Is Sam Harris right to reject labels like ‘Atheist’ and ‘Humanist’?
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
David Barash on Redirected Aggression
The urge to pass along pain lurks behind modern warfare no less than it did behind medieval pageantry.
-
Hitchens on a Death in Iraq
‘I don’t remember ever feeling, in every allowable sense of the word, quite so hollow.’
-
Kanan Makiya
The catastrophe in Iraq has made Makiya and the others who justified the invasion look reckless and naïve.
-
What Label for People Like Us?
I note with interest that Margaret Downey organized a blockbuster atheist conference in the Washington, D.C. area, to which she brought many of the “new atheists.” We congratulate her on her energy. However, may I agree with Sam Harris who states that in accepting the label of “atheist” that “we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture… a marginal interest group that meets in hotel ballrooms.”
May I first compliment Sam (as the newest kid on the block) for his two fine books and his eloquent voice now being heard on the national scene. May I then disagree with his subsequent “seditious proposal” that we should not call ourselves “secularists,” “humanists,” “secular humanists,” “naturalists,” “skeptics,” etc. “We should go under the radar for the rest of our lives,” he advises. We should be “responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.”
That sounds lofty but in my view it is counter-productive. For in order to develop new ideas and policies that are effective, we need to organize with other like-minded individuals. And a name is crucial. If we followed Sam’s advice, the critical opposition to religious claims would naturally collapse. If we generalize from this, we could not come together as Democrats or Republicans, Libertarians or Socialists, feminists or civic libertarians, world federalists or environmentalists, utilitarians or pragmatists. Should we operate only as single individuals who may get published or speak on street corners with little influence or clout? Come on, Sam, that is unrealistic; for almost no one would be heard and we would be lone voices in the city canyons, unheard and drowned out by the powerful media. We say that democracy best functions when the citizens of a country unite under whatever label they choose to achieve what they deem to be worthy goals. True, you have had a best-seller which brought you to the public forum. But for most people the opportunity to affect the public debate is lost unless they work together with others to make their views heard, and unless they build institutions dedicated to their ideals and to the values they hope will endure.
Paul Kurtz is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo, chairman of CSICOP, the Council for Secular Humanism, and Prometheus Books, and editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry Magazine.
Posted October 10 2007
-
Philosophy and Popular Culture
Is this new wave exploiting pop culture in the service of philosophical inquiry? Yes, and a good thing too.
-
Dawkins on Dennett
One of the things that strikes me about reading Dan’s books is how much science I learn from them.
-
The ‘Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act
The Texas law is a salvo in a long-running battle over the place of religion in US public schools.
-
Sam Harris and Salman Rushdie on Hirsi Ali
An indispensable witness to the splendor of open society and to the boundless energy of its antagonists.
-
Hitchens on Protection for Ayaan Hirsi Ali
A symbol of the resistance, by many women from the Muslim world, to the horrors of clerical repression.
-
‘Militant Atheists are Wrong’
‘You cannot prove the existence of truth, beauty, goodness and decency.’ No, really?!
-
Turkish Hackers Hit Swedish Websites
Website of a children’s cartoon was replaced by a message saying Islam’s prophet had been insulted.
-
Sainsbury’s Policy on Muslims Selling Alcohol
It creates a space the religious fanatics will use to bully their mostly female fellow workers.
-
The Crisis in North Pakistan
Khatoon Bibi was murdered near a security check post while attempting to reach the school where she taught.
-
Medical Students Have ‘Religious Objections’
Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures that ‘offend their religious beliefs.’
-
Paul Gross Reviews Michael Behe
The Edge of Evolution represents the best ID can do today in its effort to overcome ‘Darwinism’ with science.
-
Creeping theocracy
This sounds like a fun moment, doesn’t it? An East End Sainsbury’s, staffed mostly by Bangladeshis.
A young Asian checkout operator, with pious beard and a crocheted Kufi Muslim skullcap, made a big deal out of serving a middle-aged white man who had included a bottle of vodka in his groceries. His wasn’t a discreet arm wave for the attention of a supervisor, it was a full-on hissy fit. At the sight of the vodka bottle he reared from his seat as if the conveyer had presented a freshly slaughtered pig’s head….The customer…was having none of it though. “What the bleedin’ ‘ell are you working in a supermarket for if you won’t handle booze?” he shouted, setting the queue to Defcon Two on the London racial tension scale…The hothead till worker’s protest was more testosterone than Taliban but he succeeded in making his point, loudly, in front of 18 female Muslim staff who won’t let their religion bother their job.
More testosterone than Taliban…that’s an interesting way of putting it. I have a feeling that’s a distinction without a difference. Taliban is testosterone, and vice versa. Taliban is all about men bullying women and telling them what to do and telling them they’re filthy and sexual and shameful, defective and wrong and above all subordinate – above all subject to being told what to do by anyone and everyone except themselves. The very first thing Islamists do when they get power is to start telling women what to do. They give one a nasty sense of the world being full of men wandering around fuming at how out of control women are.
Sainsbury’s, “keen to accommodate the religious beliefs of all staff”, now allows Muslim workers who object to alcohol on religious grounds to have a colleague take their place. The company didn’t see that such cack-handed posturing does Islam no favours, reinforcing a perception of an intolerant and unbending religion, which is not, I believe, where the majority of British Muslims are. Worse still is the atmosphere it creates within its own workforce. The craven attitude of Sainsbury’s creates a space the religious fanatics will use to bully their mostly female fellow workers, arguing they are not good Muslims if they choose to serve alcohol when they have the option not to.
Why isn’t Sainsbury’s keen to accomodate the religious or non-religious beliefs of people who want to buy one of the items on sale without any hassle or delay or display of shock-horror from some self-righteous bully at the till? And at that rate, what next? Muslim clerks in Waterstone’s allowed to refuse to sell atheist books or books by women or gays? Bus drivers allowed to refuse to let women on the buses? Muslim teachers in state schools allowed to refuse to teach girls?
-
Letter to a non-atheist New Atheist
It doesn’t matter that you don’t call yourself an atheist. Sam, they’re going to call you an atheist anyway.
-
Abortion Rights Slide Away
‘Gonzales v Carhart is basically saying that a woman’s health is no longer relevant.’
-
Who Says Science and Religion Don’t Conflict?
Only some false ideas are sufficiently coherent and evidence-based to justify their entry into the debate.
