We (atheists, freethinkers, rationalists and assorted brights) need a symbol under which we can unite, much like the Christian fish.
The fish had (and has) several virtues from the point of view of a group of people who needed to proclaim their beliefs to others who shared them, and oftentimes conceal those beliefs from those who would persecute them: it had significance for believers, it was instantly recognisable, it was obscure in meaning to outsiders (though it, and its meaning, rapidly gained recognition) and it was easy to reproduce in many different media, by people whose command of graphic design or written language couldn’t be taken for granted.
We rationalists need a similarly simple symbol to denote our adherence to beliefs based on provable facts, and our naturalistic, rationalist worldview. I’d like to propose such a symbol:
The magnifying glass. Simply a circle and a stick. It can be drawn roughly or precisely, it can be incorporated into other designs, or it can be rendered in three dimensions – as jewellery, for instance, or sculpture.
The magnifying glass (we could refer to it as the rationalist lens) represents rational enquiry, scientific investigation and curiosity about the natural world. Like the Christian fish, it’s easy to reproduce in two or three dimensions, formally or informally. It can be executed as calligraphy, typography or jewellery. It’s simple to remember and easy to explain. And, if you’re of a subversive turn of mind or otherwise need to conceal your affiliations, it makes (like the fish in its day) an excellent piece of clandestine graffiti.
But perhaps most importantly – unlike, say, the scarlet A proposed for atheism – it defines us in terms of what we are – rational – rather than what we’re not – credulous.
I like your idea a lot! You’ve created a symbol that’s meaningful and relevant, not easily confused with logos used by other movements, and, most importantly, simple enough to be reproduced by even the artistically challenged (i.e. me).
It ‘s also more unassuming than some of the attempts I’ve seen to rally non-theists under some catchphrase or nickname – e.g. “Brights” – which always seem to come across as being equal parts ostentatious and corny.
Someone should set up a simple website that explains the meaning of the symbol – along with a perhaps a summary of what non-theists, in general, believe. A simple bulleted list of items like, “We believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” would do, along with links to some atheist resources online. Webmasters of atheist blogs/sites could place the symbol somewhere on their page and link it back to this resource.
Very good idea! Perhaps make the handle a little thicker so it looks less like a lollypop.
Well done!
Thanks for the compliments, guys.
@Robert – as with the christian fish and similar graphics, the symbol is the general shape rather than any particular style, so how thick the handle turns out (or how long in proportion to the circle) depends on how you draw it. The idea is that it works equally well whether you draw it in thick felt-tip, emulsion paint, chalk, or solid gold, so the meaning and distinctiveness of it don’t depend on any particular line width or calligraphic/sculptural style. It’s the same symbol with the same meaning however you render it.
@drl2 – I wouldn’t mind someone setting up a website to promulgate the use of the lens, but I’d be agin the list of bullet points. The whole point of rationalism, to me, is that it embodies free thinking in a positive way – you don’t have to sign up to someone else’s laundry list of beliefs to be rational. The definition of rationalism itself should suffice.
I love the new symbol, I hope it gets adopted!
I like the idea, but it looks like either a sucker, or a stick man’s tree.
[…] at Effing the Ineffable (I love that name!) offers us a possible symbol to represent atheism, in It’s a Sign. Over at The Loom we have a wonderful visual piece, a range of free thinking tattoos in Branded […]
I actually like the scarlet letter. To my eye, it looks stylish, and like the connotations of being open about something that you’re conventionally supposed to be ashamed of. If it also signifies scepticism about the miserable sexual morality associated with religion, all the better.
@ Russell:
Agreed about the stylishness of the A, but as a symbol one can draw by hand, or just scrawl on a wall, its very specific colour and design and its inevitably generic nature (an A can stand for all kinds of things) leaves something to be desired. The idea of the lens is that it’s unambiguous and can be executed easily in any medium by people of any skill level.
I’m keen on the Scarlet A myself, but I can see the advantages of the magnifying glass in terms of ease of reproducibility. However, do you not think it looks a little too much like the venus symbol?
Another point about the scarlet A is that it’s designed to relate specifically to Atheism. The Lens is designed to symbolise any rational, evidence-based belief system.
@Ben D: Nope. The lens has two strokes, the Venus symbol has three. And my guess is that the context would almost certainly reveal whether the symbol in question was a lens or an unfinished Venus. 😉
The mathematical symbol for “there does not exist” is the mirror image of a capital letter E (the three prongs face left) with a slash thru the backwards letter running NNE to SSW.
On the site below you see it listed with the command
\nexists
http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/jsMath/symbols/AMSsymbols.html
Hi Peter,
I really love your idea for the symbol!
I’ve never really liked the A – it’s just not simple enough and doesn’t make a lot of space (and of course is limited to Atheists and so doesn’t cover rationalist, realists and so forth…)
I think your design would get a lot more positive response than an A 🙂
f you need help / want help setting up a website to promote it in the same way as the A (I agree bulleted lists = bad idea, clean simple ideas ftw! :)) then give me a shout – I have plenty of hosting space spare and can rattle up a site design fairly quickly 🙂
(PS I picked you up from the new scientist letters page! Good call that :P)
And by “space” I meant “sense”!
(obviously……….. ;))
I think that symbol sums us free-thinkers perfectly.
possibly put a smaller circle inside representing a brain within a head on a neck–new scientist reader
I read your letter in New Scientist and followed the link to your site. I think your idea for a rational/atheist or whatever symbol is excellent. So far, I’ve only been able to use the Darwin fish, which is good as far as it goes, but only really deals with the question of evolution v creation, rather than the whole issue of science/rationality/enquiry v superstition/anthropocentrism/mysticism.
I’ll point your letter out to my son, currently a science undergraduate- well, actually it was his copy of New Scientist but I got to it first!
The main disadvantage of A for Atheism is that it is specific to languages where atheism begins with an A (OK in Welsh too, were it is anffyddiaeth, but I’m sure not in every language.) The magnifying glass is surely universal.
Good idea. I have put in on my home page http://www.mikefinch.com, with a link there to a few lines on it, and rationalism as I mean it (including of course a link back to this blog).
I too read it in your letter in New Scientist. I hope it snowballs and gathers momentum.
— Mike
Whoops, my link does not work in my comment above, does not like the trailing comma. Try this:
http://www.mikefinch.com
Thanks for responding, everybody.
Errant – thanks for the offer, but I think we’ll just see how it goes/grows organically for the moment. Judging by the spiralling stats for this post, it’s attracting alot of interest.
Kate – interesting. I hadn’t considered anffyddiaeth, but then I don’t live very far inside the border, so I’m not exposed to as much Welsh as you seem to be, judging from your (excellent, and thanks for blogrolling me) blog.
Mike/Kate – thanks for the links. I’ve had a few referrals from them already.
Interestingly, there’s another alternative symbology for the scarlet A: Asexual! Apparently people are referring to ‘A’ Pride. Looks like atheists have been beaten to it in even more ways than I suspected… 🙂
Hi Peter
I have altered the few lines on my site about the rationalist lens, and I now mention you by name. It was a bit measly of me not to.
Yes, I have told several people in the academic world about it. I agree completely with you that the ‘A’ is unsuitable, I think your lens captures the spirit of what is required admirably.
— Mike
I think the symbol is a very good idea. Not in the habit of wearing T-shirts, especially with messages or symbols, but I’d be prepared to sport a small badge showing this one — rather in the manner of the old CND symbol. That, however, seems to have got watered down, so that few people nowadays know what it originally stood for. I suppose that’s a danger for any non-explicit symbol, but anyway it’s certainly worth a try.
Recently I devised a symbol for atheism myself while hearing “Imagine”, by John Lennon. The verse “above us, only sky” inspired me tu use a man under a single star (the sky, only) and over a curved line (the earth).
The symbol is in “stick figure” style, so it can be easily drawn by hand.
It can even be written in ASCII art, leaned to the right, like an emoticon:
*o|-<(
I even made a video to “promote” the idea. Take a look at:
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=OHwPzajwX5A
I do like the simple magnifying glass symbol. The scarlet A has been discussed. What do you think of just a circle?
http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/atheist/no-ghost-c-06.en.html
It’s a good idea. I also like Brent’s circle – it’s quick, simple and inclusive, but maybe ‘closed’? If I were a graffitist, maybe I’d use it on all religious public graphic expression.
I like the idea of the magnifying glass. I prefer it to the scarlet A (which I never liked much at all) for its simplicity and because it’s inclusive of various rational viewpoints. I think the best way for it to be adopted is for people everywhere to simply start displaying it on their websites, blogs, etc.
However, I also think that we shouldn’t necessarily use symbols to “hide” behind – something we can display on a T-shirt or a bumper sticker, then wait for people to ask us about it… we should be more forthright and open about being freethinkers. So yes, I like the symbol, but let’s be open about it and not use it as a cryptic symbol for something we are afraid to speak about.
Hi Guys, thanks for the comments. Brent: I agree with Sampo Syreeni in his/her comment on the circle:
“…because of the generic nature of the symbol it’s easily mistaken for 0 or O in plaintext. It is far less than noticeable when worn, and it fails to signal anything original.”
That’s why I rejected it.
As I said in the original post, the magnifying glass is much more distinctive, it symbolises a simple, powerful tool of rational enquiry, and it’s very easy to execute or describe in any medium.
And yes, please do feel free to use it…
I saw Peter’s letter in New Scientist yesterday. I’ve created three versions and put them on products at the Wero Shop, http://www.cafepress.com/wero/5571454
The versions on the men’s thongs and boxer shorts could have quite a different connotation, but it’ll be a talking point either way.
Hugh, I have a question: who gets the profit from these items? If it’s you, I’m not happy. If it’s a charitable organisation that supports rationalist ideals in general (rather than specific ones like genital integrity, for instance), then I am.
It’s me. I made the images – and as you know, getting the proportions right etc. is not as easy as it looks – and prepared them into uploadable formats (four or five different ones of each variety for different products), uploaded them, and fitted them to their products. I did the creative work for the second and third images. It took several hours. I pay rent for the shop. You never said anywhere that you want to retain rights to its use. I give you full credit, including linking back here from the page. The mugs include the text:
“A magnifying glass,
the most basic tool
of rational, scientific
enquiry – symbol by
Peter Magellan”
I thought the benefit to you and the movement of getting the image out there and seen by the public was the point of the exercise. I wonder if Gerald Holtom was happy with what became of his CND symbol?
I haven’t sold any yet (1520, 25/5/08).
Hi Hugh
Sorry about that, I was being churlish, of course. You go for it, mate.
Many thanks.
A very interesting proposal! It has the benefit of being non-lingual (as opposed to the “A” which will only work in languages which have an “A” and in which a word for “freethought” begins with that).
[…] groups have adopted their own logos, but none has really gained acceptance as an overall symbol.But PeterM at the Effing the Ineffable blog has an interesting proposal: The magnifying glass. Simply a circle and a stick. It can be drawn roughly or precisely, it can be […]
This must just be coincidence but … I recently asked our members (of Leicester Secular Society) if they could explain the presence of what appears to be a magnifying glass in the bas-relief brickwork on the front of our Secular Hall in Leicester. The Hall was built in 1881. A photo and short article can be found in our October newsletter at:
Click to access secularist_200810(1).pdf
It seems someone got there before us! Possibly Larner Sugden, architect of the Hall, or Josiah Gimson, main funder.
As a p.s. I use the ‘above us only sky’ phrase often as a signature line on postings around the net. I think it says it all.
Harry
Oh, and the word shown alongside the image is ‘veritas’.
Harry
Thanks for the link, Harry! Yes, that does seem to be a magnifying glass – I’d guess that the diagonal lines would represent rays of light shining through it, illuminating the truth – hence “Veritas”. As for the battleaxe, perhaps it symbolises revolution? Or maybe it’s a simple weather vane, symbolising the freedom of the wind…
All the best,
Peter
I’ve seen that symbol being used to signify a reluctance to be cast as either gender (it is the common part of both the male and female gender symbols, minus the differentiating arrowhead or bar).
[…] it looks a little too secret society/lodge/fraternity for me. The Magnifying Glass PeterM at Effing the Ineffable suggests this stylized magnifying glass. I quite like this one because it is simple and elegant, […]
I like the concept and was looking exactly for what you did in order to use it, but symbols must be powerful and I dont think the magnifying glass is powerful enough for its intended meaing. Nevertheless I’ll keep it in my mind as a reference, really liked your job mate.
“ON my mind”
i’m not sure a symbol will help our cause…atheists don’t have anything in common besides the denial or rejection of a god!As soon as we get symbols,we’ll start wearing similar hats and have catchphrases like “may god be-less” or things like that…i don’t think i want that.The thing i love about atheists is our diversity and i think a symbol would compromise that.
Thank you.
Hi Adrian
That’s the point – it’s not intended as a symbol just for atheism, but for rationalism, which includes the possibility of atheism. Atheists of a rationalistic bent can use it if they like, of course, as can anyone else. But a New Ager, say, who simply happens not to believe in God probably wouldn’t be interested in such a symbol anyway.
Thanks for commenting.
Peter,i just don’t get the point of it.I don’t mind anyone having a symbol,but when and how would anyone use it?How is it useful?
I couldn’t refrain from commenting. Very well written!