Atheists and agnostics can go too far in trying to disseminate their philosophy to the world, and I think it’s safe to say Peter Boghossian, author of “A Manuel for Creating Atheists,” has reached that point, and unfortunately, the book has received endorsements from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker and Michael Shermer, the latter of whom even provides the foreward.
It’s one thing to post atheism-related videos, quotes or memes on Facebook or in other forums, hoping something might hit a nerve. Believers certainly take liberties to post their own faith-infused, logically bankrupt messages to the world; why should we not follow suit and bring reason back to the public discourse? It’s one thing to be open about your nonbelief and willing to discuss it with believers if asked. It’s one thing to want to meet up with like-minded nonbelievers to create a sense of community and belonging. I understand all of those positions.
But it’s quite another to actively proselytize to believers as “street epistemologists,” as Boghossian calls it, approach strangers and engage in “clinical interventions designed to disabuse them of their faith,” which, forgive me for saying it, but sounds oddly similar to “auditing” in Scientology.
As one example, Boghossian said that when he goes to the bank, he tries to pick out a teller wearing a cross and then strike up a conversation about religion:
… Every time I see her I go out of my way to wait in her line, and I immediately begin the intervention.
And Barker had this to say in support of the book:
Since atheism is truly Good News, it should not be hidden under a bushel.
First off, atheism has no core message or doctrine or creed other than the assertion that there are no gods, and it definitely has no message to the world in the same way that the New Testament and Christian theology purports a worldview and a pattern for living based on scripture, so what exactly can atheists hope to achieve by asserting their nonbelief on unsuspecting believers other than lending support to the argument — most recently portrayed in that noxious movie, “God Is Not Dead,” — that all nonbelievers are arrogant and rabid gadflys who think they know everything?
About the closest thing to a “message” atheists might hope to convey is that truth can be found in logic and reason and a person can indeed lead a happy and fulfilling life without religion. The difference here is that Christianity at its core claims to provide fulfillment in life as a direct result of believing in Jesus. Atheism claims no such thing for itself. Many nonbelievers are perfectly happy and would probably describe their lives as exceeding rich and fulfilling, while some atheists may be completely miserable, but that may or may not have anything to do with their lack of belief in god. Christianity attempts to describe a direct correlation between happiness and belief. Of course, for an “evangelical” atheist attempting to reach believers with their own brand of “good news,” an appeal to reason and rationality will be all but lost on most Christians unless the believer still has some logical embers glowing somewhere deep in the recesses of their brain. The entire branch of apologetics from Thomas Aquinus to C.S. Lewis on down the line is built on a tower of unfounded assumptions heaped on more assumptions that are, in turn, proliferated ceaselessly in church, so few evangelical Christians are even going to have the tools necessary to reason themselves out of faith. Thus, even the best efforts of people like Boghossian to lead believers away from faith will, more times than not, end in lots of frustration and head-banging.
Further, I’m sure this rather obvious next point has not been lost on other nonbelievers, but actively proselytizing to the public makes us no better than fanatical Christians or Mormons. What’s next? Passing out copies of “The God Delusion” at college campuses and shouting from street corners like religious zealots? I don’t want to associate myself with zealots, religious or otherwise.
The beauty about freethought, agnosticism or atheism is that there is no higher calling, and thus, no reason or purpose other than our own sense of self-satisfaction to evangelize to believers. What would be the goal of the atheist who wants to proselytize to evangelical Christians? Will he single-handedly eradicate faith? Certainly not. Will he convince a person or two? Maybe. But like it or not, as long as people are afraid of the death, the dark and uncertainty about the afterlife, religion in some form is going to be around a long, long time, possibly until the end of the species itself.
If nonbelievers want to do something other than just ignoring Christians altogether, why not encourage friendly and respectful discussions about religion and freethought with believers, so long as both parties consent to talk about the subject in this way? While many Christians are simply unable to handle criticisms of their core beliefs, I have found that some actually enjoy having a dialogue about religion and questions of faith, even if it makes them think critically about why they believe. Why not point people toward resources like scholarly works on the historicity of Jesus, contradictions and errors in the Bible and the evidence for evolution? But don’t misunderstand me: If it is the atheist who is approached by a believer wanting to proselytize, then it’s open season.
Personally, I don’t talk about religious or nonreligion in person unless I’m asked about it, and even then, I don’t go out of my way to convince someone to turn away from their faith. I freely offer my thoughts on religion on this site and sometimes on Facebook and Twitter, and people are free to read it or ignore it. In addition, for believers with a genuine desire to know the truth — Many, I have found don’t have a genuine desire for the truth. They are happy to live and die without having to challenge their core beliefs. — Amazon has hundreds of books available, some for free, that explore the claims of the New Testament and Christian theology, the inadequacies of biblical science versus real science and fallacies of an all-loving, all-powerful god who is all things immoral, inconsistent, petty, brazenly violent and decidedly unjust.
The onus is on believers to provide arguments and evidence for their claims, and I just don’t see what nonbelievers have to gain from actively turning into the very proselytizing Bible thumpers we rail against. Rather than publicly flaunting atheism and catering to the bad stereotypes, why not disseminate the message that although we might live without a divine purpose — rendering the act of proselytizing to believers not only a pointless but meaningless exercise — we do live with the truth and beauty we find in art, literature, poetry, music, love and life itself? I disagree with the methodology of street epistemology, but if we can utilize less off-putting ways to engage with believers that focuses on human solidarity and the human experience that exists across all faiths and ideologies, that might be a message worth sharing.