What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Clearing the Ground

September 16, 2007, 10:15 AM
Dabanner

A recent comment by Sastra on EvolutionBlog made me laugh:

When atheists make their arguments against fundamentalist forms of God, the moderate believers both approve and disapprove. They agree with what they say, they can't stand the extremists either, but of course there's no reason for atheism as a reaction! Those people may be in the majority, but they don't represent real Christianity at all. So atheists are seen as being just as extreme as the fundamentalists. No God on one side, Too Much God on the other -- and then the sophisticated, reasonable, Just Enough God in the middle.

I'm still chuckling over "Just Enough God". But this remark also reminded me of an observation I made last May, in "The Golden Mean": the tendency of people to believe that the truth always lies in the middle, as if the correct position on any issue could be found by taking the average of the two most extreme positions. In religion, just as in politics, there are many who think this way, even if few would state it so explicitly.

This is why it's so important, if we want to build a robust, organized, effective atheist movement, to cast our net broadly. We need to criticize all religion and all faith if we want to carve out a space in which atheism can flourish and grow. If we confined our criticism to the religious terrorists and other hate-spewing fundamentalists, believers would say that, yes, those people are wrong and it's all well and good to refute them, but faith in general is still a good thing that should be encouraged. If we hold back and refuse to criticize all faith, whether out of fear or a misguided desire to be popular, we leave ourselves defenseless against this assertion and will be unable to explain why one should be an atheist rather than a believer.

In fact, as Sastra insightfully observed, we are regularly chastised for focusing our fire on the crude, belligerent literalism of the fundamentalists, rather than the allegedly more subtle and sophisticated conception of God held by many believers. Then, when we do give arguments that apply to these views, we're accused of being nasty, bomb-throwing atheists attacking moderate believers who never did anybody any harm, and why don't we focus on the fundamentalists who are stirring up all this trouble?

The only aim of these complaints is to silence us, and we should disregard them. Most of the people who decry atheists' supposed incivility and extremism were never going to join us anyway; in other words, they are concern trolls. We do not need to argue them down, and it shouldn't be our aim to do so. Instead, we should be concentrating on the basic steps of building a movement: reaching out to those who already agree with our goals, as well as those who sympathize but have yet to declare their allegiance.

At the same time, we should be taking a strong and principled public stand against all forms of religious faith, thereby shifting the Overton window and making atheism a more familiar and acceptable position in public discourse. This is quite possibly the most important step, contrary to the misguided fears of those who think our alleged radicalism will alienate the public. On the contrary, it will move atheism into the mainstream, and very likely will win over a large number of people who might never have considered it as an option otherwise. Criticizing only the fundamentalists will do nothing to establish atheism as a good, acceptable option. To do that, we must clear the ground of all forms of faith and show by argument and example that nonbelief is a defensible and respectable position.

 

Clearing the Ground

Newsletter: Share: