Anxious Mo-Fo

An anxious m*********** from Seattle

On whether or not to use the word “atheist”

with 5 comments

Andrew Sullivan received a missive from a reader which reads, in part:

I hesitate to use the “atheist” label not because I’m ashamed of my lack of belief. Instead, I do so because the label has acquired a life of its own out of my control.

For example, many critics of the godless have successfully attached intolerance, amorality, immorality, fundamentalism, dogmatism, as well as evangelism to the simple lack of theistic belief. In fact, many people I otherwise respect quite a bit (ahem) have even served up the canard that those united only by a lack of positive belief in God can be aggregated just as reasonably as those united by an enormous suite of shared positive beliefs. This results in lumping godless people like me together with Stalin or Hitler as surely as it would lump Spanish Inquisitors with modern Catholics. Is it any wonder then that people like me would try to avoid a category that would be used against us in this way?

Sullivan’s anonymous reader does not specify how he she identifies herself, or provide a solution for the problem he or she describes. This is remarkably like the kind of person who refrains from calling herself a liberal because of the (successful) attempts of conservatives to define the word. Regardless of what some might think the word atheist means, I call myself an atheist because the word is unambiguous and accurate. I lack belief in God; I’m not theist; therefore, I’m atheist. An advantage of the word “atheist” is that “a-” prefix: Atheism is not a something; it’s a lack of a something. It is not a creed or dogmatism of its own, but a rejection of a set of creeds and dogmatisms*.

Your neighborhood Christian apologist might think, or at least claim, that because I’m an atheist, I am joyless and arrogant, I’m dogmatic and evangelical, I look down my nose with disdain at benighted, ignorant believers**, and I agree with everything Richard Dawkins says. But that doesn’t mean any of that is true, and, moreover, I like the English language too much to abandon a word as unambiguous and accurate as “atheist” in favor of refraining from self-identification, or an ugly and ambiguous term.

Maybe, if we didn’t call ourselves atheists, religious apologists would somehow not notice that there exist people who don’t believe in God, and refrain from lumping them all together with a convenient label for the purpose of arguing against them. We should imagine them shaking their fists in impotent fury, unable to argue against atheism because those slippery devils used a different word, or no word at all. Or not.

* There are, obviously, atheist dogmatisms, Communism being the worst example.

** Honesty compels me to admit that I do look down my nose with disdain at young earth creationists.

Written by JPP

June 29, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Posted in Atheism

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’ve always been in support of using the label of ‘atheist’, but recently I saw a video of Sam Harris that made me think.

    I haven’t got an opinion yet – I’m still thinking. It’s an interesting point.

    Ubiquitous Che

    June 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm

  2. I think the video is the same talk that I linked to a transcript of in my post. Harris does raise good points. But, to use his analogy with racism, I think that it is important to declare that one is against a particular kind of foolishness, not just foolishness in general: I am a non-racist, and an anti-racist; I am opposed to the spectacular foolishness that is religion as most people practice it. (I have little to argue with Unitarians on; I have little to argue with liberal theologians who whittle God down to something vague like an emergent property of the universe on; among believers in a personal God, my Episcopalian friends are as committed to secular society as I am.)

    To me, it seems more effective to argue against how atheists are described by their opponents, by directly confronting those claims, than to switch terms or to use no terms at all. First, a man in a wheelchair was disabled, then handicapped, then physically challenged, then differently abled – eventually, for all those terms, our mental picture is a man in a wheelchair, and, as time has gone on, the terms used have gone from useful to vague to mushy. Serena Williams is differently abled – she’s spectacularly good at tennis, which is different from the ability of the average person. If we flit from “atheist” to “bright” to something else, our opponents will still manage to describe us.


    June 29, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  3. I’m guilty of not wanting to use the atheist label because of the actions and attitudes of many who claim the term. In retrospect, that was not a good reason to dismiss it.

    I use the agnostic descriptive because I feel more honest doing so. I’m not a theist, but I’m not really a-theist either.


    July 3, 2008 at 4:26 am

  4. Nothing wrong with agnosticism. I called myself an agnostic for a long time.


    July 3, 2008 at 5:31 pm

  5. I dont care if you call yourself a ATHEIST frankly I choose to let others live & let live…


    July 13, 2008 at 9:22 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: