The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas
Are you secular? Humanist? Even (gasp!) atheist? Or are you any one of the thousands of other non-Christian religions peppering the planet? And yet, do you celebrate Christmas every year, reveling during the moment, but feeling shamed and guilty on Boxing Day?
Then do so no longer. It’s OK to be non-Christian and celebrate Christmas. And for proof, you can read the 42 essays comprising the book The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, edited by Ariane Sherine (Amazon UK and Amazon US).
Yes, that Ariane Sherine, the one who created the Atheist Bus Campaign in the UK. Ariane is a humor writer and a journalist, and is also a genuinely wonderful human being who is upset by the way nonbelievers are portrayed in the media, and decided to do something about it. The bus campaign was her first organized effort, and this book is the second.
She found 45 comedians, scientists, philosophers, story tellers, and artists — all of whom find the stories associated with Christmas to be, well stories — and asked them to write a short essay about what the holiday means to them. The result is a collection of funny, warm, and interesting journeys into the mostly secular festivities of the world’s most maligned demographic.
I’ll note that one essay in the book — Starry Starry Night — was written by none other than myself. I was flattered and honored that Ariane would ask me to write for the book, where my musings would sit along side those of Richard Dawkins, Derren Brown, Simon Le Bon (yes, from Duran Duran!), my friend Brian Cox, and many others.
None of us who wrote for the book were paid in any way (well, I got a free copy). All of us who contributed donated all proceeds to the UK HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust, a secular group that provides information, advice, and support for HIV positive people in the UK. It’s a very good cause, and one that fits the reason for the season, don’t you think?
The history of the book is pretty interesting, too, and Ariane has been blogging about how she got this project started; Part 1 is here and the other parts are linked in her sidebar. She is a funny and warm writer, busting a lot of stereotypes about atheists as the spawn of Satan. After all, just look at this picture of these two notorious examples:
 |
Doesn’t Ariane just radiate evil?
Go buy this book. Give a copy for Christmas, or just get one for yourself. You’ll be helping a good cause, and maybe, just maybe, you’ll find out that Christmas really is for everyone.
Originally posted on Bad Astronomy.
Great concept for a book. I’ll have to pick up a copy for my brother, the agnostic, and his Atheistic wife who ADORE Christmas. If you don’t go to church, about 2% of any home Christmas celebration actually has anything to do with Jesus Christ. And that’s ignoring the problems with the birth date.
Whee! That looks awesome. I love the holidays but have zero interest in celebrating the christ child. Now if only someone would write a Lovecraftian’s Guide to Christmas. :P
“Doesn’t Ariane just radiate evil?”
She radiates something alright, but it ain’t evil.
If that’s really a shot of Ms. Sherine’s but campaign, wouldn’t it be more technically correct to refer to it as “agnostic”?
Atheism, like theism, is based on faith. Agnosticism is the only logically defensible position.
“Atheism, like theism, is based on faith. Agnosticism is the only logically defensible position.”
Atheism, whether you would apply the label to yourself or not, is certainly logically defensible — there is plenty of logical evidence to suggest that the God of the theist is impossible. It is not possible to argue rationally against the god of the deist, but it is also completely unnecessary — there is no point in fearing or worshiping a non-interventionist God, rendering the debate between atheism and deism a purely tautological one.
A-toothfairybelief, like toothfairybelief, is based on faith. Agnostifairyism is the only logically defensible position.
Just because something is not 100% certain does not mean that it is logically indefensible. For instance, we are not 100% certain of the existence of extra spatial dimensions, but there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that space consists of more than 3 dimensions, and thus a logical argument can be made in favor of a higher amount of spatial dimensions.
We can draw the same conclusion with god, or to use your example, the tooth fairy. All we have to do it put predictions to the test. In the case of the tooth fairy, we could very simply leave x amount of teeth under pillows, in a variety of different circumstances. If we so wished, we could place false teeth under some pillows as well, as a placebo. After seeing that none of these teeth transmuted into money, it would be logically defensible to argue that the tooth fairy does not exist. This does not prove conclusively that there is no tooth fairy, but it certainly provides enough evidence for us to fairly and logically argue against its existence.
Kvatch,
I disagree with your statement that atheism is based on faith. Actually, atheism means that you lack a belief in god(s). It does NOT mean that you believe there is no god. It is not a belief either way, rather, just a lack of belief.
Also, I think there is a common misconception that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Since gnostism has to do with knowledge, and atheism with belief, you need to provide an answer to both of the following questions to determine your worldview:
1. Do you have knowledge of the existence of god? If you can not answer yes to this question, then you are agnostic
2. Do you believe in god? If no,then you are an atheist.
Actually, if everyone wants to be honest with themselves, we are all agnostic, because we do not have KNOWLEDGE of the existence of god. Having said that, there are obviously people who believe (e.g. theists), and people who lack belief (atheists). Therefore, you can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
“Atheism, like theism, is based on faith.”
Utter bovine excreta!
Atheism is the TOTAL LACK of faith.
“Agnosticism is the only logically defensible position.”
Agnosticism is all about knowledge, not faith.
Agnosticism is the TOTAL LACK of (special) knowledge.
To call a lack of knowledge a defensible position against a “lack of belief” is as bizarre as calling a lack of knowledge of Algebra the same as the lack of a belief in Minerva.
The two concepts are strictly orthogonal.
I get all gooey when someone drops vector spaces into a thread!
Are you Euclidian…or Non?
I have seen this compaign in Canada as well. It’s been on the subway in Toronto for some time.
Well . . . I’m happy for people to have an excuse to get together and have fun, so I’m not opposed to Christmas, exactly. It’s just that, growing up in a Christian sect that avoided it, I actually felt freed from the hectic rush of putting up decorations, buying presents, and pretending to like the Christmas music that displaced better stuff for at least a month. When I stopped going to church, I retained those sentiments.
During the middle part of my life I participated in Christmas with our children and didn’t feel dirty about it or anything, but it was a relief to ignore it again after they grew up and left home.
A good story makes for a good holiday. What more needs to be said?
Here in the temperate latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, we already have reason enough: it’s dark and it’s cold, so let’s festoon the house with colored lights, eat obscenely rich food, and gather by the fireside to sing!
After all, Christ-mass is just a recent overlay on a long tradition of pagan soltice festivals.
Those pagans were onto something.
I actually like Christmas. It’s one of those times of the year where I think a lot of Christians tend to mellow out and actually be joyful (as long as you stay away from the malls). Haha, of course that statement has no evidence to back it up other than my personal experience, but I like to think of it in that way!
Most of my family is Catholic, save for myself (atheist) and one sister (agnostic), and still celebrate Christmas together. That said, I have already asked my sister to get me that book for Christmas this year! Oh, it should be fun opening THAT present!
Argh! “Atheist” is a noun, and only a noun. “Atheistic” is an adjective. Learn to use them properly!
Pedantic is an adjective also. Learn its meaning. Argh!
Wood ewe prefer every won ewes language however they wont 2? Irregardless, eye could careless.
My point is, that blogs are an informal exchange of ideas, similar to casual conversation. Do you go around correcting minor lapses in peoples speech as well? If so, you might be considered boorish. On blogs, that kind of thing is usually though of as troll like behavior if it does not advance the dialogue.
Correcting someone’s English is a little like performing a colonoscopy: unless the recipient has made special arrangements with you in advance, you might be considered presumptuous.
LOL! Well put. So droll. Heh, heh.
Or you might be a considered a Catholic Priest…
Sounds like a great book…will definitley read it!
I wish this was on the Sony ebook store, so I could use it on my reader. I won’t read paper anymore. Such a waste of resources and space.
Just two things:
Dang she looks good!!!!
And where can I get one of those T-shirts?
It seems that this could be summed up as “You’re all fools for believing in God! Now give me my presents!”
Amusingly and contrastingly, the majority of materialistic people that I know are God-fearing Christians. It drives me nuts when people associate atheism with materialism. You should see all of the toys and other crap these people give their kids, and worse, themselves – on Christmas and any other given day of the year. I’d rather be an atheist than a hypocrite, any day. :)
I always enjoyed a good secular style Christmas myself. Never understood the grinchy attitude of some.
Merry Christmas everyone!
Screw Christmas; nothing more than the continued idiocy of gross, irresponsible consumerism, at its marketed worst.
Let’s go over this again: theism: the term is improperly used, all too often by so called “atheists”. Theism does not mean monotheism or deism. Theism means belief in gods. Deism is belief in a “supreme being” and monotheism is the belief in one god, particularly from the Judea-Christian or Abrahamic traditions, which also includes the Islamic faith.
The term theism was bastardised during the 17th century, and has never been rectified because … well, primarily because humans are mental gimps.
Atheism has become about mindless bashing of monotheistic doctrines in grossly asinine displays of near lunatic behavior. I wonder if anyone remembers the atheist group from Washington State last season, who made the big “todo” about having a Christmas tree in the court house? Those f*n fools went on television to ask for an official holiday that “honored the winter solstice” …. that’s called P-A-G-A-N-I-S-M, you cretins. Virtually every polytheistic, ancient religion celebrated some form of festival around particular solstices, the winter being one of them … and it was about GOD worship!!!
The bottom line: atheism is replete with idiocy, and quite rather pointless beyond making a fool of itself and its “membership”.
If you don’t support any belief of god/gods/religious doctrines, its better to just label yourself a godless heathen. Lumping in with the atheist ilk, just makes one look a bit foolish.
Nice Ad Hominem rant. Sure to win over people on the fence.
No, not ad hom or rant; there are a number of facts included.
Fence sitters? Who cares about that sort of mind? If you can’t make determinations, you’re useless anyways.
The right name for a thing is the name whoever you are trying to communicate with will understand and accept. You say “The term theism was bastardised during the 17th century, and has never been rectified because … well, primarily because humans are mental gimps.”
First, what makes you think 21st Century writers and readers should be expected to understand and accept 17th Century meanings?
Second, are you sure the term was “bastardized” in the 17th Century? Dictionary.com says it *originated* in 1670-80. If it originated then with the meaning you prefer, it must have been bastardized almost immediately to make it under the 1700 deadline.
Actually, without specifying which definition came first, the source gives both the one you like, “belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism)” and the one you object to, “the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).”
You seem not to consider yourself a mental gimp. Does that mean you are not human?
In the first, “Retired Prof”, if you use only one source for research/discovery, you need to be taken to task for lack of discipline; which makes your chosen moniker, questionable at the minimum.
Theism, has its etymological root in Greek; particularly the word “theos” or “theoi”. If the time was taken to research the term, it is not necessarily even indicative of “god”, but just as often it indicates the first principles of divine presence.
Therefore, “theism” meaning anything other than “god”, “diety”, plurals, or principles of such, is in error. As another note, had you searched around, the term first arose as a philosophical position to countermand deism.
On another note, there is “monotheism”, which shouldn’t need to be explained. So why is there the necessity of having two words, of the exact same etymological root, for one thing?
First, what makes you think 21st Century writers and readers should be expected to understand and accept 17th Century meanings?
Living in the current era, with all the technological advents that make research/discovery possible, makes it such that not doing the “footwork” is no longer an excuse. That’s why; the information is there, at the fingertips, and your question is simply a copout, an excuse for apathy. The meanings were already established, period.
You seem not to consider yourself a mental gimp. Does that mean you are not human?
Oh yes, the agenda of absolute literalism. You understood the inference created.
Back on task: I notice you didn’t bother to take issue with the fact that I made certain points regarding the actual blog entry, and instead, went tangential.
It’s good to see neither of us have anything useful to say of atheism.
You’re right, this is not the place for a discussion about the way words work in communicating ideas. Sorry for the hijack.
Ohh I just finished reading and reviewing this book :)
I loved your Starry, Starry Night piece. Especially loved your logic on the Three Wise Men: “…if they lived to the east and followed the Star to the east, they’d get further from Bethlehem rather than closer.”
I’m gonna go check out Ariane’s blog now, thanks for the link.