Julian Baggini Atheism: A Very Short Introduction

Schuhart

I don’t know if the possibility of a sticky for books has been considered, but I think there might be a point to it.

In any case, I’ve just finished Julian Baggini’s Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, and I think this book does exactly what it says on the tin. I think it’s a very useful trot around the subject, and a good first book. Its not that there’s anything remarkable in it – I’d say most of the ideas have featured in some form or other in discussions on these Forums. But I think it does help both in avoiding any need to re-invent the wheel and as a reminder that the conclusions we’ve come to are actually quite well known.

I think his discussion on ethics and purpose in life are a bit weak, but I think that just reflects the plain fact that atheist thought is a bit weak on those topics. I think we tend to retreat (as Baggini does) into saying ‘well, religion isn’t actually any better off, you just think you are’.

On the pure case for atheism, he’s quite good – equally, I think, just reflecting the other plain fact that we are probably right and theists are probably wrong.

I was persuaded by his reflection on militant atheism, and his conclusion that we really should avoid being dogmatic about our position in discussion with theists. It’s a relevant thought to some of the discussions we’ve had here recently.

Zombrex

What is his definition of "militant atheism"

I ask because it is hard to know outside of the Creationists idea that a militant/fundamentalists atheists is someone who doesn't want ID in the science class room.

It would be interesting to hear an atheists define a "militant atheist" for a change.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

What is his definition of "militant atheism"

He sees a militant atheist as someone who wants to eradicate religion, as distinct from someone who simply wants a secular society that protects all beliefs. Regarding all theists as stupid might also be a feature of such militancy, or actively seeking converts as distinct from simply being open to discussion and letting reason quietly do its work. He’d also counsel against dogmatism – i.e. accept that doubt exists, even if that doubt must also include the possible existence of the tooth fairy or of orbiting teapots. I don’t think there’s anything in his outlook that we would not have identified ourselves.

I don’t recall any specific statement in the book on, say, the position of creationism in school science classes. I would take his logic to mean that identifying creationism as religion and not science and advocating that it be kept off the science curriculum is simply advocacy of secularism, and not militancy.

If, however, someone chooses to ignore the products of science and takes creationism as their creed, that’s entirely their affair and the only need for dialogue arises if they either want to talk about it, or if they seek to alter state policies or laws to reflect their religious outlook.

Where it might be controversial in the Irish case is in the field of education. We’ve seen this reflected on some threads on these boards, reflecting that the ownership of almost all primary schools by religious authorities is starting to become anachronistic. Campaigning for secular schools, bearing in mind that they largely operate with State funding, would look like an acceptable secular campaign. But it could obviously be depicted as militancy (or even ‘aggressive secularism’) by people opposed to any change.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

He sees a militant atheist as someone who wants to eradicate religion, as distinct from someone who simply wants a secular society that protects all beliefs. Regarding all theists as stupid might also be a feature of such militancy, or actively seeking converts as distinct from simply being open to discussion and letting reason quietly do its work. He’d also counsel against dogmatism – i.e. accept that doubt exists, even if that doubt must also include the possible existence of the tooth fairy or of orbiting teapots. I don’t think there’s anything in his outlook that we would not have identified ourselves.

It's a very good definition, I would say.

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t recall any specific statement in the book on, say, the position of creationism in school science classes. I would take his logic to mean that identifying creationism as religion and not science and advocating that it be kept off the science curriculum is simply advocacy of secularism, and not militancy.

If, however, someone chooses to ignore the products of science and takes creationism as their creed, that’s entirely their affair and the only need for dialogue arises if they either want to talk about it, or if they seek to alter state policies or laws to reflect their religious outlook.

Where it might be controversial in the Irish case is in the field of education. We’ve seen this reflected on some threads on these boards, reflecting that the ownership of almost all primary schools by religious authorities is starting to become anachronistic. Campaigning for secular schools, bearing in mind that they largely operate with State funding, would look like an acceptable secular campaign. But it could obviously be depicted as militancy (or even ‘aggressive secularism’) by people opposed to any change.

Indeed, I think we are already going that route. There is a deliberate attempt to conflate secularism with atheism - a conflation that has a long history.

cordially,
Scofflaw