PZ Meyers is at it again, trying to herd the cats into one of 4 stalls.
I see four major categories of thoughtful atheists: scientific atheists, philosophical atheists, political atheists, and humanists.
He goes on to describe each category and I must say that while he places himself squarely among the scientific atheists, he is pretty even handed in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each.
So what do y’all think? As I read through each category, I said to myself, “Yes, that’s me.” Truth is, I have never been one to fit neatly into categories of any kind. I consider myself a Humanist, but not by Meyers’ definition. By his taxonomy, I’m somewhere between a scientific and philosophical atheist, with a good measure of the other two as well.
I’m definitely a scientific atheist although I am very interested in what the political atheists are doing. I might be one of them if I wasn’t so lazy.
Assuming the word “god” even has a meaning (I don’t think it does, we just all act like it does because most of us are of western european descent), then I’d say I’m a scientific atheist. However, he left out a whole category, I think. Atheists who do evil at every turn. Seems we always assume atheists are somehow moral through some other sense. But look at the likes of Karl Rove. He’d definitely be considered a Politcal Atheist but certainly doesn’t do anything positive in terms of what PZ Meyers described in this category.
PZ Meyers is at it again, trying to herd the cats into one of 4 stalls.
I see four major categories of thoughtful atheists: scientific atheists, philosophical atheists, political atheists, and humanists.
He goes on to describe each category and I must say that while he places himself squarely among the scientific atheists, he is pretty even handed in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each.
So what do y’all think? As I read through each category, I said to myself, “Yes, that’s me.” Truth is, I have never been one to fit neatly into categories of any kind. I consider myself a Humanist, but not by Meyers’ definition. By his taxonomy, I’m somewhere between a scientific and philosophical atheist, with a good measure of the other two as well.
I am always amused when we try to label ourselves or others and the worst of all labels are only one word. Could it be we think labels make us better or worse? To me you are what you say you and you don’t have to show you are better at what your are with a label or anything else.
I see four major categories of thoughtful atheists: scientific atheists, philosophical atheists, political atheists, and humanists.
Uh, let’s see I’m a political atheist, no a secular humanist, uh wait a minute, no a philosophical atheist, nope I’m now a scientific atheist, been reading a lot of Dawkins, OMG too many choices. must fit myself into one of these categories or Meyers may think my atheism is just an intellectual dodge and what will my colleagues think of my hesitation? OMG so many choices! Hmmm, ok, I’ll pick one and two, no three and four. Oh, what the hell, I’ll pick em all. Better to spread the risk.
I see four major categories of thoughtful atheists: scientific atheists, philosophical atheists, political atheists, and humanists.
Uh, let’s see I’m a political atheist, no a secular humanist, uh wait a minute, no a philosophical atheist, nope I’m now a scientific atheist, been reading a lot of Dawkins, OMG too many choices. must fit myself into one of these categories or Meyers may think my atheism is just an intellectual dodge and what will my colleagues think of my hesitation? OMG so many choices! Hmmm, ok, I’ll pick one and two, no three and four. Oh, what the hell, I’ll pick em all. Better to spread the risk.
That’s pretty much what my thought process was as I read through the categories.
Overthinking the problem perhaps? At it’s core, atheism is a lack of belief in any deity. Of course, we all know that much. Beyond that, those who lack belief in deity have opinions which are just as mixed up and variable as those who DO have such a belief, and that can include beliefs in such things as an afterlife and/or reincarnation.
it just doesn’t follow from being atheist/agnostic that one is also a rationalist.
I think he is coming at it as a blogger and using what various atheist bloggers (esp. those on FtB) like to talk about and bicker over as his criterion. I think that is fair enough. As with most taxonomies, it is a useful exercise, but it is lines drawn through a horrific mess (if it weren’t a horrific mess, you wouldn’t need a taxonomy). I think of the types as axes or “attractors” rather than boxes. And he is just focusing on atheists who are “within the pale”, who have legitimate differences of emphasis and opinion. He could, for example, include Ayn Rand devotees, but who really cares why they might have a difference of opinion.
Me, I probably tend to the Scientific and Humanist ends.
