"Who's there?"
"Atheists who want to tell you the good news of atheism!"
... Said no atheist ever. Am I right?
Seems many atheists take pride in the fact there are no organized groups of door-knockers spreading the word of atheism, trying to convert others to their viewpoint. For me, as an atheist, I'm fine knowing others hold views that are wildly different from mine, provided they don't try to dump them on me, or try to convert me. Or, for that matter, force me to take part in those beliefs through legislative or judicial action.
This all seems like a pretty fair, reasonable set up, right? Most of us atheists just want to be left alone when it comes to religion, right? Live and let live, right? I'll assume you're nodding in agreement.
Well, I've noticed a bit of a problem recently. I've found myself privy to and taking part in conversations between atheists and believers where the atheist begins with the question "How can you believe in a book so full of contradictions?" You've probably heard that question asked, or asked it of believers yourself. Maybe it was "How can you live in a world where science provides nearly every convenience you use and not believe in evolution?" or "How can you believe in something so irrational yet profess to be a rational person?" or any line of questioning in that vein.
My fellow atheists, I pose a question to you: exactly what do you hope to gain from this line of questioning? There may be honest intellectual curiosity at the root of this questioning sometimes, but it seems to me that when an atheist begins this way, they're looking to finish the conversation with an attempt to demonstrate to the believer how ill-founded their faith is. Exactly who benefits from this type of
Are the beliefs (or lack thereof) of atheism superior to those of religion? Well, obviously atheists think so, otherwise they wouldn't be atheist. This can of course be reversed to describe anyone harboring any set of beliefs. But let me be clear: trying to persuade someone that their belief in god is wrong is both divisive and unnecessary. Frankly, it is the exact same thing many atheists, myself included, deplore from some of the more fundamentalist religions.
What should be understood is that there is not one belief system that provides everything to everyone. Atheists who were raised with religion, like myself, know that not everyone needs the same belief system to be whole. Instead of trying to demonstrate the folly of religious belief, we should instead believe that we have the answers for no one but ourselves. We may have struggled long and hard to break free from religious dogma and all the trouble it caused us, and maybe now we feel liberated, which is fantastic. We have indeed found a system of belief that is superior for us. What is it that should make us think our beliefs are superior for others?
Of course, this all depends on your beliefs. And let's be clear, atheists, some of us do harbor beliefs. Some believe that there should be no religion, that religion is purely a destructive agent, or that religious people are credulous fools and so on. But on what basis are we to assume every religious individual fits the mold of those extremists we see from Westboro, or those angry folks who scream about the president being a Muslim? Even if we saw a thousand different images of people like these in the media every day, there is still not sufficient evidence to conclude that these people are representative of the broader religious community. Assuming that all Christians are Tea Party extremists effectively destroys the experiences and uniqueness of each religious individual in your mind before you even meet them.
Why would we want to do this? What do we gain from this? It seems clear to me we've enough divisiveness and partisanship in our country and in the world. I think it's time we stop assuming boundaries into existence between ourselves and start engaging, really engaging, with people, regardless of their beliefs.
What say you?
I dig your main point. Yes, let's engage with those around us. There's a reason we aren't all the same. Let's enjoy communion with others so that we may inspire and learn from each other and help those who need it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy challenge? Because fantasists, of whatever stripe, do not believe in evidence, indeed will deny the evidence if it conflicts with their belief. That is what faith is: belief without, or even despite, evidence. Fantasists, of whatever stripe, want their fantasies to be part of civil law. That is why those of us with an "evidence filter" on our world view must challenge the fantasists. It is our duty to our common humanity to help reality prevail in discourse.
ReplyDeleteRobyn, I totally agree with you about fantasists with extreme views. We definitely have to resist legislative attempts which would force all people to fall into line with the narrow views of religious extremists of any stripe.
DeleteI don't think all religious people are extremists though. I don't think it helps us to ostracize people who may well agree with our broader view just because they believe in something supernatural.
In attacking the religious aspect of the extremist view, non-extremist religious people may be ostracized by our views and find themselves supporting the extremist side of the argument by default.
I know I'm not saying anything radical here. I just want to make clear that I think holding animus against someone wearing a cross around their neck before I know anything more about them is unnecessary and, frankly, wearying.
I'm too lazy to hold that kind of simmering anger. :)
Hear, hear! As a non-proselytizing, liberal Christian who believes in the separation of church and state (yes, we do exist, we just don't get as much press as some other folks), I have long noticed that there are fundamentalists in every faith and there are atheists who are fundamentalist in their approach. The only difference is the set of keywords: all fundamentalists, including fundamentalist atheists, share the same conviction that there is only one truth and they've got a corner on it, and the same conversation-destroying determination to bend others to their will. Dogmatism and rigidity produce the same disrespect for others no matter what they're based on. No set of ideas is as big a problem as a lack of humility.
ReplyDeleteI knew you must exist!
DeleteIn fact, I suspect people like you probably exist in numbers at least as great as fundamentalist conservative proselytizing Christians. We don't here much about people like you though. Why is that?
Obviously, religion plays in to American power and political structures. The Right has a monopoly on religious viewpoints. Or at least, we don't here left leaning politicians in the U.S. talking much about god's will informing their policy decisions. With that in mind, it makes sense to play up and offer a spotlight for groups sporting extreme views, as it helps deepen the divisions between voting groups within constituencies! That doesn't seem to conspiratorial, does it?
On the flip side of that, people who aren't much bothered about the individual beliefs of others probably don't have much to say, and even if they did, loudly shouting "I don't care what religion you have or don't have!" and holding a picket sign that says "DO WHAT YOU WANT, IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS" probably won't make a headline unless you spell something hilariously wrong.
Any way, well said. Thanks for commenting. :)
I think you're right, though I'm not sure about the conspiracy part. I do believe that people who don't want to force their beliefs on other don't make good theater, headlines, or TV news, so their existence is overlooked. Look at the popular US conception of Islam--all dangerous extremists, all the time!--and yet the Muslims I have actually known have been peaceful, thoughtful people who deplore the actions of the extremists. The emphasis on the loud and hostile starts a downward spiral that ends up with people like me being told by others, including atheists, that I'm not a real Christian because I'm not what Andrew Sullivan would call (somewhat combatively) a Christianist. I don't believe in hell, I believe God loves LGBT people, I believe that the Bible is an anthology that shows a lot of people's different ideas of God and therefore is not a monolith and is not inerrant. It doesn't make for good sound bites, does it? It seems that the one who yells the loudest ends up setting the terms.
DeleteThat's a great sign idea, btw. I think I'd like to borrow it if I go back to protesting.