By Kacy Ray

Top o' the morning to you from sunny Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan. I've been feeling a bit of frustration lately — not toward those with whom I disagree — but toward many with whom I would consider myself intellectually allied — folks I believe are doing great work but unwittingly giving mystics the upper-hand in some very important areas.

If our goal is to sway the cultural tide away from mysticism and faith, we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot by confusing issues and giving our intellectual opponents advantages and concessions they don't merit. At first glance, you may find these ideas to be trivial in nature. I hope to convince you otherwise, because I feel they are huge.

Three imperatives we must accept immediately if we are to sway the cultural tide away from faith and mysticism toward reason and science:

We must stop identifying ourselves as atheists

We must stop referring to ourselves as "non-believers (or unbelievers)"

We must stop referring to evolution as a theory.

Stop identifying ourselves as atheists

I am an atheist only as long as reason demands that I hold such a position. This means that my conviction in the reliability of reason is a primary absolute; atheism is merely a secondary consequence. To indentify myself as an atheist is not only misleading but it is deceptive — it implies that I hold atheism as a primary absolute. It implies that I start with atheism and try to figure things out from there.

Mystics don't identify themselves in reference to what they don't believe — why do we? Of course we are atheists, but it's not our identity. To identify yourself intellectually or philosophically as "atheist" is tantamount to introducing yourself to a stranger as "not-John".

The set of beliefs a person holds is necessarily finite. The set of beliefs a person does not hold is theoretically infinite. This means that every person that has ever lived or died on this earth shares at least one un-held belief with every other person that has ever lived or died. Ergo, if we are to be considered intellectual allied with others based on shared disbeliefs, we are therefore intellectually allied with every person who has ever lived in some capacity, regardless of how radically different our beliefs actually are.

Accordingly, if we identify ourselves in reference to our disbeliefs, we are subject to finding ourselves in bed intellectually with anyone and everyone who has ever lived.

Mystics, however, do not have that problem. They identify themselves by whatever their chosen belief set is. In this way, they are identified only with the appropriate demographic. Christians, for example, will never find themselves explaining the actions of a devout Muslim. Atheists, however, often find themselves in the position of having to explain why they are not to be lumped in with other atheists with whom they may have nothing at all in common.

But what if we refuse to be identified as atheists? What if we insist on being identified as "Advocates of Reason"?  What if the only people we accept as our intellectual allies are those other individuals who also hold reason as a primary absolute? Could a theist ever use the diabolical actions of some other famous atheist as ammunition against us? No — not if the atheist in question did not share our absolute commitment to reason.

The lesson here is that when we identify ourselves as atheists, we leave a cognitive void in the dialogue. We have communicated to neither our opponent nor our audience what we do believe. That leaves our opponents free to fill in that void with anything they want, and to lump us into any category they choose, with any person who has ever lived that also does not believe in their specific religion. Advantage: Christians.

Just as we identify ourselves by who we are rather than who we aren't, we must identify ourselves in terms of what we do believe — not in terms of what we don't believe. We cannot give them that advantage if our goal is to sway the cultural tide away from faith and mysticism. We stop identifying ourselves as atheists and find a new identification, one that communicates what we do believe. I personally use the term "Advocate of Reason".

(As a side note: I realize that many of us are deeply invested in the term "atheist", but how can we expect mystics to reassess their deeply-held convictions if we ourselves are incapable of making such an important tweak to our methodology?)

Stop referring to ourselves as "non-believers"

Belief is a product — a result of the acceptance of ideas. I've never met an individual who didn't believe anything at all. Even solipsists believe that they are solipsists. Every conscious person has beliefs.

To call ourselves "non-believers" is to communicate to theists that they somehow own the concept of belief — as though they've appropriated it from us for the exclusive use of their particular congregation. What's worse is that we just give it to them on a silver platter without so much as a whimper.

I personally believe that our five senses are mans only means to know the world around him, and that reason is the only method at our disposal by which to understand it. I believe these things, and theists don't, so I could just as reasonably call every mystic in the world a non-believer (and for fun I sometimes do — you should see the looks on their little mystic faces).

But even more crucial to the issue, the term "non-believer" carries with it a specific connotation that implies a moral failing in all who accept the label. It implies that even when the truth is apparent, one simply refuses to believe it. This means that the person who carries the stigma of "non-believer" is not intellectually honest — at least that's what it seems to indicate to Joe Average who might be observing the dialogue. To him, the term "non-believer" indicates that a person will not believe things, even if they are true. Whatever the term might actually mean, that is what it implies. Advantage: theist.

Stop referring to evolution as a theory.

I've already written to Dr Miller about this, and he indicated that I had a point worth considering. The dialogue (condensed), dated 21 Apr 09, follows:

Dr. Miller,

<greetings and salutations omitted> - KR

...But one thing pains me every time I hear you say it. You state with emphasis that "evolution is absolutely a theory".

No, it isn't. Evolution is a fact. Evolutionary theory puts factual evidence together to explain it.

Gravity is a fact. Gravitational theory uses all available evidence to explain how and why gravity works. Gravitation theory can be disputed, but gravity can not. Things aren't hanging in the air waiting for the verdict.is real, and it exists with or without gravitational theory.

(Now indulge me, because I happen to be a musician) Music is not a theory. Music exists. Music theory explains how and why music works. Music theory takes existing facts (such as pitch, wavelengths, etc) and uses them to explain why certain tones are consonant and why others are dissonant, and provides information allowing musicians to make more music. No music written today will "refute" any music that was written by Mozart or Beethoven.

Without going on and on, I just want to re-emphasize that I feel you're doing students a disservice by conceding that evolution is a theory. It is NOT a theory. Evolution occurs, and we have the evidence. Evolution is a fact, and evolutionary theory is the model that describes how evolution worked. Evolutionary theory may be debated (and well should), but the fact of evolution (at this point) should be considered pretty absolute.

I just hate to see you characterizing the debate in terms of "if" when it's clear the debate should only be characterized in terms of "how". A scientific theory is a model, NOT a dispute. Evolutionary theory can only describe how evolution happened... not whether it happened. Evidence performs that function.

My recommendation: Never characterize evolution as "theoretical". Let people know that evolution happened, and that evolutionary theory attempts, as best as it can, to describe how. Whether evolution happened is no longer at question - how it happened is.

v/r/s

WO Kacy Ray

Dear Kacy,

Thanks very much for your note and for the kind words.

I do understand your concerns about the public understanding of "theory."

I've always figured that there are two ways to handle this — one is to do as you suggest, and refer to the fact of evolution. certainly agree with you that evolutionary change and the mechanisms of evolution are indeed factual in every sense. other way would be to develop a more accurate understanding of the nature of scientific theories, and the way in which they are based upon fact. 's the path I've taken, and I still think it's the right strategy. it's a close call, and you raise a number of completely valid points. will keep them in mind, and discuss them with my friends and colleagues in all seriousness.... And maybe you'll eventually change my mind.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me!

Appreciatively,

Ken Miller

I find it crucially important to use crystal clear terms when dealing with laymen and mystics. Laymen, because they are easily duped by mystics and confused by ambiguous terms. Mystics, because they take any opportunity to cloud and muddle the ideas being discussed.

There needs to clear delineation between a phenomenon and the theory that explains or describes it. A scientific theory is a model that explains an observed phenomenon. Evolution has been observed; the by-products of this phenomenon fill our museums and are ostensibly verified. We see mutations in nature every day. To see a transitional species, one only need look in the mirror.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. It's as much a fact as the existence of atoms. It is not a guess, and it's no longer conjecture.But most importantly, the term "theory" does not apply to phenomenon, it only applies to the model which explains the phenomenon. Thus, the term "theory" does not logically apply to the phenomenon of evolution, it only applies to the model scientists have put together to understand evolution.

When we refer to evolution as a theory, we are unwittingly communicating that not only is our understanding of the methods and mechanisms of evolution subject to revision upon future discoveries, but that the realities of adaptation, genetic mutation, and speciation themselves are subject to being vanquished one day. We are tacitly implying that we are unsure that evolution is even occurring. Advantage: creationist. There is nothing any evolutionary scientist has ever done or can ever do that will damage the public understanding of the phenomenon of evolution more than referring to it as a theory.

We must stop referring to evolution as a theory. We must clearly delineate evolution from evolutionary theory. When Joe Average hears the phrase "The Theory of Evolution", his mind automatically assumes that the phenomenon of evolution is merely theoretical, which it is not. If I had my way, the phrase "The Theory of Evolution" would be erased from our lexicon, and replaced with the two specific terms "Evolution" and "Evolutionary theory". And when laymen and/or mystics refer to evolution as a theory, the only answer should be "Evolution is not a theory. Evolutionary theory describes how evolution occurs [present tense, always!]. Evolutionary theory is subject to debate, revision, and refinement as new evidence is discovered, but the fact that organisms evolve is not in dispute."

I understand that I'm not the first one to make some of these arguments (Sam Harris has for a long time repudiated the use of the term "atheist" as an identification of his philosophical position.) Ayn Rand said that when two opposing viewpoints are debated, clarity always lends advantage to the side arguing the truth, and ambiguity always lends advantage to the side arguing against it. It's difficult enough to overcome the cognitive dissonance our adversaries and audience experience when the facts are clear; we cannot afford to cloud the issues further. To do so is to give our opponents exactly what they want, and that is not how cultural battles are won.