I think we've been dividing the world along the wrong axes. It's normal for us to dichotomize our interactions along simple, one-dimensional lines—liberal-conservative, men-women, atheist-theist—and while that is a useful way to categorize (as long as we don't get so committed to the extremes that we fail to recognize them as continua), I fear that we've neglected to notice one dimension that is extremely relevant to the current discourse.

One pole of the dichotomy is the one on which I think I mostly reside. These are people who are committed to reason, empiricism, and natural evidence—those who believe in the complete (or near complete) significance of the real world, the universe, all matter, energy, and laws of science to our lives. We agree that we lack a comprehensive understanding of the universe, but experience (that important empirical component) leads us to expect that studying our world ever more accurately is going to lead us to greater understanding. We atheists are prone to the over-reaching sin of associating this point of view specifically with our position on religion, but I would suggest that there is more to it than that. There are devout Christians who are no less committed to the natural view, even if they do suspend it to some degree when they're in a church…I can't hold that against them, since I do the same thing in the bedroom (it's true, I do worship the Goddess now and then.) Similarly, this view cuts across political lines, too, and some conservatives and liberals respect it, and some reject it.

I need a label, so I'm going to call those people who consider material evidence paramount and regard the real world as a mostly sufficient container of phenomena that define our existence the Naturals. I consider myself one of them, so I think these are the good guys, for the most part; it doesn't mean that all Naturals are correct in all matters, though, because there are many whose interpretations of evidence I disagree with, and vice versa. All that is important is that we agree that measurement and testing and analysis are the best ways to resolve our differences.

What's the contra position? There are those who think inspiration and intuition and all the internal imagery of their minds define their external reality; that what they wish to be so will be so if only they can articulate it and select and distort evidence for the purposes of persuasion. What they see is only applicable and interesting if it reinforces their presuppositions, and all else is a lure and a distraction, an illusion that must be disregarded or rationalized to fit into a predetermined explanation. Many religious people are examples: they have a vision of an unseen power that acts on the world, and despite the lack of evidence and frequent contradictions between their beliefs and reality, they insist on interpreting everything as a shadow of something impalpable and unimaginable.

I'm going to call them Unnaturals, plainly enough.

Obvious examples of Unnatural extremism are Pat Robertson and his unfounded belief in a vengeful God who is going kneecap anyone who disagrees with him; the members of the Bush administration who mangled evidence to justify going to war, and decided to ignore the expertise of their generals and prosecute that war with insufficient force; and every creationist on the planet. It should also be obvious that there are ranges of Unnatural activity, and even Pat Robertson uses a spoon to eat his cornflakes rather than praying to God to levitate it into his mouth (I hope. One can't be entirely sure with Evil Uncle Chuckles.) Strictly speaking, Unnaturalism is an activity or way of thinking, not individuals themselves, although some do do an amazingly consistent job of personifying the principle.

On the other side, we find Rev. Coyne, the Vatican astronomer who dismisses Intelligent Design, who is clearly mostly a Natural supporting science and evolution, but who occasionally tosses out an Unnatural bon mot about his religious beliefs, or Richard Dawkins, who is much more consistent in his commitment to naturalism—but Rev. Coyne and Dawkins probably have more in common in their ideas than they have in opposition.

Where all this is useful is in helping us distinguish useful arguments from Unnatural nonsense, and in characterizing debates rhetorically. For instance, we don't oppose Ken Ham and Kent Hovind and similar reverend creationists because they are Christians, but because they are Unnatural Christians who defy reasonable Augustinian principles of respecting the evidence of (in their opinion) God's Creation. We don't necessarily oppose George W. Bush because he is a Republican politician, but because he practices Unnatural politics, the advocacy of unrealistic goals by impractical means. I'd like to chew out Democrat Tom Harkin for his unnatural support of 'alternative' medicine, too, so this isn't solely a Republican foible.

Anyway, a number of people have falsely assumed that I and other atheists hate religious people. This is not true; instead, we simply despise Unnatural thinking. I'd be more willing to take greater care about avoiding blanket condemnations of the religious if they in turn would be more willing to recognize when their thinking has taken an Unnatural turn, and recognize that Unnatural arguments have absolutely no weight with me, and should have no weight with other rational people.