Passive vs. Aggressive Atheism: Which Path is Best? (Book Notes: The Gathering of Infidels)

Different atheists have different attitudes towards their atheism and the theism of others. One difference which has persisted for a long time is whether to attack theistic religion aggressively or to adopt a more conciliatory stance - an atheism which is critical, but doesn't go out of its way to criticize.

In The Gathering of Infidels: A Hundred Years of the Rationalist Press Association, Bill Cooke writes:

The disagreement between Bradlaugh and Watts over their attitudes toward “The Fruits of Philosophy” goes to the heart of the division in the freethought movement around the world, then and now. People like Bradlaugh see their role relative to religion essentially as a combat role. Angered by the many errors in religious truth claims and motivated by injustices experienced at the hand of religious intolerance, they see their task as the elimination of error.

But other people within the freethought movement have a different focus. They are more likely to appreciate the inclusive, nurturing elements in religion, and seek to recreate some of that spirit in the freethought movement, minus, of course, the dogmatism and error. Colin Campbell has posited these two types as abolitionists and substitutionists. Bradlaugh and his followers had more of the features of the abolitionist strand in freethought. Charles Watts and his friends had more features of the substitutionist strand of the movement.

Both are legitimate and honourable facets of international freethought, but relations between exponents of each of these strands have often been tense, as this history will recall.

Of course, it’s possible for a person to adopt both perspectives, depending upon the context. A person might be more combative when it comes certain religious forms but less combative with others. Let’s face it, there are forms of religion which may be wrong and irrational, but also aren’t immediately dangerous in any political or social sense. Indeed, it may be necessary for atheists to make common cause with adherents of such religions in order to achieve basic political goals like securing the separation of church and state.

Thus we are presented with a fundamental problem: if atheists believe that theistic religion is wrong and irrational, is it also wrong to work with religious theists for the sake of political or social goals? Is it a betrayal of basic principles of freethought to refrain from attacking liberal theists in order to work with them to prevent fundamentalists from acquiring too much power?

It’s a conflict of principle vs. pragmatism. Adherence to principle would suggest that one be equally critical of both liberal and fundamentalist theists because both positions are wrong. Pragmatism, though, suggests that since it will never happen that everyone agrees with you on everything, then you will necessarily have to work with people you disagree with on some thing in order to achieve goals on which you do all agree.

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.