h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don't like the idea of the Brights myself - but I'm not sure how you reconcile the idea of the Brights as an example of positive atheism with your description of one their joint founders, Richard Dawkins, as a negative atheist.

Serves me right, I guess, for not having contributed to Peer Review. If I had, I'd have *strongly* questioned the negative/positive distinction. To take even the most vituperative of (as you term them) 'negative atheists', Christopher Hitchens - all he asks of the religious is that they leave him alone. Unfortunately, in the current climate, that requires a certain degree of proselytisation to warn them of the tolerable limits of their behaviour.

No - don't like this at all. Sure, in the terms decribed, I may be a nasty, negative Atheist myself - but if I were living in Israel/Palestine/India/Pakistan/Serbia/etc and anyone had a problem coexisting with *me* - well, it wouldn't be my fault.

And then we have the other co-founder of the Brights, and good friend of Dawkins, Daniel Dennett.

The entry says:

"Positive atheists are keen to understand the existence of religion and accept that religious individuals have reasons to believe what they do. This can be aided by theories that religion is of evolutionary origin, in that humans developed the ability to believe in gods in order to stay sane and work together."

Well...that's what Dennett says. That's his whole project - to study religion as a natural human phenomenon. And yet - by the religious, he's classed as a negative atheist, alongside Hitchens and Dawkins. (of thse two - Hitchens accepts that we'll always have religion; Dawkins would possibly prefer it to be replaced by awe of science).

So...if even Dennett's mild-mannered, if trenchant criticism is attacked as 'negative' - well...who's doing the defining? And what's the difference between his (as defined in the Entry) 'positive' approach and the more vituoerative 'negative' approaches?

No - I'm not sure this +ve vs -ve distinction has legs.

I think the entry is pretty clear cut in the ideas it presents: negative atheism involves a negative attitude and causes criticism of atheists, whereas positive atheism involves a positive attitude and should attract a positive response. Obviously some individuals will be both negative and positive as reality is not a dichotomy, and positive atheism may not seem the most attractive option in some parts of reality, but for the sake of argument I'll just state that the Guide is definitive and reality is flawed.

Alex

Well that's certainly a sensible attitude.

However...for any given attitude, how is an Atheist meant to predict whether a theist will react to it positively or negatively? And why shoud they worry?

They're not, though it's nice to think that a positive attitude can be mutual. It's simply a moral stand, which requires no more worrying than a negative stance.

But I'm still not clear on the distinction between positive and negative atheism. As far as I can see, the description in the Entry of positive Atheism applies to 'The Usual Suspects' of negative Atheism.

(With the possible exception of 'Avoid Lecturing'. They've all produced books. They all give public lectures. But doesn't this amount to saying 'Shhh! Keep your head down. Don't risk offending the religious.'?)

Can't say I too clear either. I've been watching The Atheist Experience and listening to to The Non-Prophets, both produced by the Atheist Community of Austin. Which regards itself as being an example of and promoter of positive atheism. It's hosts are a mixture if weak and strong atheists. In the years I've followed media output I've only heard them be critical Dawkins once and that was when he accepted an invitation from a US network to discuss what life is like for atheists in the US, which is understandable as the US has it's own prominant atheists who would have been better placed to discuss such an US centric issue.

Also as Americans and atheists they are strong supporters of secularism. It's enshrined in the constitution and is fundamental to to allowing all religions and atheists to peacefully and positively coexist.