why i’m not “out of the atheist closet”

Since I’ve been spending quite a bit of time on atheism/accommodationist topics last week, I thought it might be a good idea to round things off with a post that’s been in the works for a while. Over this blog’s history, I’ve defended atheists, ridiculed fervent theists and didn’t exactly hide my feelings about what organized religion’s way of thinking can do to scientific minds. This is why one of the questions I tend to get is whether I just want to sign up with Richard Dawkins’ Out Campaign and officially brand Weird Things as an atheist science blog since quite a few of its readers identify as atheist or agnostic and many of those who vehemently disagree on my points will automatically declare that I’m an atheist anyway. But while I really do have a soft spot for many atheist ideas, I won’t be putting the big, red vowel in the sidebar anytime soon for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, my beliefs in anything other than opinion pieces are irrelevant so I really don’t think a logo for a particular philosophy will add anything of importance to the posts on this blog. When it comes to science, anything presented here will stand or fall by the weight of evidence rather than how many people say “atheist!” and point their digital fingers at me with scorn or a wink in agreement. I’d much rather have readers classify a post as right or wrong, obvious or controversial, atheistic or just plain, old science news on their own instead of waving a flag in the air. Maybe it’s something left over from the Soviet Union in me, but I’m in no rush to start declaring myself to be this or that. My views and positions are out there, they’re uncensored, and it’s not exactly a secret where my sympathies lie. And in that spirit, I would much rather just speak for myself. Plus, I’m really not much for the politics that come from positioning oneself in a particular group of people.

Secondly, it’s pretty obvious why atheist groups want to establish themselves through logos, a stream of very popular, must read books for those who have doubts about religious dogmas, and showing the kind of rapidly growing strength in numbers that makes religious pundits want to faint in panic. However, one of my concerns with creating Atheist Brand™ products and organizations is how it may be seen not from a theistic standpoint, but from a social one. Just like there are fads in new religious and philosophical movement, often based on a celebrity’s endorsement, we need to be aware of people who’ll identify themselves as atheists just because it’s the cool thing to do. Like overzealous born-again Christians, those who suddenly have some sort of life- altering atheist revelation can and do go out there, portraying a mere caricature of the atheistic mindset which reduces its scientific and empirical foundations to the same kind of bumper sticker and schmaltzy chain mail discourse practiced by many of those they mock.

That’s one more reason why I’d rather just let my posts speak for themselves instead of looking for some sort of official atheistic endorsement of the concepts I present on a daily basis. While atheists shouldn’t become a small, excusive clique which requires at least a scientific PhD and four peer-reviewed publications to join, and atheist writers should never be afraid to keep tearing into dangerous superstitions, we should be aware that a simple snarl or rehashed caricatures of all believers as mere simpletons and troglodytes simply isn’t going to help matters. The atheist position has to be explained thoroughly, with facts, logic, evidence and in the depth required for whatever discussion is going on. And more importantly, the empirical framework must come first and the atheism second since without good science and solid fact, atheists wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. The same goes for individuality. Just because something was defined as atheist or seems atheist-friendly, it shouldn’t receive unconditional support and cheers but be scrutinized for accuracy and logic.

Thirdly, in probably in sharp contrast with my pretense at being contemplative on the prior points, I’m not sure the scarlet A is what I’d have in mind to express the atheist position, possibly because it’s so reminiscent of a book about sexual morals in Puritan colonies: The Scarlet Letter. Maybe a version of the Darwin fish would be slightly more fitting since one could describe atheism as a constant evolution of ideas, scientific facts and the determination of going forward with the pursuit for empirical truths no matter what? Sure it might give many of today’s vocal creationists another excuse to claim that evolution is “an atheist belief” but really, don’t they use this line at every opportunity already? What’s a few more angry scowls in the general direction of those with a scientific frame of mind? It’s not like we don’t get enough of those already…