First things first.
Thank you so much for your comments on my last post. Whether they were words of encouragement and empathy, or words of challenge and disagreement, I appreciate that you took the time to read the post and share with me your thoughts. I have come to realize that stimulating discourse is one of my primal needs, and I am grateful to have this venue to be able to engage with each of you. I respect that not everyone felt comfortable posting publicly, and I love the creativity you employed to get through to me: phone texting, Skype texting, Facebook inbox, phone call, email, and maybe even snail mail?
Now, on to the substance. I got several comments through various avenues about the use of the word atheist. I didn’t use that word in my post, but it’s a valid point, and I appreciate the curiosity of those who asked. You wouldn’t think I could write a post about one word, but never fear — I lean toward the verbose and rise to the challenge!
If you recall in my first post, I mentioned that almost everyone in my secular bunch who blogs has a post recounting their coming out experience. We also, almost everyone, have made an intentional, conscious decision about how to self-identify. We have a lot to choose from: atheist, agnostic, freethinker, secular, humanist, skeptic. Each of those words has a specific meaning, and again, as I said before, as every non-believer I know is fiercely independent, each of us has selected our “label” with great thought.
In the book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins presents his approach to the spectrum of belief, so to speak, with a scale. Here it is, direct from the book:
- Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”
- Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De Facto theist. “I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
- Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
- Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
- Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
- Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
- Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung ‘knows’ there is one.”
Dawkins goes on to point out that although category #1 is quite crowded, there are very few people populating category #7. I haven’t met anyone who is a 7, but I’ve met many 1’s. I am a 6.7-ish, because of the improbability of proving the NON-existence of something (Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot – Google it.)
I know the power of the word atheist, and I vividly remember the pity it engendered in me when I was a believer. Pity for the poor soul who hadn’t heard the message, hadn’t understood the message, hadn’t accepted the message. It is appalling to me now, but except for a few radicals in college, I didn’t know any atheists for most of my adult life; I certainly didn’t have relationships with any. The word was synonymous with evil, and I almost audibly added “angry” as the default adjective every time I heard it.
I use the word now quite freely, and can interchangeably use any of the words in the above list. My least favorite is the word Agnostic, because it implies some kind of nonchalance or carelessness or apathy toward knowledge of the existence of god, and I do not own that (by definition, agnosticism means that nothing is or can be known about the existence of god; professing neither a belief, nor disbelief, in the existence of god). I use the word Secular quite often, because it seems to be less anger-inducing to believers. I won’t get into the etymology of all the words – you can research that if you are interested, though, and a quick search will probably bring up even more descriptors.
The Freethought movement of today has been compared to the LGBT movement of the 1970’s and 80’s. Back then we used to say, “I don’t know anyone who is gay or lesbian!” We found out that we were wrong; that we indeed did know people who were gay or lesbian, we just didn’t KNOW we knew. I think the same applies here: You may think you don’t know any atheists…you are wrong. You just don’t KNOW you know. And now you do.
Thanks for reading!
March 6, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Interesting. I self-identify as an agnostic or skeptic, though I am by Dawkins’ list a de facto atheist. Originally in my skepticism over god and religion, I probably chose “agnosticism” out of fear of letting go. But now I think that agnosticism is more accurate because of the reason you cite: it is an apathy regarding the existence of god. I think this was clearly defined for me in a college Buddhism class. How much energy do we waste on trying to know god or disprove god, when that is not the urgent question at all? Here is a version of the story that I was able to Google:
http://www.vishwamohan.com/post/2010/03/03/Buddha-explanation-on-existence-of-God.aspx
Belief is not the important aspect, theist or atheist–doubt is the most important aspect. Question everything.
Secular, to me, is the weakest of the terms (and perhaps why religious people find it less threatening) because even religious people partake in secular activities.
Even though I have become very comfortable internally with my agnosticism, I still feel very _un_comfortable sharing it with others, but I will step out from behind my wall to share this with you, and to congratulate you on coming so far along what I know is an often difficult path. Especially here in the Bible Belt.
And the “A word” is right–when I told my mother I was an agnostic, she asked if that meant I was a Satanist. I love her dearly, but I’ve just side-stepped that discussion ever since. She knows my position, and it’s not like we’ll ever either agree on the other’s.
March 7, 2011 at 11:04 am
Daryl – I am so moved by your response. I knew something of your personal story, but I also know you are a private person, and I appreciate your words.
I loved the Buddha story. In theory, I completely agree – it’s the doubt and relentless questioning that is the important piece, not necessarily the answers. In theory. In reality, I have a harder time being that passive. I too vividly remember the struggle in the pew and in the Sunday School classroom not to want be accessible to others having the same struggle. The only way I know to do that is to hang the banner out for everyone to see. I spend a lot of time thinking about what it would have been like to have known someone, ANYONE, who had already “crossed the river”, with whom I could discuss the tremendously significant issues I had with the faith. I take very humbly and seriously the role I have placed myself in to be that person for someone else – not to conversion, just to conversation. I joke with my kids about it being the old evangelist in me.
I regularly read PZ Myers’ and Greta Christina’s blogs – in the recent past, they’ve both addressed the issue of our “responsibility” as non-believers. (Myers’ post here is long, but great: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/10/post_6.php). Maybe my zealotry is born out of newness (I guess 5 years is still new), maybe it’s concern for my kids’ future, or maybe it’s just my nature, but it’s such a primal compulsion for me to take the visible, vocal position that It Matters Whether What You Believe Is True. (omg, am I preaching??!?!?)
Ok, maybe that’s enough for one reply!
Thank you again, Daryl, for your comment. It really made me think, and that’s just about my highest praise for any friend.
March 12, 2011 at 12:29 pm
The best post you have ever written. I love you!
March 13, 2011 at 9:03 am
I love you back!