Psalm 14 states that the “fool has said in his heart there is no god,” and once again I have found a ‘fool’ who has written some very wise words.
That fool is Edwin Kagin, legal director for American Atheists. Here are some selected quotations from his latest blog post:
“There is much talk these days about a phenomenon called Atheism+. This is the notion that atheism is not just a definition but a [worldview]… Some worry that the arguments being advanced for both sides of the issue will create a schism in atheism.
“Will it? Of course it will. That is why it is a bad idea.
“I have seen this happen before. Been there, done that, bought the T shirt, wrote the book, working on the sequel.
“I am a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA)… Anyhow, a few years ago the NRA went against its own policy of being a single issue organization and took a stand on an abortion issue. In consequence, the NRA immediately lost about half of its members. Members who were in the NRA to protect gun rights, not to legislate women’s health issues, quit the organization.
“The NRA changed their policy in a hurry, became a single issue organization again, and got its members back.”
Kagin has the right idea here. Of course, Atheism Plussers would probably argue that their exact goal is to build a community that is separated of all the perceived ignoramuses and evil-doers within the general atheist community. And there are two big problems with that. First, the whole point of doing this is of questionable utility. Despite some vigorous protests to the contrary, I am not convinced that the atheist community is overrun with misogynists, homophobes, rapists, and racists. For obvious reasons, isolated occurrences of bad behavior and foul speech don’t prove that we are overrun with these types. Inflammatory comments made by internet trolls do not show this, either. Second: Identifying as a Plusser is supposed to mean supporting women’s rights, caring about social justice, and so on. All of these are admirable goals that I’m sure the vast majority of atheists share. However, stating this is kind of like saying you’re “pro-morality.” Most people claim to be “pro-morality” but no one would start a ‘pro-moral’ organization. Morality translates into different practices for different people, because people have different ideas of what that means.** To some, morality means going to church on Sunday, for others it means fighting religion politically and philosophically. For some it means protecting abortion rights, to others it means shooting the doctor who performs abortions. A hypothetical “pro-moral” organization would divide into two, then into four, and multiply indefinitely. The reason for this is that people translate such a broad and vague sentiment into a variety of different conclusions. When they realize that others have come to different conclusions, they assume that the other person must not be moral, since in their terms ‘moral’ means “You must be a heterosexual who never uses birth control” while to another it means “You can enjoy whatever consensual sexual relationship you like.” Hence any such organization will necessarily end up splitting over and over, and is utterly pointless to begin in the first place.
This problem has already (!) begun plaguing the plusser movement. As Richard Carrier writes,
“PZ Myers takes a more hardline stance against Libertarians and equates Atheism+ with explicitly progressive politics, but though I agree he is probably right… I do not agree that it is any defining characteristic of Atheism+.”
My prediction is that if this movement doesn’t just fizzle out and actually starts to gain a significant standing in the atheist community, the same means of division will play out over and over again. We don’t need that. We need to be united as atheists to do the things we want to accomplish as atheists. Kicking out all the guys you don’t like may be a pleasing thought, but you just can’t do it without sliding down a slippery slope that will destroy our movement. No one should feel excluded from atheist meet-ups or the community at large unless they are doing things that violate the law or would get you fired from your job. If you maintain a standard of ordinary civil behavior, you ought to be tolerated within the atheist community, regardless of what your other ideas are. Holding fast to this standard will allow us to tolerate others and to be tolerated. It will keep our movement as large as it needs to be so that we can better accomplish our goals. It won’t be perversely or poisonously divisive as the plusser’s criteria are (or will eventually become).
** I am not advocating a position of moral relativism. I am only saying that people come to different conclusions about what is moral and what is not, and so a belief in morality results in different beliefs and practices. That’s not to say that every morality is true or that all are equally valid. It is only to say that this is what people do.
