is atheism a religion?
consider:
religion is a universal (or, at least, global) phenomenon. it's occurred everywhere and at all times in human history in one form or another, and it hasn't always -- or, even the majority of the time -- resembled the abrahamic traditions we in the west immediately associate with the word today.
even without searching beyond abraham, we can see parallels in the rising atheist movement to established religious tradition(s). as an educational sidebar, i'll mention here that the purpose of biblical prophecy was not to predict the future, but to assess the flaws of the current situation (religious, or social, or political, or what have you) and deliver the bad news, so to speak. and they tend to do it in rather abrasive fashion. they make spectacles of themselves, harshly criticize the status quo using violent or shocking speech, predict disastrous results to the people's behavior, and generally disturb leaders and otherwise comfortable people -- those who do not think about the consequences of their lifestyles.
christopher hitchens : read an excerpt from God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. that might be enough of a summary. i'll just add that he is mainly a political figure; the involvement of religion in the political sphere is, as far as i can tell, what brought him to it as a subject.
sam harris : i thought about not including him in this section, since he advocates simply not referring to himself as anything because of the cult-like image "atheist" invokes (see here). he is, however, a prolific contributor to the collection of literature growing in popularity among people who identify themselves as atheists, so he gets to be here despite himself. also, the initial speech he references was delivered to the atheist alliance conference... hard to avoid being associated with something if you're preaching to its major congregation.
richard dawkins : affectionately nicknamed "darwin's rottweiler," he focuses on the abrahamic faiths for rhetoric -- see the below quote -- but his actual efforts are more geared toward liberating atheists, via efforts like the atheist bus, scarlet letter t-shirts, etc. his website, at least, puts the most notable effort into creating the culture of atheism harris wants to avoid.
(not to reveal my slight academic frustration, but for the record, if dawkins is an authority on the bible, i am crown prince sultan bin abdul aziz al saud. please, take his assessment of the hebrew scriptures with a grain of salt.)The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgivng control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.-- from The God Delusion
in attempting to counteract religion altogether, are atheism advocates such as these three succeeding? or are they actually participating in the establishment of a backlash, non-theist religion? and if they are, aside from being ironic, is that bad?
if atheism is not a religion, what is it? what positive form does/should "the absence of x" take, if any?
do these guys just have huge egos, messiah complexes, and/or bad personal histories with religious institutions? if so, does that matter? they've obviously tapped into something that, aside from pissing a lot of people off, really resonates with a lot of other people.
on a similar note, and to try a different angle...
from the rig veda:
Truth is one; sages call it by various names.and, from the vedanta society of southern california:
can/should atheism be considered another of these traditions? why or why not?Truth is one, but it comes filtered through the limited human mind. That mind lives in a particular culture, has its own experience of the world and lives at a particular point in history. The infinite Reality is thus processed through the limitations of space, time, causation, and is further processed through the confines of human understanding and language. Manifestations of truth—scriptures, sages, and prophets—will necessarily vary from age to age and from culture to culture. Light, when put through a prism, appears in various colors when observed from different angles. But the light always remains the same pure light. The same is true with spiritual truth.
This is not to say that all religions are "really pretty much the same." That is an affront to the distinct beauty and individual greatness of each of the world's spiritual traditions. Saying that every religion is equally true and authentic doesn't mean that one can be substituted for the other like generic brands of aspirin.
Every religion has a specific gift to offer humankind; every religion brings with it a unique viewpoint which enriches the world. Christianity stresses love and sacrifice; Judaism, the value of spiritual wisdom and tradition. Islam emphasizes universal brotherhood and equality while Buddhism advocates compassion and mindfulness. The Native American tradition teaches reverence for the earth and the natural world surrounding us. Vedanta or the Hindu tradition stresses the oneness of existence and the need for direct mystical experience. The world's spiritual traditions are like different pieces in a giant jigsaw puzzle: each piece is different and each piece is essential to complete the whole picture. Each piece is to be honored and respected while holding firm to our own particular piece of the puzzle. We can deepen our own spirituality and learn about our own tradition by studying other faiths. Just as importantly, by studying our own tradition well, we are better able to appreciate the truth in other traditions.
...
"As different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea," says an ancient Sanskrit prayer, "so, O Lord, the different paths which people take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee."
[disclaimer -- i haven't answered many of these questions myself, so i'm not attempting to trap or trick anyone. if they sound biased in any way, it's unintentional; i'm just still figuring out the language for discussing this. and if you know me, you know i'm not going to be shocked, embarrassed or offended by virtually anything you say in response, short of flat-out insults (see: will secrist, boston, 10/8/2004... smartass). so, fire away.]
The Dawkins-style atheism should be enough to make anyone with a real hatred of religion shiver and sigh with disappointment. Dawkins and his followers seem to do well only by forgetting the origins of the 'scientific mind.' Look no further than the father of modern, rational, scientific thinking, Réne Descartes: the first thing Descartes finds in his Meditations is the existence of God. Where, historically, Muslim and Jewish scholars have sought a kind of Aristotelian science of the scriptures in the name of human betterment, Dawkins wants the party without all the obnoxious bullshit (crying drunk girls, shitty music, drama, etc.) that will inevitably come with it: run, Dawkins screams, from a religious humanism and life in God's name and join me in my own metaphysical kingdom of rationality and reason, ruled by the guiding hand of evolution! It's one thing to say the ablest of any suit have seemed to survive, it's another to claim a guiding hand to the working of history and then decry others for ranting about worlds beyond ours and God's role in our lives.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of overemphasis on the successes of science always works to trade one metaphysics for another. It's not to say that science hasn't had better success than religion thus far (we'll find out in 2012), but a weary eye should be given, I think, to anyone trying to substitute the cult of the divine for the cult of rational Man (who is much like the God Dawkins describes).
I respect the attempt to bring atheists out of their imposed silence, but I wish it wasn't from Ann Coulter's British counterpart. As Nietzsche was key to point out, rational Man's only defining counterpart is God, and to kill one is to kill the other. Maybe it's the atheist, in their lack of respect for the commandment of any authority, then, that has little taste for the confines of religion or science.
With love,
Ian M., that atheist you met in high school
ps. LET'S TALK SOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN.
I rather enjoyed the question you posed. I have often found myself plugging in other words/philosophies/theories, asking whether it is a religion or not...
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to note that way in which God is portrayed in the Atheist point of view is wholly negative... And there also seems to be a lack of context. In my (very humble) opinion, God was a "racist...ethnic cleanser" etc. in the Old Testament because the people who wrote these books had this viewpoint. This is more "glass half empty" ideology than anything else. I could easily take specific incidents from the Bible and paint a God that is the opposite. If we were to take a look at the history of this region of the world, this allows for a framework behind how "their" God was. I am indeed a Christian, but my God is not centered on the forces of bigotry, hatred, etc. but on loving kindness and compassion. I think the socio-political backgrounds, and religious history is essential in dissecting the Atheist argument because it allows for context, yet again.
I am perhaps the least qualified person to answer your question, having slept through most of my 4 year religious education and having no background in any kind of rigorous religious history, theory, or philosophy. And add that to the fact that I am, perhaps, your sworn enemy educationally, being, after it all boils down to basics, a business major. But I will give it a shot, and actually give you an answer to the question you posed.
ReplyDeleteI like to think of religion as a system of beliefs that shape and govern your attitudes and actions towards the world. As in, a moral code, the rewards of good behavior, the eternal damnation for sinning, etc. So in my opinion, Atheism is indeed a religion. Their beliefs that there is nothing beyond this life shape their attitude they approach life with. I don't think that there needs to be any clear defined scripture or tradition for something to be a religion. All it takes is someone believing in it, and living their life in accordance with those beliefs, whether that is following the Ten Commandments, keeping kosher, or just not giving a fuck about anyone other than themselves.
That's just my two cents. Also, I would like to say again that I am in no way an expert, so take everything I just said with a grain of salt and a glass of whiskey.
I may in fact be less qualified than Tom to answer this question, with my fields of study being economics and engineering. With that said, I may not be able to put together any semblance of intelligible thought…but I can draw one mean force diagram or map out some mad awesome market regression theories. Here goes nothing...
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, atheism is not in its purest sense a religion. To me, it is the rejection of the existence of God or gods and of faith in higher power. However, I do believe some of the resulting schools of thought can be classified as religion. For example, though atheism rejects faith in a supernatural being, it does not in theory reject faith itself. Some sects of atheism have taken to faith in other powers, relying on morality, the miraculous human experience, science, and the existence of conscience. The mindset that is a product of these concepts, that creates a system of beliefs and practices, forms the framework of what can be classified as a religion.
With that said, I think that atheism in today’s culture also shares a common bond with other major religions. The news articles reflect the often harmful viewpoints of extremist followers entwined in scandal. Whether it is the inflammatory atheist posting some plaque next to a manger scene, the radical Muslim adhering to the code of the family, or the southern fundamentalist attacking a gay person with stones, the middle-of-the-road generally friendly people rarely make headlines. It is this I think that is the greatest barrier to atheism being accepted in modern society. Because, as counter intuitive as it sounds, I do believe that atheism is good for society in general (and even religion) for a few reasons.
Skepticism does have a role in strengthening theory. Many of the greatest theories in science evolve from the challenge that they cannot be possible. In my opinion, if you do belong to a religion, you should have a moral responsibility to be generally educated about it and understand the basic principles, and more so why you believe in the moral structure of that specific religion. (Or you could be an awesome learned person like Susan, and not only study one religion, but many religions, which is preferable). Lack of or little understanding often leads people to be weak in their conviction, and easy to control. In my opinion, this is the source of a lot of unnecessary conflict and hatred, even within our own country (I went to school not far from the Bible belt, in the most crude of terms, people are intolerable haters sometimes). So, in my opinion, a little questioning can be really good for intelligence and religion.
Also, I know that many people will disagree with this statement, but I do not believe that religion is for everyone. I am an economics major after all, so I’ll argue that many people can experience a greater marginal utility (and provide a greater benefit to society) through nonreligious activities compared to religious activities. For example, some scientists value spiritual self-discovery a lot less than tangible results that better the world and increase the quality of life. And I’ll even venture to say, that for that reason, I would rather atheism be a better accepted viewpoint, society might benefit more by repressing less. Atheism shouldn’t represent moral decay in our society, but rather the opportunity for certain people to pursue what they value most. For lack of a better metaphor (and also lack of a liberal arts education), atheism is to religion as the free market is to the economy. Maybe I’m being too much of an optimist (which is often the case), but I still believe that when people act in their own self-interest, many times that action is not only what is best for the individual, but best for society. I do think that all actions are completely self-interested (founding principle of economics), but also that people gain a personal satisfaction (positive externality!) from making the world a better place and providing value to others. Your middle-of-the-road, indecisive, yet optimistic, completely in love with life and people, atheist friend.
Holy cow that was long. I'm also in suburban Canada with nothing to do by the way...
ReplyDeleteUmmm, I'm at work now, so I just read the meat of the post and non of the links/responses above, and I'm going to keep it brief, but I do have some thoughts.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, atheism is absolutely a religion. It's exclusionary, narrow minded, and bigoted, similar in a lot of ways to the institutions (not necessarily the people) of Western religion. It also requires a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist. To have faith that there is, literally, no possibility of a divine being of any form, I find to be extraordinary, it surely requires more faith than a being a believer.
Atheism is simply another way to divide people, but it worships on the alter of science, not "God."
I will be the first to admit that I know pretty much nothing about atheism and I certainly have not completed the type of research required for me to give what some would consider a "valued" opinion. However, I do believe that opinions are extremely personal and do not always have to be backed by research, facts or experience - you can have an opinion just based on your gut reaction to something.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I was curious about the questions posed in this post. Truth be told, I am a practicing Catholic but I'm heartily ashamed to say that I don't know much about my own religion. I know what I was taught in CCD (the hour-long sessions given to public school students in the hopes that we would somehow grasp all there is to know about Catholicism) and what I've learned through my own experience in church. Since I don't know all that much about my own religion, it is hard for me to defend it (or any other religion for that matter) to someone who doesn't believe in religion or God. All I know is that being Catholic is a comfort to me, it is a steady presence in my life and guides me when I feel confused and lost.
Part of being Catholic involves faith and from I understand of atheists, they also have faith; their faith is in the fact that there is no one, true God while my faith is the fact that Jesus Christ is the son of God and is the savior of all men. (wow - I've never actually put it into words...now I sound like a Bible-thumping freak)
So even though the basis of our faiths is different, it appears to me that both Catholics (and I'm assuming other religions, though I cannot state this as a fact) and atheists both exercise faith in their beliefs. If that is the case, how different are they really? I see it as similar to talking with someone who is only fluent in their language - we both speak, we both speak a language, our languages are different but those who speak it can understand and we find it frustratingly difficult to understand one another if there is no attempt to find a middle ground (i.e. hand motions) that we both comprehend - even though we're very different in that aspect, at our cores we're still the same (we are human after all).
This is my rambly way of saying that I think atheism IS a religion even though it may not fit the typical definition of what "religion" is.
Side note - this post coincides with my reading of "A New Earth" by Eckhart Tolle and he brings up the point that many of the leaders of different religions were not accepted during their lifetimes and that the wide-spread religions based on their teachings happened well after their deaths. Tolle's theory is that people just weren't ready for what they were being taught. (He also expresses a similar feeling as those discussing "truth" mentioned by Susan earlier in her post - just something to point out. He thinks that religions aren't all that different from each other; they all boil down to the idea of one Truth.) My question now is - what if atheists just aren't ready to believe? What if someone comes along preaching what they will eventually accept as their "religion"?
First of all, this post is why I love you and would do anything to keep you in my life forever. You make me think in ways college never can and for that you are on my top ten list of favorite people ever.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely, 100% believe that Atheism is a religion. There are many reasons for this and if I explained all of them in depth I would type through my next class and work after that.
But basically, as someone who was a self-professed atheist in her mid teenage years, it is just another way of explaining WHY things are the way they are. Science, or what we view as science and facts today, explains the how, the what, but not the why. Yes, I believe in evolution and the Big Bang Theory, but those two things do not explain why Earth is here, why you and I are here. Why why why?
Why is the eternal question and throughout history, people have come up with varying forms of religion to explain why. I think that atheism is just one more step on the road to discovery. I'm not knocking it, because I understand atheism.
But I hate when Atheists try to deny that atheism is a religion. Because, lets face it, a lot of them spend a whole lot of time trying to convince you they are right and you should believe what they believe. If that isn't religion, what is? They explain the why of human existence by taking science and saying that is why we're here. Ok, fine, but I choose Christianity to explain my why, mixed with some Hinduism and a little Islam.
I have friends who founded a club at AU called AU rationalists and atheists. They have ideas, documents, meetings, and members. They knock my beliefs as infantile and prehistoric. Seriously folks, that's religion.
This is convoluted and not as eloquent as I would have hoped, but I am super busy and could only find 20 minutes to respond. But I know we will for sure have to have this conversation in person! We've had it before but I think it deserves revisiting.
religion is, among other things, defined as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural," "commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance," and "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices."
ReplyDeleteatheism can be defined as "an affirmation of the nonexistence of gods," "the rejection of theism," and "an absence of belief in deities."
i don't believe that atheism is a religion. it has not been my experience that people who do not believe in god(s) have any sort of unifying principles which bring them together as a group. (one might argue that "an absence of belief in deities" constitutes such unifying principles, but i disagree; to be logically categorized as a religion, a system of beliefs and practices must be agreed upon by a group.)
while the example that carrie gave of the AU Rationalists and Atheists could seem to fit the definition of a religion, it would be limited to that particular group, unless other groups are following centralized, agreed-upon practices.
technically speaking, there isn't much to debate, because the essential thing that separates a religion from a thought-system (say communism) is the belief in the supernatural. but i'm not as interested in this aspect of the argument.
ok, exit organized debate, enter stream-of-consciousness.
i find the term "atheism" to be an inaccurate description of some of the excerpts provided for us to read - but this is more a personal reaction. as simply meaning "without belief in god," the atheist position would not seem to encourage such hostile arguments as those made by christopher hitchens (although, in his defense, he does refer to himself as an "anti-theist," which i believe to be more accurate.) though hitchens states that "we may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake," i think the statement is inaccurate, because he clearly respects free inquiry, etc, but only so long as it does not involve the supernatural. it is reminiscent of the mistakes the most liberal wings of politics make by being accepting and tolerant of all, except those who are religious.
i fear and distrust organized christianity. this stems from many things, including the sunday school practice of being taught without the distinction between metaphor and fact, experiencing so much double-speak and hypocrisy, and having been judged negatively simply for aspects of who i am. (and you know what? that hurt, because i am a nice person. i treat others well. i love those around me, even when i disagree with them. i work hard, i put others first, i try to always do the right thing.)
that being said, i also understand that those experiences are a mis-representation of christianity, because i feel pretty strongly that jesus and i would have gotten along well, and what christianity has to say is pretty awesome.
all i'm trying to say is that i react very strongly and negatively to hitchens, dawkins, etc. for people that feel like they've been hated on by the majority, and "want to be left alone" by religion, they sure have a lot of hate that they feel like spreading. i also react very strongly and negatively to people who do the same thing but use religion as their weapon of choice (certain members of the christian right.)
i still don't know what i believe in, but i don't feel that "the absence of x" does anything but leave you one letter short of an alphabet. what i mean is, i believe everyone is trying to get to the same understanding it, let's do it peaceably.
love,caro
Among the numerous definitions for the word ‘religion’ that I have found include this: “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” In other words, ‘religion’ involves the recognition and worship of a Supreme Being(s). If one agrees with such a definition, as I do, then one would claim that atheism is not a religion, but rather the absence thereof. However, defining it so simply leaves a number of issues unresolved.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history, humans have found themselves confronted with the eternal questions…questions regarding our origins, our purpose, our destiny. Religion, in its various incarnations, has claimed to address those questions. Each faith and each sect has tied their belief systems into those questions, claiming a monopoly on truth. Atheism, while not a religion, still has to contend with those questions. Thus, I believe that atheism is a philosophy. It is a way of looking at the world and offering an explanation for the unknown, and an answer to those enduring questions, without resorting to the “deus ex machina” of a Supreme Being.
I do not believe that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins speak for the ‘atheist movement’. They give free thinkers and non-believers such as myself a bad name. I do not identify myself as an atheist because of the implications given that title, largely thanks to people like Hitchens, Dawkins, and their ilk. In their quest to prove their point, they have inadvertently characterized atheists as mindless and militant…the fundamentalist evangelists of non-belief, if you will. Their brand of atheism is nothing more than a cult. Above all, atheism must stop being intolerant, antagonistic, and hateful.
How does one portray atheism in a positive form, rather than a negative one? Move away from the image of the nihilist and the ‘evangelical’. Characterize it as the triumph of science, of empirical fact and evidence, of pragmatism and truth. Reclaim it as the bastion of the free-thinker, of he/her who rejects the notion that his beliefs and opinions should be mandated by a Magisterium in Rome, or a book that was written millennia ago. Atheism could be used to champion the belief that humanity has unlimited potential for its own sake and in its own right, rather than as merely the servants of a higher power.
Wow, lots of comments on this. Before we get to your post, let's look at the responses.
ReplyDelete"First off, atheism is absolutely a religion. It's exclusionary, narrow minded, and bigoted, similar in a lot of ways to the institutions (not necessarily the people) of Western religion. It also requires a tremendous amount of faith to be an atheist. To have faith that there is, literally, no possibility of a divine being of any form, I find to be extraordinary, it surely requires more faith than a being a believer.
Atheism is simply another way to divide people, but it worships on the alter of science, not God."
Luke is tapping into what we talked about on the phone, the difference between the strong atheist and weak atheist. Let's be clear to say that no one is a strong atheist; Luke is right, it's absurd to "believe" that there is no god [after all you can't disprove something that doesn't exist], but he is wrong in identifying all atheists as strong atheists. That is hardly the case and you will be hard-pressed to find anyone, even Dawkins, who claims such a thing. Also, is there really a science altar?
Second comment, from Carrie:
"I hate when Atheists try to deny that atheism is a religion."
Bullshit. It's semantics, really. The difference between atheism and theism is the difference between religion and mysticism. If a person can still be an atheist and a Buddhist at the same time then it really blurs the line, doesn't it?
That being said, we now have to define what religion is if atheism is indeed a 'religion'.... (wait for it) Are you laughing yet? Because if you aren't, then you should be. It's fucking impossible.
And Ian:
"Dawkins and his followers seem to do well only by forgetting the origins of the 'scientific mind.' Look no further than the father of modern, rational, scientific thinking, Réne Descartes: the first thing Descartes finds in his Meditations is the existence of God."
Do you really think the most respected biologists of the 20th century is forgetting about the origin of the scientific mind? Have you read anything by him apart from, maybe, The God Delusion?
Sorry, but this pisses me off. Dawkins, deservedly, gets a bad rap as a pseudo-theologian, but it seems like Americans don't get how popular he is in Europe (along with Michel Onfray, who almost never gets mentioned in these kind of discussions even though he should) because of his work as a biologist; the man is the Carl Sagan of evolution, so give him a break when it comes to his anger over Creationism. Also, really, how relevant is Descartes in the age of neuroscience? And is he really the "father" of modern rationality and scienctific thinking? Plato and Aristotle and Aquinas didn't exist?
Now, my dear, on to you lovely article:
"can/should atheism be considered another of these traditions? why or why not?"
YES! An emphatic one! Anything that a human being thinks or does when he or she contemplates the very nature of existence belongs in that tradition. It's all connected because we are all trying to understand the world through different concepts. However, the "problem with god," so to speak, is not through the esoteric thoughts of the individual, but the dogmatic violence of the collective. The atheism/religion conversation could conversely be the libertarian/statist conversation in that, at the end of the day, it comes down to the conflict between the collective and the Ego.
In other words: If a person believes that their dining room table is the supreme commander of the universe, does it matter? No, of course not! But what if that person gets a bunch of people to believe the same thing? [ Sidenote: Do we give them a tax break? If Mormons and, sigh, Scientologists are becoming respected in mainstream society than the sky is pretty much the limit, isn't it?] What if this table worshipper started wars over the table, started sacrificing people for the table, tried to claim validity as a nation-state over the table? Should we care then? Of course! Because they are fucking things up for the rest of us.
The reason, we should remind ourselves, why these "new atheists" [as if skepticism hasn't been around since organized religion. Catharism, anyone? Freemasons?] are selling so many books is because organized religion is very much infringing on our collective liberty. Unless we are ignoring the prejudice against homosexuals, or ignoring the death threats that abortion doctors receive, or ignoring the curtailing of scientific research into stem-cells we cannot be stupid to the negative impact that irrationality has had on our culture. [And that's just here, what about Africa and The Middle East where Christians and Muslims alike do very unsavory things towards the female gender?]
"do these guys just have huge egos, messiah complexes, and/or bad personal histories with religious institutions? if so, does that matter?"
Dawkins - Is rightfully angry that the people who vote in the most powerful nation on the planet are actively suppressing the best scientific theory that we have to explain life.
Harris - Is looking for a way to combine mysticism and neuroscience while at the same time calling bullshit when he sees it.
Dennett - Does what Harris does, but with philosophy!
Onfray - Is French, a tad pretentious, but is really someone that has a brilliant mind who is trying to figure out why humans are suppressing themselves in bizarre ways (i.e. Islam and female mutilation, Catholics and sex guilt, etc.)
Hitchens - Is drunk.
"in attempting to counteract religion altogether, are atheism advocates such as these three succeeding? or are they actually participating in the establishment of a backlash, non-theist religion? and if they are, aside from being ironic, is that bad?"
No, they are not succeeding in getting rid of religion, but at least they are making the conversation public. As long as there are scared people who question their existence (aka: mankind) there is going to be religion. The reason that I let you borrow the Sam Harris book, which you really should finish by the way, is because he talks about this in the last chapter. "The End of Faith" is not an ominous threat, but an invitation into merging spirituality and mysticism with neuroscience and rationality. And it's never bad to have an open conversation about anything, unless, of course, you are a dogmatist. And if Dawkins, Onfray, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris have anything in common it is this: fuck dogma.
Also, fun links that talk about this kind of thing:
ReplyDeleteA. Harris' actual speech at the conference:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/10/the_problem_with_atheism.html
B. Karen Armstrong being awesome:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/30/armstrong/index.html
C. James Carse being awesome:
http://www.salon.com/books/atoms_eden/2008/07/21/james_carse/
Armstrong and Carse are actually theists, but in the Susan Roth way that doesn't make me scream and cry.
to ian:
ReplyDeletemore or less agreed on dawkins, but i will say this: where he really loses me is his rhetoric. or, i should say, his unbridled hostility. if he said the exact same things and kept an even remotely civil tongue, maybe there would be some room for dialogue. and while i understand dialogue is not what he seeks -- who needs to converse with the willingly self-deluded when you’ve got a clear-thinking oasis all to yourself and your followers? -- he does have a responsibility, as a public figure, to set some kind of precedent for how those who look up to him.
i mention this because most of my friends who are atheists have consistently had difficulty discussing it with me. and you know i can’t help myself -- i'm not looking for a fight, or to convert; i'm just fascinated. atheists addressing theists tend to take one of two courses: one that is abusive (open hostility, generalizing, an emphasis on stupidity -- not against me, of course, but the thing itself...) or one that is avoidant (lots of nodding, virtually no words, shrugging, statements like “agree to disagree” or “i just don’t get it” -- passive in the extreme, to the point of non-dialogue). they have little or no vocabulary for this kind of interaction. this is not to say all atheists have even heard of dawkins (or, for that matter, that i've never had an engaging conversation with an atheist about our differences in beliefs); only that he could maybe put a tiny bit more effort into helping rather than breeding hate.
dawkins has plenty of notable accomplishments and astute observations under his belt; if he could just be a little less of a pompous windbag on this subject, i think it could help a few of us to take a step or two away from the cliff.
call whenever you want, by the way, my number’s the same and it’s been too damn long.
to laura:
ReplyDeleteagreed! historical context is invaluable in dissecting the bible, particularly if one intends to bash others' beliefs based on its content. again, dawkins' assessment of the God of the Hebrew Bible is far from what its authors actually described: what he sees as ethnic cleansing, the israelites would have seen as God defending them from invasion and destroying the nations for their continual assaults against His people -- "my God is better than your gods," and all that. moreover, if he's talking about such references in the prophets, he's so far out of context it's not even a vaguely defensible point.
take that in conjunction with the fact that the God of the Hebrew Bible is also the New Testament God as well as Allah, and it is, you're right, kind of mind-bendingly odd that dawkins doesn't remind himself that the devil can cite scripture for his purpose.
and for that matter... "When the Devil quotes Scriptures, it's not, really, to deceive, but simply that the masses are so ignorant of theology that somebody has to teach them the elementary texts before he can seduce them." -- paul goodman
hi, by the way :)
to tom:
ReplyDeletehush your mouth about being unqualified! every person on this green earth is qualified to talk about this, because none of us knows any better than the next what the hell's going on. hence the issue.
and for that matter, i'm in agreement with you. and there are plenty of religious traditions without set scriptures or rituals. and in terms of the number of people needed for something to be considered a religion, i know it's out of context, but i keep coming back in my mind to matthew 18:20: "For wherever there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."
religion is an individual experience, no matter how unified various theologies consider Everything: you, as a person, have specific thoughts, vocabulary, language, hopes, fears, etc. that frame how you consider Ultimate Reality. i suppose that by this logic, literally anything could be considered a religion in the word’s narrowest sense. and why not? (more importantly, what kind of tax exemptions can i get if that’s the case?)
all this is only relevant, though, if any given atheist applies his or her belief that there is no God (or what have you) to everyday life. so, if i believe there is no God, but i never think about it and it therefore has no bearing on my morality, i suppose it cannot qualify as a religion... but is that possible? i mean, is it possible for one's moral code to literally never reach a point at which one asks oneself, "is there something bigger i should be concerned about, beyond myself?" (i don't think so -- i'm pretty sure virtually everyone everywhere has at least heard of the idea of God or something similar; it's got to cross one's mind eventually.)
to annie:
ReplyDeleteof course you're qualified! and the more economists we get in on this discussion, the better, i think (see above query regarding taxes).
you've touched on something i intentionally overlooked in my original post: that atheism is not a unified theology*, and in some instances is barely a theology at all. i'm sure there are plenty of people who classify themselves as atheists have been raised atheist, haven't given it all that much thought, and are perfectly happy going about their daily lives without pursuing any sort of "rational inquiry into religious questions" -- and there are people who classify themselves as christians and jews who do much the same.
what i'm really getting at with these questions, though, is that in rejecting the existence of God or gods, i don't agree that it is the rejection of faith in a higher power. i think the question of the nature of that higher power is definitely on the table, but at least among those i've met, i've found atheists in general to be incredibly spiritual people, or people of great faith: whether it be in humanity itself (humanity being a higher power than a single human being), intellect (being a higher power than basic physical, animal needs), nature (being a higher power than its individual components, or humans), and any of the other things you listed.
putting so much stock in these various and sundry powers, or their combination, is most definitely the stuff of faith, because aside from one's gut instinct, there isn't much hard evidence that they matter. i can get by just fine without revering the intellect or the miracle of human conscience. the fact remains, though, that when atheists forgo a theistic religion, they overwhelmingly take up the banner of one of these, or something similar. all i'm suggesting is that instead of looking at this as some kind of backlash against religion itself, the theistic world could chill out a little and see it as similar to, say, a former christian taking up hinduism. it is wildly different in some ways, but it's still faith. particularly in the west, we have an issue with defining religion (that is, we do it wrong). a theist believes in God or gods; an atheist is the opposite of that. again, religions that do not incorporate God or gods of any kind are not at all unheard of.
i completely agree on your point about extremists and what we hear about in the news, and about skepticism strengthening theory (and please don't think i consider the authors i listed to be better authorities on the subject of atheism than any of my friends... you're a bunch of articulate little fuckers! and also, you know, good people). the only problem with this is when both sides are immediately so arrogant and hostile as to make dialogue impossible, polarize and create all-out hatred (see global politics, circa now). this is not true skepticism: it is simply belligerence. bullying people into conversion does not work, whether you're a jehovah's witness or an antitheist.
i find atheism as a "news item" to be a non-issue, which i guess follows logically if i also think it's a religious categorization. so for that reason, i'm inclined to also agree with your statement about marginal utility -- which strikes me as being very similar to the rig veda: "Truth is One; sages call it by various names." all people don't end up at the Truth by the same path; we take the paths that we can grasp, that we trust, and that have meaning for us. hinduism is econ-friendly, i guess.
holy crap. i think i just wrote you a novel. it's because you're pretty! call me soon?
* the·ol·o·gy: The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
to luke:
ReplyDeleteha, i like that your lead-off was listing exclusion, narrow-mindedness and bigotry as qualifiers for religionhood (and yes, i just made up that word). and sadly enough, as long as you're talking about western traditions, i can't say you're wrong. obviously there are plenty of exceptions and sidebars to those generalizations, but there is also an abundance of evidence supporting them.
and i completely agree that to believe anything definite regarding the divine is, by definition, faith. we don’t know. any of us. period. i disagree, however, that "atheism is simply another way to divide people" -- mainly because this suggests religions serve no purpose other than division. they certainly can be used that way, and if the sum total of your experience with or understanding of religion is based entirely upon reading newspapers, that's an understandable assessment. don't underestimate the potential positive effects of faith, though: in terms of building communities, social outreach, peacemaking, coming to terms with oneself, lessons of humility, etc. religion is not the devil. the devil is the devil. fanaticism is just one of his favorite tools. (or, to cut through the metaphor, abuse of religion is, among other things, a distraction from the point, and from what religion can be and often is.)
i stand by my recommendation of His Dark Materials, by the way. really.
to meghan:
ReplyDeletei'm so glad you commented! it's good to include a variety of perspectives in a conversation like this.
i'm also glad, strange as this will sound, that you mentioned you've "never actually put it into words." many "religious" people, especially christians -- myself included -- avoid articulating various things about their faith exactly because they do not want to be placed in company with the lunatic fringe, so to speak. it's funny and sad how the lunatic fringe becomes the mainstream when looking from the outside in.
your language fluency analogy reminds me somewhat of the hindu parable of the blind men and the elephant. six men, all blind, want to know what an elephant is, so each approaches the animal in turn to make his observations. the first touches the side of the elephant, notes how broad and sturdy it is, and says, "an elephant is like a wall." the second touches its tusk, notes how smooth and sharp it is, and says, "an elephant is like a spear." the third touches its trunk and says, "an elephant is like a snake." the fourth touches its leg and says, "an elephant is like a tree." the fifth touches its ear and says, "an elephant is like a fan." the sixth touches the tail and says, "an elephant is like a rope." the six fought over it, since each man -- having observed the same animal, but lacking the vision to see the whole thing -- was unable to think of the elephant as anything other than what he had observed. each was partly right, about his particular experience with the elephant, but had not yet grasped the full meaning of (or seen) "elephant," and was wrong in discounting the others' perspectives out of hand.
i've been thinking about checking out that book, by the way... how was it?
and in response to your question: i think atheists are very ready to believe, in a profoundly different way than western religions. i think that to declare one's faith that there is no God (however defined) requires a tremendous amount of introspection, surrender, and willingness to reflect upon the natural world. while the term is thrown around a lot by punk-ass high school kids who want to scare their parents or whoever -- much like the term "anarchist" -- people who actually, truly believe there is no God/are no gods by default must invest some serious observation-time in the state of nature or humanity or what have you. belief in God comes from the same place. the tusk is a very different part of the elephant than its side, and we're all blind.
to carrie:
ReplyDelete"I think that atheism is just one more step on the road to discovery."
see my response to meghan above, our beloved elephant parable. as i started off the original post noting, religion is organic to all times, places, and conditions of humanity, so it makes sense that we're naturally wary of other forms of belief. but if every single naturally-rising belief set is an observation of part of the elephant [in the room] -- Ultimate Reality -- then shouldn't it be considered a good, healthy, forward progress-type thing that we as humanity are starting to recognize that beliefs other than our own exist? that we're starting to be able to understand what other people have perceived of the elephant, even if we don't have the same experience with it? and wouldn't acknowledging atheism as one of these perspectives be not only healthy and cathartic for "religious" people, but also for atheists themselves, if the true goal is to understand ourselves (as individuals and as a species) and the natural world (and universe)?
other than making it a badge of pride to be just Oh So Different, what's the necessity in classifying atheism as NOT a religion? -- i'm sure someone out there can challenge me on this, and i'm genuinely eager to hear the argument.
about your "AU rationalist and atheist" friends... i am immediately mistrustful of anyone so organized. (on a serious note, the argument that religious beliefs are infantile is so misguided it hurts. it's one thing if someone's been raised a certain way and therefore just assumes that what mommy and daddy told them is true. it's entirely another if someone's engaged in religious practice to further or reflect upon his/her understanding of the nature of the universe -- there are plenty of other adjectives to hurl at that notion, but infantile is not among them. not to mention that, on its less attractive days, atheism itself occasionally falls to petty teenage angst-ish levels.)
Interesting parable; I've never heard it before, but it is definitely thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteI must admit that I laughed out loud at your mentioning of "punk ass kids" who are trying to scare their parents by claiming they are "atheists" - that has been my main experience with "atheists". I haven't really interacted with that many people who actually put thought behind their decision and it's refreshing to hear an argument for their viewpoint that is actually logical, intelligent and persuasive (note - I'm not caving to the theory, I'm just pointing out that I can see your point).
"A New Earth" is pretty good but I've taken a break from it for a bit. It's quite dense at first and I think you have to be in the right mindset to read something like that...sometimes I'm just in the mood for fiction over introspection :)