Growing Pains & Labels

| Tue 21 Aug 2012 | 30 Comments | 4410 Views

Author Emily Dietle

My focus is on state-church separation & social issues. I'm an avid reader, and feel that one of our most valuable tools is the free movement of information and ideas. | @emilyhasbooks

The atheist movement is experiencing growing pains. Blogger extraordinaire Ashley F. Miller has written a post addressing Jennifer McCreight’s newly coined ‘Atheism Plus‘ which opens:

I am an atheist.  I am also a humanist.  Being a humanist is actually far more important to my worldview than being an atheist is.  In fact, the reason I care about religion and atheism is because I am a humanist.

In my opinion, organized religion is responsible for many evils in the world, a lot of which come down to human nature and the nature of large organizations, but many of which are made far worse by the nature of religion itself.

I support gay rights, I am a feminist, I am against the drug war, I am for social support systems and changing the way the world treats the poor — all of these things I am because I live my life from a humanist perspective.  Imperfectly, no doubt, but that is where I am coming from.

All of this could not apply more accurately to myself. The similarities split at the next paragraph though, where Ashley states, “And yet, if asked how I define myself, I say atheist rather than humanist.” While I use both terms regularly, atheism doesn’t completely ‘cut it’ for me. This lack of god(s)-belief is only one facet of my life, and though I strive to fight inequalities around it, atheism cannot -by definition*- address issues of social/racial/LGBT/gender inequalities. Be yourself, define yourself, and address the issues that you choose.

The new term, Atheism Plus, has surfaced because many mere atheists are wanting to direct their activism to encompass issues broader than SOCAS, and because we are looking to form an inclusive and welcoming community forall atheists, including some very important social equality issues that I fully embrace. While this is a very positive growth and one that I’m please to see, such a movement is better defined as Secular Humanism, or even Atheist Humanism- and when it comes to making great change, why re-invent the wheel?

Whether a new dawn brings Atheism Plus, Atheist Humanism, A++ or any other new term- we are each complex and unique individuals and we can have many labels. Two that I apply to myself are atheist and secular humanist, though frequently simply say humanist, as it gives me an opportunity to open up dialogues with mainstream religious persons. Let’s just be sure that no matter what labels we apply to ourselves, we don’t let them get in the way of working with each other to create an inclusive, safe, and welcoming community.


UPDATE:

As you could fairly infer from this post, when I heard of the proposal for Atheism+ I was entirely turned off by the idea. This was accurate until reading Rebecca‘s take on the issue.

This fits in with what my ideal scenario would be: leave atheism alone and work on fixing humanism, because it’s actually already in pretty good shape. Unlike atheism, it already has many organizations working on social justice issues … And unlike atheism, that social justice goal is already built into the accepted definition and scope of humanism. So it would be nice, I think, if we could work on kicking the assholes out of humanism and helping the humanists march forward on all these issues we find important.

But hey, if wishes and buts were clusters of nuts, we’d all have a bowl of granola. Atheism currently has a bigger audience than the humanists, and A+ is catchy and fun and has people excited. … Humanism won’t die out, and A+ could become a handy bridge for atheists to cross over and start doing something positive with their philosophical outlook. What more could I ask for?

If atheism+ only means “I’m an atheist, plus I do all this other great stuff like humanism, feminism, social work, etc.” and it acts as a device to motivate people out of their apathy, then that’s fantastic, and an idea that I’ll support. From the posts that I’ve seen, even from Jennifer, the initiator, the core of atheism+ is equivalent to this. Note the following from @jennifurret’s latest:

This new wave of atheism isn’t about declaring “We’ve already achieved something better” or “We’re not like those assholes.” You don’t just get your shiny membership pin and get to say you’re done. This is about saying “We want to work TOWARDS something better.” We need to recognize that there’s still room for self-improvement and to address the root of why we’ve been having these problems in atheism and skepticism. We need to focus on actual change instead of prematurely crowning ourselves victorious.

Though I don’t foresee myself using the a+ label, or wearing a+ paraphanalia, I wouldn’t mark it out as an option, if atheism+ is developing into something positive, and non-divisive. Now, if it doesn’t progress into simply being a rallying banner, and is going to represent and exclusionary club, I’m not in*. I would be far more comfortable continuing to profess the vebose: atheist, humanist, feminist, skeptic, liberal, etc etc etc..

So, in conclusion, I’ll repeat, let us just be sure that no matter what labels we apply to ourselves, we don’t let them get in the way of working with each other to create an inclusive, safe, and welcoming community.

 

*Words have meaning, and that’s exactly why this wonderful conversation is forming amongst atheists right now, and why we should continue the dialogue to figure it all out.

*Don’t worry, Richard, I still like you.

«
»
  • Data Jack

    Interesting take. I have been meaning to discuss this with you. Still would love to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=639378446 Bridget Gaudette

    I couldn’t agree more.

  • Dark Arckana

    Great to see that the Atheist community is evolving in the right direction. As a Humanist, Hard Polytheist and Pyyrhonian Skeptic, I have been immersed in a similar subcultures, belonging predominantly to nature-based Paganism. I think the real challenge that Atheists face is not learning to think for themselves, but being given the illusion that they are “freethinkers” just for identifying with the culture (ironic). From what I’ve seen, outspoken Atheists parrot a lot of what they hear from other atheists, without really bothering to think about what those words mean. Let’s face it, despite the definition, non-spiritual Atheists do have a set of stereotypes and they’re all-too-true. It brings up questions as to whether this “Atheist Plus” movement is just going to be another variety of things to parrot or if it’s actually going to address the real problem with the Atheist movement — Herd Mentality.

  • Hasnain Ali Raza

    Atheism is just lack of believe in god or goddess etc but humanism is real way of life..

  • http://www.facebook.com/theslydog Sly Cotto

    After feeling compelled to apologize on behalf of my fellows for their abhorrent behavior on blogs, comments, etc, it occurred to me that another label is not what we need.
    You’re right… “secular humanist” is how I define my “social-self”… “Athiest” is my view on religion.

    I think the problem we see stems from a simple lack of empathy and respect throughout our whole society.

    It’s sad because we men should know better.

    • Dark Arckana

      I stand by my position that the problem resides in not thinking. For example: “‘Athiest’ is my view on religion” Atheism is a stance on theism, which is not synonymous with religion. Religion requires a culture that collectively accepts the same range of beliefs. There are Atheist religions, Atheist sects of Theist Religions (such as Atheist Hinduism and Atheist Judaism) and Theism that is not religious (such Alan Moore’s worship of the Snake God “Glycon”, a belief in that he alone has and even nonchalantly admits is a hoax).

  • http://www.facebook.com/mgafm Ashley F. Miller

    Yes, I see it as you do, as a question of being able to label yourself as you choose in ways that are meaningful to yourself, while acknowledging that people of different labels are people you’ll want and need to work with. I have been surprised at the vitriol aimed at it.

    Also, I’m extraordinaire? Holy shit!

    • http://emilyhasbooks.com/ Emily Dietle

      My hope is that we can all begin a thoughtful approach to form a healthy and open dialogue to this topic….and yes, you’re fabulous (even when we disagree).

    • http://emilyhasbooks.com/ Emily Dietle

      My concern with #atheismplus is that I see no movement to encourage cooperation, even when we disagree on things. That’s needed, not a new label.

      • Ashley F. Miller

        I share the concern, but also think the idea is still emerging and being nailed down, so it’s hard to point to things it’s not doing. What I really don’t understand is why many humanists are making a point of being angry and mean about it instead of being “Oh, awesome, that’s totally what we want to do too, let’s be friends”.

        You’re also fab :)

  • http://twitter.com/stealthbadger StealthBadger

    Yes. the labels are less important than what we do.

  • http://twitter.com/Troythulu Troythulu

    I’ve always had problems with using labels–I don’t define myself by my non-theism, and prefer not to label myself too narrowly when I can avoid it.

    Sometimes labels are useful catch terms but they often carry the wrong connotations and lead to misunderstandings by others when first meeting them, in person or online.

  • http://twitter.com/MelianDialogue Rob

    Completely agreed. I think the Atheist Plus idea is very poorly thought out. I was a bit shocked when I read the bit about how feminism, LGBT rights, etc are “logical consequences of atheism.” That’s absurd on its face. The only logical consequence of atheism is being an atheist. You cannot determine anything else about a person’s beliefs other than that they do not believe in a god. Hell, you can’t even necessarily determine whether someone is a secularist or not.

    I hate going down the communist route here, but I would say a brief look at history would easily disprove the notion that LGBT rights and feminism and all of these other quite good beliefs will flow naturally once people become atheists. Bigotry of all types can, does, and has flourished among atheists. I believe this is a bad thing, but I also believe that trying to shoehorn all of our beliefs under the ‘atheist’ umbrella is a mistake.

    It’s just really bad PR and packaging for a variety of social justice issues. There are already movements that support these things. If you believe in LGBT rights, feminism, ending the drug war, or what have you, then go support those causes. Don’t just slap an addition sign to the side of atheism and ask people if they’re interested in purchasing the deluxe package.

    I can only speak for myself here, but my atheism is totally unrelated to my support of various civil liberty causes. I’ll quite happily work with anyone who supports the same things I do, regardless of whatever their stance on the whole god issue is.

  • http://www.atheistrev.com/ vjack

    Yes, I’ve never seen anything wrong with secular humanism for those who want to embrace it. It seems to me that atheists involving themselves in all sorts of causes is a good thing that does not need to be attached to a new label.

    I’m also of the opinion that some of those behind the new label might be interested in having something like a litmus test. I think this is potentially quite divisive and should be avoided.

  • http://miriammogilevsky.wordpress.com Miriam Mogilevsky

    I don’t really see the need to cooperate with the sorts of people who send rape threats to Rebecca Watson and who publish Surly Amy’s home address on MRA sites.

  • Brian Engler

    Most, if not all, of us seem to agree that labels are less important than actions. Nonetheless, labels are handy and, if worn on a t-shirt, button or the like, are visible shortcuts that let others get some sort of feel for our world view—or at least some important part of it. The impact depends, of course, on familiarity with labels and symbols. Someone wearing a cross is likely to be a Christian—all of us understand that—and if it’s a crucifix instead, we realize that a particular form of Christianity is intended. Many in our community (and I intend the word “community” to be writ large—I understand that most likely no two of us conform precisely to any given set of communal norms, but for the sake of this comment I’m referring to the community principally made up of non-religious individuals who read blogs like this one, who consider ourselves to be critical thinkers, and probably skeptics and secular humanists, and who have a lot of confidence in the scientific method as well as an abiding and active interest in social justice causes, feminist and LGBT prominent among them) wear the ubiquitous “A” pin and most if not all of us are aware of what it represents. Fine, I agree and as an out-atheist I wear mine from time-to-time. But more often I wear organizational symbols that I think more fully represent my world view—for example my AHA pin since I’m a secular humanist; my NCSE pin since I support real and robust science education particularly in the cases of evolution and climate change; my JREF Pigasus since I support critical thinking in all things; my MAAF pin, since I’m a retired naval officer and I’m very concerned that non-theists in the armed services are being denied freedom of religion; and, most of the time, my CFI pin since I very strongly and actively support the “secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values” that encompasses so much of what they and I work towards. Now I could wear all these symbols together, but that isn’t generally practical. I could, and do now, wear the organizational symbol that most closely represents my world view or that is most pertinent to whatever project I happen to be involved in—but if it doesn’t encompass an “A” it isn’t obvious that the foundation of my activism in all the areas I’ve addressed above is my non-belief in a supernatural higher power and a respectable amount of disdain for religion in general. Here’s where I find the Atheism Plus or “A+” idea intriguing. To me that label and symbol very recognizably and efficiently expresses my confidence that there are no gods, that this life is all we have, that we are an integral and entirely natural part of this universe, and—most importantly—that I don’t just stop there. I use my atheism as a basis for my secular humanism and for my activism in as many scientific, educational and social issues as I can. Can I do everything? Of course not. Nor do I have the knowledge, or frankly the interest, to get involved in every social justice issue extant. I do what I can and I encourage others to do what they can, and I recognize their right to their own opinions and pursuits as long as they don’t trespass on mine. The “Plus” part of A+ doesn’t and shouldn’t imply a particular set of issues that everyone needs to subscribe to. I reject the concept of religions and that would be too similar to one. The “Plus” just means that there is more to our world view than solely a rejection of god(s), and I like the idea that by expanding upon the “A” symbol we can project a fairly wide array of social stances in this succinct and recognizable way.

  • Martin S Pribble

    I think it’s about time people talked about the movements moving forward. Any movement must move forward or it gets stuck in the past. As for formalising it under a banner? Well to that I say “good luck”, and will support those people in these movements that I deem deserve it. #atheism is a hashtag I use on twitter a LOT, but that’s because I find that my feed is mostly comprised of people who share an interest in the implications of religion on the rest of the world. I am an atheist, but dislike the tag capital “A” Atheism.

    If it’s a label people need, then go for it. Use it as a fresh start. Use it as a springboard for great things. Us it for whatever you need it to be. I am a (lowercase) secular humanist, in that I want to see a world of equality for all human beings in a non-religious pretext. Likewise I am a (lowercase) “feminist” in that I see the biggest inequality that affects all of humanity is one of gender issues.

    I support change, but to me, another label is just another label. Good luck A+.

    • Dave

      I think I’ll adopt the lower case now you mention it. I’ve only been using upper case through some sort of assumed convention. Time to cast that one aside and start leaving the shift key on it’s own more.

  • Adrian Bailey

    I’m a bit more chilled about A+ than I was yesterday. :) Although it would be helpful in some ways if humanists got together under the same banner, there are legitimate reasons why some people don’t want to call themselves a humanist or be a member of a humanist organisation, and I respect that.
    I do agree that it sounds odd to define oneself as an atheist, since being an atheist says nothing about me whatsoever, but in the US it’s quite a political statement to come out as an atheist, so it makes sense in that context.

  • Dave

    Atheism, for me, only remains a subsidiary of Secular Humanism. Atheism is important to religions, but Secular Humanism should be more important to Atheists. There is no doubt that there are Atheists who are discovering Secular Humanism through Atheism; and there is no doubt that there are Atheists who are frustrated by the contrary nature of those Atheists who critique the negative implications of dogma and bias within religion then almost extol and revel in dogma and prejudice outside of the Atheist disclosure. Atheism Plus seems to be a good idea for those atheists who are wanting an ‘in’ to Secular Humanism; although Atheism Plus, as it stands, appears to be limited mainly to Atheists within certain networks. The notion of a ‘third wave’ seems less provocative in light of this. Nevertheless, any increase in the strength and depth of Secular Humanism will allow the Atheist movement to engage religious prejudices with decreasing duplicity.

  • Pingback: What’s in a name? Quite a lot, actually. | Lousy Canuck

  • Reason_Being

    Great post Emily. I agree with all of the social justice issues that I have seen the atheism+ “founders” advocate. I also agree with your last sentence, ” Let’s just be sure that no matter what labels we apply to ourselves we don’t let them get in the way of working with each other to create an inclusive, safe, and welcoming community.” However, I am having a hard time squaring that, which I very much support, with Richard Carrier’s blog/rhetoric—particularly in his comment’s section. I will not sign on to the A+ movement with that type of language being used, even though I agree with all of their other principles.

    The language he uses is far too divisive for anything that I want to be a part of. I will continue to support all of those causes in the same way I do now, by blogging, volunteering my time, and donating money, even that that means Carrier thinks I am “douchebag” and “CHUD” or am part of to use his term “atheism less”.

  • http://twitter.com/FabianWertek TheWordShaker

    You cannot rally around Atheism Plus for the same reasons you cannot rally around atheism itself: It is a lack of something. That is not a feature. It’s like opening a club that’s called “Yahoo, we don’t have a third arm”.
    So opening up this Atheism Plus thing just detracts from the momentum of the real causes: Atheism Plus Feminism, for example, just tabs the atheistic undermovement of feminism, and subdivides them into a smaller splinter group.
    Those will be less effective – and even if they don’t take time away from “real” feminist activism, they are – at best – useless.
    From a strategic point of view, arguing and fighting for these unnecessary subgroups, that have no decernable, usefull purpose, is an unwise wasting of recources.
    You already have two labels. You don’t need to “consolidate” your multiple labels into a new one.

    • GordonWillis

      “So opening up this Atheism Plus thing just detracts from the momentum of the real causes: Atheism Plus Feminism, for example, just tabs the atheistic undermovement of feminism, and subdivides them into a smaller splinter group.”

      Well, I don’t think that’s quite right, WorldShaker. The question people need to ask themselves is, “what *are* the real causes?”. I think that the new atheist community has formed because, as I said above, people have discovered that it gives them the courage to stand up for their beliefs without feeling that they are alone. And so it’s inevitable that they should associate their concerns for such things as social justice with atheism, especially as, if they come from a community which is prejudiced against atheists, social justice is already an issue. And it does often happen that the more conservative religious communities are hotbeds of hatred against LGBT people, black people, and are pretty bad in their attitudes towards women. So these things tend to come together. I’m talking about how people gravitate towards a community because of their personal experiences, and how they bring their beliefs and concomitant experiences with them.

      As to “splinter groups”, new atheism is more of a conversation than a coherent movement, but in any case I think that in practice people will go where they feel most comfortable. In the end, it is the values we espouse that will matter, not the labels we happen to prefer. Where people agree in their values they will be able to work together. What they call themselves is of no general importance.

  • http://twitter.com/_7654_ _7654_

    Thanks, i think you are helping to shape and form my opinion here.

  • GordonWillis

    I have no problem with Richard Carrier’s uncompromising way of putting things. There are core values which cannot be compromised. Remembering what those core values are should be sufficient to enable one to grasp that he is not being a bully or dictatorial: he’s just expressing the logical consequence of accepting or rejecting the core values, and it really is a case of being in or out. You can’t fudge reason or compassion or integrity. I think that people who see Carrier as bullying associate strong words with bullying or being “told off”, but that is merely a personal reaction which ought to be examined.

    I know that it is odd that atheism for many people seems to imply as some sort of logical consequence the values of secular humanism: it is back-to-front. But it is only the result of people who are already inclined towards the core values finding that the new atheism has given them the courage to break out of the strait-jacket of their community cultures and stand against what they see as inimical to human well-being. So it’s natural that they should regard atheism as the first principle, even though it’s in fact a consequence. I don’t think it makes any difference in practice. On the other hand, I can see why so many atheists wish to stress atheism as fundamental to their perspective.

    Rebecca makes a strong point about fixing humanism, but if you think about it, “fixing” a social movement that embraces people of very different views about the nature of humanity is a horrendous task, and will inevitably lead to battle-lines and conflict over a label. For example, religious and atheist humanists will inevitably conflict whenever the religious agenda takes precedence over what atheists see as basic human rights: in fact, from an atheist perspective, religious humanism is self-contradictory. As it turns out, Rebecca is the person around whom contention crystalised within the atheist community, exposing a mess of unreasonable and uncompassionate and dishonest attitudes, and causing atheists to consider more carefully what they stood for.

    A+ is the present outcome. It seems to me to be inevitable. The fact that it coincides in its principles with atheist humanism is not really a problem, because in practice it contributes voices to the essential cause, and by drawing attention to the core values may go a long way towards “fixing” humanism.

    • Pitchguest

      The problem with the “new new movement” is that leaders of the FTB community makes it out to be nothing more than a safe place for atheists to discuss without fear of persecution, when it’s not. If Atheism+ is just going to be a safe haven for people — atheists — who wishes to discuss things without much disagreement, if at all, then that’s fine. They’ve created a forum now, and if Atheism+ is simply going to be that forum, then I’m all for it. That’s their right, their prerogative.

      However, this has been touted as a “third wave of atheism.” From the “second wave” of the Dawkins’, the Hitchens’, the Dennets’ and so on. Where do they get the idea that Atheism+ is just a “safe haven”, for atheists, that you can join “if you want to”, if they’re going to dismiss the former “second wave” as misogynist, sexist, racist, ableist and the like? It just doesn’t follow. If they’re going to conflate atheism with other concerns and seemingly build this homogenous group, and claim it’s voluntary, don’t bog it down with double-think.

  • http://twitter.com/TominousTone Thomas Lawson

    When I first heard about Atheism+, I was immediately happy about it, because I knew I didn’t have to do anything. Kind of like when the bank sent me a credit card with a new feature on it that had the potential to be useful…or not. But time would tell.

    A person might refer to hirself as an Atheist+ now, but at the start I saw it as a reaffirming of the platform, not a new label. It was a euphemism to describe (not label) all the things Greta Christina listed in her book “Why Are You Atheists So Angry?” It seemed to click. When I read Greta’s book I realized it didn’t really have much to do with atheism, but then I thought, well, when you reject dogma there are things you’re allowed to think about and decide how you feel about them. The dogma handed down by the Bible contains so many rules about whom your enemies are, what kind of science you can accept (math, physics, etc., but biology is iffy), and what kinds of food you can eat, that atheism does tend to free you up to start accepting everything that was previously forbidden. So atheism has never been just about gods. Atheism has been about the the dogma of gods. No one rejects god, they reject the dogma, and that rejection used to be “infidelity,” or “heathenry,” but “atheism” was the descriptor that caught on. And here we are in 2012, and “atheism” still means more than the rejection of god.

    I never saw atheism+ as a new label and felt immediately that it was not a new Brights movement. Not a rebranding. It was just an explanation. It was an answer to that age-old, two-fold question: “You’re an atheist? What DO you believe in then?”

    Jen McCreight should have remembered the angry blog postings and comments when Alain de Botton suggested “Atheism 2.0,” and perhaps anticipated a backlash, but oops.

    Above all, I think it would have been a disservice to us all if Jen had not put a name on this trajectory, but it definitely would have kept people from freaking out. Catch-22. I guess there have been two previous periods of enlightenment in America, but if it’s not too late perhaps we can just call this new wave DEFCON 2? I don’t think you can mistake that for a label.

  • DavidByron

    It’s not a group of atheists but a group of feminists of the most anti-male / man hating kind. It’s basically another elevatorgate. Another attempt to cause a lot of fuss and spread the idea that men are evil somehow. They are trying to impose their ideas about men on the atheist / skeptic movement.

  • disapointed

    I liked the idea of Atheism+ so much, I signed up.

    What I found was a forum so politically correct that it was not politically correct to say politically correct.

    Atheism+ is clearly for hypersensitive atheists who miss the feeling of moral indignation theists get by marking things as blasphemous.

    Atheism+ is atheism + sacred cows + ideological purity through lingual fascism.

    Loved the concept. Hated the execution. Please direct me to a group that actually embodies what is stated on the Atheism+ home page and FAQ

Tags: , , , , ,

Category: Atheism & Religion