In Which I Ramble A Bit More About Religion

Came across a quote from Greg Graffin, singer for the band Bad Religion that I liked quite a bit, particularly the bolded part:

Wired Magazine came out with a big exposé of “the new atheists”. I was interviewed for it—and yet I think I was included as a sidebar but not as a main feature and I think the main reason they did that was because they noticed that I wasn’t that happy billing myself as an atheist. To me it just doesn’t say that much; it doesn’t say much about you. Instead I bill myself as a naturalist, which I think says a lot more. Because a naturalist is someone who… first of all—they study natural science, and they have a hopeful message—I think—to send to the world, which is… we can agree on what the truth is… and it has to be through experimentation, verification, and new discoveries, followed by more verification. So… if we can agree on those terms, we can agree that the truth changes, based on new discoveries, and the structure of science is such that you can never be so sure of something, because a new discovery can rework the framework—it can reconstruct the framework of your science and you have to look at the world differently. That makes it a very dynamic and exciting place to be. And if you say “you’re an atheist”, it’s not really saying much about how you came to that conclusion. But if you say “you’re a naturalist”, I think it says something. You’ve reached that point because you’ve studied science, because you believe there’s a fundamental way of looking at the world that is part of a long tradition. And so, I prefer naturalist.

That quote led me over to the Wired Magazine article from 2006. The author interviews Richard Dawkins whose aggressive atheism is well known. The author suggests that there is a move afoot to get religious fence-sitters off the fence. I guess I’m off the fence as to whether I’m a theist or not. I’m not. I am on the fence in the meta-debate. How should non-theists be engaging theists? My strong inclination is to live and let live. Mom taught me to be polite.

On the other hand, I look at the progress of the gay equality movement, and I think they have made a lot of ground because of those gay people who were unapologetic and even assertive about who they are. The best defense is often a good offense. Atheists are probably in a better position socially if the debate isn’t centered on whether they are immoral, devil-loving corrupters of the nation’s youth. (“Atheism: Threat or Menace?”) Rather, they are in a better position, if the debate centers on what makes Catholicism or Mormonism superior to Odinism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Church of the SubGenius, or any of the thousands of other beliefs that can’t be disproved by science but which are no longer or never were taken seriously.

There is always going to be a bit of incivility associated with attempts to change the status quo. Incivility is probably even more likely when discussing atheism versus theism because, unlike sexual orientation, race, and gender; religion or its lack is a choice. It’s easier to build a consensus that there is no “fault” attached to one’s race, gender, or even sexual orientation. (Though, with the latter, there are still some who claim being gay (and, by extension, I guess heterosexual) is a “lifestyle choice.”)

With religion, whichever way you land, if you embrace a different view you’re essentially saying “I’m right and you’re wrong.” Whatever its other problems, agnosticism avoids that implicit (sometimes explicit) criticism of others.

But, like I said, I do like Graffin’s focusing on celebrating natural philosophy rather than worrying too much about negating religious belief. The shift in human thinking represented by the scientific method and the way in which it fundamentally altered the human experience, I think, is difficult to overstate. The scientific method doesn’t allow us to identify every True thing, but it does allow us some common measure of confidence in the Truths that it does help us identify.