The Myths of Atheism
Excerpts from Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. (Psalms 14.1)
This frequently quoted passage captures the essence of how the average religious
person views atheism. It is often approached with fear and mistrust, as if one were about to investigate a doctrine that advocates a wide assortment of evils -- from immorality, pessimism and communism to outright nihilism.
Atheism is commonly considered to be a threat to the individual and society. It is "science divorced from wisdom and the fear of God," writes one philosopher, "which the world has directly to thank for the worst evils of 'modern war'...." In a recent critique of atheism, Vincent P. Miceli claims that "every form of atheism, even the initially well intentioned, constricts, shrinks, enslaves the individual atheist within and against himself and, eventually, as atheism reaches plague proportions among men, goes on to enslave and murder society."
Presenting the atheistic point of view is a difficult, frustrating endeavor. The atheist must penetrate the barrier of fear and suspicion that confronts him, and he must convince the listener that atheism represents, not a degeneration, but a step forward. This often requires the atheist to take a defensive position to explain why atheism does not lead to disastrous consequences. The atheist is expected to answer a barrage of questions, of which the following are typical. Without god, what is left of morality? Without god, what purpose is there in man's life? If we do not believe in god, how can we be certain of anything? If god does not exist, whom can we turn to in a time of crisis? If there is no afterlife, who will reward virtue and punish injustice? If god does not exist, what becomes of the worth and dignity of each person? Without god, how can man achieve happiness?
These and similar questions reflect an intimate connection between religion and values in the minds of many people. As a result, the question of god's existence becomes more than a simple philosophical problem -- and atheism, since it is interpreted as an attack on these values, assumes a significance far beyond its actual meaning. Defences of religion are frequently saturated with emotional outbursts, and the atheist finds himself morally condemned, diagnosed as a confused, unhappy man, and threatened with a variety of future punishments. Meanwhile, the atheist's frustration increases as he discovers that his arguments for atheism are futile, that the average believer -- who was persuaded to believe for emotional, not intellectual, reasons -- is impervious to arguments against the existence of a supernatural being, regardless of how meticulous and carefully reasoned these arguments may be. There is too much at stake: if the choice must be made between the comfort of religion and the truth of atheism, many people will sacrifice the latter without hesitation. From their perspective, there is much more to the issue of god's existence than whether he exists or not.
Does any of this NOT sound familiar? It would seem that I am far from alone in my frustrated attempts to put forward the ideas of atheism in a mostly religious world. You can see why people can get VERY emotional and even threatening when the existence of God is questioned. I wonder if it is even possible to discuss this issue rationally.
25 comments:
People become offended just by hearing that you are an atheist.
Very true... As if its a personal insult or something....
I do find it very odd....
People whose ethics are based on an authoritarian model, i.e., a supernatural being who dictates morality to them, are threatened by those whose ethics are based on a rational model. They don't feel competant to discern moral issues for themselves, they have been taught that they are unable to make such decisions, and are threatened by anyone who can. After all, it is a lot harder to decide these things foryourself than to let some supernatural entity do it for you.
GWB...
Are you saying that believers feel threatened by non-believers because they are afraid of people who think independently of a supernatural agency..? Why is independent thought so threatening to some people?
Are they afraid that they'll be 'corrupted' by atheism (is their belief in God so weak?) or does it make them feel in some way inadequate do you think?
I'm often shocked at the levels of anger that discusions around the existence (or otherwise) of God produce. Is the anger a product of fear I wonder?
If so, what exactly are believers so afraid of?
A world without easy answers. (see my latest post. :)
CK: because they believe that independent thought can only lead to anarchy, with no overall concensus. They are unable to conceive of the idea of cooperation between individuals without a guiding authority figure to follow.
Which brings us back to an earlier argument about does everyone have to have someone to follow, as Atheists and agnostics we instinctivly know the answer is no; whereas though of a religious bent are brought up unable to conceive that they might be able to independently follow a path of there own choosing in life without guidance from some mythical being or his representative or guide book.
Sheeple is a good term for them (thanks Swerve Left)
Mr A said: Sheeple is a good term for them (thanks Swerve Left)
Thanks indeed - Sheeple is a great word.
Maybe that's also why Jesus was regarded as a shepard... and the group name for Christians is a 'flock'....
CK,
Trust me, Christians throughout the ages have been threatened by a much better class of people than you - whether from the pagans of Diocletian's Rome to the atheists of Lenin's Soviet Union. We're still here, but where are they? Dust on the wind. We may indeed be entering a new age of persecution, but it's one were the unbelievers are attacking the believers - it was only a couple of years ago after all that secularists destroyed the career of a senior European politician for refusing to apologise for being a Roman Catholic, and every winter brings a new batch of stories of Christmas festivals being attacked for being too unapologetically Christian. If you ask why believers feel threatened by non-believers this is why - because we are being threatened. And as for independent thought - seriously, there is nothing more tiresomely orthodox than renaming Christmas as Winterval in the name of diversity or sneers at "sheeple" who don't match up to your elevated consciousness.
random said: Trust me, Christians throughout the ages have been threatened by a much better class of people than you.
I wasn't aware that I WAS threatening anyone... I was asking the question as to why Christians felt under threat. You've attempted to answer some of that...
I think that the Secular 'attacks' on religion/religious institutions (not counting the Politically Correct nonsense) are responses to mainstream religions flexing their muscle of late - especially in the USA. Not surprisingly the Secular/Atheist community are on edge and naturally oppose any increase in the relgious domain. Europe is a largely secular culture and many of us would like to see it stay that way. Any movement towards the American model quite rightly concerns many atheists.
random said: it was only a couple of years ago after all that secularists destroyed the career of a senior European politician for refusing to apologise for being a Roman Catholic
I think it was just a 'little' more complicated than that. The gentleman's stated opinions on a variety of topics (specifically the role of women and his attitude to homosexuality) made his taking up the post of Social Services Director (or similar IIRC) untenable. I don't recall anyone asking him to appologise for being RC.
I think it is particularly a Laspsed Christian thing - most other religions I have come accross react completely differently.
Maybe it's because Christianity is so diverse, they see atheism as the natural end to the continuous "watering down" of their religion & obviously fear that as anyone would fear the end of their beliefs.
Real hardline Chritians do not usually react with fear - they will either stick to attempted conversion or damnation.
Jews tend to dismiss athiests as irrelevant: jewish athiests will be proved wrong when the day of rising comes & non Jewish atheists are irrelevant anyway!
Buddists teach that its deeds rather than formal beliefs that are important, so atheism is just a word, not a value.
Muslims are passionate about their own belifes, but consider all infidels are as bad as each other.
I do not have a lot of personqal experience with other religions, but I find the stronger their own belief, the less they care that I am an atheist - some will try to convert me out of worry for my spiritual wellbeing, but they are happy for me to argue with them as they KNOW they are right! the anger & fear comes into play when they FEEL the3y should be religious, but don't truely believe it all & therefore can't counteract the arguments.
Mrs A said: the anger & fear comes into play when they FEEL they should be religious, but don't truely believe it all & therefore can't counteract the arguments.
That's pretty much my experience too. It's the people who are unsure of their relgious conviction - or those who haven't really thought it through - that get angry when Atheism comes up... and there seems to be a direct relationship between the degree of understanding/belief of their religion and the level of anger generated.
CK Said:
"I wasn't aware that I WAS threatening anyone... I was asking the question as to why Christians felt under threat."
Correction noted, cheers.
"Europe is a largely secular culture and many of us would like to see it stay that way."
There is a difference between a secular culture and an anti-religious one. I support the former - true secularism respects everybody's rights to their own intellectual space equally - but am totally opposed to the latter. Incidents like the Buttiglione affair are producing a suspicion that, as far as Christianity at least is concerned, Europe is moving into the latter state.
"I think it was just a 'little' more complicated than that. The gentleman's stated opinions on a variety of topics (specifically the role of women and his attitude to homosexuality) made his taking up the post of Social Services Director (or similar IIRC) untenable. I don't recall anyone asking him to appologise for being RC."
Sr. Buttiglione made it clear that, as a loyal Roman Catholic, he stood by his church's teaching on these issues. He also made it clear that he fully accepted that as a politician it was his job to serve the whole community equally and without fear or favour. Promising not to legislate on the basis of his private religious beliefs was not enough for the secularists - he had to actively denounce them. IMHO this is close enough to being called on to "appologise" (sic) for being Roman Catholic for purposes of the Internet:-)
Speaking personally, I don't fear atheists and they don't make me angry - what does tend to make me angry is people who think their beliefs (or lack thereof) make them better/more enlighted/wiser than me. People who are genuinely wise, etc. don't tend to make an issue of it.
random said: Incidents like the Buttiglione affair are producing a suspicion that, as far as Christianity at least is concerned, Europe is moving into the latter state.
Oh, I think that we have a long way to go before Europe becomes 'anti-religious'. I think that the majority of Europeans are largely indifferent to religion, but not hostile to it.
random also said: Promising not to legislate on the basis of his private religious beliefs was not enough for the secularists - he had to actively denounce them.
That's not my understanding of the situation but I might be wrong. I doubt if he was asked to denounce his religious beliefs - he might have been asked to withdraw his comments about women & homosexuals though.
As to his still being able to do his job fairly holding strong Christian beliefs - personally I think that the clash would be too much and he would inevitably let his beliefs guide his political actions. As they were opposed to secular liberal attitudes (to say nothing of EU law) this would've been unacceptable.
Finally random said: People who are genuinely wise, etc. don't tend to make an issue of it.
You mean wise people don't point out the error of other peoples ways? Or that the wise don't try & teach the ignorant? Or that wise people tend to stay out of religious arguments?
Personally I've come across MANY more religious people who thought their beliefs made them better/more enlighted/wiser than me.
"You mean wise people don't point out the error of other peoples ways? Or that the wise don't try & teach the ignorant? Or that wise people tend to stay out of religious arguments?"
No, I mean genuinely wise people don't tend to say things like
"They don't feel competant to discern moral issues for themselves, they have been taught that they are unable to make such decisions, and are threatened by anyone who can"
or
"Why is independent thought so threatening to some people?"
and then wander off into discussions about "sheeple". Genuinely wise people don't start of with an assumption that they are better/wiser etc. than anybody else (letting the debate that results demonstrate that - or not, as the case may be - is a different issue of course).
"Personally I've come across MANY more religious people who thought their beliefs made them better/more enlighted/wiser than me." And they're just as wrong as the atheists who think the same way.
random said: "Personally I've come across MANY more religious people who thought their beliefs made them better/more enlighted/wiser than me." And they're just as wrong as the atheists who think the same way.
So... If someone IS wiser or more enlightened than the people around them... they should just stay quiet?
Is there a difference between those who 'think' they are better informed and those who actually are...? How do we judge the difference?
Random said: "Trust me, Christians throughout the ages have been threatened by a much better class of people than you - whether from the pagans of Diocletian's Rome to the atheists of Lenin's Soviet Union. We're still here, but where are they? Dust on the wind." Um, Pagans represented here! I don't think I'm dust quite yet. You didn't intend that dust comment to be a pun connected to the Christians burning the Pagans at the stake did you? I admit to being heavily influenced by Christianity, but I'm still a Pagan, Maypole dancing, fertility right celebrating, moonlight following Pagan. I submitted a post earlier but the computer ate it while in cyberspace. But this is the gist of the post that didn't make it.
V V said: Um, Pagans represented here! I don't think I'm dust quite yet.
I did actually think that Randoms comment was quite funny... considering that there were Pagans for millenia before Christianity, there were Pagans during the last 2 thousand years and there are Pagans all over the world today.... I don't think they've become dust either...
...and what's the worlds fastest growing religion: Wicca
..and the 2nd fastest: Buddhism IIRC...
Some interesting facts (or at least statistics) from Polling data from the 2001 ARIS study indicate that:
76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years -- about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S.
52% of Americans identified themselves as Protestant.
24.5% are Roman Catholic.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim.
r10b said: However Christianity is on the rise in Africa and Asia, where they risk imprisonment and death. (You're not going to make me track down those numbers are you?)
Nope - Just following up on what Ms Voyeur was saying....
Is it me or is religion often linked with poverty? Now are countries religious because they are poor or poor because they're religious - The USA being the obvious exception here..... and I think quite unique (in this respect) in the developed world....
r10b said: No, religion is not linked with poverty.
Didn't Jesus say something about rich men, camels & needles?
I find it interesting that quite a few Christians vilify homosexuality.. but find excessive wealth quite acceptable....
You're going to have to explain the anti-religion wealth reference...
VV Said:
"Um, Pagans represented here!"
A fact of which I am well aware - hence why I added "of Diocletian's Rome" as a qualifier. I doubt you are a Roman pagan of the 3rd century, at least if you are you look pretty good for your age:-) I was simply citing examples of regimes that thought persecuting Christians was a good idea but have failed to outlast the movement they persecuted (though Diocletian himself did pretty well - he was one of the very few Roman emperors who was able to retire and die of natural causes).
"You didn't intend that dust comment to be a pun connected to the Christians burning the Pagans at the stake did you?"
Well if we're going to swap atrocity stories, I could say I was actually thinking of the monastery of Iona, sacked and burned by pagans in 825AD and the peaceful monks who inhabited it who had the blood eagle carved out of their backs for refusing to renounce their faith. But that would be a distraction and in any case not what I had in mind - "dust on the wind" is actually a famous line from TS Eliot's play "Murder in the Cathedral" which has always stuck with me.
CK, Another way of interpreting those statistics of course is to point out that the number of Christians in the US has actually gone up over that period according to the report - from 151 million to 159 million. And what's especially interesting is the breakdown by denomination in those numbers - those who categorise themselves as "evangelical" for example have quadrupled over the period - a rate of growth which even the Wiccans might envy, and which if maintained means it is they, not the unbelievers, who will be a majority by 2042. But then, you can prove anything with statistics.
Random said: "Well if we're going to swap atrocity stories . . . "
Ahhh . . . atrocities done in the name of religion. None are blameless, are they? Point well taken. :-)
random said: But then, you can prove anything with statistics.
You can indeed..... Which is why I don't use them very much...
Post a Comment