Atheists:
Going the Way
of the Dodo?
John Woodside
From: "Woodside, John JW SITI"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: February 15, 2002 12:10 PM
Subject: Positive Atheism, Cliff's Columns
Cliff,
I'm not too busy today, and when that happens I usually roam over to your site.
I couldn't agree with you more in your June 2001 Column. It seems that getting fellow atheists and agnostics to do anything remotely activistic is an extremely difficult process. I privately suspect that most atheists lack the will to challenge the much larger majority. I challenge Christians on a regular basis -- normally with informal discussions or arguments. I have to admit, however, that this effort is pretty much like trying to teach the pig to sing. It never seems to bear any fruit and it only serves to irritate the pig. I often feel like giving it up altogether. Tend one's own garden as Emerson and Thoreau often said.
But, I press on -- knowing that if I could enable just one person in my life to voluntarily switch to a reason-based worldview, there would be one less-confused individual out there. Imagine what might happen over time if the entire 10 percent of America's atheists decided to look at this issue in the same way that I do: Atheists might just comprise 20 percent of the population some day in the distant future. I know that's wildly optimistic.
One thing is for sure, however. If no one makes an effort to increase our numbers, that percentage will never increase. Rather, the percentage will likely drop! One of my atheist friends states that we are going the way of the dodo bird. These days, with "God Bless America" signs plastered in every corner, it is certainly hard to discredit his assessment.
I believe you are right in stating that atheists are not normally inclined to concern themselves with what others believe. But, perhaps it is time for us as a group to change this tendency.
Just something to think about.
-- John
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 12:21 AM
To: Woodside, John JW SITI
Subject: Re: Positive Atheism, Cliff's Columns
It seems that getting fellow atheists and agnostics to do anything remotely activist is a extremely difficult process.
My position is based more on the likelihood that a person's belief in gods and the supernatural (or the lack thereof) does not constitute the one deciding factor as to whether an individual is "confused" or morally corrupt or whatever. In fact, the presence or lack of a god-belief does not determine anything of significance, with one vital exception, which ought to drive my point home: a person who holds that a gods exist is a theist and a person who does not hold such views is an atheist. Aside from that, I cannot tell you much about a person if the only information I have to go on is whether or not the person is a theist. In other words, tendencies or likelihoods don't seem to be affected by one's religious loyalty or lack therein.
Rather, the thinking style that does make a difference (and often a very significant difference) is fundamentalism. Although some religious views set themselves up for fundamentalism, the tendency toward fundamentalism is by no means restricted to theism. I have noted that atheism can and does attract its fair share of fundamentalists. This was the direct subject of my December, 1999, column, "Atheism & Fundamentalism." (Gaah! Was that one that long ago?)
Fundamentalistic thinking within organized atheism, being at least noticable if not prevalent among most of the groups near where I live, has exacted a heavy toll from me in the various dealings I've had with the leadership. This thinking style, applied to the administration of atheistic organizations, was the direct inspiration (but not the subject) of "Why Advocate For Individual Activists?"
"Why Advocate?" is my latest proposal (or rough draft, if you will) for inclusion in that ongoing work known as "Introduction To Activistic Atheism."
I have prepared and will soon quietly release my response to complaints made against me by some members of the planning committee who put together the Oregon Symposium that we supported last summer. At the time, I was waiting for at least somebody who knew about this mess to at least say something in the way of disapproval of the behavior in question. I don't know anyone who wouldn't strongly condemn what these individuals did -- and not just one, but several people were involved. However, this is not what anybody ended up doing: several knew about it, a few were even encouraged to solicit responses from their neck of the woods. Nothing. After two months of silence, I decided to take the official position that what the representatives of these groups said both by their words and by their actions, reflects a
I'm not too busy today, and when that happens I usually roam over to your site.
It's good to see that those things which took me so long to learn -- the hard way, of course -- when put into a modestly accessible format, can become so useful to so many individuals who stop by. Almost every other day I stop and wonder, "What am I doing?" Then I open up the e-mail program and see exactly what I am doing, and can only wish I had the resources to do more.
Over the past two weeks, I've been able to put together one, perhaps two hours each day. This has happened once before, that I got so far behind that I had no idea where to start, and that, in itself prevented me from even being able to get started. Victor, from the Netherlands, agreed to format a hundred or so Letters files while I got some other work done, and in no time, PAM was back on her feet. Today, I try to put in three or four hours a day into the January Print Edition, and then "level out" by formatting or answering Letters. I'll pull back out of it -- I promise! Hey! What else can I do at this point? Back then I still had other options, but health and other personal factors are severely limiting those options.
PAM, at this point, remains an open option, and has grown to become easily my most important work to date. I've watched more get done, to be sure, but I shared those chores with others. Also, my presence was expendable in all cases. However, never have I done work that has directly returned so much in the way of changing the world around me as I have since embarking on the PAM project three years ago, and her predecessor six-and-one-half years ago.
The work with addicted people comes close, and its importance may overshadow this work simply because numerous lives were spared in the process. And I watched many changes take place as well. But still, that was me doing someone else's work for them (for the most part).
PAM is my work if for no other reason than because it was I who served those twenty-four days for refusing to enter a faith-based rehabilitation program. It was I who concluded that I am clueless as to how to even start, there never having been something like what I saw even then as being needed. It was I who have been asking the questions, tugging on people's coat-tails and saying, "Hey, what do you think about this?" And it was I who have taken those responses and tested them to see if any of them hold any water, making numerous mistakes and recording those mistakes diligently into the Letters responses for all to see.
Every once in a while, I must take stock of what I have done, what I've been doing lately, where I think I'm going, and most importantly, my motive for doing this. Thanks for the opportunity to get a bit serious with at least somebody today!
Imagine what might happen over time if the entire 10 percent of America's atheists decided to look at this issue in the same way that I do ... Atheists might just comprise 20 percent of the population some day in the distant future. I know that's wildly optimistic. One thing is for sure, however. If no one makes an effort to increase our numbers, that percentage will never increase. Rather, the percentage will likely drop! One of my atheist friends states that we are going the way of the dodo bird. These days, with "God Bless America" signs plastered in every corner, it is certainly hard to discredit his assessment.
You're not being "wildly optimistic" at all. In fact, based upon the data that has, of late, been coming from just about every side -- not to mention the most trustworthy data, that collected and analyzed by a team from the City University of New York (CUNY) -- I'm tempted to think of them as a tad pessimistic!
I am so glad your friend is dead wrong! Try just over 14 percent of American adults claiming to be "not religious"! And these are the raw figures: the real numbers are higher. We are the fastest growing religious group (if you'd call us that) in America, both by percentages and by sheer numbers. We didn't know this in June, 2001, because the study reporting these figures (the CUNY work) was released in November, 2001. Check out my piece, "Atheists Come to Power" (perhaps my most important work to date, as activism goes) and see what's been happening while most of us have been asleep.
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe
From: "Woodside, John JW SITI"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: February 18, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: RE: Positive Atheism, Cliff's Columns
Cliff,
It has been my personal experience with other atheists and agnostics that has led me to believe that we are, as a group, loath to openly discuss our beliefs.
But, based on reading this e-mail -- it appears that you, however, have been "activist" for some time. I will look through the various links that you sent to me when I get time. Please note that although I've been an atheist for almost 20 years now, I'm just beginning to see the value in promoting, discussing, and disseminating our ideas amongst ourselves and to society at large. I've always argued and discussed cosmology, religion, and non-religion with individuals -- but I've never participated in any public forum or attended any meeting with fellow non-believers. I am going to attend the March service at the Houston Church of Freethought and see what is happening over there. It is not much -- but it is a beginning.
I have noted after taking a quick perusal through some of the material you which you listed in your reply that your group is not trying to convert anyone. While that may be technically true, the purpose of writing atheist magazines or putting up a web site or organizing a "Church" of Freethought is to persuade -- and getting people to voluntarily change their world view (or de-convert from their old theistic views as you say) after ingesting atheistically inclined material amounts to much the same thing as "converting" them. It's just semantics to me -- but I still feel it is important to make the attempt to persuade. Otherwise, we atheists will most certainly go the way of the dodo bird as my friend has said. Carl Sagan may not have tried to convert anyone -- but he obviously was trying to reach people and help them see the wisdom of adopting a scientifically-based world view. I believe that was his most important contribution to the world while he lived.
It was amusing to hear that you once wanted to marry a woman steeped in New-Age belief and fundamentalist Christianity. Please don't be offended. But, how often do square pegs fit into round holes? I gave up trying to live with or marry Christian women years ago. I married a Russian woman five years ago-my second marriage. We are happily married (within reason-our relationship is far from perfect) and we have one four-year-old son. She has no problem with raising our son as an atheist. She claims a vague belief in some sort of God herself-but does not object to my atheistic philosophy being the dominant one with respect to our son. I specifically wanted to marry a woman without any God belief-and I thought Russia would be as good as place as any to find one. My wife fits my needs in this area better than a Christian (or American) woman ever could. If you're single and looking, I recommend finding a woman who respects your beliefs. Concerning male-female relationships-they are difficult enough to maintain without the added burden of dealing with wildly opposing world-views between the two partners. Just a recommendation from one who's been there.
Finally, I was interested to read that you believe "that a person's belief in gods and the supernatural (or the lack thereof) does not constitute the one deciding factor as to whether an individual is "confused" or morally corrupt or whatever." Again, this idea may be "technically" correct. But, I feel that a person's belief in God and the supernatural often causes that individual to lose the ability to see the world as it is. Such beliefs often create a lens or filter for whomever adopts them-and it can literally destroy their ability (in some cases) to understand the world in rational terms. Try living in the Bible Belt for a few years. Or even a few months. Hell, just come meet the various confused members of my large family. (I love them-but they are all victims of a rather dense Christian lens -- self-inflicted, of course!) At any rate, you would see what I mean rather quickly, I think, if you lived in my neck of the woods.
Keep up the good work with your magazine and the web site. Your web site, especially, has been a fantastic find for me. I peruse it quite often. I know you're busy-but reply back when you can.
-- John
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2002 8:01 PM
To: Woodside, John JW SITI
Subject: Re: Positive Atheism, Cliff's Columns
I hate to disappoint you, but the Christian-New Age woman and I are still quite close -- ostensibly an "item," if you will -- ostensibly. It comes and it goes, but now that Tammy's gone (cancer, 1990), she's really all I have that even pretends to go in that direction. We at least put on a good pretense even if the real thing is fleeting. If nothing else, we probably could stand to be around each other like neither of us could stand to hang with anybody else we know. And the spark of attraction is there: it's always been there. Turns out that I made some pretty serious sacrifices in high school (or so she says), and I never knew about these it until this year.
But the religious question notwithstanding, we have much more in common than probably all the other women I've been close to up until now. Hell, when we were in the first and second and third grade, we spent the entire time not 200 feet away from each other. We didn't know each other's names, but we knew the face. In other words, we already know that "shorthand" that usually takes a couple years, or even decades to master. We already know it even if we never spent a day together, because we grew up not six months apart and not a mile away.
I am convinced that the part of the brain that gets religion is not the same part that builds bridges or raises children. Religion is drilled in from an early age and is very much a reflex. Never is it thought out except among those who went on to become apologists.
Ah, but in lieu of her (something that some might confuse as a miracle), I'd be entirely satisfied with a woman from another culture. I now live on the border of Portland's Rumanian community, and really love those people.
Cliff Walker
Positive Atheism Magazine
Six years of service to
people with no reason to believe