Hair Coloring for Bald People

What defines an atheist as an atheist is his thoughts about God, not his absence of thoughts on the subject. Cline ultimately concedes this point, noting that atheism “represents the application of reason to a particular field, specifically the area of religious belief.” So it’s not the avoidance of thinking about God; it’s the direct application of reason to the concept.

I had a longer response to this, but I'm cutting most of it short because in the end it generally boils down to pointing out where and how the author... well, let's just say that the piece in question falls well short of basic standards of intellectual and ethical honesty. I've got more important things to do than write that kind of tit-for-tat article, especially when I doubt anyone wants to read it in the first place.

However, there is one error that actually relates to something important the nature of atheism and the ethics of belief-formation, so I thought it would be helpful to point it out. You see, I didn't say the above, George Smith did - and he did so in the context of arguing that the claim that atheism is at all significant and is anything more than the absence of belief in gods is wrong. Usually such selective and out-of-context quoting is seen most often among creationists.

I'll post the quote from Smith again because this is the position I have argued, but Raving has quite naturally avoided addressing:

[A]theism is important only when viewed in this larger context which I will call the "habit of reasonableness." Atheism is significant only if and when it results from this habit of reasonableness. The American child who grows up to be a Baptist simply because his parents were Baptist and he never thought critically about those beliefs is not necessarily any more irrational than the Soviet child who grows up to be an atheist simply because his parents were atheist and because the state tells him to be an atheist. The fact that the Soviet child in this particular case may have the correct position is irrelevant. So it's no so much what one believes, or the content, as it is why one believes as one does. So the issue of reasonableness pertains to the concern for truth, concern for the correct methodology of reasoning. And just because a person espouses atheism is no guarantee -- believe me -- that person is necessarily reasonable.

This is basically why I never crusade for atheism per se outside of a wider framework. Atheism is significant, to be sure. But it's significance derives entirely from the fact that it represents the application of reason to a particular field, specifically the area of religious belief. Atheism, unless it is ingrained within this greater philosophical defense of reason, is practically useless. When, however, it is the consequence of the habit of reasonableness, then atheism stands in opposition to the wave of supernaturalism and mysticism we are currently experiencing. In other words, irrationalism in any form it may occur.

Atheism is significant if and only if it occurs in the context of a "habit of reasonableness" - but it doesn't have to occur in such a context. When it doesn't, then it isn't significant at all. Now, Raving doesn't seem to consider the means a person uses to arrive at their beliefs to be as important as the beliefs themselves. As far as he's concerned, I guess, what's most important is that a person deny gods, not why they do so. If they do it for reasons that are completely irrational, that doesn't seem to matter.

But I think that it does matter. Unlike Raving, I consider skepticism and a "habit of reasonableness" to be crucial - more crucial than whether a person ends up rejecting belief in gods. You see, when a person abandons any focus on methodology and reasonableness, they aren't so likely to be as concerned about things like logic or rationality - or reality. Dogmatism is, in many ways, the preference for orthodoxy above anything else. It's one of the things that can make religion so distasteful, and it's equally distasteful when it occurs outside of religion.

I believe that the difference between myself and Raving is, at its heart, ethical. I follow in the footsteps of people like Carl Sagan and George Smith, arguing that it is a person's skeptical methodology (or lack thereof) which is most important because the correct methodology is more likely to lead us to correct beliefs. This is an ethical commitment because like William K. Clifford, I regard the process of belief formation to be a matter of ethics rather than simply epistemology. This entire site is constructed around the application of reason to, among other things, religious beliefs. It is an exercise in showing how atheism can be relevant by embedding it in skeptical critiques of religion, superstition, and other forms of irrationalism. But that takes work - it isn't something the flows automatically from being an atheist.

Promoting atheism for the sake of atheism has no ethical, epistemological, or metaphysical value. Promoting skepticism and critical thinking which carry atheism along with them... now that is useful.

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• Defining Atheism
• Myths About Atheism