New Humanist are conducting a poll on the question:
Is Sam Harris right to say non-believers don't need labels like "Atheist" and "Humanist"?The reference here is to a speech made by Harris at the Atheist Alliance conference in Washington last month. And Paul Sims has posted to explain the poll.
I'm not with Sam Harris on this one. 'Atheist' and 'Humanist' are perfectly apt names for those of us who, respectively, don't believe in God and think that the most fundamental ethical values rest on universal human attributes. But the way the poll is formulated gives me a problem. You're offered the following choice - between:
Yes, why should we define ourselves by something we don't believe in?And:
No, we need to unite under a collective label and stand up to organised religion.I voted 'no', because my answer to the 'Is Sam Harris right?' question is 'no'. But I'm not so keen on 'need[ing] to unite under a collective label' and all that. I don't want to be under the same label as Richard Dawkins, and to wear a t-shirt 'emblazoned with a giant letter "A" for "Atheist"'. That gives me the creeps. In fact, I'd like to have a way of distinguishing myself from t-shirt atheism. Perhaps we can have two labels: 'defenders of atheism', which I'd be happy to subscribe to, and... hmmm... 'crusader atheists'? Possibly not a good idea. What about 'militant atheists'? That might do, if you take 'militant' in the sense it used to have when describing trade unionists, rather than in the modern - BBC - sense, as applying to people intent on disaggregating the bodies of others and sending them into eternal nothingness.