'Atheists' vs. 'Non-Believers'
March 16th 2009 15:48
When President Obama paid tribute to "non-believers" in the context of religion in his Inaugural speech, he made me cringe and hope that this condescending word would not catch on, let alone replace the much more palatable 'atheist'. Most vulnerable to reproducing this article are people of faith who look up to Obama, as the term appeals to their disillusionment with the non-religious. Their adamant investment 'Belief' leads them to look upon those who reject it altogether in disfavour and some misgiving. In the US world where the religious majority won't hear of an atheist president, such verbal maneuvering is bound to pick up some stature, what with Obama's slightly pompous delivery. He 'sells it,' as they say - but don't be buying, folks. 
Atheist is a much more neutral and dignified term for those who don't believe in religion, being that it makes reference to an opposition, or turning away from theology, as opposed to privileging some pre-conceived, stultified notion of Belief (that is nefariously shared by every religion out there, no less).
Here is what Douglas Todd had to say when faced with the semantic value of 'non-believer':
Even though I like what Obama did in his speech, I must say I don't really like the term, "non-believer."
The term suggests there is just one thing to believe in -- and someone has chosen not to.
"Non-believer" is supposed to mean the person doesn't believe in God. But the term assumes only one understanding of God. Someone could argue it even assumes the existence of a God, which the "non-believer" is falsely denying. But I don't think that's what Obama was doing.
I find it unhelpful to act as if "belief" and "non-belief" is a choice between just two options. The definitions of the word, "God" -- as well as "spirit," the "divine," "the sacred" and similar terms -- are vast and diverse. There are dozens of options when it comes to "belief" and "non-belief."
What's a better alternative to the term, "non-believer?" I'm not sure. But "atheist" isn't too bad. And that's how most atheists (which I'm not, although I reject certain definitions of God) tend to describe themselves.
"Secular humanist" also has its place. But I don't think the word, "humanist" should be reserved for atheists. Christians like Vancouver's John Stackhouse, and other religious people, also like to also think they're "humanists," as in "humanitarian."
Further, Knute Bergen described the term as 'clunky and negative,' echoing many a contemporary who offered terms such as 'patronising,' 'biased towards religion' and 'a backwards step'.
So please, if you hear or read of the word being used in the media, make sure you raise your voice in gentle but film protest (a letter to the editor, a comment left on an online article, you name it - there's always a way to present your feedback to the audience of the particular text)!
Atheist is a much more neutral and dignified term for those who don't believe in religion, being that it makes reference to an opposition, or turning away from theology, as opposed to privileging some pre-conceived, stultified notion of Belief (that is nefariously shared by every religion out there, no less).
Here is what Douglas Todd had to say when faced with the semantic value of 'non-believer':
Even though I like what Obama did in his speech, I must say I don't really like the term, "non-believer."
The term suggests there is just one thing to believe in -- and someone has chosen not to.
"Non-believer" is supposed to mean the person doesn't believe in God. But the term assumes only one understanding of God. Someone could argue it even assumes the existence of a God, which the "non-believer" is falsely denying. But I don't think that's what Obama was doing.
I find it unhelpful to act as if "belief" and "non-belief" is a choice between just two options. The definitions of the word, "God" -- as well as "spirit," the "divine," "the sacred" and similar terms -- are vast and diverse. There are dozens of options when it comes to "belief" and "non-belief."
What's a better alternative to the term, "non-believer?" I'm not sure. But "atheist" isn't too bad. And that's how most atheists (which I'm not, although I reject certain definitions of God) tend to describe themselves.
"Secular humanist" also has its place. But I don't think the word, "humanist" should be reserved for atheists. Christians like Vancouver's John Stackhouse, and other religious people, also like to also think they're "humanists," as in "humanitarian."
Further, Knute Bergen described the term as 'clunky and negative,' echoing many a contemporary who offered terms such as 'patronising,' 'biased towards religion' and 'a backwards step'.
So please, if you hear or read of the word being used in the media, make sure you raise your voice in gentle but film protest (a letter to the editor, a comment left on an online article, you name it - there's always a way to present your feedback to the audience of the particular text)!
| 61 |
| Vote |
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
ive noticed many agnostic and spiritual people prefer not to lumped with atheists . . . many people believe in the supernatural, or reincarnation, or karma, or an afterlife, but are not theists . . . or they simply are undecided about any of these things, so they feel uncomfortable being called atheists
i think "non-believers" covered everything, including people with one set of beliefs who dont believe in the tenets of other religions
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Postmodern Critic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I see my atheism as a positive thing, and I don't need to define it as being informed by a negation of religion, because religion never played a very big role in my upbringing or contemporary life. I never saw religion as 'the beginning' (I see 'Believer' as one of those exalted terms saved for revelationary narratives in religion) - for me it's just a somewhat harmless nuisance.
But it's interesting to hear your opinions.