Nineteen years ago, as a newly minted unbeliever, I shared my “testimony” on a well-known ex-Christian site. Initially, I found support from several congenial atheists who, upon seeing that I was still in the process of deconverting, gave me sound advice and answered my questions.
Soon, however, the “True Atheists” arrived, setting their sights on the inconsistencies in my “testimony.” They were savage in their attacks — however right they may have been — and I recoiled from their brutality, retreating to the rock I had previously crawled out from under.
I complained, “These people are no different from fundamentalist Baptist preachers.” Unbending, rigid, demanding conformity — all hallmarks of fundamentalist thinking — governed these atheist zealots every bit as much as they governed my former fundamentalist brethren. Fundamentalism is bad, regardless of where it is found, including atheism.
Over the past two decades, atheism has continued to have periodic problems with fundamentalism. Who can forget the Atheism+ period when some atheists demanded a commitment to social justice to be considered a “true atheist.” These atheists wanted humanistic values attached to the definition of what it means to be an atheist. I took the position then and still do today, that atheism is one thing and one thing only: the lack of belief in the existence of God. From there, atheists believe all sorts of things. The proponents of Atheism+ wanted a broader confession of “faith” than a simple confession that “Jesus” is Lord. Again, I saw fundamentalism.
Atheism+ caused a split of sorts, with proponents taking an “either you are with us or you are against us” approach. I ended up in the “against us” group, not because I disagreed with the call of Atheism+ to humanist ideals, but because of its attempt to redefine atheism. That some of the main proponents of Atheism+ acted like fire-breathing Independent Baptist preachers was troubling, but not surprising.
I eventually concluded that fundamentalism was an incurable disease that infects every aspect of the human experience, including atheism. All of us can be fundamentalists, including rational, skeptical freethinkers.
In recent days I’ve noticed another smoldering atheist fire fixing to erupt, stirred by a few atheists demanding “accountability” for a man known as an ally and asset of the atheist community, even though he not an atheist himself.
Dr. Dan McClellan is a Bible scholar. Countless atheists have been educated and helped by Dan’s TikTok and YouTube videos. Even though I have a Bible college education and was a pastor for twenty-five years, I still find Dan’s videos instructive (and entertaining).
According to several notable atheist content creators, Dan should not be supported by atheists. OMG! what did Dr. McClellan do? Are you ready? Dan’s “sin” is his membership in the Mormon church — a secret Dan has not kept from anyone willing to ask or do a bit of digging.
Dan focuses solely on Bible scholarship. His Mormon beliefs play no part in his interpretations of the Bible. I have watched hundreds of Dan’s videos. I’ve yet to see him stray from consensus-based scholarship. And when Dan, on occasion, veers off into minority views, he lets you know. Best I can tell, Dan has done a superb job of compartmentalizing his Mormon faith. While Dan has never explained the breadth and depth of his faith, his political beliefs suggest he is a progressive. He has more than a few beliefs that set him at odds with the conservative pronouncements of Mormon leaders.
It is the conservative bent of the Mormon church and Dan’s membership in that church that has riled up the newest atheist fundamentalists in our midst. These preachers of atheist purity cannot abideDr. McClellan being a go-to source for atheists. For God’s sake, he’s a tithing Mormon!
I have no doubt another fracture is on the horizon, all over a Bible scholar who just so happens to be a Mormon. It is fundamentalists who demand associational purity. That will be the case here. There will be blog posts written and videos created defending or condemning McClellan, the heretic. All this will accomplish is further disunion in a time when unity is needed.
There may come a day when Dan is no longer a Mormon. Honestly, I’m surprised Dan has not been excommunicated (I originally typed “executed) by the church. He has certainly said things that must irritate the heaven out of starched white shirt Mormon leaders in Salt Lake City. If that ever happens and Dan looks for a new place to hang his metaphorical hat, what will his experiences say to him about how individuals in the atheist community treated him?
We atheists, if we care about the future of atheism, know it’s important to put the best face possible on atheism before the world. Fundamentalist thinking and practice only retards progress. We are not so strong as a movement that we can afford to kill off our allies just because their beliefs are different from ours. Dan is an ally, and I’m going to treat him as such, regardless of our differences.