show their bigotry are my opponents, whatever they call themselves, whatever movement they ascribe to.

But with the advent of a+ I'm excited at the thought of being part of a community where the bigots are not tolerated, where they're shouted down instead of tacitly accepted. That's what I thought atheism would be when I began my activism, and I'm glad to be joining a movement where those ideals are not just encouraged, but explicitly stated as necessary.

Atheism, feminism and stereotypes

There are certain stereotypes, certain words, that seem to too-often come to mind when someone mentions that they're a feminist. Feminazi. Femistasi, lately. Bitch. Cunt. Man-hater. Lots more.

There are also certain words, stereotypes, that often come to mind when someone mentions that they're an atheist. Godless. Immoral. Devil-worshipper. Baby-eater.

How can we possibly call ourselves rationalists when we can see the fault in the one and not the other? This is why I've had so much trouble coming to grips with the misogyny in the atheist movement. We KNOW that stereotypes are bullshit. And yet there are so many of us who hear 'feminist' and immediately think 'feminazi'? How does that work?

Feminism: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. Much like in so many areas of the world we're forced to advocate for the rights and equality of atheists.

That so many have trouble making this connection blows my mind. If Atheism+ is going to splinter the atheist movement, we'll only be better off for it.

Atheism+

Let's get something out of the way straight off the bat.

I consider myself a feminist.

A lot of people would turn away at this point. Feminism seems to have any number of stereotypes floating around it. Bitch, feminazi, slut, prude, crone, somehow all manner of bizarre and often contradictory words go floating past when feminism is mentioned.

I had always thought that my movement, the atheist, the rationalists, the promoters of reason, were largely immune to this kind of stereotyping. Of course, any given group once it gets large enough is going to have its assholes; I just always thought that in our group these were a sometimes-vocal but almost irrelevant minority, to be simply ignored or shouted down when they arose.

This is the definition of privilege. I do not experience sexual harassment, or discrimination based on my gender, and so it was invisible to me. But now it's coming out, and I've been shocked at the depth of the reaction.

Opposition to anti-harassment policies? Victim blaming? Name calling - cunt, slut, bitch, whore, prude, ugly? Rape threats? DEATH threats?

This goes on in a community dedicated to rationality?

Apparently it does. And apparently it's far, far more widespread than I would ever have thought.

Now that it's begun coming to light that this is as large a problem as it is, now that awareness is skyrocketing, it's become time to do something about it. And Jen McCreight has initiated just such a thing: Atheism+. Third-wave atheism. We're not just atheists; we're atheists, PLUS we're against misogyny. PLUS we're against racism. Transphobia. And so on down the line.

I couldn't be more excited. This is exactly what I thought the atheist movement was in the first place. Some have claimed it's just a rebranding of secular humanism, and on the surface that seems true, but the distinctions are there. I've never really thought of myself as a humanist - even though I'm the secretary of my local humanist group, and certainly hold myself to the humanist standards. But I've always been more vocal about my nonbelief than anything; I wish my atheism to be at the forefront when self-identifying. And with the advent of atheism+, that's exactly what I can do. This may be enough to re-kindle my interest in maintaining this blog. I hope I manage to stick around this time.

A counterpoint to Mark Driscoll

In the wake of the new Avengers movie, Pastor Mark Driscoll has written a brief article suggesting that perhaps all these superhero-loving moviegoers just want to meet Jesus. His claim that people seem to crave "a half-man, half-something else superhero was coming to defeat evil liberate the oppressed and usher in a new kingdom of peace and life" is intriguing, to say the least, but I would invite him to look at it from a slightly different point of view.

Maybe everyone who claims to want to meet Jesus just really, really likes superheroes. Perhaps the need for a good story, with a villain and with one who will save us, is simply so deep in human consciousness that there are those who take it too far, and actually believe their chosen superhero exists, and is working to save them, despite the utter lack of evidence that such a thing is true.

That these movies can be interpreted in similar ways as your holy book only goes to show just how pervasive made-up stories can be.

Open-mindedness

I'm often old that I should be more open minded. I disagree, and I've been ruminating about it for a little while now.

It comes most often from the new-age crowd - those that I upset in my crusade against non-science-based alternative medicine. I tell them I don't believe homeopathy works, or reiki, or acupuncture - it's hard to believe the amount of pushback I get over acupuncture - and I explain why, and I'm told that I need to be more open minded. It does come from the religious as well, though less often.

I disagree. I think I'm being utterly open minded, and sometimes wonder what definition of open-minded these people are using. I contend that I'm being open minded because I'm willing to give their viewpoints a chance, I'm willing to hear their arguments, listen to whatever evidence they may have accrued, do my research, and come to my conclusion.

What would closed-mindedness be like? I'd be unwilling to listen. Unwilling to consider. I would have preemptively come to my conclusion, without giving the other party the benefit of the doubt, and I would display an unwillingness to change my mind. That's closed-minded.

There are those who will point out that I have, in fact, already reached a conclusion on their pet topic. And that's fair enough; in many cases, I have. But this does not stop me from being willing to reconsider. To admit the possibility that I'm wrong. To listen to what one has to say - even if it's the hundredth time I've heard those exact same arguments and could refute them in my sleep.

The fact that I've done my research and reached my conclusion before you, personally, arrived on the scene does not make me closed-minded; it makes you late to the party.

And even then, if you're able to provide new arguments, new evidence, some sort of proof to your claims, that overbalances the weight of evidence against you, I'll happily change my mind. I'll stand up and proclaim that I was wrong, and you were right. I'm not saying I'll do this immediately - I am, after all, a skeptic. But I'll look into your claims, view your evidence, and if the evidence winds up being in your favour - well, heck. That's what evidence is for.

I fail to see where in this I can justly be accused of closed-mindedness. In fact, it seems to me that the majority of the time I'm told I need to be more open-minded, it's for one reason, and one reason alone; I have disagreed with what someone has to say. Because I'm unwilling to uncritically accept what this person believes, I must be closed-minded. I say again: I disagree. As far as I'm concerned, there's a better word than closed-minded for someone who accepts claims at face value without looking at the evidence.

Gullible.

On Indoctrination

Part of this post is inspired by my continuing journey from 'weak' atheism to 'strong' atheism, which is continuing apace as I attempt to logically justify the things I've come to believe. This will be the subject of another post, to come probably sooner rather than later.

It's a fairly standard line in the skeptical community: indoctrination is bad. We give religious communities all kinds of flak for indoctrinating their children, and for good reasons, given that in the absence of evidence, or even logical sense, indoctrination is the only way that religion continues to survive.

But of course, we try to be as intellectually honest as we can, and we try to avoid double standards, and so we hold ourselves to the same expectations. I see many posts by atheist parents who talk about how their children we allowed the benefit of a choice, who were given all the information, and who have, far more often than not, chosen non-belief. All this is, of course, fantastic.

Recently, however, I've been wondering if 'indoctrination' is a word that applies to the teaching of atheism to children. It is, logically and scientifically, the standpoint that's most likely to be true - and I do realize that the religious will say the same thing about their viewpoint, but please bear with me.

I now see the non-existence of god as a fact - I cannot justify this, but it's how I think. Given that, how is the teaching of atheism to my child indoctrination? I also intend to teach him/her that the sun is fusing hydrogen into helium, that evolution is true, and that physical activity is good for you. None of these things are viewed as indoctrination - because they're all simply, indisputably, true. It's not indoctrination to pass on facts.

And lately, as far as I'm concerned, the fact is that god does not exist.

This is, I realize, a risky position for me to hold. I cannot fully justify this belief. But at the same time, I cannot fully justify my believe that centaurs do not, and never have, existed. It's the outright, worldwide lack of evidence for centaurs, along with the physiological improbability of them, that causes my belief that they do not exist - and the same is true of god. There is not, nor has there ever been, a speck of credible evidence for god, and his existence would flatly contradict our entire knowledge of physics. He is, to put it shortly, so unlikely to actually exist that the probability is a number indistinguishable from zero.

The gist of all this is that I plan to teach my child that he or she is growing up surrounded by people who believe a myth, as well as all the various reasons why they believe it. I intend to teach the non-existence of god with the same certainty as I will teach mathematics, physics, chemistry - and so on. As simple fact. And I do not consider this indoctrination.

I'm still working through the implications of this. It's true that I'm setting myself up in a double standard - the religious consider the existence of god to be a fact in this exact same way, and I still think of that as indoctrination. The rising tide of atheism belies this point of view, however. Their certainty is based on myth and faith. Ours is based on science, evidence, and logic. It is, in short, a defensible position, where theirs is not, and it shows in the reams of people abandoning the church.

This is not to say that, should my child ultimately reject this point of view and become some kind of religious fundamentalist, I would abandon them. They are, as ever, free to choose, and I do intend to present all points of view. But I intend to also teach that one point of view is fact, and the rest are myth. Should my child turn his/her back on science and embrace religious fundamentalism, it would undoubtedly cause strain on the relationship, but I would not turn my back. I do, however, consider this outcome highly unlikely, for the reasons listed above. A mind trained to accept reality as it is, and to evaluate facts and claims based on evidence, is unlikely to start to accept fairy tales on faith.

I'm eager for feedback on this. Am I committing a fallacy? Would I be doing my child a disservice? Or would I merely be teaching the ability to see reality as it actually is, without unneeded religious filters? I think it's the best way to go, but outside perspective on my ideas is something that, as a free-thinking individual, I crave. Anyone?

So it's been a while.

I haven't been active, at all, for a period of a couple of months now. This is primarily because I've been working like a mad person, putting in a lot of overtime, in order to get my financial situation back in better order. The urgency of this has passed, somewhat, though I continue to put in hours trying to get out of where I am now, and into the field I -want- to be in. Which will, if I'm successful, eat up even more of my time, but I hope I can make it work.

Also, my internet connectivity went through a period where it did not, for most intents and purposes, exist at all.

These problems have abated somewhat, and so I make my triumphant return. I've been busy, but it's been interesting as well; I work with a guy who's one of the more devoted Christians I've ever personally met, as well as a woman who is deeply pagan, with a touch of conspiracy theorist, and the discussions have been interesting. Combined with that, one of Greta Christina's latest offerings has re-inspired me; it may not seem like it at times, but we're having an effect. It's working - and everyone who contributes their voice to the atheist effort adds impact to that.

My collection of atheist swag is increasing rapidly, and shortly I'll likely have a nice tattoo.

But for now, the idea for my next post is already half-written in my head, and I'm rather proud of it. So why don't I hop to it?