God-Fearing Atheists? Part I
Disclaimer: I’m no expert on this topic; my impressions come mainly from reading atheist blogs from time to time. I’m open to being educated/corrected. Also, to atheists who may be reading: please note that my intention here is to be thought-provoking, not antagonistic. See, for example, the previous post where I’ve done something similar with theism and pantheism. Note also that in what follows, I distinguish atheism as the simple and understandable disbelief in God from atheism as a kind of members club posing as a School of Thought.
Having an Attitude: William James describes religion in its broadest terms as a person’s “attitude toward life as a whole.” Atheism isn’t nearly that comprehensive; it isn’t religion’s opposite or an alternative to religion. An atheist can be a misanthrope, a Buddhist, a secular humanist, or someone who’s in despair because he’d like to be a theist but finds it impossible to believe in God. Atheism isn’t a cohesive school of thought or body of teachings about life, but, simply and specifically, disbelief in God.
Problems with Atheism as a Purported School of Thought
1. Religion Bashing: Some atheists, however, do seem to view atheism as a school of thought. This may happen when atheism becomes a major feature in someone’s identity, and the person seeks out other atheists with whom to converse about atheism. From what I’ve read on the blogs, the ensuing conversations often consist of religion bashing. Atheists point to abuses within religious institutions that most religious people also recognize as abuses, and argue against the existence of God. The God that atheists argue against is typically the God of extreme conservatism; many religious people would argue against that God too.
Another prominent feature of what looks to me more like “the atheism club” than any real atheistic school of thought, is a focus on how atheists are maligned by religious people. Atheist club members resent it when the religious stereotype them as immoral; they would like to be free from such persecution to quietly pursue their stereotyping of the religious as ignorant hypocrites . . .
To be continued . . .
Having an Attitude: William James describes religion in its broadest terms as a person’s “attitude toward life as a whole.” Atheism isn’t nearly that comprehensive; it isn’t religion’s opposite or an alternative to religion. An atheist can be a misanthrope, a Buddhist, a secular humanist, or someone who’s in despair because he’d like to be a theist but finds it impossible to believe in God. Atheism isn’t a cohesive school of thought or body of teachings about life, but, simply and specifically, disbelief in God.
Problems with Atheism as a Purported School of Thought
1. Religion Bashing: Some atheists, however, do seem to view atheism as a school of thought. This may happen when atheism becomes a major feature in someone’s identity, and the person seeks out other atheists with whom to converse about atheism. From what I’ve read on the blogs, the ensuing conversations often consist of religion bashing. Atheists point to abuses within religious institutions that most religious people also recognize as abuses, and argue against the existence of God. The God that atheists argue against is typically the God of extreme conservatism; many religious people would argue against that God too.
Another prominent feature of what looks to me more like “the atheism club” than any real atheistic school of thought, is a focus on how atheists are maligned by religious people. Atheist club members resent it when the religious stereotype them as immoral; they would like to be free from such persecution to quietly pursue their stereotyping of the religious as ignorant hypocrites . . .
To be continued . . .
Posted by Paul at 3:00 PM Permalink
29 Comments:
Sometimes I feel that certain athiests refuse to believe in God because they might look "stupid" for believing in something they can not see! Like they have some kind of inferiority complex to begin with. Again, not ALL athiests; just some.
am out of topic, but that's what i do best. heh.
It doesn't mean I'm a fanatic and can't be reasoned with.
In my non internet life, I'm just like everyone else. Atheism doesn't come up much, of course neither does talk about religion or God.
But on the internet and my blog it is a different story. It is a voice for me.
My main concern when it comes to bashing religion, is to single out the unnecessary stuff that happens because of religion and of course, separation of church and state issues.
Wasting time on issues like gay marriage is something I see as being religious motivated.
9/11 was religious motivated.
The fact that in the US 45% of people believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old (because of religion) or slightly more than 45% don't believe in evolution (again, because of religion), are sore points with me.
Keeping religion out of school is also a sore point. I think if someone wants to have their kids learn religion and pray at home or their place of worship, that is up to them....but keep it separate from the government and public funding.
When atheists are maligned, I take exception. The misconception that Hitler and the Nazis were atheists just gets to me. Hitler believed in God, though he was a very bad Catholic and was against organized religion.
Recently, a woman was beat up by religious Jews on a bus in Israel, because she was sitting next to a man on a bus, and wouldn't move....it is easy to bash religion for this.
I often post about these type of incidents, and about new findings in evolution science, but it is natural to also point out that the foundations of every religion on this planet are based on mythological stories as a way to illustrate that all the above is happening over nothing.
And in your post, I don't think "despair" is a valid word. I think most atheists come to atheism after they grew up believing in God and then asked a bunch of questions and then slowly became atheist.
I think it is only natural that we want to live forever and that we want God to exist...but the reality of the matter is that there is absolutely no evidence that he does, and it is a tough pill to first swallow, but life makes so much more sense without God once the pill hits your stomach.
one the attributes of atheism I have noticed is what appears to me like a grocery list of assumptions about committed theists.
Its like,"gee, these guys believe in A, B, & C. Why can't they see it really is X, Y, & Z?"
Most of what you write, I, too believe. Evolution for the most part is seemingly an accurate picture of life on Earth, imo. I trust the scientists about the age of the rock we're on, generally speaking. Gay marriage is a non issue - as is abortion. Not interested in school teaching religion, (sharing maybe, history yes, but without bias.)
I totally respect the atheistic point of view when they shine light upon the hypocrisies in the world of religion, I full heartedly welcome it. We need more people to point them out.
I even agree that living without a notion of God, life would be easier and maybe even more peaceful. No shit!
9-11? Do you really think that we'd all be one big happy family without religious books? As a muslim, it makes me vomit that the Quran was used to justify this. But I don't believe it would have been different without Islam & the Quran...
Where we differ brother is this: I don't see God as the problem - PEOPLE are the problem.
I don't see the proof that without religion, people would be better - just different. Different is okay! But, your kidding yourself if you think it would be a walk in the park, imo.
VISHESH: I don’t know. You’re one of those people who visit this blog I wish I could talk to in my kitchen till maybe 3 AM to get a more thorough understanding of! To begin with, I have very little knowledge of Hinduism, one of the world’s great religions.
As to mantras, aren’t they for practicing meditation? That is, you don’t have to believe in a mantra to use one to meditate, right? Atheists can meditate.
“Universal soul…” We certainly are each a part of the universe – for example, the heavy elements in our bodies were forged in supernova explosions. Universal “soul” does sound like a religious belief, although if taken to mean that everything in the universe is interconnected, I think that’s pretty much a matter of known fact too, as in UNI-verse…
MISTIPURPLE: I think you’re seriously on topic. Sounds like you’re in process. In fact, the topics in these more philosophical/theological-sounding posts are not so personally relevant to me now.
These more abstract/intellectual matters didn’t turn out to be central to how I actually live or what aspects of religion and spirituality turned out to be most meaningful for me – although thinking through them was valuable to me at an earlier time and very much a part of my own process.
BEAJ: Your comment here makes me think how a big part of the atheist/religious divide may be that when atheists think about religion, they focus on the abuses and also on the kind of thinking about religion that characterizes religious fundamentalism. My hunch is that if you had a meeting of religious fundamentalists, religious progressives, and atheists, the progressives and atheists would find they have the most in common in their perspectives on life. For example, progressives along with a good part if not most of mainstream religion would share your views on evolution and the social issues you mention.
Without going into detail on the harmful acts committed in the name of religion, they certainly do happen. They also happen in the name of the nation-state and big business.
You write, “The foundations of every religion on this planet are based on mythological stories…” Yes and no. The eastern religion that I know most about, Buddhism, is based mainly on concrete practices – the Eightfold Path. Some of the Buddha’s followers tried to turn him into a deity but he wouldn’t let them, and was explicit with them about being completely human. (He died of food poisoning – seemed to kind of prove his point!) And as I understand it, he didn’t discuss God or an afterlife.
Also, the idea of myth can be understood in different ways. Also, even in western religion, supernatural beliefs aren’t always central or necessarily present. For example, google “Open Christianity.”
“And in your post, I don't think despair is a valid word. I think most atheists come to atheism after they grew up believing in God and then asked a bunch of questions and then slowly became atheist.” Right on your second sentence, but regarding your first: after slowly becoming atheists, some people do despair – and after that, some of them have conversion experiences. Not all, of course. Many remain atheists. And “conversion” is a funny word – it can mean very different things. In any case, to go from atheism or agnosticism into despair and then have a conversion experience is pretty common. For example, as I recall, the founders of AA fit that pattern.
Glad you brought up the issue of mortality; I’ll plan to go into it next post.
BEAJ and KEVIN: !
I hadn’t read Kevin’s comment prior to replying to you, BEAJ, but it supports what I was saying about how oftentimes religious progressives and atheists have a lot in common.
The athiests who have commented on my blog in the past seem to all want to believe in God, but can't find a "tangible reason." They are looking for experiences to change their view. Just because an atheist doesn't believe in God, doesn't mean that God doesn't believe in them. It's all semantics and the way we process life. I do believe that atheists believe in a "higher power" which is nameless to them.
I once heard that atheists have no means of support. (Get it?)
Nasra
As a Catholic, for instance, I have no trouble with science or evolution, and in fact, many Jesuits are and have been scientists .... most of the craters on the moon are named for Jesuit scientists ... and it was a Catholic priest who came up with the Bug Bang theory.
However, if you think of God as a benevolent entity who sees to it that in the end everything turns out well, wrongs are righted, our lives are made ultimately meaningful… it’s hard to see someone going “That sounds like a really bad idea…”
I think the main obstacle to belief for atheists is what you refer to as “tangible reason.” Belief in the existence of a benevolent Entity isn’t based on reason or experience, which is what people who are thinking clearly generally base their beliefs on. So for atheists, however much they may want to believe in God, they see this belief as at odds with their honesty and integrity. I don’t believe that many of them would share your belief that they believe in a higher power - don't think they'd see that phrase as essentially different from “God.”
NASRA, hi, and thanks for stopping by.
CRYSTAL: I bet that what you're saying about your views as a Catholic is true for most Catholics in most countries – I’m quite sure I’ve heard stats suggesting that the Catholic laity is much less conservative than the papacy. I didn’t know that about the Big Bang theory.
Keshi.
Free Tinky Winky!
That said, I’d hope that any atheist who’s thought his or her position through would state not that atheism can disprove the idea of God, but that he/she sees nothing by way of compelling evidence for God’s existence and therefore the burden of proof is on believers. (Theoretically, one could, to take an extreme example, insist that the Easter Bunny is real. Although nobody could actually prove you wrong, this would not demonstrate the existence of EB.)
KESHI: If you think of God as a kind of magician who’s all powerful in the sense of being able to do whatever S(he) wants to do at any moment in time, then the problem of evil is a big problem…
HAPPYNAT: Good point. And you’re right; progressives and moderates have really been struggling to dis-identify religion/morality from the political football that the far right has made of it in the form of its “hot button issues."
A conjecture: one major reason for our difficulty is that progressives, moderates, and open-minded atheists who don’t equate all religion and spirituality with evil, don’t march in lockstep the way that the far right does. As you say, fundamentalists have a simple, set agenda and immovable beliefs that lead them to see no need to dialog with others or even, imo, to discernibly think in any manner beyond reiterating their shared preconceived notions.
The rest of us are more diverse and more dynamic in our thought processes. There HAS to be a way for us to start noticing what we have in common. I try to take a step in that direction with Original Faith, which certainly allows for and yet certainly does not presume or require readers to believe in God
We all want to know why we are aware that we are alive.
We require a Cosmology to free up valuable browser space in our Brain.
A large part of the problem is that even at this point in History far too many Earthlings STILL do not get to examine the evidence.
Since the majority of our collective existence on Earth has been spent in clannish little groups we want to stay in the proximity of like minded people.
We all resent naked ambition in any form, but the combination of religious/political authoritarianism is especially egregious. We are proud little things and nobody likes to be wrong. There is safety in numbers and traditions offer a high degree of comfort with a modicum of effort. Somebody has already done all of the heavy lifting..whew!
We made it this far because our brains rewarded us for not being excessively adventurous. We don't like reinventing the wheel.
We are in the midst of an Information Revolution and I believe that the net effect will be Billions of people abandoning the traditional religions.
As scientific knowledge is begrudgingly accepted by each new generation it will inevitably prevail. Just getting back to a theo-neutral starting point will be a miracle in and of itself...and NO I do not expect to see it in my lifetime nor will my grandchildren's grandchildren.
I think you have done a very good job of setting the stage and managing expectations. Looking forward to your next post.
Again, a very high number of people deny reality to try to make the bible 100% literal. That is where I have my biggest problem.
And again, it is those who push against gay marriage or creationism or prayer in public school that I have the biggest gripe with.
I do think we evolved a high susceptibility to believe in the supernatural (including God), so God isn't that hard to sell us as children or even adults.
Back when our ancestors couldn't even explain lightning, the idea of a supernatural being or a supreme being most likely kept everyone sane, and if they were sane they could find shelter, hunt and procreate. Early man atheists probably went crazy and died of starvation way before they could find a cave woman:)
“…traditions offer a high degree of comfort with a modicum of effort. Somebody has already done all of the heavy lifting..whew!”
That's an interesting observation How is faith consistent with bothering to lead a good life and doing good works? In Christian terms, if sins are forgiven by repenting, if all of us truly deserve destruction because death comes to us as “the wages of sin” but salvation is the freely given gift of Jesus Christ by way of his sacrifice, then why should people of faith work at being good people and doing good things?
As to how fast/how much/in what ways the human race will/won’t smarten up, I’m more of an aganostic than a prophanostic.
MARK, thanks. In some ways I’m thinking it’s better that I’ve gotten most of my impressions about atheism through blogs rather than books – it may be a better representation of the thinking that prevails among atheist generally.
BEAJ, all points taken, but what really catches my attention here is your contribution to the theory of evolution, lol . . .
But you have to account for the atheists' survival and persistence. Maybe certain alpha male atheists came to strike some of the cavewomen as early "bad boys," explaining how they got to reproduce?
you don't need to waste any time wondering what it is all about Alfie...
somebody, like your own personal Huckleberry Hound, has already done all the thinin' round here...
and it comes gift wrapped with a bow, chapter and verse and they throw in a few NEW ideas of their own just for good measure, because they are the exclusive, anointed, representitive on Earth.
Just listen to me and do this, this, and this, and then this, this, and this will happen.
Done.
rimshot,
I believe that you are referring to antagonadsadistic...
not to be confused with auntagnesisastatistic.
HOMOESCAPEONS: Gotcha. I know there aren’t supposed to be any really new ideas anymore – it’s all exegesis from here, as they say (well, not so many people say that, I guess, even though you KNOW they're thinking it . . .) BUT . . . Wait till people read Original Faith! (I do have to start getting into a marketing mindset, although there’s been a delay and it won’t come out till 08.)
But actually, it’s true. There aren’t a lot of books in this subject area written for both believers and atheists; the focus is experiential rather than doctrinal so that readers can decide for themselves whether it’s on target just by reflecting on their own experiences.
Maybe you and Rimshot are thinking of Antigone, incestuously conceived daughter of King Oedipus and Jocasta? No, seriously . . . (*rimshot* . . .)
You may be interested in an article in the NY Times this past Sunday called "The Evangelical Crackup." Briefly, it's about how there's lots of internal shifts and rifts going on amongst evangelicals because many have become disillusioned with right wing conservatism due largely to the Iraq war. Also, I'm not so certain that moderate Christians are powerless. Some of the problem with not getting the message out has to do with not successfully speaking to values. Conservatives started right wing think tanks decades before George W. Bush took office for the very purpose of getting their values agenda out to the public.
In the meantime, progressives were attacking issues. You need both--thought and action. But conservatives were a lot more patient with the slow process of changing attitudes in the interest of long-term change. Bush is in office because their strategy worked. But now, lots of conservatives are beginning to see how twisted much of the ideology is.
Vishesh's words are speaking to me.
MOTHERWINTERMOON: I'm with you on both counts. It's odd, to say the least, that religion should so often be a source of divsion, conflict, and violence. And I think Vishesh's comments broadly run in the opposite direction of seeing spirituality and religion as properly bringing people together and viewing the world as a whole.
I actually did read the article. It seems people have started to wisen up. :) what bothered me about The Republicans/Bush/Religious Right is they talked about values(and got the votes) but it was all just talk. They keep repeating a phrase (flip flop, freedom, values, etc.) until a majority accept it as fact without proof/actions.
Yes, I suspect one of the goals of the conservative think tanks is to convince people that their view is the "natural" way to see the world. The absolute truth. They're not interested in educating people. They want to dumb them down. It's a lot easier to manipulate them that way.
An atheist may dismiss all this completely or may in fact have a completely different interpretation of a greater power.
My atheism is of the quantum school of packets of power or values of cosmic energy that are God like in their possibilities.
I too am a militant, abrasive atheist because I am not a participant in orthodox Christian mythology. I am a practitioner of the way of the itinerant Nazarene rebbi and a seeker of those who would share a natural morality of do-no-harm and allow no harm to an innocent. I will defend myself and I will protect and defend others who are in the way of harm.
Much of orthodox Christianity allows harm for supposedly good and Godly purposes, usually having some payoff like conversion to Christianity. For me it makes theism a villainous and dangerous expression in its most abrasive extremes.
There is however another extreme that is quite loving, self sacrificing and demonstrative of all that is good. I am closer to those who seek good for others no matter the level of their acceptance of the mythical language.
There is usually no good to be found in the extremes of any body of thought. It is only in the middle ground of acceptance and toleration that we find peace of a sort for the greatest number.
I AM
Lantern Bearer
Be attentive! Be intelligentA Be reasonable! Be responsible!
HAPPNAT: Thanks for stopping by, I’ve often marveled myself over how the far right has achieved such success with labels and name calling. A victory of marketing strategy over thought I guess, but hopefully not permanent.
KARIN: The age of the sound bite sure has had that dumbing down effect. Most of what passes for public “discourse” isn’t that at all.
LANTERN BEARER: Doing no harm is also a major principle in Buddhism as I recall.
“My atheism is of the quantum school of packets of power or values of cosmic energy that are God like in their possibilities.” To me, this might best be described as atheism plus a religious belief that is not in the God of theism.
It seems to me too that action – how we actually live and conduct ourselves – has more to say about us than our statements about our religious beliefs/lack of religious beliefs.
Do you forget what the instruction set was from the Teacher?
How do we pray?
What was his answer?
How far has your education taken you from that instruction set? You have been made one in authority by education.
I mean you no slight. I have had benefit of the same educational system in the same languages and source material as you. How is it that we have a different perspective? Is one of us evil? Is there something in one of us that must be condemned by the other. If I say that theism is a stepping stone, would that cause you disquiet? Do you profess literalism and certitude?
I have spent nights under the stars in the Negev, Judean and Sinai desert wilderness. I have also flown over some of those same places. I know why those places have power.
I AM and you are as well.
Lantern Bearer
Post a Comment