Atheists, please read my heathen manifesto

8 posts

Niccolo and Donkey
Atheists, please read my heathen manifesto

Guardian UK

Julian Baggini

March 25, 2012

Atheists protest in Tacoma, Washington

In recent years, we atheists have become more confident and outspoken in articulating and defending our godlessness in the public square. Much has been gained by this. There is now wider awareness of the reasonableness of a naturalist world view, and some of the unjustified deference to religion has been removed, exposing them to much needed critical scrutiny.

Unfortunately, however, in a culture that tends to focus on the widest distinctions, the most extreme positions and the most strident advocates, the "moderate middle" has been sidelined by this debate. There is a perception of unbridgeable polarisation , and a sense that the debates have sunk into a stale impasse, with the same tired old arguments being rehearsed time and again by protagonists who are getting more and more entrenched.

It is time, therefore, for those of us who are tired of the status quo to try to shift the focus of our public discussions of atheism into areas where more progress and genuine dialogue is possible. To achieve this, we need to rethink what atheism stands for and how to present it. The so-called "new atheism" may have put us on the map, but in the public imagination it amounts to little more than a caricature of Richard Dawkins, which is not an accurate representation of the terrain many of us occupy. We now need something else.

This manifesto is an attempt to point towards the next phase of atheism's involvement in public discourse. It is not a list of doctrines that people are asked to sign up to but a set of suggestions to provide a focus for debate and discussion. Nor is it an attempt to accurately describe what all atheists have in common. Rather it is an attempt to prescribe what the best form of atheism should be like.

1 Why we are heathens

It has long been recognised that the term "atheist" has unhelpful connotations. It has too many dark associations and also defines itself negatively, against what it opposes, not what it stands for. "Humanist" is one alternative, but humanists are a subset of atheists who have a formal organisation and set of beliefs many atheists do not share. Whatever the intentions of those who adopt the labels, "rationalist" and "bright" both suffer from sounding too self-satisfied, too confident, implying that others are irrationalists or dim.

If we want an alternative, we should look to other groups who have reclaimed mocking nicknames, such as gays, Methodists and Quakers. We need a name that shows that we do not think too highly of ourselves. This is no trivial point: atheism faces the human condition with honesty, and that requires acknowledging our absurdity, weakness and stupidity, not just our capacity for creativity, intelligence, love and compassion. "Heathen" fulfils this ambition. We are heathens because we have not been saved by God and because in the absence of divine revelation, we are in so many ways deeply unenlightened. The main difference between us and the religious is that we know this to be true of all of us, but they believe it is not true of them.

2 Heathens are naturalists

Heathens are not merely unbelievers: we believe many things too. Most importantly, we believe in naturalism: the natural world is all there is and there is no purposive, conscious agency that created or guides it. This natural world may contain many mysteries and even unseen dimensions, but we have no reason to believe that they are anything like the heavens, spirit worlds and deities that have characterised supernatural religious beliefs over history. Many religious believers deny the "supernatural" label, but unless they are willing to disavow such beliefs as in the reality of a divine person, miracles, resurrections or life after death, they are not naturalists.

3 Our first commitment is to the truth

Although we believe many things about what does and does not exist, these are the conclusions we come to, not the basis of our worldview. That basis is a commitment to see the world as truthfully as we can, using our rational faculties as best we can, based on the best evidence we have. That is where our primary commitment lies, not the conclusions we reach. Hence we are prepared to accept the possibility that we are wrong. It also means that we respect and have much in common with people who come to very different conclusions but have an equal respect for truth, reason and evidence. A heathen has more in common with a sincere, rational, religious truth-seeker than an atheist whose lack of belief is unquestioned, or has become unquestionable.

4 We respect science, not scientism

Heathens place science in high regard, being the most successful means humans have devised to come to a true understanding of the real nature of the world on the basis of reason and evidence. If a belief conflicts with science, then no matter how much we cherish it, science should prevail. That is why the religious beliefs we most oppose are those that defy scientific knowledge, such as young earth creationism.

Nonetheless, this does not make us scientistic. Scientism is the belief that science provides the only means of gaining true knowledge of the world, and that everything has to be understood through the lens of science or not at all. There are scientistic atheists but heathens are not among them. Science is limited in what it can contribute to our understanding of who we are and how we should live because many of the most important facts of human life only emerge at a level of description on which science remains silent. History, for example, may ultimately depend on nothing more than the movements of atoms, but you cannot understand the battle of Hastings by examining interactions of fermions and bosons. Love may depend on nothing more than the physical firing of neurons, but anyone who tries to understand it solely in those terms just does not know what love means.

Science may also make life uncomfortable for us. For example, it may undermine certain beliefs about free will that many atheists have relied on to give dignity and autonomy to our species.
Heathens are therefore properly respectful of science but also mindful of its limits. Science is not our Bible: the last word on everything.

5 We value reason as precious but fragile

Heathens have a commitment to reason that fully acknowledges the limits of reason. Reason is itself a multi-faceted thing that cannot be reduced to pure logic. We use reason whenever we try to form true beliefs on the basis of the clearest thinking, using the best evidence. But reason almost always leaves us short of certain knowledge and very often leaves us with a need to make a judgment in order to come to a conclusion. We also need to accept that human beings are very imperfect users of reason, susceptible to biases, distortions and prejudices that lead even the most intelligent astray. In short, if we understand what reason is and how it works, we have very good reason to doubt those who claim rationality solely for those who accept their worldview and who deny the rationality of those who disagree.

6 We are convinced, not dogmatic

The heathen's modesty about the power of reason and the certainty of her conclusions should not be mistaken for a shoulder-shrugging agnosticism. We have a very high degree of confidence in the truth of our naturalistic worldview. But we do not dogmatically assert it. Being open to being wrong and to changing our minds does not mean we lack conviction that we are right. Strength of belief is not the same as rigidity of dogma.

7 We have no illusions about life as a heathen

Many people do not understand that it is possible to lead a meaningful, happy life as a heathen, but we maintain that it is and can point to any number of atheist philosophers and thinkers who have explained why this is so. But such meaning and contentment does not inevitably follow from becoming a heathen. Ours is a universe without guarantees of redemption or salvation and sometimes people have terrible lives or do terrible things and thrive. On such occasions, we have no consolation. That is the dark side of accepting the truth, and we are prepared to acknowledge it. We are heathens because we value living in the truth. But that does not mean that we pretend that always makes life easy or us happy. If the evidence were to show that religious people are happier and healthier than us, we would not see that as any reason to give up our convictions.

8 We are secularists

We support a state that is neutral as regards people's fundamental worldviews. It is not neutral when it comes to the shared values necessary for people of different conviction to live and thrive together. But it should not give any special privilege to any particular sect or group, or use their creeds as a basis for policy. Politics requires a coming together of people of different fundamental convictions to formulate and justify policy in terms that all understand, on the basis of principles that as many as possible can share.

This secularism does not require that religion is banished from public life or that people may not be open as to how their faiths, or lack of one, motivate their values. As long as the core of the business of state is neutral as regards to comprehensive worldviews, we can be relaxed about expressions of these commitments in society at large. We want to maintain the state's neutrality on fundamental worldviews, not purge religion from society.

9 Heathens can be religious

There are a small minority of forms of religion that are entirely compatible with the heathen position. These are forms of religion that reject the real existence of supernatural entities and divinely authored texts, accept that science trumps dogma, and who see the essential core of religion in its values and practices. We have very little evidence that anything more than a small fraction of actual existent religion is like this, but when it does conform to this description, heathens have no reason to dismiss it as false.

10 Religion is often our friend

We believe in not being tone-deaf to religion and to understand it in the most charitable way possible. So we support religions when they work to promote values we share, including those of social justice and compassion. We are respectful and sympathetic to the religious when they arrive at their different conclusions on the basis of the same commitment to sincere, rational, undogmatic inquiry as us, without in any way denying that we believe them to be false and misguided. We are also sympathetic to religion when its effects are more benign than malign. We appreciate that commitment to truth is but one value and that a commitment to compassion and kindness to others is also of supreme importance. We are not prepared to insist that it is indubitably better to live guided by such values allied with false beliefs than it is to live without such values but also without false belief.

11 We are critical of religion when necessary

Our willingness to accept what is good in religion is balanced by an equally honest commitment to be critical of it when necessary. We object when religion invokes mystery to avoid difficult questions or to obfuscate when clarity is needed. We do not like the way in which "people of faith" tend to huddle together in an unprincipled coalition of self-interest, even when that means liberals getting into bed with homophobes and misogynists. We think it is disingenuous for religious people to talk about the reasonableness of their beliefs and the importance of values and practice, while drawing a veil over their embrace of superstitious beliefs. In these and other areas, we assert the right and need to make civil but acute criticisms.

And although our general stance is not one of hostility towards religion, there are some occasions when this is exactly what is called for. When religions promote prejudice, division or discrimination, suppress truth or stand in the way of medical or social progress, a hostile response is an appropriate, principled one, just as it is when atheists are guilty of the same crimes.

12 This manifesto is less concerned with distinguishing heathens from others than forging links between us and others

Our commitment to independent thought and the provisionality of belief means that few heathens are likely to agree completely with this manifesto. It is therefore almost a precondition of supporting it that you do not entirely support it. At the same time, although very few people of faith can be heathens, many will find themselves in agreement with much of what heathens belief. This is what provides the common ground to make fruitful dialogue possible: we need to accept what we share in order to accept with civility and understanding what we most certainly do not. This is what the heathen manifesto is really about.
Niccolo and Donkey
Bob Dylan Roof
I initially wrote off modern western atheism as a fringe internet "movement" made up of narcissists, weak-willed individuals, and uninformed white people.

It appears that I was mistaken. Atheism is sufficiently "grounded" in groupthink and unjustified/arbitrary moral maxims to compete with traditional religions for the minds of the masses. Given Murray's astonishing numbers on the dearth of spirituality among the lower class, atheism has a real shot at becoming a major western religion.

Cool, I hope we can be heathen bros. Watch our inclusive heathen video:
(love this video)
Niccolo and Donkey
This type of atheism doesn't lend its services to the creation of a new group identity all that well as its current incarnation is based on already existing Christian concepts welded to Enlightenment values that promote hyperindividualism; which serves to ruin communities. In short it is self-defeating as the lower classes will continue to pursue the individualist path, thus allowing them to be further manipulated by the higher classes.

The manifesto above is simply a realization by the author that Dawkins isn't the best ambassador for militant atheism, and is an attempt at curtailing any reaction due to his stridency.

Yes, that video owns.
I don't entirely understand the ''atheist'' perspective. I'll qualify that by saying I understand very well the perspective of Marx, Engels, Lenin and their apologists, I understand the Hegelian view of history and how atheism informs some of its proponents who are otherwise highly learned, I understand Sartre's atheism, and I understand the Progressivist atheism of George Bernard Shaw and Oliver Wendell Holmes as well as the 'heroic' atheism of Nietzsche.

Liberal ''atheism'' seems to lack any historical or philisophical rudder. Liberalism itself is premised upon a dissenter Theology that took a radical view of soteriology. It essentially posits a metaphysical 'equality of spirit' that represents a supernatural reality of sorts that renders worldly judgments relating to loyalty, prejudice, justice, morality, political theory, and ethics subservient to a theological postulate about the inherent value of all people as the ultimate property of God.

The state at present IS neutral 'as regards people's fundamental worldviews' in the way that the editorialist in the OP desires - its tailored to reflect a belief in the 'common dignity' of all souls. You detect the basic creedal ignorance of these people when they lament ''religion'' or ''The Church'' in their polemical screeds. ''Men of religion'' lost their formal authority in Christian lands after 1648, and they never recovered their political and social power in any meaningful way.

In places like Egypt, its entirely cogent for people (hardline nationalists, socialists, Marxists, liberals, Islamists and others) to discuss whether or not ''men of religion'' should have power in government and society - clerics and imams actually wield great power in Moslem lands. An ''atheist'' in America talking about getting ''men of religion'' out of government is on the order of somebody saying he wants the King and the nobles out of government. Its part and parcel of some kind of delusion or fantasy ideology.

Where exactly is this ''religion'' we're always hearing is corrupting government? All I can discern is a loose adherence to left-wing dissenter Protestantism of the kind the ''atheists'' themselves adhere to.

The whole body of atheists who try this hard to be atheists will have a grand total of 5 children and will pass on nothing of any meaning to their children. They're more of a nuisance that will stick around, and will largely play into the hands of managerial types who go to wars to protect gay rights.

What are they going to say to their kids? "Don't believe in God, son!" ...Then what should I believe in?


Bob Dylan Roof
I do a lot of fieldwork among the ruins so I'm exposed to liberal atheist's worldview on a daily basis. The arch-enemy is the "Christian Right", comprising, alternatively, a tiny and powerful elite bent on indoctrinating the masses into a medieval Christian worldview, or a substantial minority (if not a majority) of illiterate, unintelligent and backward rednecks. The malleable category is useful in accounting for instances where a majority votes against "common sense rights" like gay marriage. The big problem is therefore [White] Christians operating the machinery of government and using its legitimacy to take money away from the indigent, force gays to not sodomize each other, force women to take responsibility for their behavior, force children to study the Bible, and destroy the environment.

The crux of atheist hostility derives from what is essentially a law of politics: non-neutral political actors vitiate the neutrality of secular political institutions. The mantra is, "government would function properly and the world would be a better place if only we could get these Christians out of government." Thus, librage is essentially a moral analog to the "constitutionalist" right's Quixotic quest to restore fidelity to the Constitution: if we could just preclude the other Party from operating the government, we could enjoy the fruits of neutral government.
Niccolo and Donkey
Another attack on Dawkins

He's not doing too well amongst the Atheist set, it seems.

From the article linked above: