Chicken or Egg on Offense?

My wife and I had an interesting conversation last night about an editorial in our local paper. A book reviewer blasted Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris for being bullies in their writings as they seem to want all people to adopt an anti-religion worldview.

I pointed out that Hitchens and Harris are probably better described as being pro-non-religion in their writings, and that anything perceived as ranting or bullying may likely be attributed to having been provoked.

So which came first? The atheist who feels bullied by the religious, or the religious who feels bullied by the atheist? Who is on offense and who is on defense here?

It's a tricky question. I would submit that particularly in America, there is a social / cultural pressure to be religious. Religion is the norm. So when unfaithful Christians carry on in a manner which is hypocritical and offensive, or when a faithful Christian carries on in a manner which is overly-zealous and socially harmful, the minority group (atheists) are prompted to speak out in opposition. But we all know that any time the minority raises its voice, all sectors of the majority jump at the opportunity to shout them back down. And then the minority is further alienated and given cause for further speaking out. Etc, etc.

So what is the root problem here? Too much certainty and not enough humility.

Anti-Labelist

I have used the word "agnostic" to describe my present thoughts because it is a nice, neat word which adequately sums up my belief that nothing can be known with certainty about the existence of God. However, in general, I'm concerned that labels in this realm of belief/non-belief may not be a great idea. Words like agnostic and atheist have connotations which likely prevent some people from even listening to anything such a person might have to say.

I read an article in the Washington Post which was actually an edited transcript from a talk given at last year's Athiest Alliance conference by Sam Harris. He is a prominent voice in the "atheist" community and argues very well for dumping that label and all similar labels. Harris and apparently this Athiest Alliance are all about a sort of activism, in terms of spreading the good news of disbelief and hoping for a world in which religion fades completely away.

I have no truck with activism at this point. I'm just trying to get my own thoughts straight. But I thought that this article was very interesting and certainly worth the read, though it is long. Here is an excerpt and the link:

I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Read the rest of this article by clicking here to redirect to the Washington Post website: Sam Harris - The Problem with Atheism