PZ and the Moral Taxonomy for Atheism

PZ Meyers has categorized Atheists into an Atheist taxonomy of his own derivation. He refers to “strands of Atheist thought” and to “ways of being an Atheist” which he finds in the “reasons to be Atheist” thread he maintains at his place, where letters from Atheists who describe their reasons for being Atheists are published. His categories are fairly predictable, with Scientific Atheists topping the list because that is his view of himself (with the admonition, “They are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.).

Along with Scientific Atheists, there are Philosophical Atheists, Political Atheists, and Humanists. He stresses that none of these are mutually exclusive. For his assessment of each category’s pros and cons, go to his article.

As with all taxonomies there are always more ways than one to classify the individuals being taxonomied. For instance, there is the level of thought put into their original decision; there is the level of rationalized justification for maintaining their ideology; there is the level of emotion involved which might be ratioed to the actual deductive logic involved. And perhaps there are other ways that might come up as we go along.

For example, a taxonomy based on the origination of personal Atheism might look like this:

1. Always an Atheist; no religious or philosophical background. It’s inherited and trained in: No logic necessary.

2. Rebelled against authority as an adolescent or teen or early adult, including rejecting any threat of authority due to the existence of a deity. It’s emotional: No logic necessary.

3. Went to college, came under the influence of elitist, self-proclaimed intellectuals who reject anything which is not Philosophical Materialism; lusted for the elite, intellectual identity for themselves, which was easy to appropriate by rejecting anything which is not Philosophical Materialism. It’s emotional: No actual logic necessary, just rejection.

4. Rejected ecclesiastic propositions as an adult (mature frontal lobe, over 30 years old), and thereby also rejected the existence of a deity. This is generally a moral decision based on a personally derived morality, which is applied to the Bible first and then to the concept of deity. It’s moral: No logic is necessary.

5. Rejected the concept of a deity as not applicable (gang members, evolutionary Dahmerists, Social Darwinists, Scientismists, etc). It’s not worth thinking about: no logic is necessary.

The rejection of actual Theist arguments is not generally an originating cause of Atheism; Theists don’t spend a lot of time on philosophical justification for their beliefs and are not likely to be swayed by thinking them false. Rejection of philosophical Theist arguments is usually a secondary preoccupation of some pre-determined Atheists. And as far as I can tell, there is no Atheist deductive logic or rigorous empirical experimental data providing actual evidence for the Atheist case. So the case for Atheism is not really scientific, philosophical, or even political or humanist. The case for Atheism is primarily emotional rejectionism. All other justification is rationalized and can be demonstrated as such.

In fairness, what PZ is seemingly trying to do is to get Atheists to tone down the attacks on each other, to reduce the friendly fire within the “brotherhood”. But PZ has created as much animosity as the most cantankerous of the free thinkers by his attacks on the accommodationists and anti-feminists which are other categories of Atheists outside of PZ’s group of acceptable types.

And PZ berates certain other actual types such as “Bandwagon Atheists”, “Dumbass Atheists” and “Racist Atheists”, because they don’t fit his preconception of valid Atheists, or what Atheists “should” be, rather than what they actually are. So his taxonomy is also a moral segregation, based on his own personally derived morality.

According to the Washington Post, maybe PZ should also include Atheist sexual molesters and predators as a category, if he wants to describe objectively what is, rather than what he wishes or even demands. But he seems to admit (in the comments) that objectivity is not his objective. So his taxonomy is limited to categories where Atheists "should" be. Morally speaking.

So what PZ presents as a taxonomy is actually an attempt at an objective moral position without the use of the word “moral”, or the actual use of objectivity. His credulous followers seem to buy it. Will this position PZ as the moral guru, the religious leader for his broad following? It’s an interesting and terrifying thought. Even worse, maybe he already is.