What the 'Six Types of Atheists' Mean for Christian Outreach
Despite the societal distrust and feelings of mistreatment, atheists may also enjoy the benefits of having a higher status at certain times—a concept called "status inconsistency." As an African-American man at times I enjoy the benefits of male privilege, but at other times in my life I have had to deal with my racial minority status. For atheists, data shows they are more likely to be white, male, educated and possibly wealthy than the general population, indicating they also tend to have more social power than others in society. Additionally, in venues such as academia, atheists clearly have an advantage, while conservative Protestants are the minority (as I wrote in Compromising Scholarship by Baylor University Press). It is overly simplistic to argue that nonbelievers are always at a societal advantage or disadvantage. We have to understand other factors and the contexts.
The common themes I found among atheists—a sense of logic and perception of mistreatment—help me to rethink the six categories Silver offers. Based on my research and my interaction with nonbelievers in my life, I lump together the Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic, Activist and Anti-Theist together as nonbelievers who proactively push secular ideas. For lack of a better term, let me call them aggressive nonbelievers. On the other hand, we have the Seeker-Agnostic, Non-Theist and Ritual Atheist/Agnostic, nonbelievers with "a live and let live" type of attitude. I'll refer to them as passive nonbelievers. These two, more general categories can initially help us as Christians as we consider strategies for ministry to a nonbeliever, and we can subtly adjust to the specific "type" Silver talks about.
The aggressives are more likely to be arguing with Christians in comment sections, attending political rallies, or joining activist secular organizations. With some appreciation of the subtle differences between the Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic, Activist and Anti-Theist, expect such individuals to argue for the rightness of nonbelief. New research I am working on, but have not yet published, indicates that some will intertwine their arguments with unreasonable hatred and fear of Christians. It is wise for Christians to prepare for such arguments through apologetical study and by expecting fair, and sometimes unfair, attacks from such individuals.
The passives don't show up publically nearly as much as the aggressives. Some keep their thoughts to themselves, believing it's not anybody's business what they think about the metaphysical. This group would be turned off by some of the same tactics that may be necessary in talking with the aggressives. Instead, interpersonal relationships may help Christians to earn their trust. (Of course, interpersonal relationships can also pave the way for reaching aggressives but Christians have to be ready for possible hostility that's less likely to emerge from the passives.)
The three largest categories of nonbelievers—Intellectual Atheist/Agnostic, Activist and Anti-Theist—are the aggressive ones. According to Silver's survey about 3 of every 4 nonbelievers are part of these groups. From what I can tell he is not using a probability sample and so we have to be careful about generalizing his findings, but this does raise the possibility that aggressive nonbelievers greatly outnumber passives. Nevertheless, Christians still have the responsibility to assess a person's type of nonbelief, personality, and tone. Treating nonbelievers as individuals instead of grouping them all together with a presupposed plan is the way to find the best path to interacting with them and to take our rightful place in this emerging multicultural world.