*Please note, what follows is not intended to offend any of my readers, especially those who claim to be atheists. I’m just trying to figure some things out, and I welcome any feedback…
Maybe it’s me. Maybe it’s just a personal quirk that I’m noticing so many stories about atheists engaging today’s culture. In the last twenty-four hours, I’ve run across two stories (this one and this one, both from CNN’s “Belief Blog”) that have been the most recent in what seems a continual flow of news stories in which atheism is either being attacked, or, more often, atheists are doing the attacking. It strikes me as a little odd, like when two different summer blockbusters about meteors on a collision course for Earth come out within a month of each other. I don’t know. Maybe it’s me.
On the plus side, we have an explanation for how light gets refracted.
Honestly, even as an ordained minister, I really don’t have a clear idea what to do with atheism when I encounter it. If I find myself in conversation with an atheist or someone expressing a bitterly nihilistic, or even just an agnostic, idea, I am overcome by two conflicting emotions: intimidation and pity. Intimidation because I feel immediately as if I have to be on my guard, even if this person has no interest whatsoever in my two cents on the issue, or my reasons for claiming faith in a Higher Power. Pity because, well, not to belittle the person, but a life intentionally squelched of belief strikes me as an extremely tragic way to live.
Then again, a committed atheist might say the same about me. That what I have made the center of my life is nothing more than a delusion shared by millions of other people who are either too scared or too ignorant to wise up and accept reality. Reality. Realism. What is real, true, based in fact. Philosophically speaking, realism is the doctrine that universals or abstract concepts have an objective and absolute existence. In other words, if something is to be believed or claimed as true, it must first be proven to exist. No question as to origin or inception – testable, certifiable, observable existence. Because I cannot – and will not – make that claim about God or about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, it is understandable that I might seem like the person with the sad life.
Well, when you put it THAT way, you make me sound like crazy ol' Tom Cruise...
Nevertheless, I like to consider myself a realist. I know that in certain ways, I am a pragmatist. When it comes to literature, I enjoy late nineteenth century to the present more than I enjoy what comes before, and I know this is because Realism brought about a greater attention to the verisimilitude – the true-ness – of the narratives, which I enjoy. I do not loathe or dismiss humanity in all its grit and earthiness. I welcome laymen’s terms.
However, I like these things not only because of how real they feel, but also because of how enthralled I am at the act of consecration. I like seeing things made holy. Set apart. Touched by divinity. I like it when something becomes more than the sum of its parts. I celebrate when 2 + 2 equals 4, but even more than this triumph of logic and fact, I embrace all the significance and possibility that comes with 4. On the other hand, when your god is Reason, your church is Realism, and your liturgy is Logic, you rob existence of its significance and of its meaning whether you mean to or not. If a man can be nothing more than the sum of his parts, then he does not have the option of living his life so that it leaves a legacy. Rather, the only thing it will leave is a formula.
From what I read, and from the arguments I listen to, it seems that many people claim atheism as a reaction to the prejudices and injustices they see in religion. They observe the hypocrisy and duplicity and sanctimony and empty talk that comes out of so many people professing faith, not to mention the penchant for violence, greed and outlandish vindictiveness from extreme fundamentalist Muslims (and, to a lesser extent, extreme fundamentalist Christians), and they are quick to shirk any ideology or behavior that shares a connection with these institutions. Some of these people will confidently claim that “religion will destroy this world” long before any meteor finds its way into our atmosphere.
Zing! Zing! and Zing!
Certainly, I understand this side of the argument. Still, though, I find it wanting. I’ve mentioned before that rejecting religious belief because of the way some – and I stress, some - of its subscribers conduct themselves and their groups is like razing every field of crops in the South because of the methods plantation owners once used to tend them. No one in their right mind would blame the cotton fields for slavery, but a lot of atheists and agnostics are perfectly willing to reject the idea of religious faith because they see corruption in some of its constituents. Put it another way: I have a post-surgical wound on my left foot that is not healing properly. There are two ways I can handle this. I can have skin graft surgery, or I can have my foot amputated just above the ankle. Atheists who reject faith because of a person’s inability to live up to it perfectly are essentially grabbing hold of the bone saw. Calling this system an overreaction is an understatement.
I’ll most likely draw some fire for this article from anyone who believes in subscribes to atheism. However, my intention is not to insult, but to attempt to dissect the reason why a person would choose to reject all manner of belief in God, in holiness, in the sacred. Some who disagree with me might claim that what atheists are really rejecting is theism (by definition, this is what the word “atheism” means). They might argue that an atheist is more than welcome to “believe” in things – in justice and goodness and honesty and love and all manner of other virtues. The problem is, without a Higher Power – a “Universe Speaker” if you will – the only way to explain how these virtues have come into existence is by pointing to the fickle inclination of humans; we’ve already established how fleeting and undependable such virtues can be in a world full of people also capable of arrogance, laziness, deceit, greed, wrath and all manner of corruption. It doesn’t make sense to me how the former qualities would still be around after so long if there did not exist an inciter and protector of them – say, a sovereign and righteous God. What grounds is there for anything to be more than the sum of its parts? How can a man be more than a walking and talking scale of possible good vs. occasional evil? I’m just trying to be realistic here.
*sigh* ... and zing.
Maybe it’s just me, but these are questions I have.
I am an ordained minister, teacher and writer who's been blogging almost seven years.
July 8th, 2011 at 5:42 PM
“If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.” – Joss Whedon
That sums it up for me.
July 8th, 2011 at 5:53 PM
“Pity because, well, not to belittle the person, but a life intentionally squelched of belief strikes me as an extremely tragic way to live.”
This is funny because I just wrote a post about this:
http://somemusician.wordpress.com/http://somemusician.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/brief-thought-on-existence-and-the-meaning-of-life/
Anyway, sorry if it seemed that I was blatantly promoting myself. I just thought it was funny.
I do think that your conception of why atheists are atheist may be a bit misguided. Granted, I cannot, nor should I, speak for all atheists, but, from my experience, one’s atheism is not in response to religion. Rather, atheism, at the very least mine, is resultant from an examination of theistic claims and assertions and finding them wanting. Despite my being raised a Christian, I could not be intellectually honest with myself and still hold to my religious beliefs. It was only upon examination of what I used to believe did I become an atheist. My deconversion was not in retaliation to the blatant hypocrisy that is within the church and I don’t think many intellectual atheists would be so foolish to say this.
July 9th, 2011 at 11:14 AM
I’m not sure I get the Joss Whedon quote. Is it supposed to be some sort of koan, because it doesn’t make any sense. It reads like a double negative. He should stick to writing another FIREFLY movie.
Oscar, thanks for the comments. I understand that it’s not just the hypocrisy that influences some people to reject faith in God. Intellectual honesty is obviously the biggest hurdle. To be honest, I wouldn’t be a person of faith today if I hadn’t learned to accept God as mystery. Contrary to what some Christians will say, people of faith are not privy to all the “answers.” It took me a while to understand that. Some people say religion is a crutch, and there are indeed people who use it as such. To me, God is not the crutch upon which I limp, but the promise of healing for which I patiently wait.
July 9th, 2011 at 12:40 PM
“because it doesn’t make any sense.”
It makes perfect sense.
If nothing matters in some ultimate, there’s a god out there and we need to make sure we get to some sort of heaven way, then the only thing that could matter, the only thing that does matter, are the actions we take and how they impact other people here and now.
July 9th, 2011 at 12:43 PM
By the way, I wanted to respond to this:
“but a lot of atheists and agnostics are perfectly willing to reject the idea of religious faith because they see corruption in some of its constituents.”
I don’t believe this is true.
I think a lot of the religious THINK this is a reason people become atheists. But, in general, it isn’t a very popular reason we are the way we are.
July 11th, 2011 at 11:46 AM
In my conversations with online theists, there always seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what an atheist represents. Atheism is simply the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. Even Christians are atheists with respect to all other gods besides the god of the bible. Like Oscar, I don’t speak for all other atheists, but my lack of belief stems from the lack of evidence to support the claims that a deity exists, not in response to any particular religion.
It is often asserted or implied by theists that non-believers have no morality and that we live miserable lives without any reason for being. This apparently leads to theists like yourself to feel pity for us, like we just don’t understand what your faith offers. In addition to these misrepresentations, just like the beginning of your blog, Christians often feel like atheists are persecuting them, when in fact it is just a response to the ever-present promotion of religious belief. Atheists are now finally drawing a line at ridiculous notions such as trying to inject non-scientific rubbish like “intelligent design” into a science class. Seriously, would you really not object to scientologists trying to impose their stories of Xenu into a world history curriculum?
Non-believers are constantly being scoffed and ridiculed by the religious majority. As a business owner, I prefer to try to keep my anonymity for fear of being economically ostracized. After all, I might end up as an evil Satan-worshipping merchant exposed by FoxNews and get boycotted by all the friends of Bill O’Reilly.
I understand trying to discuss religious issues with people is a difficult thing to do, but how you politely ask someone to explain why they believe the things they do?
July 11th, 2011 at 4:24 PM
For someone who demands sufficient evidence of a God before he or she will believe, there will, unfortunately, never be enough. The fundamental difference here is that a religious person – specifically in regards to this conversation, a Christian – must, at some point, come to accept God on faith. Sure, there are arguments and reasoning that can help convince some, but there will never be a full bridge over the chasm of uncertainty. I suppose that’s why it’s called a “leap of faith.”
Just so we’re clear, not all Christians believe atheists are persecuting them – I certainly don’t. And I also do not pity atheists because they have no morality. Of course atheists have morality. Morality is inescapeable. What my post implies as a reason for my own personal feelings of pity is a lack of meaning to life. You’re right, though, that meaning for me comes directly from the existence of God. I understand atheists believe “meaning” to life can come from something else. I just respectfully disagree.
Finally, if you respect me or my arguments at all, please do me the favor of not lumping my beliefs into the so-called “religious majority,” or, especially, Fox News. Ugh. Speaking as someone who holds very, very little in common with their overall message, true Christianity is not to be found coming out of the mouth of Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and their colleagues. I know they claim to be the moral majority and the protectors of the “Judeo-Christian values upon which our country was built,” but just because someone walks up to you and claims to be a cop doesn’t mean you should immediately trust him.
Thanks for the comments.
July 12th, 2011 at 3:26 PM
“For someone who demands sufficient evidence of a God before he or she will believe, there will, unfortunately, never be enough.”
Then I, for one, will never again be a believer. For the simple reason that I see no reason why one should use faith in regards to anything, or why faith is a positive thing.
July 15th, 2011 at 9:52 PM
I understand that my attribution to mystery as part of the life of faith irritates you. However, people who say the life of faith is all clarity and happiness have never really had faith in anything beyond themselves. Rejecting faith is not as easy as you may think. Does this mean you believe in nothing? If faith is so detrimental, doesn’t it stand to reason that your attempt to believe in anything (in essence, faith) is subject to this danger?
I have faith that, deep down, you know faith is a positive thing. Unless you believe that God himself has failed you in some way. Otherwise, it is not faith itself that has failed you, but the person or thing you once put your faith in.
July 15th, 2011 at 8:12 PM
I am wondered at how quickly some people conclude that there is no God simply because God does not fit their standards on what God should be. If, by definition, God is an all powerful Being, all knowing, and all present, then how the heck do we, limited and insignificant beings, can ever fully understand God? Can someone please explain this to me?
July 15th, 2011 at 8:20 PM
This is an interesting notion, Noel. I’ve heard this assertion frequently and I’ve thought about it a bit (though, admittedly, not much). Why God make Himself “beyond our comprehension”? This certainly does not seem very conducive to saving people. Certainly, if we could only understand Him, so many more people would be saved. Does God not want us to be saved? Or does He simply get a perverse pleasure out of instilling in us the knowledge of just how inadequate we are?
July 15th, 2011 at 9:43 PM
Oscar: Consider this. If we could “comprehend” God, then God would not be God – WE would be God, or, at least, we would be his equals. It seems a stretch, but let’s explore it. To comprehend something means to understand it, and if we understand something, that gives us a measure of control over it, even if that control is simply our ability to interact with or avoid it (I can comprehend a hurricane, and while I cannot stop it, I can render it powerless upon myself by moving inland, thus exerting control over my relationshp with it). If we can exert our own influence or control upon God by comprehending him, then God is not omniscient, omnipresent and almighty. Therefore, he is not God, but a god (a human-influenced/human-constructed concept or thing).
We cannot comprehend God because we are not equal with God, nor are we on the same plan of existence as God. It goes even farther, actually; the theologian Paul Tillich asserted that “God does not exist” because he is beyond existence, as, of course, he must be having created all that exists.
Christians do not believe salvation is contingent on comprehending God. It is contingent on trusting in him. On faith in him. How we trust in God has been made clear through Jesus. The first chapter of the Gospel of John states, “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is God himself and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”
July 16th, 2011 at 12:03 AM
I don’t think knowledge would at all make us any more god-like. For example, I could know exactly the mechanisms that allow Superman to do the things he does, yet I cannot begin to even try to perform the same feats – I will still not be Superman.
In any case, knowledge per se would not be enough to convert me unless knowledge of certain philosophical inconsistencies were explained within that knowledge. I was merely responding to Noel.
July 15th, 2011 at 10:14 PM
The paint cannot comprehend the painter. The cartoon cannot comprehend the cartoonist. The story cannot comprehend the author. The product is a reflection of the creator, not the other way around. I believe that assuming that we should comprehend and measure God in order for God to exist is an arrogant statement. If faith is not so good, why do we practice it so much when we are certain that our cars are still parked where we left them, that we will get paid during the next payday, that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that whoever is writing these lines is a human being?
July 16th, 2011 at 12:20 AM
Noel, all of your illustrations at the beginning are categorical errors. Of course it would be silly to think that non-sentient products would be able to comprehend their maker.
None of this is taken on faith, let alone unconditional faith. You trust that your car will be left where you left it. You trust that your car will start every morning. But what if your car had a tendency of disappearing, of not starting every morning? Faith is equivalent to trusting that your car will start every morning when everyday for the previous thirty days your car has not started. Faith is belief in spite of evidence. Faith is belief in spite of reason. You do not betray your reasoning in everyday life, why betray it on the most important issue?
July 16th, 2011 at 7:53 AM
But, with such knowledge, you have a method of control over Superman – just get your hands on some kryptonite and you’ve got him right where you want him. Granted, Lex Luthor seems to do this constantly and yet always fails, but the point is that comprehension itself could lead to a weakness in God’s limitless power because we could, at least to an extent, anticipate him, or hold some influence over the relationship.
I think Noel is off to a good start with the comparisons, but Oscar is right, they don’t work completely. Noel is offering some metaphors as a way of understanding the relationship between the Creator (God) and the created (humans). At this point, the metaphor breaks down (as all attempts to perfectly explain the relationship with an omniscient, almighty God would). Metaphors can only go so far.
I think the biggest point is to return to your earlier question, which was “does He simply get a perverse pleasure out of instilling in us the knowledge of just how inadequate we are?” Christians certainly don’t believe this. God reacts to our inadequacy by sending his Son to die for us – to pay the debt of our fall. This is no little thing – this is sacrifice of the highest measure, out of love for us in light of our shortcomings. God is not vindictive – this is the glorious good news of Christianity. He is not some fickle deity going about his own business and annoyed by our finite limitations. Rather, he is intimately involved with the human story. He loves us recklessly and ruthlessly. It is unfortunate (and quite frustrating) that often this central truth takes a back seat to the smaller potatoes of how Christians engage the present culture. Nevertheless, as the Psalms repeat, “His love endures forever.”
July 26th, 2011 at 11:34 AM
There are many things to like about this post, and many things wanting.
I must start with the same complaint as the other atheists here- there is no reason to assume that atheism is caused by a dissatisfaction with organized religion, or a misunderstanding of the nature of God or faith on the part of the atheist.
Though it might be true that some atheists leave a religion on some anecdotal grounds, it would be hard for me to believe that this kind of experience could sustain and nurture anything beyond some variation on anti-theism. You don’t build a robust worldview on something leaving a bad taste in your mouth. (That, to the theist, might be where the misunderstanding lies- few if any consider atheism to be a robust worldview)
It is like that scene in The Wizard of Oz, where Toto pulls the curtain back and exposes the Wizard as a man hiding behind smoke and mirrors. Once we have the curtain pulled back, it is hard to go back to cowering under the bellowing voice and giant persona of an illusion. Reality sets in, and just as in the movie, we realize that the magic is in us- that without a “Wizard” to make our wishes come true, or free us from our faults, it rests on us to realize our own potential. Some might call that arrogance, others might call that accountability. I’ll tell you I’d rather play Pascal’s Wager with an ace in my hand instead of hoping for one on the river.
The idea, as well, that life has no meaning without God is an arrogant truth claim in itself. One must first assume that the only real meaning one can find is through God- that either you cannot be wrong and that no others can be right. It is the equivalent of saying you don’t really own a car unless you own a Peugeot.
Even in the first paragraph, Bo, you highlight several stories about atheism in the news. Unintentional or not, you paint a one sided and grim picture of atheism- one that either you use to inform your own views or seek out to confirm what you already “know”. The idea that Hollywood might make a movie with an atheist bent should balance out at least one of the several hundred movies every year that evangelizes or incorporates Christian belief. The story (entirely contrived, BTW) that atheists might have an issue with a municipally funded nod to religion (and bad theology at that) might be contrasted against privately paid atheist transit ads in Texas. Richard Dawkins attacked by atheists? Hey Bo…ever heard of Rob Bell?
We are all human. We all share our faults, we all share our potential. Atheists are no better or worse on average than Christians. The difference, I guess, is that we think being good is part of being human- and not a product of fear and faith.