A friend recently sent
me this talk by Daniel Dennett, “How
To Tell You're An Atheist.” Dennett is, I think it's fair to
say, the least obnoxious of your Four Horsemen of New
Atheism, and the talk is pretty interesting, especially at the
bookends: the phenomenon of closet-atheist clergy is enormously
fascinating, as is the observation that religious creeds must tend to
impenetrability if they're to survive.
However, the talk's
very title telegraphs something that thoroughly infuriates me about
New Atheism, and that is its evangelical fervor. I realize I run the
risk of making a false equivalency here, so let me state forthrightly
that I absolutely do not think that New Atheists and the
Christian right are like totally the same and both sides are
as bad as each other and the truth lies in the fuzzy-wuzzy
middle. The fact that the United
States (where much of this discourse is taking place) is a Christian
supremacist society means that the dynamics at play when an atheist
speaks are very different than when a Christian speaks, even if
they're saying the same thing. They're coming from different places,
they got there in different ways, they have diametrically opposed
agendas; but the fundagelical and the atheist telling me I'm not
really a Christian are both very wrong.
The
intense hostility of much of US culture toward atheists is pretty
mystifying for us godless-commie-Europeans, but it certainly exists,
and it completely explains the forcefulness of some American
atheists. When you're a marginalized group trying to assert yourself
to a dominant culture that would prefer to pretend you don't exist,
you have to be loud and proud, and if you bruise the delicate
fee-fees of your oppressors, well, cry me a frickin' river. I get
that. But the marginalization of non-believers in the US really isn't
exactly the same as other axes of marginalization and oppression,
because belief (or lack thereof) is, as Dennett points out in that
speech, entirely internal. His suggestion that Christians who help
the poor are closet atheists is breathtakingly cynical (and that's
coming from a thoroughgoing cynic), but his point stands: no matter
what someone says and does, we can't know what they truly do or don't
believe. Dennett's theory is that, for an awful lot of people, their
behavior and their beliefs do not align. Christianity, on his
reading, is teeming with closet atheists for whom the social
consequences of admitting their lack of faith are just too high.
Now,
I sympathize with the goal of making it socially acceptable to be
openly atheist. Frankly, I find it nonsensical that it's not
acceptable here. But I have a lot less sympathy for the accusation of
widespread bad faith or false consciousness – for the practice of
telling self-identified Christians that, if they're thinking people or not fully orthodox or lefties, they're probably not really
Christians.
Since
Dennett himself uses the analogy of gayness (which is totally not in
any way a cheap shot or a false equivalency), let's roll with that. I
am a queer person, and if I'm perfectly honest straightness baffles
me. On a gut level it weirds me out and repels me, and, though I'm
surrounded by self-identified straight people, I just don't get why
anyone would be straight.
I
could make the argument that they shouldn't be. I could say that,
once upon a time, I thought I must be straight too, before I knew it
was possible to be anything else; that I understand the fear of
social consequences that keeps people closeted; that probably there
are tons of straight-identified people who are really secret queers,
but they're too uninformed or afraid to admit that they're anything
other than straight.
To
some extent, I think this is true (though the numbers are probably
fewer than I'd like them to be), just as it's true of closet-atheist
Christians. But that doesn't mean I think it's right to second-guess
all straight people, to tell them their identity as a straight person
is a lie (at best to everyone around them, at worst to themselves as
well), to redefine the parameters of straightness so as to exclude a
lot of straight-identified people (because I understand straightness
better than they do? because I know them better than they know
themselves? because I've put a lot of thought into this whole issue,
and the fact that they still call themselves straight proves that
they haven't?). My goal might be the noble one of encouraging
self-actualization and greater self-understanding, but this tactic
sucks. It's
aggressive, it's arrogant, it's domineering, and it's hierarchical.
Saying
“if you call yourself straight, but you've ever thought about
kissing someone of the same gender as you, then you're actually a big
flaming 'mo” isn't helpful. For straight people who are not ready
to think deeply about sexuality, that statement sounds like a threat.
For straight people who have thought deeply about sexuality, it's
insulting and delegitimizes their process. Either way, it's accusing
straight people of a false consciousness and co-opting their
identity.
Of
course, if your ultimate concern is swelling the ranks of people you
can call queer, then I suppose this is the optimal tactic. But if
your ultimate concern is giving people the tools for greater
self-awareness, better critical thinking, and a richer engagement
with the world and people around them, then you're better off
sticking to education. Despite his title and some of his more condescending moments, Dennett does recognize this in that speech, and that is why I have more respect for him than for Dawkins et al.
By
all means, be as loud and proud an atheist as you want. God (or
whoever) knows the world needs more thinking people who will stand up
boldly for what they (don't) believe in. People need to encounter
others who think and live differently than they do. It's the only way
to learn and grow as a person.
Tell
me how you self-identify, what you think and
believe, and why; I need to hear it. Just don't fucking tell me what I am.