Hemant Mehta (Friendly Atheist) had a few things to say about Atheism+. He begins by defending the "Brights" by explaining that:
... there are *many* people who never felt comfortable using the terms "atheist," "Humanist," "freethinker," whatever. But when they heard "Bright," it connected with them and it gave them a way to feel part of a larger movement.
Aside from the fact that these people would probably feel alienated by the fact that most atheists either dislike or are indifferent to the "Brights" label, he might have a point. He continues:
In the same way, even if Atheism+ doesn’t resonate with you, even if you’re not a fan of the way it’s being promoted by various people, I would urge you not to denounce it so quickly.
I left this comment on his blog:
It's too soon to know anything for certain about Atheism+. The way it was presented was less than ideal, and it caused Richard Carrier to lose his damn mind for a while, but hopefully - if it lasts and doesn't fade away - Atheism+ will have a positive effect in general.
At least it's not (so far) as silly as the "Brights" label.
If the "Atheism+" label doesn't fade away like all the other sordid Internet histrionics of infamy, I do indeed hope it becomes something positive. And like I said in response to Hemant's blog entry, it's too soon to tell whether that will be the case. I hope that the "Brights" label has helped some people. Even if it has, that doesn't mean it's not a bad idea. There have been people who have been helped by becoming part of a religion, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, folks.
Remember when a bunch of atheists got all shirty (yes, shirty) when the super awesome Neil deGrasse Tyson did his golly gee darnedest to avoid the "atheist" label? The plussers aren't necessarily avoiding the label, but they are implying that the "atheist" label alone isn't good enough. They have to add something to it. It needs something more... positive. It's not enough to just call yourself an atheist any more. They think we need a better label.
Some things Tyson said then stuck with me, and the Atheism+ debate brought his words to mind again:
I don't associate with movements. I'm not an 'ism'... I'd rather we explore each other's ideas in real time, rather than assign a label to it and assert you know what's going to happen in advance... I don't have the time, the interest, the energy, to do any of that [i.e., have debates that atheists have]... At the end of the day, I'd rather not be any category at all.
Whether Tyson is right or wrong (or neither) about the whole "atheist vs. agnostic" issue, I'm guessing he's not too worried about the Atheism+ debate. Seems to me like it's one of those debates that atheists have in which Tyson has neither the time, the interest, nor the energy to participate. Honestly, that sounds rather nice to me. Wouldn't it be great to just deal with the important issues instead? That's what we're all trying to do, right? We're trying to fight racism, sexism, classism, ageism, homophobia, transphobia, and all the other phobias and isms that prohibit equality and human rights. We're all trying to promote critical thinking, skeptical inquiry, and scientific literacy. Why can't we just do more of that?
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but it just seems like we spend a lot of time talking about how to talk about the issues rather than just talking about the issues. Instead of creating new labels, fighting over labels, trying to start new movements, fighting over these supposed movements, why not just focus on the issues themselves? Has the atheist community succumbed to hubris to such a degree that we're now christening our own ideas as "new movements" because we think we're that important? How about we just do the right thing and take a stand for the virtues we uphold, and let history decide what is or is not a "new wave of atheism"?
I'm not saying we will never disagree. Far from it. And I'm not saying we should never discuss the means by which we communicate values and virtues. What I am saying is that we seem to spend a lot of time standing around arguing about the car when we should be getting in the race. Neil Tyson comes to mind again. He's out there, fighting the good fight, and (as far as I can see) isn't bothered by Internet drama created by self-righteous atheist bloggers. Do the labels we use really mean that much? Yes, I think the "Brights" label is silly, but I don't care whether you use it. I'm not a fan of "Atheism+" but I don't care whether you use the label. In the end, it's just not that important. It's just a label.
To this extent Hemant agrees. He wrote:
What if you want nothing to do with Atheism+? Ok. You’re not a bad person for saying it’s not something you want to be a part of. (Not in my mind, anyway.)
Hopefully other plussers will follow Hemant's example here rather than make snap judgments about people based on whether they put a "+" on the end of their label. So far, I've seen way too much of the latter, and not nearly enough of the former. I hope that will change. The only reason I said anything at all about Atheism+ in the beginning was because of how zealous and dogmatic I saw many of these newly anointed plussers become, and how quickly they became that way. Richard Carrier's antics alone worried me enough to say something about it.
In the end, may we be about the issues that unite us rather than the labels that divide us.
Not caring about your labels
