I'm puzzled why some religious people seem to get upset by more outspoken atheists. I can turn on the teevee and be threatened with damnation and hellfire. Who cares if Sam Harris thinks you're stupid? If atheists want to engage in their own brand of proselytizing, good for them. I'm not especially interested in it, but what's wrong with it? There are Christian missionaries all over the world.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Esch-xactly
Eschaton:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't see why that is puzzling in any way. Some religious people are offended by outspoken atheists for the same reason that some scientists are offended by ideas about creationism. It conflicts with their core beliefs, pure and simple. If my enemy wields a mighty sword like I do, that doesn't make me respect him more.
ReplyDeleteYou could probably characterize me as an atheist, but I am equally offended by militant atheists and prosthelitizing religious people. I don't care who's right and who's wrong, I just want you to stop barking in my ear and telling me what to think. What the militant atheist and the prosthelitizing religious person share is a belief that they're better than other people because they've uncovered the truth about human existence--a truth that will never ever ever change.
Certainly, on one level, one barking over-confident person is just as annoying as another, and it doesn't matter what they're saying. I would never suggest otherwise.
ReplyDeleteOn another level, though, there's the issue of power, and right now "people of faith" wield a hell of a lot more power in this country and the world than atheists. I think that's what the quote was pointing towards.
Finally, on a more personal and emotional point, atheists are seriously reviled in our culture, and many are starting to feel fed up with the automatically privileged position that religion seems allowed to inhabit.
Here's a link to the results of a Gallup poll from last week showing how scary atheists are...
ReplyDeleteWell, that poll is bogus for a number of reasons. "Atheist" to many Americans means "anti-religious," not "non-religious." It implies political affiliation with a group of people who are adversarial toward religion. It's a bad word, like "liberal" or "Christian Right." It's a question of semantics, partly. More Americans claim to be non-believers than claim to be atheists (poll forthcoming).
ReplyDeleteBut also, this poll mixes apples and oranges. Polls are confusing when the options aren't mutually exclusive. Who would you rather vote for in the next election?
(a) a human
(b) a jewish person
(c) a white person
Hmmm. A human, I guess?
I suppose "Catholic" means "white male Catholic" and Black means "black male"--but who knows. The poll presupposes more than a poll should. Homosexuals are more reviled than women? Well, okay, but roughly half of homosexuals are women, and a lot of of Catholics are 72 yrs plus. It's a useless poll.
Even if you put some faith in it, 45% of Americans say they would vote for a qualified atheist. So let's see...given America's overwhelming religiosity, a big percentage of religious people would still vote for an atheist, or a gay person for that matter. That is actually encouraging.
On the subject of atheism, many non-believers are reluctant to identify themselves as atheists, maybe because of cultural affiliations, etc. You can be a non-believer and culturally a Christian at the same time, right?
From the study I link to below, there's an interesting statistic:
"In Estonia in 2004, 49% of people surveyed said they did not believe in God. At the same time, only 11% of people in the country identified themselves as atheists."
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
It's complicated. Relgion is constantly co-opted for political purposes, but that's not religion's fault. Religion is an open book--interpret it as you will.
I want more separation of church and state arguments, less "God is dead" arguments. That way I can continue to be a Christian who doesn't believe in God.
I don't think the poll is a multiple choice poll - as far as I can tell, they were not asked to choose between those terms. They were asked for Yes/No responses to each term - and that is what the poll is recording: people's emotional judgements about certain terms.
ReplyDeleteAnd the term "atheist" is being shown empirically to be a strongly hated word, even if one probably could have guessed it would be. Surprising to me was just how much more hated it was than some other terms, specifically "a homosexual."
And while the phrase "someone who doesn't believe in God" would probably have received a gentler response than the more (currently) loaded "atheist," there isn't another option right now (except the odd term "brights," which I'm not a fan of).
I'm in full agreement that the number one priority is more separation of church and state - the main reason being that state should be managed in ways that can be explained to others without resort to irreduceables like "it's in this book."
"Religion is constantly co-opted for political purposes, but that's not religion's fault." - In a way I agree, but religion as a structure is inherently susceptible to this political usage. It's an extraordinarily powerful way to rally people, because the concept of faith fundamentally disables individual's ability to investigate their "reasons" for doing anything. It's this "table you can't look under" - not any cultural aspects of a religion - that I'd rather not have any place for in my government.
"Religion as a structure is inherently susceptible to this political usage. It's an extraordinarily powerful way to rally people, because the concept of faith fundamentally disables individual's ability to investigate their 'reasons' for doing anything."
ReplyDeleteWell put, well put, and on this point I have to agree. Religion can be readily used as a tool of control. "This is what a force greater than you wants. It may feel wrong, but it is Good. Believe that it is Good."
Still, if you look societies that aren't religious, like China, you often find larger-than-life concepts that ask for sacrifice, conformity, and faith much like religions does. In China's case, it's "Communism," "The People," or "the revolution"--big ideas that everyone's supposed to believe in and that serve to reinforce the social order.
I guess my beef is really against dogma, thought-control, ignorance, and blind-faith, and I'd be against any institution--religious or otherwise--that participates in them. Atheists in America often fight against those very things..but not always.
A random sampling of responses:
ReplyDeleteNo, you can not be a Christian who doesn't believe in God. The project of a Christian and what that means is simply antithetical to not believing in Christ as a savior. If you want to say that you mean to uphold Christ's morals while not believing in him as the son of God, you're participating in some sophistry, as the morals you want to uphold didn't actually originate from Christ, while the morals of the New Testament aren't addressed to our multicultural present, nor are all particulary inspiring in themselves.
Scientists are not offended by ideas about creationism because it conflicts with their core beliefs. I would doubt that any scientists are offended by ideas about creationism. Creationism is too silly to get mad about in of itself. Rather, scientists and skeptics are rightly outraged when creationist proponents attempt to have creationism taught in classes under the pseudo-scientific-waving-of-hands that is "Intelligent Design," these creationist proponents appealing to the American ideal of "every idea should get its fair shake."
Religion is a political interest, and any given religion promotes itself as such and explicitly so if we are to take anything from the various world religion's holy texts. Religion need not be co-opted by politics, as religion is in itself a political endeavor (i.e., it is religion's fault).
As such, I think to say that everybody should just believe what they believe and keep it to themselves in intellectually lazy at best and culturally irresponsible and destructive at worst. That's what's so infuriating about religious moderates: they have no answer to the stark reality of politics as religion, and get caught up in verbal acrobatics to ascribe a motive to, say, a suicide bombing on anything except for the suicide bomber's exceptional, and exceptionally stupid, faith.
I can't edit my previous post. The responses were in no way "random." Sorry, I didn't preview before posting.
ReplyDeleteI can probably cede the point that you can't be a Christian is you don't believe in God--fair enough. But I'm not sure that question is cut-and-dried for many people. Belief is complicated, and if your aim is to place people in succinct categories like Christian, agnostic, and atheist--which it seems to be--you're going to find a lot of dissent. Someone who's raised in a devout family may come to question their beliefs at some point in their life, but maybe deep-down they can't shake the teachings they absorbed as a child, despite their inability to find God rationally. Belief is not all about rationality, after all.
ReplyDeleteReligious faith is partly about choice, but not entirely. Think about your fundamental beliefs, and try to change them right now. Give it a try. Appeal to whatever logic system you subscribe to and try to change what you fundamentally believe. You can't, can you?
Regarding the culture of Christianity, I assume you are saying that no one should participate in or appreciate aspects of Christianity without believing in God, that to do so is hypocrisy, or worse. The culture of Christianity in America is vast, and I see no conflict when someone participates in Christian rituals without necessarily believing in God. That could mean serving soup at the local mission, attending church services, or hey--celebrating Christmas! If you are comfortable with secularizing Christmas--that celebration of Christ's birth--what issues can you possibly have with people who participate and appreciate other Christian rituals and texts? If an atheist derives some meaning from the Bible, that great historical-fictional work, why is that a problem? Would you likewise have objections to someone who derives meaning from Moby Dick? That form of meaning-derivation has no basis in logic or rationality either.
Religion is a political interest, agreed. Christianity in its early days was a response to the brutality of Roman rule. It was revolutionary, and a voice for the oppressed masses in the occupied Middle East. During slavery, the South appealed to Christianity in order to justify the ownership and brutal treatment of Africans. And during the same period, Quakers justified the underground railroad--which helped slaves escape to free states and Canada--with some help from the Bible. So it's complicated. Religion is always politicized, but the nature of that politicization isn't set in stone, and the pendulum can swing from side to side.
My feeling about religion is this: it adds firepower to political discourse, which is sometimes good (as far as political aims go) and sometimes bad. In Guatemala in the 80's, a number of Catholic priests were murdered for their stance against right-wing authoritarian rule (sponsored by the CIA) and their support of the poor in indigenous Mayan communities. The poor fueled their politics into religion, because it was the most viable opportunity for voicing opposition. What if you backed the pastor without necessarily believing in God? Is that wrong? I take it that you would say yes, because their opposition is based on a lie.
Fundamentally, I believe that religion can be both an endorsement of the status quo, and a voice for change. There are alternative 'crutches' for discourse, naturally, but nothing that currently approaches religion. So, in the meantime, I believe the goal should be to judge human actions critically--regardless of their religious basis--and let religion be a backdrop to their unfolding.
One more thing:
ReplyDeleteNo, you can not be a Christian who doesn't believe in God. The project of a Christian and what that means is simply antithetical to not believing in Christ as a savior. If you want to say that you mean to uphold Christ's morals while not believing in him as the son of God, you're participating in some sophistry, as the morals you want to uphold didn't actually originate from Christ.
Pat Robertson could have said that, and probably has. My sense is that you define Christianity is similar terms to Evangelicals, the only difference being that they rejoice in that definition, and you despise it. You're their opposite, my friend. You cool with that?
The morals of the New Testament aren't addressed to our multicultural present, nor are all particulary inspiring in themselves.
Is the New Testament completely valueless, then, either as a historical document, a work of fiction, or a moral playbook? I do feel that the Bible has endured precisely because its meaning is open to interpretation. Like all important texts, it's rich with meaning precisely because it doesn't lay down the law in a consistent and coherent manner. Or do you take a literal interpretation, as Evangelicals do?
Creationism is too silly to get mad about in of itself. Rather, scientists and skeptics are rightly outraged when creationist proponents attempt to have creationism taught in classes under the pseudo-scientific-waving-of-hands that is "Intelligent Design," these creationist proponents appealing to the American ideal of "every idea should get its fair shake."
Can I infer that it's not belief in God that offends you (how silly that would be!), but rather its intrusion into political discourse and public institutions? That's a church and state issue, to my mind, and that's the war you should be fighting.
It is religion's fault.
Okay, so religion is to blame for both slavery and abolition; for dictatorships and revolution; for love and hate; for poverty and philanthropy; for acceptance of gays and lesbians (as in certain Episcopalian churches) and their oppression (Pat Robertson). If religion is inherently political, its platform sure is incoherent. As incoherent, you might say, as the Bible itself.