---

---

POSITIVE ATHEISM

I must make it clear up front that "Positive Atheism" is intended
as a brand name for a particular atheist philosophy, not atheism
simpliciter. "Nontheism", and atheism simpliciter, does not by itself
imply much else, if anything. Certainly it does not imply a
commitment to reason, science, tolerance, fairness, compassion, or
democracy. There can be and have been non-scientific, dogmatic,
intolerant ideologies that were also atheistic. I'm aware that
"Secular Humanism" is already an established brand name for including
all that stuff.

I once made the proposal that all atheists should redefine themselves
as Freethinkers, because in my humble opinion the enemy is not
religion simpliciter but specifically "revealed" religion, the
acceptance of "revelation" as a reliable source of knowledge. As far
as I can tell, religions that don't make any claims to "revelation"
(Deists, Quakers, Pantheists, some Pagans) are harmless and may
provide some people with emotional comfort.
Nevertheless a number of activists have chosen the banner of
"atheism" rather than "humanism"or "freethought", I think because
they want to make it clear what they are against. Who is the enemy?
What is the root of the evil we are fighting? These people are not
primarily philosophers, engaged in intellectual exploration for the
fun of it. They have seen organized religion doing harm in people's
lives and want to oppose the harm that it does. Even granting that in
a free society there will always be organized religion, it is the
role of atheists to force religion to be benign, keeping it separate
from the State and on the defensive about its other irrationalities
and injustices. I think they do not call themselves "humanists"
because they perceive humanists as being on the defensive themselves,
seeking to avoid confrontation, often "wannabee religious" who can't
believe that stuff any longer but still wish they could.

So, for these activists, promoting the brand name of "Positive
Atheism" is a way of stretching "atheism" to include reason, science,
and this-worldly ethics. It may be that it would be better for all
concerned if all these activist atheists were to redefine themselves
as humanists, but they are not going to. We are going to have to live
with multiple redundant labels.

The most inclusive term would be "nontheist" ("atheist" and "godless"
IMHO meaning exactly the same, but carrying more emotional
connotations.) Defined as "lacking a belief in a god or gods", this
definition would include all newborn babies, who have not yet been
taught any religion. One can say "I am a nontheist" without accepting
any burden of proof; presumably you are the resident expert on your
own mental states. Nontheism does not by itself imply much else, if
anything else; it is like not being from Ohio, or not having brown
eyes. According to surveys, something like 14% of the American
population is nontheist (as of 2001), and higher percentages of some
European countries.

Most of these millions of nontheists do not CALL themselves atheists,
nor any of the other names listed above; they do not belong to
atheist organizations. Why should they, what would be the point? They
call themselves environmentalists, or libertarians, or motorcyclists,
or poets; whatever they are passionate about. People who CALL
themselves atheists do so for a reason: they think it is important to
be free of religion. They are passionate about the message that
religion is both false and harmful, and life is far better without it.
In real life and history, theism is not just the proposition that
some X or other exists. Theism claims that (1) at least one
supernatural, superpowerful person exists, (2) this person wants
obedience from humans, and offers rewards and threats (3) local human
representatives will accurately report this god's wishes. Theism
usually also makes ethical claims; that this god is good, a loving
parent and perfect authority, that obedience to this god is right and
virtuous, that doubt of the god or the prophets is wicked, and so
forth. Historically religion teaches that the meaning and purpose of
life lies in getting to "heaven", not in living this life well on
this Earth. Prophets and clergy have taught the value of
"otherworldliness". Believers not only accept the above propositions,
they embrace the values of faith and obedience, they accept the moral
superiority and authority of their god, and their own relative
inferiority to the god (but superiority to nonbelievers.) They accept
the role of obedient children, and "love their chains." The
self-appointed "prophets" and their clergy operate this swindle
precisely in order to get that obedience.

"Positive Atheism" is not just the rejection of (1), it is the
rejection of the whole package. As a practical matter, rejecting
religion requires replacing these other aspects, acting differently
in practice. Let us look at religion as a historical practice, and
define an alternative historical practice to challenge it. Several
writers and atheist organizations have taken this larger view; I will
quote a few in what follows.

Religion historically includes theism, faith in "revealed" dogma, and
otherworldly ethics; so the practical challenge to it would include
atheism, a freethinking and scientific approach to knowledge, and a
well-defined ethic for living well in this life, on this Earth. What
else does religion, as a historical practice, include, that is
harmful and deserves practical challenge?

Instead of accepting revelation, we shall seek truth by the methods
of science. Jacob Bronowski has written a book, SCIENCE AND HUMAN
VALUES, (1956), in which he argues that the practice of science,
doing the work of science, implies and requires a certain (admittedly
limited and incomplete) set of values and virtues. There is a
philosophical doctrine that argues that science is "value-free", that
it does not presuppose or imply or say anything about right and
wrong, good or bad. Bronowski says this view is radically mistaken.
It is not the results of science that imply or include values, it is
the practice of it, the requirements of doing the work. Aristotle
wrote of the "practical syllogism": if you want X, then you ought to
do Y. Science seeks to find out what IS; as a practical necessity, if
we want to find out what IS, then we OUGHT to act in ways that allow
what IS to be discovered and verified.

Most obvious is "the habit of truth"; the seeking and sharing of
truth, the virtue of honesty, humility before the evidence and the
possibility of mistakes, the openness to new evidence and new ideas.
Bronowski argues that doing science requires independence in
observation and in thought; therefore it requires a tolerance for
dissent. "And as originality and independence are private needs for
the existence of a science, so dissent and freedom are its public
needs. No one can be a scientist, even in private, if he does not
have independence of observation and of thought. But if in addition
science is to become effective as a public practice, it must go
further; it must protect independence.... free inquiry, free thought,
free speech, tolerance. These values are familiar to us.... but they
are self-evident, that is, they are logical needs, only where men are
committed to explore the truth: in a scientific society. These
freedoms of tolerance have never been notable in a dogmatic society,
even when the dogma was Christian. They have been granted only when
scientific thought flourished once before, in the youth of Greece....
Tolerance among scientists cannot be based on indifference, it must
be based on respect. Respect as a personal value implies, in any
society, the public acknowledgements of justice and due honor....
Science confronts the work of one man with that of another, and
grafts each on each; and it cannot survive without justice and honor
and respect between man and man... If these values did not exist,
then the society of scientists would have to invent them to make the
practice of science possible." There is much else in his book; the
above is drastically summarized.

In the same way, rejecting the other aspects of theism involves
acting differently in practice. Instead of being obedient children,
we will be responsible self-governing adults. Instead of praying for
benefits from our Cosmic Parent, we will be self-reliant- as Marie
Castle writes, "look to ourselves and to each other for the
satisfaction of human needs.... through the thoughtful exercise of
initiative, responsibility and mutual cooperation and assistance."
Practical atheists must replace the supernatural theory of ethics
with a natural theory. If we do not understand ethics as obedience to
our (cosmic) parent, how can we understand it? In THE ELEMENTS OF
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, (an introductory textbook), James Rachels writes
(p. 129): "The key idea [of the social contract approach to ethics]
is that morally binding rules are the ones that are necessary for
social living. It is obvious... that we could not live together very
well if we did not accept rules prohibiting murder, assault, theft,
lying, breaking promises, and the like. These rules are justified
simply by showing that they are necessary if we are to cooperate for
our mutual benefit." Marie Castle also follows this approach. She
writes: "Atheism accepts the evidence of the biological and social
sciences that humans are social animals, evolved to cooperate in
social groups as a requirement for survival. It follows that rules
are necessary to achieve and maintain social harmony.... Over time,
rules that are basic to group cohesion and survival (e.g., don't
commit murder, theft or perjury) may come to be viewed as ethical or
moral standards."

In politics, religion has historically supported authoritarian rule,
either theocracy or "divinely anointed" monarchy. If you take "divine
revelation" seriously, then the local representatives of "God" would
logically carry absolute authority. The historical exception of the
United States actually proves the rule; the "Founding Fathers" were
influenced by Deism, which rejected the authority of alleged
"revelation". Authoritarian religion has not gone away; theocracy is
a present and growing threat to democracy.

Instead of divinely ordained heirarchy, we will insist on equality
before democratically-written human law. Marie Castle, past president
of the Atheist Alliance and currently founder of Atheists For Human
Rights has written (begin extended quote):

"Atheism is more than a simple lack of god beliefs. It is a rejection
of the slave mentality inherent in deity worship; therefore, it is
the definitive condition of freedom and equality.
By freeing the mind from subjection to mythical all-powerful,
all-controlling gods, atheism requires us to control our own lives-
to look to ourselves and to each other for the satisfaction of human
needs. This can be accomplished only through the thoughtful exercise
of initiative, responsibility and mutual cooperation and assistance.
The logic of atheism is that, if one person is free to control her or
his own life, all must be free. To deny this would be to validate
enslavement at the same time one rejects it. This would be
irrational. Atheism, being incompatible with a slave mentality,
rejects all forms of tyranny, whether religious, political, economic
or cultural. Atheism is compatible only with democratic institutions.
A nation of people that frees itself of the slave mentality will
never endure oppression in any form for any significant length of
time. Free minds ensure free nations." (end of extended quote.)

The same broad vision is displayed in the statement of purpose of
American Atheists, Inc., printed inside the front cover of American
Atheist magazine. It states: "Atheism is the weltanschauung
(comprehensive conception of the world) of persons who are free from
religion.... Atheism involves the mental attitude which unreservedly
accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style
and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific
method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and
creeds.... Materialism restores dignity and intellectual integrity to
humanity. It teaches that we must prize life on Earth and strive
always to improve it. It holds that humans are capable of creating a
social system based on reason and justice." It declares one of the
purposes of that organization is "to encourage the development and
public acceptance of a humane ethical system stressing the mutual
sympathy, understanding, and interdependence of all people and the
corresponding responsibility of each individual in relation to
society."

Summing up: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point is to change it." (Karl Marx, Theses on
Feuerbach, 1888)