Sam Harris: ‘We shouldn’t call ourselves ‘atheists”
Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007…instead, we should be undercover superheroes!!
From washingtonpost via linkfilter:
So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them.
Well, okay… but only if I can have my very own jetpack and rocket shoes.
2 Responses to “Sam Harris: ‘We shouldn’t call ourselves ‘atheists””
-
omg i r afiest too omg omg
October 5th, 2007 at 11:34 am
ACKSHULLY
I posted about this elsewhere on the net. Allow me to share.
Someone was all like
>
> http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=317&article=1
> is a link to Ellen Johnson’s response to Sam Harris’ provocative
> perspective.
>
So I was all like “I submitted a response to Ellen’s article, which I also posted on the IIDB, and will repost here (more food for thought).”
And, like, this was my response to the response:
I have to say that Sam’s views are somewhat visionary and futuristic.
Please, look at the context:
Quote:
“Atheism is nothing more than the sounds people make when in the
presence of unjustified dogma. It’s just reason in action,” Harris
said, adding that the term atheist will no longer be useful if atheist
organizations achieve their goals.
“Maybe there is a role for being outspoken as atheists, self-labeling,
at the moment,” Harris said, musing on the topic. “Maybe there’s some
transitional importance to this.”
Endquote
I think Sam wants to see the future, now. He wants to see a world
where atheism is irrelevant because theism is equally irrelevant. He
is hopeful for a day when the nonreligious are not a topic of
discussion, because religion is not a topic of discussion.
We, reading this now, in 2007, will never live to see the day when
topics of theistic beliefs and the lack thereof are not important or
controversial. This is why Sam’s speech is at least 50-100 years
premature. This is why Ellen Johnson is right. At the moment, religion
is imposing itself on those who do not follow it, and those who do not
wish to be imposed upon must speak out, identifying themselves as a
maligned minority.
Sam might be right in 100 years, but Ellen is right, right now.
omg i r afiest