Richard Saunders and Rachel Dunlop gave a talk as part of Secular Week at UWA. It was great to see so many people turning up, and from so many different groups. There were lots of Humanists, some Skeptics, and plenty of Atheists.
It got me thinking: the distinction between Humanists, Skeptics, and Atheists seems to be an age thing. The humanists (identified by a show of hands) were overwhelmingly older; about 60-something. How cool that must have been, being in the old guard and seeing the growth of rationalism now. The atheists were quite a bit younger, probably 20-somethings. (I’m an outlier.) The skeptics I’m not sure about, but they seemed half-way between.
It seems to me that all these groups are saying mostly the same things, but which one you are depends a lot on what was going on when you became a rationalist. Humanism seems to have a philosophical bent to it that matches with what was going on in the 50’s and 60’s. Skeptics seem to focus specifically on the debunking of dowsing, UFOs, and crystals, things people were talking about in the 70’s and 80’s. And the youth of the atheists seems to match the youth of this New Atheist movement in the 90’s and 00’s.
Does that seem about right to anyone else?
Oh, and if you’re a Freethinker, you’re just really friggin’ old. The only way you could be older is if you’re a Deist, but we don’t see too many of them anymore.
9 August 2009 at 1:34 pm
I think you hit the nail on the head here.
10 August 2009 at 3:07 am
Yeah, I tend to agree. Obviously atheism isn't of course an ethical or moral belief system, and is only concerned with one very specific area : gods (and perhaps the supernatural). While my ethical and moral beliefs most closely with secular humanism, still I prefer to identify as atheist, mostly because it's more recognisable as saying "I don't believe in religion" than saying I'm a secular humanist, even though that might be more accurate.