encoded notions

I was reading an article on atheism and I came up with a great referential analogy to Lost. [Note: I’ll try to not disclose details that would be of a significantly spoilerish nature for Lost.]

“Atheism” is a word used by religious people to refer to those who do not share their belief in the existence of supernatural entities or agencies. Presumably (as I can never tire of pointing out) believers in fairies would call those who do not share their views “a-fairyists”, hence trying to keep the debate on fairy turf, as if it had some sensible content; as if there were something whose existence could be a subject of discussion worth the time.

People who do not believe in supernatural entities do not have a “faith” in “the non-existence of X” (where X is “fairies” or “goblins” or “gods”); what they have is a reliance on reason and observation, and a concomitant preparedness to accept the judgment of both on the principles and theories that premise their actions.

We observe events (typically) on the Lost island from the perspective of the characters who were involved in the plane crash. As the episodes progress, it becomes apparent that they are not the only people on the island. They grow to adopt the term “the Others” to label the mysterious group of island inhabitants disjoint from their own.

Much later, a captured man is suspected of being one of the Others. Here is some dialogue that is exchanged:

Sayid (from the plane): “She believes he’s an Other.” Captured man: “An other what?”

The term Other is an exclusionary term, much like the term atheist. If two Others were to meet I doubt that they would call each other Others; they would probably have a more useful label for themselves (e.g. Curators), since they share a common set of organizing thoughts, ideals, and goals. Similarly, the term atheist only means something when used in the context of a faith. Between two atheists it would be silly to call each other atheists since atheism is not an inclusive term by design. Terms such as Christian, Muslim, and Hindu are inclusive as they define a shared set of precepts and beliefs among the self-identified members. As far as I know, there is no inclusive counterpart to atheist.

Unfortunately, I think that any use of an inclusive term to describe atheists would be counter to the point of atheism. You can’t simply codify the necessary framework of logic and reason into an easy-to-swallow pill; you have to come to it like a series of reasoned conclusions, like calculus. If you presented the table of derivatives and integrals to someone who just finished learning their multiplication tables, the best they could do would be to just assume the table was true and use it mindlessly. A better route to take would be to sit them down and explain how you start at multiplication and work through algebra and eventually arrive at calculus. Then they wouldn’t have to believe the derivatives and integrals listed on your table, because at that point they would know that they must be true within the context of the other rules and derivations that preceded them.

Ascribing an inclusive group label to something like atheism is like handing the table of derivatives and integrals to a child. If you make it too easy to self-identify with atheism, by “jumping on the bandwagon” and outright assuming all of its arguments, then you end up with a group of people who believe in atheism.

And that, is the road to religion.