As I mentioned in my last post, I've gotten very busy trying to handle teaching a class on top of all of my other regular research duties. I'll talk more about how teaching is going sometime next week; the students have a test on Monday, so I'll get a better sense on whether they've learned anything from me, although, based on the homework set I just graded, the answer is no, they haven't learned anything from me. But I've only had two full lectures (and a review lecture for their test), so I haven't had much of a chance yet.
A week-and-a-half or two weeks ago, I mentioned that I was thinking about posting about something that I've been thinking deeply about. My thinking about that particular subject came and went, but this post on Pharyngula brought it back to mind. I'm an atheist, but it's something I've never mentioned here and hardly mention in everyday life. I've never it mentioned here for two reasons: because back when this was ostensibly a site that may be read by future employers, I figured that admitting I was an atheist could reduce my chances of getting a job. The other reason, and the reason why I hardly mention it in everyday life, is that atheism is hardly a part of my life. I've been an atheist for just over 5 years, but before then, I was a non-churchgoing theist. I was one of those people who would say, "I know there's something more out there, but I don't like organized religion." But my position was basically theoretical. I hadn't gone to church since 7th grade, and I didn't miss it. So when I became an atheist, it wasn't traumatic, it didn't involve awkward confessions to friends and family, it just meant moving from one theoretical belief to another.
Lately, however, quiet, unassuming atheists like me have been challenged by more outspoken types. You may have heard reference in a news story from the past year to The New Atheists. PZ Myers, whose Pharyngula blog I linked to earlier, is a New Atheist. Others are Richard Dawkins, a British biologist, and Sam Harris, who arguably brought the New Atheist movement into the mainstream with his 2004 book The End of Faith. More recently, Harris has been debating Andrew Sullivan on beliefnet about whether Christianity is true or false. I believe he won the debate decisively, but of course I'm biased.
The defining feature of the New Atheists is that they are not quiet and accomodating towards religion. They believe that religious beliefs are demonstrably false and/or ridiculous, and that they should be called so in the public sphere. They believe that the belief that religion must be "respected" in the public sphere is dangerous, because it allows some quite ridiculous ideas to propagate unchallenged or little-challenged, and unfair, because atheism is regularly ridiculed, attacked, or sneered at in public with virtually no consequences. The rallying point for New Atheism came when several public school districts mandated that Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes. Intelligent design is basically Creationism obscured by scientific-sounding jargon. Despite sounding like science, Intelligent Design has no basis in real science, and has no standing among real scientists. Nevertheless, because some religious people don't like evolution, it was decided that Intelligent Design should be taught as an "alternative" to evolution in science classes. And survey after survey said that the general public thought that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. This situation prompted the New Atheists to argue that taking a respectful view towards religion is not working.
While I basically agree with the stance of the New Atheists, I don't follow their practices in my daily life, mostly because I'm non-confrontational by nature, and also because most of the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis don't bring up religion with me. But I do think there is something to be said to try to "out" yourself as an atheist whenever it's appropriate, because when religious people say that atheists are immoral, or hedonistic, or live meaningless lives, as religious people often do say, they usually assume that none of the "nice" people they know are atheists. If such people find out that friends, family members, or well-liked acquaintances are atheists, they may not be so quick to indulge in unfair stereotypes. Similarly, if there is someone out there who is questioning or has rejected their religious beliefs, but is afraid to admit so because he or she is afraid that they will be ostracized or made fun of, it makes it that much easier to know that there are more people like him or her out there.
The thing that brought all of this to mind a couple weeks ago was a post I found via Pharyngula about the Blasphemy Challenge. The Blasphemy Challenge is a project that encourages nonbelievers to publicly state their nonbelief by denying the Holy Spirit. According to one interpretation of the Biblical verse Mark 3:29, this will damn a person to an eternity in Hell. The Blasphemy Challenge was controversial, even among many unapologetic atheists, because it seemed to be (1) silly, and (2) an unnecessary provocation of religious people. It's one thing to debate the truth or untruth of religious beliefs, it's another thing to take those cherished beliefs, and go out of your way to make a show of your contempt for those beliefs. I didn't participate, but I was in favor of the Blasphemy Challenge. I basically saw it as a case where there is no questioning of Christians who publicly declare their beliefs, from political candidates thanking God in their campaign speeches to sports players praying on the field to actors/singers/entertainers praising God when they win some award. I hardly see how that is any more or less appropriate than a non-religious person saying that they don't believe in the Holy Spirit. If that offends religious people, well perhaps it's time for them to accept that just because they hold something to be sacred doesn't mean that everyone else has to. Anyway, the debate rattled back and forth across the blogosphere, and towards the end of the time when it was still a story worth talking about, this post, which is the post I mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph as causing me to think about my own atheism, came out. It explains the stance of atheists as I like to think about it, that is that while we'd prefer not to cause offense, the unfortunate fact is that we must cause offense simply by being who we are, so the best we can do is try not to be jerks about our beliefs. However, if there are atheists who are jerks towards religious people, it should be realized that they're coming from a world where they're very being is offensive to many, and where it is acceptable to be insulting and demeaning to them about their beliefs, so we should not be so quick to judge them harshly
