Marketing atheism

You may have heard of the rise of the "new atheism" in recent years, set forth by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. In one sense, their atheism isn't "new" at all -- they still deny the existence of any higher power and purport a naturalistic worldview. However, the "new atheists" have a twist on the old atheistic argument that is quite disturbing to Christians and other people of faith. Old atheists simply maintained that religion was based on fiction. It was false. New atheists go beyond that. Religion isn't just false -- it's harmful.

Thus the proponents of the new atheism are much more aggressive than their "old" counterparts. After all, if you believe something is harmful, wouldn't you try and keep people from indulging themselves in it? Makes sense, I guess. Recently, however, a new development has arisen that irks me a bit. It seems as though the American Humanist association has put together a new ad campaign just in time for the holidays. Targeted in our nation's capital, they are devoting $40,000 to ads on buses that say, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." Their reasoning, apparently, is that " there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion," according to Fred Edwords, a spokesman for the AHA. He maintains that they are not trying to argue about the existence of God through their ads or try to persuade anyone to not believe, just to maybe "plant a seed of rational thought" in thinking people's minds (what's the difference, anyway?).

I have a bit of a beef with this, on multiple levels. First of all, it's just in bad taste. Why try and campaign your atheism at arguably the most religious time of year? Even people who don't go to church show up at least once this time of year -- CEO's (Christmas-Easter-Only) in church lingo. Christmas has become such a huge part of our culture that people start thinking about it even before Halloween. And invariably, through the muck and the mire of the commercialism that dominates this holiday (different rant for a different day), people are reminded of what the true meaning of Christmas is: God became man, took on flesh, and died to save his people. Though our culture does a pretty good job of shutting God out even at this time of year, it's nearly impossible to do so completely, and I would say that people's minds are on religion for this short period more than any other on the calendar. So why try and poop in everyone's coffee this time of year? Granted, I don't think the bus ads will "scrooge" millions of people and ruin the holidays (though perhaps I just have a low view of advertising), but it's just tacky. It's kind of like going to a guy's funeral and paying your last respects by telling everybody what a tool the guy was. Even if he was a tool, you're a bigger tool for completely lacking tact. And forgive me if I scoff at the "lonely atheists" excuse. Send 'em a "Christmas is stupid" card if they're really that down in the dumps about it. It seems obvious the real reason is to reach the general public, to plant that seed he honestly referenced. And to do so at Christmas is nothing if not tacky.

Speaking of that seed, since Edwords claims his ad is intended to invoke "rational thought," let's examine the rationality of this ad. "Be good for goodness' sake." Really? Besides being hopelessly circular in nature, what does that even mean? I should do good and moral things on behalf of goodness and morality itself? To do something for someone's sake implies a sense of obligation or indebtedness. In what sense is someone obligated or indebted to "goodness." What has goodness ever done for me? Better yet, is it possible for one to be indebted to an abstract thought like goodness? Or is it patently ridiculous -- one might say, "irrational"?

A better question is, what is goodness anyway? From an atheistic mindset, I'm supposed to be "good," which at best can be defined in relative terms, for the sake of "goodness," which at best can be defined in utilitarian terms. How is it possible to do good when good lacks a concrete definition? How can goodness even exist as an abstract concept if there is no basis for calling something good or evil? Why is kissing a baby better or worse than kicking one? Who's to say? Can goodness define itself, so I can do its bidding because of my obligation to it? Or have we just dipped completely and totally into the realm of irrationality?

The fact is that without some infinite reference point in the person of God, goodness as a finite concept is completely meaningless. I can neither do an act called "good," nor can I do it for the sake of "goodness" if those terms are stripped of any meaning. When God is established as eternal and primary, then goodness as a concept flows from him. Good is defined in terms of the infinite God and we do good for His sake, because our very existence is indebted to Him (not to mention salvation, from the Christian worldview). Atheists may stamp their foot all day long about rationality, but they have a long way to go to support a cohesive thought process. In essence, the AHA has answered its own question. "Why believe in a god?" In part because the second half of their ad lacks any meaning or coherence apart from a notion of God.

Perhaps their campaign will indeed plant a seed, but it most certainly will not be rational.