Does Atheism Need Leaders — and What Does Atheist Leadership Even Mean?

If you want to reply, it probably makes most sense to do so there.

It is when one’s understanding of atheism verges out into other areas of activity and uses Atheism with a capital A as a moniker along the way that I have an issue with. My atheism does not inform my convictions regarding social justice or civil rights or politics. As a matter of fact, my atheism came later than most of the development of my political thought, which, while it continues to evaluate new realities, does not look to atheism for an answer. On the contrary, the way Dawkins has turned my non-belief into his own celebrated cause has informed my thinking on these matters more than atheism itself, which is, in short, that religion and atheism are beside the main point.

To wit: Religious fundamentalists use their leaders’ interpretations of tenets from their books as an excuse to act, often with oppressive and sometimes terrifying consequences. There are those who admit that imperialist oppression fuels the latter, but maintain that “the extremists will be extreme no matter what”. I see it the other way around: The imperialists and their unwitting accomplices would fuel terrorism even if religious extremism were not a thing. Likewise, even if not for the fundamentalist Christian segment in the Americas, Europe, Asia and elsewhere, hatred toward others would continue unabated. I have encountered enough atheist pro-lifers, bigots, racists, and homophobes, for example.

In short, I take the truth of the liberal trope that “they are using religion as an excuse” and place it likewise firmly on the shoulders of the “new atheists”. They are all caught up in red herrings and symptoms.

I realize, of course, that you are not a new atheist and appreciate your effort to steer the conversation in another direction. I also realize that when we are faced with people of influence and authority using their religion as a source of telling us and others what we should and shouldn’t do, that we must respond.

davidly

Greta and Red’s atheism is coincidental to the great work they do. I couldn’t care less if either are atheists.

kontakt @ #3 (and also @ #1): I’m posting a piece tomorrow, responding to the people who have said similar things, explaining what exactly I mean by atheist leadership and why I think it’s valuable. But right now, I have to ask: Do you really think Red Tani’s atheism is “coincidental” to the work he does as founder and president of Filipino Freethinkers? Do you think my atheism is “coincidental” to the work I do as author of Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, Coming Out Atheist, and Comforting Thoughts About Death That Have Nothing to Do with God? I’m not sure what “coincidental” would even mean in this context.

1. I think Tani is right in noting that argumentative, head butting, tactics don’t get us where we want to go. We need to use our much valued critical thinking instead of emotions to fight superstition. Using the word superstition, would, of course piss off the believers, so I really shouldn’t use it in discourse with them.

2. I just came across this article in Scientific American about why believers, or magical thinkers as they put it, hold on to unprovable views so tightly. They use the terms “intuitive” for magical thinking and “reflective” for scientific/rational/critical thinking. Maybe these terms could be used in public discourse. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-come-some-people-believe-in-the-paranormal/

3. Some (many, most?) of us combine intuitive and reflective thinking. I can imagine a fundamentalist farmer who might damn gay marriage with biblical verses but use a lot of science in growing his crops. I suspect that he would snort at the idea that blessing his fertilizer might double his yield.

4. We certainly need leaders and spokespeople. A leader is not a charismatic psychopath (we don’t need those)! A leader is someone who shoulders the load, organizes, addresses envelopes, etc. so the mission is moved forward. A spokesperson is not a PR flack amorally spouting whatever his bosses dictate. A spokes person is someone who can articulate who we are and what we are doing in a way that is understandable to the public (as opposed to the ingroup). A good spokesperson uses critical thinking, good data, and appropriate language to explain our ideas and challenge others in a way that makes them reflect rather than react with hostility.

Having said all that, I suppose Red Tani and others profiled by Greta Christina might be considered leaders of something who also happen to be atheists. But atheist leaders? Nah, the terminology just doesn’t sit well with me and tends to make me want to tune out from whatever it is they are on about, especially if it has something to do with “organized atheism”.