Jess has cool stuff to say here, go and read.
One of the things I find fascinating about the theism-atheism debates I see is that atheism really is a pretty varied thing. We all get that there are a billion types of theists*, but that there's quite a lot of theological diversity within atheism too seems to elude people.
I've certainly known atheists of the "Anything remotely related to God offends me and I'm really a nice person for tolerating such stupidity, when I tolerate it at all" variety. Some of those go so far as to call any atheist less extreme an "Uncle Tom."
Nobody asked for my opinion and I know this, but my general take is that this attitude does more harm than good.
When someone is extreme and insulting, I might smile and nod out of sheer desire to have them not turn their wrath on me (which extreme and insulting people usually take as a sign that I'm on their side, so I try not to), but the minute they are gone I find myself talking to other people about what a jerk they are and how wrong they are. Snotty presentation makes serious opinions easy to dismiss, which is not to say I'm not snotty too sometimes**, but I do try to keep that in mind. I also try to keep in mind that a room full of people smiling and nodding from sheer desire to be left alone looks like a room full of agreement to themselves and to any observer.
All that said, I also know plenty of atheists who are way more laid back about it, some allowing that the concept of "God" might be a loaded term for something unsupernatural that they essentially believe in, some not going quite that far but willing to do things for symbolic reasons. Some people who call themselves atheists don't dismiss the theoretical possibility of God, yet feel that we should act like functional atheists and take care of each other because God's not going to***. From a classification perspective, I have issues with people who call themselves atheists and say that they actually believe in a God, just not the Christian God, but I have met such people. And let's not forget Buddhists, though far from all Buddhists accept the term 'atheist,' some do.
Now, one type of atheist might well say that another type of atheist isn't REALLY an atheist because they have different views. Much like when Christians start sniping about who is a real Christian and who isn't, I tend to leave the room at that point. I'm pretty quick to accept people's self-identifications on religion.
Anyway, an atheist recently wrote on the UU blogosphere about how she just sits there when people pray, sing about God and light candles. She seems to think it's nice of her not to call it hooey. That said, I know plenty of atheists who use the prayer time for quiet reflection, sing about God knowing that they don't have to believe every word of the lyrics to get something meaningful out of the song and light candles to symbolically recognize their loved ones who are sick or dying or going through some other sort of strife.
I look at the rack of candles and all of those that are lighted and I am reminded of the suffering in the world and how many people need love and food and medicine and nurture. Even though I'm a theist, I don't view it as a signal flare to get God's attention but a flaming sign that says "Do something for somebody."
I'm guessing an atheist who sits there mentally denouncing the process and thinking about how great they are for not leaping up at that moment and crying "Hooey!" doesn't do that, but I know plenty of atheists who light candles right along with the theists.
Anyway, I've just touched on a bit of the diversity I see, but I think it is important to keep in mind that the people who speak loudest in a movement are often not in the majority and there's a lot more tolerance and reasonableness to go around than might initially appear in these debates.
Don't talk to straw men. Talk to people.
CC
*Ok, Richard Dawkins, with his broad statements about what theists believe, doesn't seem to get it, but most UUs do.
** I get snottiest when I feel I have had to explain the same point many times in the same discussion. By then I tend to assume that the other party is a lost cause as far as getting my point across goes and I'm effectively arguing to amuse myself.
*** I have a whole lot of sympathy for this view.
21 comments:
As an agnostic, I admit that I find atheism even more puzzling than theism. If someone has experienced what she considers "God," then I can't really argue with that much more than I can argue with someone who says she's "in love." It's her experience. But saying that in the absence of one's own experience, that there MUST be no God, seems about as sensible as saying that if one has never loved, love must not exist at all. I've personally never had a sense that there was anything more out there than the material, but I don't feel comfortable assuming that's the last word on the matter for everyone else.
Yeah, even when I was an atheist, I took that general position.
Arguably, I kinda sucked at being an atheist.
CC
Speculating on whether or not there's a God sort of a snoozer for me.
Whether someone believes in God less important (to me) than --if there is a God-- I sure hope God believes in me.
I like JFK's First Inaugural on God,
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
I'll ask for blessings. Even from beings I can't feel there.
I'm certain History judges. I plan to write some.
If some one goes on and on to me about God (and for that matter, on and on about non-God) at some point, I'll remind them here on earth their work truely their own. History will judge. Good conscience your only sure reward.
A friend of mine left Poland at as a Child in 1939 for Labor Camps in the Soviet Union, than --as a refugee to Iran-- and finally to England where his Dad joined the Polish Home Army.
I listen to a fellow agonize to my friend about God's cruelty allowing suffering.
I knew this fellow was unaware of the suffering my friend had endured (he didn't talk much about it). But my friend just replied after a while, you know, leave God out of it. That's it.
So, usually I do.
@PG But saying that in the absence of one's own experience, that there MUST be no God, seems about as sensible as saying that if one has never loved, love must not exist at all.
Tillich said atheism a powerful argument for God. All these people acutely and angrily aware of God's absence confirm that for me every time. Somethings going on.
Thanks for the shout out. :-)
What I really don't get in the whole thing is why the people being extreme and insulting can't see how it hurts their cause. A militant atheist screaming that people are stupid or delusional for believing in God is just as offensive as a fundamentalist Christian screaming that all who are not saved will burn in hell while God laughs.
Steve Caldwell should drop by at about six to remind us of his rule that in any discussion of atheism the chance that a Christian fundamentalism comparison will occur rises with the length of the conversation.
This is me saving him some time, though I'm not stating it as elegantly as he usually does.
CC
who from a pure math perspective agrees, but doesn't really get the significance.
He tends to use that like the Hitler argument -- the first to compare the other side to Hitler loses automatically. While that one I agree with, comparing one form of One True Way thinking/theology with another is completely valid, I think -- neither leave any alternatives open for discussion, and so are inherently related. Both sides believe they have the "facts," the only facts, in their favor.
Whether militant atheism is a response to fundamentalist Christianity could totally be up for debate, though.
Atheism around long before Christian Fundamentalism. Especially if you mean Fundamentalism as coined by American Protestants to label their response to the Historical Jesus movement of the last century.
If we use Fundamentalist as synonym for Fanatical Christianity, than even then, Atheism preDates Christianity, and I suppose it will be with us all until the end. I don't think God can do without it.
Tillich said atheism a powerful argument for God. All these people acutely and angrily aware of God's absence confirm that for me every time. Somethings going on.
Yeah, that strikes me as just as patronizing as the atheists who tell theists that their belief is like a belief in Santa Claus and unicorns.
Lots of atheists are not "acutely and angrily aware of God's absence." They're "acutely and angrily aware of" patronizing or downright abusive theists who use religion to justify disrespecting and mistreating people.
The angriest atheists I know personally are my best friend from law school and his little sister. They were raised in a fairly strict Southern Baptist home. Their elder brother began to acknowledge his homosexuality as a teenager, and their parents dumped him in a reeducation camp and hammered him with messages about how his feelings were terrible and sinful and must never be acted upon. He tried to live as they wanted, even trying to "outdo" them in Christian fundamentalism by declaring that he no longer would celebrate Christmas in the commercial sense with presents, etc. He eventually committed suicide a few years ago.
My friend and his sister are not angry about God's absence. They're angry about their older brother's absence.
Patronizing or downright abusive...people, and some a good deal more evil than that also evidence for some of God.
Today marks the anniversery of the German and Soviet invasion and partition of Poland.
I remember sitting with a Party Comrade who had been in the Jewish Labour Bund in Warsaw in the 30's who told me of feverish debates of whether to join with the Polish Communisty Party in the United Front (which the PCP betrayed anyways) and being amazed at old Bundist still working this through in 1974 in Milwaukee, taking different stands in his mind, and telling me.
Go through Hell and he's still splitting theological hairs (even if they're Marxist ones).
So, live your life as best you can. Abusive parents or not, your homeland plundered... all we can do really. Keep our faith in balance amidst it all.
Chalicechick wrote:
-snip-
"Steve Caldwell should drop by at about six to remind us of his rule that in any discussion of atheism the chance that a Christian fundamentalism comparison will occur rises with the length of the conversation."
The "drop by at about six" is due to workplace restriction on what web sites one can visit (blogger.com is blocked at work).
:^)
The Wikipedia article on "Blake's Law" can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngula_(blog)#Blake.27s_Law
The Wikipedia article compares this internet adage with "Godwin's Law" (the adage concerning Nazi analogies).
I didn't write the Wikipedia article but it does say the person making the analogy has conceded the argument (in a similar fashion as Godwin's Law).
:^)
So ... as long as you keep using, I win the argument and that makes me right.
:^)
PG wrote:
-snip-
"As an agnostic, I admit that I find atheism even more puzzling than theism. If someone has experienced what she considers 'God,' then I can't really argue with that much more than I can argue with someone who says she's 'in love.' But saying that in the absence of one's own experience, that there MUST be no God ... "
PG,
From what I've read, most folks who call themselves "atheist" are not saying "there must be no god or gods."
Most of these atheists (including Dawkins) would say they are not certain there are no god or gods -- just that the evidence and arguments offered so far have been unconvincing to them.
And that's pretty much where I'm at. I'll think that "god" or "gods" do exist as "memes" or ideas. Beyond that, I'm not 100% sure but I'm aware of the usefulness of naturalistic methods and the historical trends regarding religious ideas.
Many of these atheists hail from scientific backgrounds.
And regardless of what theological views one holds, one has to acknowledge that the methods of science have been very useful in helping us understand creation better.
The trend in history has been for the religiously supernatural explanations to be replaced by naturalistic explanations.
So far, this trend hasn't reversed itself -- we haven't given up a naturalistic explanation for a religiously supernatural one yet.
For those who are looking at religious question with naturalistic methods, one finds a person who favors natural causes and explanation in terms of the natural world. One also finds a preference for presenting evidence that anyone can examine.
For example, personal feelings like love and experiencing the divine are not something that we can examine yet.
However, it's possible that one day we may have ways of "reading" the thoughts of others through a future development in neurobiology.
But right now, the only thing we can use to explore one's internal feelings are how these feelings cause changes in the natural world.
Love may be an abstract feeling but it does cause changes in the natural world that we can observe and compare with the observations of others ... physiological changes, behavioral changes, etc in those who report experiencing love.
So ... we may discover that "experiencing the divine" is an emotional state like "love" -- something that can be explored as a natural phenomenon. I'm guessing that future developments in neurobiology will have a lot of impact on how we can study these emotional states.
@Bill -- I put the word "militant" in there for a reason.
@Steve -- I still think that's a completely bogus argument, whether or not someone wrote about it on Wikipedia. One True Way thinking is One True Way thinking -- when you think you're the only one who is right, and everyone else is by definition wrong with no hope for ever being right unless they conform to your version of reality, that's One True Way thinking, whether you're an atheist or a fundamentalist Christian, or a Jihadist Muslim.
But if it makes you happy to think you've won without saying a word, go right ahead. :-)
I pretty much always like what Steve says about atheism.
I wouldn't consider myself a militant atheist. But one thing that interests me is how so many people adopt a religious orientation based purely on culture ... so I know all of these Christians (including UU Christians) who are really into Jesus and orient themselves and their theology around Jesus - and yet for me, Jesus is not central because I grew up Muslim.
So much of it is circumstance when you're talking about theology and religion. Actual belief in God or gods is much more varied than that, but sometimes the Christ-centric nature of discussions about God is tiresome (to me).
I would think for people of a liberal religious tradition to REALLY have a conversation about the nature of God (as an idea), the very notion of God should be expanded to include non Judeo-Christian notions.
Not that I believe in any of them, but at least it would feel like an open conversation.
From what I've read, most folks who call themselves "atheist" are not saying "there must be no god or gods."
Most of these atheists (including Dawkins) would say they are not certain there are no god or gods -- just that the evidence and arguments offered so far have been unconvincing to them.
Then how are these people atheists rather than agnostics?
Marxists said Relgion was the opiate of the people.
I think there's a lot of legacy Marxism still around; Chris Hitchens for example.
It's a Militant Atheisim.
Then how are these people atheists rather than agnostics?
PG, my answer to your question is: atheists have made their decision based on the existing evidence. But if they are rationalists, they would be open to revising that decision should substantial evidence come along.
Bill,
As the Republican Party has seen, you can get people's votes on issues based on religious values (abortion, homosexuality) even if you plan to institute economic policies that would not help those people. My dad also thinks religion is an opiate to the people. However, because my dad is about as far from a Marxist as you can get in terms of his political/ economic policy preferences (worships Reagan and votes and donates Republican every year), he thinks the opiate is a good thing for the same reason Marx thought it was a bad one: it keeps people from trying to overthrow the existing system. Does that make him a militant atheist too? Or can you only be a militant atheist if you think opiates are bad things?
I think you're a Militant Atheist if you call yourself one. I certainly did. I suspect Chris still does athought I've never read his book.
It's a Marxist thing, and you really need to have spent some time with proud and professed Leninists to appreciate it.
We were all about setting out policies for the good of folks whether they appreciated it or not. The Historical Dialectic would roll 'em over.
We were all about setting out policies for the good of folks whether they appreciated it or not.
That's true of all radical, encompassing ideologies; it's not special to Marxism. See also radical feminism's attitude toward women who want to stay home and bake cookies, or Puritanism's attitude toward homosexuals.
...and what did the Puritans have to say about homosexuality that differed from any other ...isms of their time, or for that matter UUism until not so long ago.
The notion of building the brave new world is of the left. It is the left. You're very much on target there.
A radical Libertarian though; that's a radical who breaks your case about radicalism.
Post a Comment