To me, A+ is largely a branding exercise. One of the
movement’s founders, Jen McCreight, has stated as much, saying that the ‘Atheism
Plus’ concept is “fabulous marketing-wise and as a way to identify yourself as
a progressive atheist.” Proponents of A+ are trying to imbue the word ‘atheism’
with connotations in addition to its mere dictionary definition. Some like
Myers actually disdain the idea of a ‘dictionary atheist’, since they see it as
a narrow, limited conception of what atheism should mean.
From a linguistic perspective, this attempt by the A+ crowd
to shoehorn additional meanings into the word ‘atheism’ seems silly; it would
be like trying to make the word ‘teetotaler’ also mean ‘a person who upholds
values like temperance, self-discipline and sobriety’. Sure, these things can
be associated with the word ‘teetotaler’, just as additional
values outside of disbelief in gods can be associated with the word ‘atheist’.
But these extraneous meanings are not, strictly speaking,
implicit in both words. A teetotaler is someone who abstains
from alcohol (for whatever reasons), and an atheist is someone who doesn’t
believe in gods (for whatever reasons), period.
So that’s the linguistic perspective.
However, from a sociopolitical perspective, A+ proponents have a valid reason
for wanting to ‘inflate’ the meaning of the word ‘atheism’ beyond its
dictionary definition. Greta Christina has touched on this reason, which is to destigmatise
the words ‘atheism’ and ‘atheist’ by impressing the progressive values that A+
stands for upon the minds of the general public, and in a sense teach the
public to associate the word ‘atheism/atheist’ with those ethical values. So
while pedants may complain, the practical effect is the gradual reduction of
the negativity currently attached to atheism, at least in highly religious
societies.
Furthermore, from a strategic viewpoint, it makes sense for A+
folks to use the word ‘atheism’ rather than ‘humanism’, even though A+ and secular
humanism share similar values and goals: ‘atheism’ is punchier (aka
controversial), and the emotional response it elicits from both proponents and
opponents makes it a ‘sticky’ word. And as any marketing professional can
attest, a good brand is a sticky brand.
As if there isn’t already a glut of atheist/humanist movements,
we also have Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland writing up a manifesto for what
he calls ‘Ethical Atheism’. Nugent’s preamble below makes the same argument as
PZ Myers did in his blog post: that atheism necessarily entails social and
political consequences.
In real life, atheism means more than mere disbelief in gods, or belief that there are no gods. If you disbelieve in gods, it necessarily follows that you also disbelieve that we get our ideas of truth and morality from gods. This is a significant approach to two central questions about life, in a world where most people believe the opposite.
This is a draft manifesto for ethical atheists who care about both truth and morality, and who want to promote reason, critical thinking and science; atheism over supernaturalism; natural compassion and ethics; inclusive, caring atheist groups; fair and just societies; secular government; and local, national and global solidarity.
Ethical atheism is more useful than dictionary atheism, because it applies the consequences of our atheism to real life. Ethical atheism is more precise than secular humanism, because religious people can be both secular and humanist, and because ethics affects all sentient beings and not just humans.
Despite the different labels being tossed around, one thing
that Michael Nugent, PZ Myers, Ronald Lindsay, Massimo Pigliucci, Jen McCreight, Greta
Christina and other atheists agree on is that regardless of which label we choose to
affiliate with, what matters is our ethical, godless commitment to make this
world a better place for everyone. Let’s keep this in mind whenever we are tempted to denigrate our allies.
30.8.12
No comments:
Post a Comment