I often have people tell me that I shouldn’t label myself as an “atheist” because atheism is lack of belief in God and I should be focusing on things I believe rather than things I don’t. The argument usually goes something like this:
“You don’t golf, would you start a group for non-golfers? Of course not! There are groups for golfers but it would be ridiculous to start a group for non-golfers! So you shouldn’t be creating a community centered around something you’re not, you should focus on the things you ARE.”
On the surface this might seem like a valid argument. It’s true that atheism is no more than a lack of belief in God, so should we be focusing on a community built around non-belief? Let’s continue with the golfer metaphor. Let’s say that one day, golf legend Arnold Palmer looked around him and thought, “I love golf, it enriches my life and brings me purpose. The world would be a better place if all people were golfers like me.”
And so, clever Arnold sent out an email to all his golfing contemporaries. He outlined his vision for world domination of golf. And together, they drafted an idea for legislation giving preferential treatment to golfers in the private sector, including exclusion from paying taxes. The golfers also wanted other special considerations. For example, they have holidays that celebrate the golf ball and the invention of the tee and they shouldn’t have to go into work on those days because those are sacred golf days.
Later, they host a big fundraiser and then they get a lobbyist to push their ideas through the political process and they win! Over time, they get most of what they want. Even though golfers are a small percentage of the world population, they have now positioned themselves as a preferred group. And all the golfers rejoice!
As the golfers gain influence, they become disgusted by the way non-golfers dress. These golfing heathens don’t ever wear plaid or sweater vests and their shoes don’t even have cleats. It’s appalling! So they use their vast wealth and influence to get more laws passed requiring everyone to wear golfing attire. And while they’re at it, they want to make sure people are set on the right path early so they create physical education curriculum that only includes activities that would favor golf. From now on, kids will learn no other sport but golf.
But what about the non-golfers? The people who think, “I’m ok with those guys going out on the green on a Saturday and playing golf, but I don’t like golf, it’s boring and the rules seem arbitrary and the rule book is confusing. Also, their songs are atrocious. It doesn’t seem fair that I have to follow this stupid dress code and pretend to like golf just to be sure I don’t get passed up for a promotion”
What is a non-golfer to do? So they start a non-golfing group and they call themselves the non-golfers and soon, everyone who doesn’t want to golf is called a non-golfer. Some non-golfers want to focus on the problems with golf curriculum in schools and others want to help oppressed non-golfers in places like Florida where the golfers have a stronghold. Some hold rallies and announce publicly that they don’t like golf.
They might even start a website and a Facebook page and start writing and conversing about the issues related to being non-golfers in a world of loudmouthed golfers.
Atheism should indeed be the de facto status. It should not require a label, or organizations or movements. Religion, gods, holy books, etc. are all things added. But the dominance of religion in the public sphere and the pressure religious individuals and organizations put on governments, the legal system and educational institutions, necessitates the creation of communities for advocacy, support and education. When the concept of god is used in a variety of ways to promote a religious agenda, then our lack of belief becomes more than disbelief – it becomes a path for people to find each other and a connection point for shared values.
Many members of the Atheist community are looking for effective ways to stand together in a fight against the oppression that has come on the heels of the spread of religion. For example, some have found that when it is safe, announcing their atheism publicly or to a handful of friends and family can do wonders. Many theists are surprised by how many atheists they know personally, or even by how many are in their own immediate family. This might not change their religious beliefs, but for many, it can make them more accepting of atheists.
Atheism itself is nothing more than non-belief, but the Atheist community stands for more. Our atheism is merely the starting point that brings us together. Not all atheists will agree with all our values and goals. Being an atheist doesn’t mean that you necessarily care about worldwide theocratic injustices or the spread of superstition and religious oppression. But I have discovered that many atheists do, and I see value in bringing these people together.
The day would come when the Non-Golfers of the World were confronted by an interesting situation:
There were the classic Golf Hegemony fellows… but there was also a brand new branch of Golfers…
they opposed Golfing in the great big 18 hole courses. They favored a new version of Golf, where they had to agree that Golfing should be done in one’s backyard on a much smaller scale… and that part of the rules was to get other Big Golfers to golf in their yards.
Would your Non-Golfers throw a fire bomb through the window of a Back Yard Golf meeting?.. because it’s still golf? Or would the Non-Golfers pay a little deference to the Back Yard golfers? … for being more reasonable, and less determined to dominate the world with Golf?
This is my analogy… where Big Golf Hegemonists are YECs… and the Backyard Golfers, who have a minimal affect on the community around them are Theistic Evolutionists. I think you would avoid fire-bombing the backyard golfers.
And should the odd day come when you want to fire-bomb them… remember, they are just backyard golfers… it’s the Big Golfer zealots that worry you…
Sort of, “walk softly but carry a big 9 iron, just don’t swing it at anyone’s head” advice? : ) Non-golfers who wish to persuade with reason would do well to try to build their arguments from the valid rules and principles of golf, or their efforts often end up as a mulligan. Some folks might find out it’s actually the ham versions of mini-golf they’re offended by. And, it does no good for either side to be teed off all the time. That’s my chip shot, anyway… Cheers!
I get your point, but would never fire bomb anyone. Very non-violence. Speak out yes, violence no. In you analogy about I would help Backyard Golfers to put in a swimming pool in the backyard and have their kids take up swimming never to be exposed to Golf.
Okay, I accept the amendment of your options. However, I am puzzled?
There are Big Golf hegemonists out there to oppose… would you really take time out of your schedule to try to block “Back Yard Golfers” … all the while the Big Golf hegemonists are ruining the world with their un-opposed activities?
It seems counter-productive to me. The Back Yard golfers, while tarrying with a sport you oppose, are at least out there recruiting Big Golfers from their “Big Madness”.
Every hour you spend trying to reform Back Yard golfers is time lost reforming/opposing the Golf Hegemonists… and one less family who might help you in your efforts against the Golf Hegemonists.
Your absolutely right, there are a lot of Big Fish to go after and I do. I do spend most of my time going again the Big Fish. But as I said before, the little fish here (Dr. Swamidass is still a little fish, hopefully someday be a big Fish) caught the attention of the really Big Fish on our side, - Dawkins, Coyne, Krause, FFRF. I think they lump Dr. Swamidass with Biologos and Venema and Buggs. The whole Venema, Buggs, Swamidass, plus ID through EN caught their attention. I volunteered to check it out and that is what I did. This may be a small pond with little fish, but I find it very nice, the water is at a nice temperature, Dr. Swamidass is a real professional. and there is no hall monitor Brad Kramer checking hall passes treating detention for saying hell or damn.
It really isn’t relevant how Dawkins would lump @swamidass.
I’m trying to discuss the point with you, because you are the one who is here. And, in fact, you can also lump them all together in terms of a generic category. But if you treat the @swamidass school the same as you would treat the Buggs school - - that seems ill-considered.
There is an obvious difference … and a difference that I think even the most practical/pragmatic Atheist would recognize is to his/her advantage.
So… in terms of your original analogy… it would be practical to forget about convincing @swamidass to drop golf all together and build a pool, when @swamidass can help dissuade Big Golfers from taking over the world with their giant golf courses.
Well that is kind of you @Patrick. Anytime they want to talk, I’m happy to do so, though, I am a small fish .
And, from their point of view, I am best lumped with BioLogos (not ID, YEC, or OEC). Though, I’m glad you see me as better behaved: Forum Disclaimer.
Well, if it is that I play golf, I’d say that I play it in a different way than the crowds that have give you all trouble. Even though you do not like golf, you’d benefit from advancing me, as I might be able to convince golfers to play in a less troublesome way.
Once again very kind of you.
As I’ve said, I’m interested in building bridges with everyone, including the atheist community. If you have ideas @Patrick, let me know.
@swamidass, this is exactly how I couch the alternatives in my post(s) above.
@Patrick posed an analogy where Fat Cat Golfers want to take over the world with their Big Course golfing… and then along comes someone who wants to encourage “small yard” golfing … with no thought of global combination. [ in a whisper: … Swami, don’t worry … we can take over the world later! - - but with table tennis! ]
That it is not “the de facto status” in the country of any participant on this Forum might give an honest person pause to wonder why even anthropologists on the ‘atheism side’ agree that religion and being religious is an ‘evolutionary human universal’.
Odd to hear an atheist, on a “science affecting Christians” blog, try to make a moral argument for what “ought” to be.
From whence do you get this, apparently, universal moral oughtness?
Or, is it just a personal preference?
Peace, as well.
Fat Cat golfers (Catholic Church, Islamic Theocratic Countries, and the Evangelical right who literally control the Republican Party and the current Trump Administration) already think that they still run the world. They even have a TV network - Fox. YECism is really on the fringe of the social cultural changes that are going on. Ken Ham (and Biologos) is funded in part to kept Christianity in the discussion. Go to Europe, Christianity is on a death spiral in just about every country. Here, in America, we have the Christian right to keep us entertained as secular spread among the young under 35 who have already surpassed the Baby Bombers in number in the workforce. Millennials will be the majority soon as they are the least religious group in history, and the most educated, and the most scientifically literate group. If you want to make headway for science and reason, and against YEC, OEC, and ID, TE is not the way to do it. If you stick to the science and reasoning, young people might or might not embrace TE but they will certainly reject YEC, OEO and ID as they have already done. Advice: drop special de novo created Adam.
It is the whole science community that is watching. And Big Pharma, Big corporation in healthcare, genetic research etc. Do you realize how many billions of dollars have been spend try to clean up the damage that one scientist caused in linking vaccines with autism? Nobody really cares about Ken Ham but when scientists like Snelling, Faulkner, Jeanson, and Lisle start backing him up in the name of science, the science community fires back hard. Do you really think Snelling can even show up at a Geology Conference? How about Faulkner at an Astronomy Conference? The only scientist today who has been able to keep that highest level of scientific standing is Francis Collins. Do you know of any others?
Hopefully me. I know I’m early in the process, but I’m working hard to do this right.
There is also Ian Hutchinson too, who very good at what he does, though he dos not touch on origins. So in the origins debate, you might be right. Though there is also Praveen Sethupathy, who does enter the origins fray.
You are absolutely right. And it is my intention to be an effective ambassador of science to the hard to reach areas of society.
Its not enough to be right. We also have to be trusted, I have a better chance of clarifying Jeanson’s errors to his base than anyone else right now. Root for me on that one.
Yes, there are a handful who tip toe along the line. Always be careful as being used as a pawn in the culture wars. Your scientific credentials and MD can get hijacked to and attached to other people’s statements and misuse of facts. Your say the “preliminary results look promising”. A less scrupulous person or company advertises this as an endorsement backing a product. Then it is found out that the product causes cancer. You are forever attached to the claim and called a quack.
okay, when you find yourself in a dark alley with a bunch of YECs, call me. I have an LED light made of gallium nitrate from a billion year old collision of two neutron stars to shine in their eyes.
Jeanson is no longer doing science. You are, and he can’t. Who is helping more people now and in the future? Ten years from now, how many lives have you improved? Only you (and not Jeanson) have the opportunity to do this by continuing your work in science and medicine.
Once again, you demonstrate your distinctness from the fine Atheists who contribute comments to the BioLogos pages. They can discuss the BioLogos science from a Christian viewpoint, without having to be Christians (which they freely admit they are not).
While you, on the other hand, seem quite challenged by the idea of discussing Theistic Evolution from a Christian viewpoint, even going to the extent of urging @swamidass to drop the very part of his work that makes his work unique and important - - combining de novo Adam/Eve with Evolutionary Common Descent for a larger human population created prior to Adam/Eve.
A person doesn’t go to a Bar Mitzvah and tell the rabbi he is wasting his time.
Then please, for the love of God, open up to Catholics and Orthodox instead of mainly evangelical Protestants, who almost always come first in your names. There are so many good Catholic high level scientists yet Joshua for some reason can’t name one.
To come up with only 2 names answering an atheist about ‘high level’ Christian scientists is abysmally thin. Sure, it’s a short answer format. Yet you should have 10s & 50s ready at hand. There are many more than you seem to think or know, Joshua.
“Go to Europe, Christianity is on a death spiral in just about every country.”
That is a deceptive lie, which I know from first-hand experience of having lived in Europe. It is a convenient blinder atheists in uSA like to throw upon themselves at ignorant evangelicals there who simply don’t know one way or another about it. Why? Because they’ve never visited or been to European countries, or visited during worship hours Christian churches there.
For the evangelical protestant to side with the atheist ahead of the evangelical YECist isn’t a likely formula for success here, just like sympathy with the devil causing resentment. While at the same time it might be Jeanson who has made more of a personal impact on peoples’ live not in science and medicine. There are many routes to heaven, aren’t there Joshua?
.