It’s been a good day all day today. I’ve had good meetings with students, a good discussion with my Wednesday group at church, and a bunch of good ideas for my course on public policy next term. But nothing so far has been more wonderful than the piece I read in the New York Times this morning with the headline: Atheist Groups Promote a Holiday Message: Join us.
It wasn’t just the article itself, I suppose. Bette and I were having coffee together at our favorite Starbucks. They are still serving the Thanksgiving blend, which is a good rich brew. I was headed down to the office afterwards where I knew I would be able to pick up my new not-very-business business cards—the only card I have ever seen with a footnote on it. So I think the setting had something to do with the explosion of joy which greeted the new atheist advertising campaign.
My heart really goes out to these guys. To start with, they are against “religion,” rather than any religion in particular. I’m not a fan of “religion,” myself, so I wish them well. Counterpoised to religion is “reason.” So they are going to be pitching “reason” to the country that has the largest percentage in the industrialized world who refuse to believe that the earth orbits the sun, rather than vice versa. This is according to a Pew survey within the last year. We lead the world, too, it almost goes without saying in the percentage who believe that the world is only a few thousands of years old.
The second giggle is that they are being forced by the logic of the market to arm wrestle each other for what they are calling “market share.” This according to Mark Silk of the Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life. This means that from the most practical of standpoints, whatever is good news for the Freedom from Religion Foundation is bad for the United Community of Reason. I guess if you’re going to get really involved in the race, you have to pick a horse. It won’t be long before they are having negative ads aimed at their competitors. I’d guess “More Atheistic than Thou” would be a good theme.
I think that American Atheists is my pick in the early going. They will be putting a billboard on the Jersey end of the Lincoln Tunnel—this would be the Lincoln who said, in his second inaugural address “…still it must be said that the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether” rather than some other Lincoln—and the billboard says “You Know it’s a Myth. This Season Celebrate Reason.” I would like them for that if there were no other reason. It’s way too long, for one thing. And it misuses “myth” for another. And it doesn’t say what “season” it has in mind, for another, or why reason should have a season. That sounds like the complaints I get from my PS 101 students along about midterm time.
American Atheists is also the group who, according to David Silverman, their president, said that the campaign is aimed at people who “might go to church but are just going through the motions.” Mr. Silverman, you may have them. I would rather see them taking up space at your place than at ours. Had you considered what to do when they continue going through the motions over at your place? It’s a tough group. They are more or less inert and seem to cherish their inertness. Whatever you can do to dent it will be a service to us all.
I am reminded of a nicely graphic passage I’ve read many times, so it’s probably in Never Cry Wolf. It says that the wolf and the caribou are allies. The wolves remove the old, the sick, and the disabled caribou from the population. The removal of these from the breeding pool does wonders for the health and vitality of the caribou herd, not to mention what it does for the wolves. So I can imagine the Presbyterian churches—the only ones I really know anything about—and the American Atheists mutually benefitting each other and both passing the benefits down to their progeny.
I am old, however, and I have grown wary. I’m not one to count his caribou before they are eaten and I don’t want to hope for too much. What if the atheists are wrong about this? What if the “unchurched”[1] really don’t care enough to raise the question at all. What if this is, as I think it is, really a question of “issue salience?” If that is the case, then the first task of the new atheist marketers will be to argue that the question is urgently important. Once the urgency of the issue has been raised—it is now salient—then the utility of the atheist response to the issue becomes relevant.
I’m not really hopeful. Establishing salience is a bitch. Still, there appear to be new allies entering the field so it is no time for me to despair. And just in time for Christmas.
[1] Meaning this to include the un-mosqued, the un-synagogued, the un-templed, and the un-covened as well.
I find a few things funny about this. First, like you, I think it's funny that all these groups are fighting for market share.
ReplyDeleteBut I also like the idea that they're trying to take people from an organization (religion) and have them . . . ? What? Join the religion of atheism? Go forth and spread the gospel of nothingness? If they do their jobs really well, they'll have zero evangelists.
They're also trying to ensure the disenfranchisement the disenfranchised. Getting people who are not involved in religion mostly out of apathy committed to atheism will not go well at all.
I get what they're trying to do, and I support it, even if it's for different reasons than you, but you can't fight faith with reason.
But what if they manage to just thin the herd by picking off those whose faith has never been built on anything strong? What if they get a percentage of those who go through the churchly motions, including contributing money? Aren't you concerned for the well being of your church?
There IS a certain irony to all the atheist buzz, isn't there? It's pleasure to enjoy it together.
ReplyDeleteAs to the last question, no, I am not concerned. I think that the church would, as a general matter, benefit greatly from losing people who go through the churchly motions, but who are not actually engaged in living a life informed by faith. The more I think about it, the more I think that the analogy with the caribou and the wolves is a good one. Both benefit.
The one other matter in your response that tickled something in my brain in the reference to faith and reason. I agree that you can't fight faith with reason, but I don't really think that's the issue with the atheists except, possibly, for fundamentalists. The questions that have activated Christians for such a long time, e.g., "For what purpose are we here?" are not really promising candidates for experiment. The best "rationalists" can say in response is that the "why" question is not a question for which science is able to address directly.
As reasonable as that answer it, it doesn't amount to a horse in the race. It is more like a reason why racing horses is not really a good idea, an argument that has never gone over well with racing enthusiasts.