Friday, June 15, 2012

Categorizing Non-Belivers and Atheists

The idea of creating a set of sub-categories or classifications within atheism is not new. Others have commented on the possible usefulness of providing narrower labels within atheism. I can see how it might be useful but I can also see ways in which such a system of labels could perpetuate a variety of myths and stereotypes or be used to further denigrate and marginalize us. Two recent pieces reemphasized these pitfalls.

An anonymous woman wrote in to the New Haven Register on June 2 with what she seemed to think was a novel idea. Her intentions seemed to be positive but she definitely had not thought very deeply about the labels she was suggesting. She only offered three but each had some problems. "Observant Atheist" reflected both the title of the short piece, "Atheist 'denominations' helpful, reader suggests", and her ignorance. She claims to be an atheist herself but then talks about her desire "to find the divine in myself." She also seems to fall for the false notion that atheism is itself a religion. It isn't.*

"Classic Atheists" seems rather redundant. It sounds like she intends it to be the default/catchall for those who don't fit the other two labels. Her final label is as ridiculous as the first. "Science as Religion Atheist" aside from being an awkward mouthful is an oxymoron. It plays into the myth of "scientism." Science, as defined by the scientific process, cannot be a religion. Though there are some ignorant fools who happen to be atheists, I find it hard to believe that those who have enough respect and interest in science to be placed in this label would ever use it. Lie me they would probably find it an insultingly preposterous term. Her labels may have been intended to help but they don't.

Valerie Tarico's June 3rd Alternet piece, "No Religion? 7 Types of Nonbelievers", is longer and more thoughtful. However, it too has some glaring shortfalls. I particularly disliked her second type, "anti-theist." There are two major implications that are both blatantly wrong. First, the term suggests that atheists are the only anti-theists. I am unaware of anyone doing a study on this subtopic but I would be genuinely shocked if the number of theists who were also anti-theists did not outnumber the atheists who might fit the term. Think about it. Who has harassed and out right persecuted Jews, Muslims, and Christians the most? It isn't atheists. All three groups have done far more harm to each other than atheists ever have. I'd also object to the term on semantics. Most atheist I'm aware of are not actually opposed to theists. "Anti-theism", though still misleading, is a little more accurate. We tend to despise the institution of religion not religious people.

The next handful of terms (Agnostic, Skeptic, Freethinker, Humanist) are already in wide use. Her usage of them would probably only make matters more confusing since it is not necessary to be non-religious to fit one or more of them. Non-religious individuals are far more likely to identify with those terms but that's not quite the same. Another problem is that if you are trying to delineate types of non-believers these terms are non-starters. It is quite easy to fit into each label simultaneously. What's the purpose if it doesn't distinguish?

Her final term is just plain annoying. Pantheist as a term can be debated about its true definition not unlike the other terms Tarico tries using. However, Pantheism is still a religious outlook. Tarico herself alludes to this in an otherwise mistaken comment, "...self-described humanists seek to reclaim the ethical and communitarian aspects of religion, pantheist canter in on the spiritual heart of faith..." I consider myself a humanist but I do not seek to "reclaim" anything from religion. There is nothing innate to religion that I want or need. It implies that certain values and traits are inseparable from religion. Bullshit. Anthropomorphizing the universe, which pantheism frequently does, is not something I would associate with non-belief.

If any useful labels are ever going to be produced, I'm not convinced that's possible, it should be non-believers who come up with them.


*The fact that atheism is not a belief system would make classifying it with labels somewhat pointless. Atheists are rather individualistic and fractious but there are some areas that we tend to gravitate toward. In any case, any labels or categories would have to be used loosely and would only be of value when comparing atheists to other atheists.

No comments:

Post a Comment