I don’t think it’s too much to say that I was thrilled by how many comments I got on my post last month about atheism. I replied to some of your comments in the comments section, so if you haven’t done so, some of you might want to check that out. But, after I’d done that, Dan submitted his comments.
Dan’s comments got me thinking, as they often do. I decided that rather than post another comment back there (which likely few people would see) I’d post my response here (giving me more justification for being verbose).

Dan said:

First, this is great if there weren’t a political aspect to the religious/atheist conflict. As long as political decisions are being based on the moral value set defined by a specific interpretation of religion, the debate is not just philosophical or even one of trying to convert. It affects people’s lives legally.

Right, this is an interesting observation. Most atheists seem to spend most of their advocacy energy on shoring up the separation of church and state. I’m all for that. I wouldn’t want to live in the jurisdiction of a government that promoted atheism any more than I’d want one to live in one that promoted any other religion. It’s at the level of civil society that I am having the quandry.

On another front, why is there need to convert people to atheism? If people want to believe whatever they want, fine. If a set of dogma becomes too unbelievable or the message of the existence of a god fails to resonate, then a person may develop his or her own atheist understanding of the world. In the mean time, what good would it do to confront people who have other beliefs? I think it would only act to strengthen those beliefs in opposition.

Right, I actually don’t have that much interest in converting people. If at some point in the future the percentage of people who were atheists was the same but the cultural acceptance of atheism had grown and the separation of church and state was strong, I’d be perfectly pleased.

Here’s a story for comparison: several years ago I was invited to the home of a woman who was very proud of her Jewish heritage. She wore in some manner (I believe it was a necklace, but I cannot really recall) a Star of David, and somehow the symbol came up in conversation, and she proclaimed with a sense of proud defiance that she wore it as a statement to everyone that “We are here”. Ok, I can’t swear that that was the quote, but whatever she said had the sense of trying to keep people from ignoring the fact that Judaism exists.

While I definitely support her freedom of religion and association, I also remember being taken aback by her comment, since I doubt she hardly ever meets anyone who doesn’t know that Judaism exists. But, on the other hand, the reason that people DO know that Judaism exists is because of people like her proudly proclaim their Judaism. Figures I’m seeing on the Adherents.com site, which are living on wikipedia (with far less contraversy than one might expect) suggest that there are ten times as many Atheists in the world as there are Jews. And that’s without including agnostics and “non-religious” people in the mix.
So, thinking about this, I feel like part of what I’m looking for is a simple way to say “I’m proud of my atheism” in a way that makes some people say “I love living in a diverse nation that prides itself on freedom of religion” and makes no one think anything worse than “well, there’s another poor soul that’s going to hell”. What I’m suggesting about the confrontational sound of the term “atheism”, though, is that some people would read such a message as “who are you to tell me that my religion is wrong?”

And, I don’t think I’m alone in this. Check out this section of the adherents.com page:

In most countries only a tiny number of people (zero to a fraction of 1 percent) will answer “atheism” or “atheist” when asked an open-ended question about what their religious preference. A slightly larger number of people will answer “yes” if asked pointedly if they are an atheist. A slightly larger number than that will answer “no” when asked if they believe in any type of God, deities, or Higher Power. A slightly larger number answer “no” when asked simply if they “believe in God” (omitting wording indicating more nebulous, less anthropomorphic conceptions of divinity). Finally, a larger number of people answer “none” or “non-religious” when asked asked an open-ended queston about what their religious preference is. Although figures vary for each country, average numbers indicate that roughly half of the people who self-identify as “nonreligious” also answer “yes” when asked if they believe in God or a Higher Power.

Hopefully when the copy of The Cambridge Companion to Atheism that I just ordered arrives, I’ll find out more about these “slightly larger numbers”. But, the story certainly suggests that there are a lot of people who actively disbelieve in God who don’t want to associate with the term “atheist”. I’m more interested in getting those people to rally behind a term than I am interested in convincing Believers that they are wrong. Why can’t we be atheist and proud, happy, and peaceful? I do suspect some of it is because people hear in the term “atheist” something contrary.

And, it’s not just the term. Most public displays of atheism that I see (T-shirts, bumper stickers, etc.) focus more on mocking religion than they do on celebrating religious beliefs. Amidst all of the writing of the “new Atheists”, the most exciting publication I’ve seen with a clearly atheistic slant recently was this Pop-Up book that Beth showed me. It doesn’t talk at all about God existing or not, it just talks about the current scientific perspective on how life and the universe came about. It’s awesome. Parents, check it out.

Thinking as I type, I’m reminded of how much of this debate focuses on evolution right now. I think it would benefit atheism for science to be more upfront about its levels of confidence about things. The reason evolution should be taught to children is because the evidence for it is overwhelming and it has near-universal acceptance by all people who devote their lives to the study of biology. However, when we talk about evolution in these terms, we’re talking really about the ideas of heredity, mutation, and selection. Everything from animal breeding to children looking like their parents to genetically modified foods presents so much evidence that heredity and selection work as evoltionary theory describe that I can’t even understand how anyone could disbelieve it now. That being said, that mutation is purely random would be difficult to prove.  And the further into the past one goes, the iffier the ground is that evolution stands upon. To me it is perfectly reasonable to think that a God could have introduced selective forces that would have encouraged The Decent of Man [sic]. It’s even reasonable to me to consider that a God took some early humanoid and made it the first animal to have a soul (I’ve met Mormons who believe just this). To go much further back, the standard evolutionary explanation of the beginning of life (y’know, promordial soup ‘n’at) strikes me as basically an educated guess, and if anyone can think of a falsifiable experiment that would lend evidence one way or another to that theory, I’d like to hear it. If nothing else, consider the idea that a God could have created conditions where a primordial soup would occur and maybe even added a magic spark to the mix to make life happen. I suspect that this idea is consistent with the entire theory of evolution. It might also be consistent with the theory of intelligent design.

My point is that atheism is an active belief system. It’s more than just not believing in other belief systems. It’s a challenging proposition, and one will never grow to understand it without deep study and reflection. However, through understanding it, many of us find it a way to what many believers-in-God call “spiritual peace.” It offers answers to many of life’s most perplexing and disturbing problems. And it provides a foundation for strong moral and ethical systems. All of these are things that people seek from religion. But it isn’t widely regarded as a religion in this sense. I’m much more motivated to promote this understanding of it than I am in converting people to it. But I’m still seeking ways to do that.