Why Atheists Choose Religion
by: Be Scofield on February 18th, 2010 | 42 Comments »
The idea “to be religious is to be a theist” as Christopher Hitchens stated in his debate with Lorenzo Albacete is a quite ethnocentric claim. It is true that in the West we have often associated a theistic God with religion, but this neglects Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism and numerous religious traditions which have adopted a deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic or other understanding of God. And as I pointed out in my critique of Hitchens last week, Unitarian Universalism contains 19% of people who identify as atheist/agnostic.
In the over 140 comments I received from my post “Christopher Hitchens: The Orthodox Protestant Atheist” both on the Tikkun site and in the version crossposted on Alternet.org there was both surprise and disbelief that atheists could be religious leaders. I described how I am in seminary at Starr King School for the Minstry studying alongside atheists and agnostics who are in training to become religious leaders and ministers. This seemed to be an oxymoron as for some of the respondents all religion is evil and always associated with God. So I thought it would be helpful to include a few statements from atheist students in seminary studying to be religious leaders.
From a fellow atheist seminarian at Starr King:
First, I think there is a difference between being an atheist and being anti-religious. They are orthogonal. There is also a difference between being anti-religious and being opposed to the effects of particular religious traditions. These terms should not be conflated. Since when did not believing in God mean that you are opposed to other people believing in God and or practicing religion regardless of whether they believe? I am an atheist. Just to be clear, by that I mean I don’t believe that there is a god, a higher consciousness, or a spirit. I am also opposed to the effects of certain religious traditions. But I am not by any means anti-religious. I don’t deny the value that religion or religious practice, (whether actual belief in god and the afterlife, or simply liking the pretty candles at mass and multiple opportunities for community) brings to people including myself. Religion has a lot to offer and to deny that is to deny the complexity of the human condition.
From Ricky, also at Starr King:
I am an atheist not because I hate God, but because I cannot abide an understanding of God who merely lurks in the shadows waiting for science or another form of reason to cast light; a light which almost without fail shows greater beauty and complexity than we could ever imagine.
I am a religious humanist because I believe in miracles even if I believe they obey all the laws of physics. You see, just because I understand everything that happens biologically to make a baby, it doesn’t mean that there’s not still a place for a miracle there. There was not life, and now there is: that is a miracle however you slice it.
We can know all of the political forces which led to war, or all the conditions which led to a car accident, but not why our brother had to die. That’s what religion is to me, and why I am a religious leader. All the facts in the world may fail to answer why, for good or for ill. I do not feel a need for God to help me struggle with the Why, but I do need a community of seekers to support me.
And perhaps most of all, I do not need a concept of God to be in awe of the world, if one opens one’s eyes, one can hardly help it.
These statements trouble the either/or dichotomy of people like Hitchens and others who believe that religion and atheism are incompatible. Atheists serve as religious leaders in diverse traditions, ranging from Buddhism to Unitarian Universalism. And many religious people, both believers and atheists are just as concerned about the deleterious effects that religion can have on society.
Religion can provide meaning, support, community and purpose. And as my seminarian friend noted religious practice has a lot to offer, specifically its renewing and transformative aspects. And of course it can also oppress, dehumanize and encourage violence. This is true with any association. I view religion as one of these associations, not unlike a corporation, government or other system. I reject a binary that labels an entire group or association as poisonous, whether it is in relation to religion or atheism. In the aftermath of 20th century genocide, holocaust and nationalism we know the tragic effects of this sort of discourse.
Some people in the comments claimed as Sam Harris does that liberal religion justifies or sanctions the more extreme elements found within religion. I wholeheartedly reject this. It is like saying Dennis Kucinich is responsible for or justifies the Bush era torture program merely because he participates in a political association which contains extremists. Shouldn’t Hitchens’ next book be called “Politics is Not Great: Why Government Poisons Everything.” Certainly governments as one form of association have produced an equal amount of violence and oppression if not more than has any religious association. And governments have also been fused with religious ideology about their leaders or the state. And yet both religion and governments have contributed to the common good of society as well. It seems that Hitchens and others can separate government and the particular oppressive aspects of government but cannot do the same with religion. Why the double standard?
Be Scofield, apparently you did not learn much from the 140+ comments on your previous article.
First, the quotations from your “atheist” mates have already been pilloried as utter bunk. What’s the point of bringing them up again? Show us one more that an idiot can describe him/herself as an atheist too? Not very enlightening, I’m afraid.
Second, no atheist I know of cares about Confucianism, Taoism. Buddhism, Jainism and so on. Your can call them religions if you want, but then you would be playing another irrelevant semantic trick.
Third, there are no double standards. A moderate Conservative lends credibility to a bankrupt political party, and deserves as much criticism as moderate Christians who lend support to a bankrupt religious institution. Now, Harris chose to write about religion, not politics. Should he write about every possible human activity that leads to unhappiness before you can evaluate his arguments rationally?
Your understanding of your fellow man seems to be rather limited Piero. We are a vastly varied species, and each one of us probably has a very unique understanding of the universe.
I am one of those people you claim do not exist. I am an atheist. I am a devoted studier of the Bible. I have read extensively on Buddhism. Wisdom, like ice cream, has many flavors. Because I like orange sherbet, doesn’t mean I believe chocolate should be taken off the shelf, or that I like chocolate too, sometimes.
Perhaps, a better definition of my beliefs would be a Gnostic Christian. I was raised Christian. My the beginnings of my understanding of the universe began with Genesis. Like many others, I noticed a great many incongruities in the Bible, even at an early age. It’s quite obvious that the God of the old testament was neither good nor evil, but a bearer of both and the creator of both, it was also clear to me, that the New Testament was less about loving thy neighbor, and more about judging thy neighbor.
I have a quote from Thomas Jefferson that I find most enlightening. “The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814
The thing you are missing, in your mistaken notion that there are no Atheists who read the bible, or other religious works, and hold them dear, is that genuine seekers of knowledge and wisdom, do not care if they have to sift through a dung heap to find diamonds of wisdom.
I will accept a wise teaching from a “holy book” or a comic book. I have found truth in the words of the wise and the words of a skid row wino. If the words hold truth, and edify me, I will embrace them, regardless of what is printed on the covers of that book, or what other nonsense those words my be concealed within.
Seek the truth no matter where you find it. It is still true. Many prefer fiction to truth, out of laziness. Religion, imo, is primarily for people who want a “pill” to cure the Mysteries of the Universe, and they want it to be short, and fit all in one book, so they can be free to disengage their brain, and lead a comfortable, if nearly meaningless existence.
There have been a great many ills wrought in the name of religion, and there are a great many people who find solace within it. I only bear animosity towards those who do evil works in the name of their beliefs. We should all learn to be this way, our world would be a much kinder, gentler place.
“This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.” – Dalai Lama
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good. Thomas Paine
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion. – Abraham Lincoln
How wise our forefathers in the ways of “religion”. They recognized that the diverse religions sprung from the well of the Bible are, basically, a need to be in lockstep with others…I get an image of a chorus line of high kicking Christians feeling safe and smug because EVERYONE is wearing the same tutu (or holding fast to the same dunghills, however you wish to envision it).
Lincoln expressed this definition of spiritual–yet also non-religious– yearning which exists in mankind most beautifully and with simply humanity:
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
– Abraham Lincoln
I think any good man, good woman OR anyone’s God of choice would approve of that.
okay, make that any human being wishing to be his or her happiest, kindest version of one’s Self, anyone’s who worships a God or anyone who chooses a NON-theistic viewpoint of life would approve of Lincoln’s statement re: religion.
This of course pre-supposes that we are all here for the same reason. To be the best that we can be.
I believe that to be almost all of us regular folk.
What an irony, though, that the military uses that same be all you can be concept –now coupled with high bonuses – to entice young Americans to enter into the business of killing.
That killing or harming another human being is WRONG may be the core belief that is causing 15 per cent of those soldiers in the Iraq-Afghanistan wars to commit suicide. Having to kill, seeing people killed, people who are as helpless as we are, who are in no way responsible for 9.11, as has been proven over and over. Citizens who have been killed by the hundreds of thousands. By the military. By the non-military contractors. I guess there’s no real difference when it comes to dead. Like Pogo said. The enemy to them is US.
And none of it was their fault.
But we are with malice aforethought stomping around their country bossing them around, bombing them, destroying their homes, workplaces, civic buildings, schools, peace of mind.
Strangely, this fact has not been made clear to the man in the street here in the USA, a fact that is obvious when simply visiting websites that have discussion boards such as this. In the midst of a fairly sensible group of comments will be a vitriolic stream of consciousness that links Iraq with Hussein with bin Laden and tops it off with Israel somehow. how has the truth been denied SO MANY?
Iraqi’s are people who look like us, live a lot like us. Go to work, come home to family, are frustrated and angry with their government, are resentful of any government wielding power over them.
To the Iraqi’s, we would be the “Wielders”. They are right. We should go.
I agree with the Iraqi citizens. It’s time to get the hell out. It’s your country. And instead of the US being so envious/greedy for the oil fields, HEY! The sun has been shining for a LONG time, and there are plenty of ways to make that create SUSTAINABLE energy for us. NOTE: That works for *US*, the people, not Chevron, not Exxon, not Shell or their partners in crime.Tough.
That’s something truly amazing: the oil industry squats in the middle of the country making money hand over gaspump and throwing money at politicians to remain in the background, but there they are.. like the elephant in the living room sort of but more like the 800-lb gorillas that are steering this show. No ifs ands or buts.
Every time we hit the pumps we walk away mucho dollars poorer. AND the assholes have had the gall to run the interest rates up to 26-28 per cent thanks to Congress failing actually to HALT this runaway interest gouging by allowing the corporations plenty of time to jack up the rates and THEN imposing limits.
Sounded good, didn’t it?
What a crock. How come they didn’t make the limits RETROACTIVE?
Come on.
TWENTY -SIX percent INTEREST?
Then we come to another little embarrassing problem: China and the National Debt. Second to Japan and their chunk of our National Debt.
You rarely hear a newscaster go any further than vaguely referring to the “National Debt” , as if we are borrowing this money from, ah, well, friends. You know. Buddies. Or maybe leprechauns.
In our case, China is the potentially volatile problem, but no one seems to be able to get this out in the open and into the cross-hairs and throw up a signal that ACTION IS NEEDED for the government to fix where it belongs: End the War(s).
IT’s time to legalize pot.
Yeah yeah use “rules” so you can slap a few people around every now and then, just to save face, but by and large pot sales would eliminate the National Debt in short order.
Fact is fact. I’d much rather be stoned than drunk. I have no interest in any other drug. I never have.
Moreover, it might temporarily lull people into not caring about the National Debt or the fact that there is a COMPLETE disconnect between the PEOPLE of America and their ELECTED OFFICIALS, state level, White House, Capitol Hill, ALL of them, doesn’t it feel that way to you?.
Furthermore, pot can keep folks tranquil, maybe give the politicians aSIX MONTHS to fix this on their HONOR, to do THESE right things. Stop killing. Legalize pot.
A stoner is not an out-of -control drunk or hopped up methhead.
Legalization would give the govt some kind of QC control and it would certainly bring the price down eventually.
Marijuana already has been proven to be useful for a variety of medical reasons.
Not much domestic violence related to pot. Or homicide. Or armed robbery.
And at least as many stoned folks choose not to drive as those who drink and have designated drivers.
Frankly legalizing pot is just a win, win, win situation for all concerned.
Medically viable.
Reduction in domestic abuse and violent crimes.
(Believe me, it’s the non-existent stoner who would even think about making the effort to get a gun and go rob some place. If they DID conceive of such a thing, they would probably forget all about it somewhere in the neighborhood of the refrigerator..or a particularly interesting different thought….)
There.Cut the War on Drugs budget in half by legalizing pot.
End the War (with apologies, dammit).
Pot neutralizes the big ND.
Looks good from here.
But there’s a big politico-corporate waving around “over here!” “NO! over HERE!” dog and pony show going on to distract us from important facts such as these.
Mutterings of doom and gloom or hysterically optimistic generic pieces about the “Economy”.
“Wall Street fell … the Dow Jones lost… .”
“Unemployment rose…” t
“Foreclosures….”
or
” GOOD NEWS! Foreclosures are down by 1/32 of a point and unemployment was just plain declared on the way out by leading experts, and the White House announced a DEFINITE PLAN for withdrawal to be initiated in 2012!”
Rumors of plans for permanent military occupation have been denied.
Here a red herring, there a red herring….everywhere….a red herring.
I SO agree that this country is coming apart in shreds….
By taking no action to INSURE Congress uses common sense solutions to take control of this insane fiscal trip to La-La Land., WE taxpayers are allowing the government to FUND the buildup of China’s military by paying ever escalating interest on the National Debt.. Financing our own future conflict?
Here’s what Robert Romano had to say: (source referenced below)
.”Consider this: By 2020, OMB estimates net interest owed on the debt will total $840 billion. If China keeps a consistent share of the debt, its annual interest paid–[aka INTEREST PAID ON Y/OUR DEBT] will more than double to $52.2 billion every year. That’s more than two-thirds of China’s current military budget. So, the rising cost of interest owed on the debt is helping to directly fund a dramatic expansion of the second largest military in the world. That’s not even counting the revenue China generates every year because of the trade deficit.”
(courtesy Robert Romano, senior editor for Americans for limited government, http://netrightdaily.com/2010/10/the-china-problem-2/ )
SO. it’s clear as crystal that war is BAD.
Unless you are Investor’s Business Daily: Here’s another “diversionary tactic”
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/02/17/our_rising_national_debt_matters_98349.html
Almost makes sense…until you remind yourself that the BASIC PROBLEM is not that
“… government needs to stop using the tax code to punish savings and investment. If not, we’ll soon find our debts have become fiscal leg irons, and we, their prisoners.”
I don’t know that many people who are overburdened with lots of money stashed in savings, where to move their money, or able to stimulate the economy by starting up a business or financing a start-up.
How about you?
If your answer is yes, then you are obviously tripped and fell into this comment by mistake.
Stop the War.
Legalize pot.
Wipe out the National Debt.
War damages the mind, the heart the soul of all human beings.
So does a Depression.
So does alcohol.
The pot I like is a nice, happy calm buzz :)
Rolling over and doing nothing when the truth…YOUR TRUTH—is there in front of you if you truly paid attention
IS dancing in a tutu like everybody else’s and lock-stepping with your neighbor giving you the PEACE OF MIND, the feeling that you are “To thine own self being true?”
ARE we so afraid of change, of lack, of seeing through the illusion of “this is mine”. Most of us are, stubborn little monkeys, clutching the banana in our hand but unable to remove the hand from the hollow in the tree.
We have totally bought the idea that our possessions, money, valuables– what we “own” and think of in terms of “MINE” is just so many words on a paper. Other words can make those words mean nothing.
It is possible for you to get stripped of everything you THINK is yours. In the twinkling of an eye. On a whim, even. You may even be madeto look in the “wrong” by someone’s interpretation. Like the IRS. Or you might lose your job and lose your home. Lose your family. OR access to them.
I have idly wondered for years, how long will people in this country stumble along, blind and ignorant, rather than see what needs to be done and doing it?
We have every right to seek a more sustainable life, liberty from the shackles imposed by the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of, or the mind-rotting influence of Madison Ave.
The pursuit of happiness is understood to be our inalienable right in the Constitution of the United States of America. Every right. Inalienable.
Things have gone horribly wrong. We’ve got to push those lard-assed nest-featherers in DC and MAKE them stop cramming their jaws full of nuts before winter of our discontent hits and do WHAT WE TELL THEM TO.
Wow. Taking back control of the government. What a singularly shocking idea!
Constitutional Crisis Civilian Cooperative
vs
the Congress of United States of America
before the Supreme Court
Cast of thousands
Or millions
Speaking their truth.
Sounds interesting.
4 C’s.
FORCES. I think I like it…heh.
SO whatever your “religion” or lack of,
would this be “doing good” to you? Stopping the Iraq, Afghanistan, or any potential future war being drummed up?
Reducing domestic violence (probably) while definitely reducing the National Debt.
simply by legalizing pot.
Then we need to restructure the “war on Drugs” to target and track down serious drug traffickers whose products are viciously addictive and deadly.
This is “doing good” I believe.
No one is harmed. Except the war profiteers and the drug traffickers, of course.
So I suppose this is my religion. Speaking my truth. Hoping others will hear.
Doing my part on the local level until a leader of the people comes forth.
Recently I decided to raise hell with the utility commission when my EPP resulted in a $300 UNDERPAYMENT I have to pay upon settlement next month.
Well, just for annoyance value and t osilently protest the electricity bill going up 66% over last year, I requested a meter check and started asking some questions of our dear NCUC.
Discovered that the North Carolina Utilities Commission doesn’t verify any of the data the utility company presents to them. They accept that the meters are working properly. They do not attend to software issues at all, that I could see.
I raise this issue because DE and I had quite a skirmish over a bill that was wrong. Just a MISTAKE. Plain wrong. Obviously wrong.
Apparently my assertion was clearly an impossibility because, as one DE customer service rep snapped at me, “They don’t MAKE mistakes like that!!!!”
Really.
AH, but they do. And did. And I caught them at it. And called them on it. HA!
Another rep said that, well, there was often a “residual” type bill, a “leftover” that had to be paid.
I fear my tone was high pitched and more than a little incredulous when I responded, “How can A “FINAL” bill with an account terminated and turned over to someone else, have a SECOND “Final Bill”? That’s ridiculous.Terminated is TERMINATED.”
2 other attempts to reason with someone within DE proved futile ~alternately idiotic (see above) and insulting – a third got quite testy when I didn’t accept her word as gospel and hung up on me when I asked to speak to a supervisor.
But on the fifth call II cut to the chase and made my way to a supervisor who understood basic bookkeeping and probabilities. I pointed out
that the bill reflected a double-billing of a “final” bill, since
the bill clearly noted it covered a span of 61 days when the normal meter reading cycle is every 30 days or so. and it was supposed to be “final” not “semi-final”.
That the second billing was exactly the amount of the FIRST “final” bill.
Ergo, there was a software glitch that somehow allowed the system to DOUBLE my final bill after switching the account to the next tenant.
For some reason.
Hmmm… hard to verify a month old “bill” when the account was in someone else’s name all that time.
Unless you can add and subtract and understood that computer programs DID have glitches.
[Although for the life of me I couldn't IMAGINE a company the size of Duke Energy being allowed to have such a mistakeexist in their software].
I had been asked if I wanted to pay a small bill due when I called in for cutoff SHE was a very polite, pleasant rep, may I interject) or just wait till the final bill to settle up. I was happy to wait. :) Unfortunately, that carryover bill must have caused the program to stutter out a duplicate bill.
Luckily the error was obvious, at least to me, and finally to them. Although I got no apology, no explanation, nothing except a corrected bill for six dollars (balance due, my mistake. I wrote a check for the wrong amount). I have declined to pay that on principle..they took up a lot of my time to have to deal with THEIR mistake.
So at that point I contacted the NC Utilities Commission to apprise them of this “glitch”. They didn’t want to address it since I had gotten the situation straightened out and everything was “okay”,
NOT. I want an investigation.
That’s the next step.
my own little tilting at windmills, you may say.
But I stopped the first one from chewing me up :)
And that glitch needs to be found and fixed.
Not a lot of motivation for DUKE ENERGY to do it, seeing as how a duplicate bill is just more money for them.
SO I think I’m going to light a fire under the Utilities Commission and make them do something.
I don’t trust ‘em. EITHER of them. I feel like the foxes are overseeing the chicken coop.
and that the slogan of the NC Utilities Commission is “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”.
and NO we don’t ASK about the evil either. OR check. OR test. OR do much.
Except approve rate increases right before the hottest summer of the century. And then they’ve scarfed up as much as they can from the village trough, grant them a decrease for some (equally unfathomable) reason.
And relieve DUKE ENERGY of the necessity of filing a “Demand Side Management” Report.
I”m curious about that too.
I went on to ask a lot of interesting questions about their operation, and also asked how long the sitting commission has been in place and how long their appointments are for.
And whether the commissioners or their immediate families are allowed to invest in a utility company or if that is prohibited as a condition of employment as a “conflict of interest”
I thought of a LOT more questions I wanted to ask.
This is going to be interesting.
I feel better already. Find the truth. Share it.
oh wait {red face here] That is the worst cut and paste job I’ve ever done…lol
“life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and other related quotes were incorrectly attributed by me to the Constitution.
WE ALL know that was the Declaration of Independence.
A technicality, because we ALL know the INTENT of those patriots responsible for the establishment of the United States of America WAS to PRESENT THE HOPE that those inalienable rights WOULD be protected by a careful and responsible government.
Oops.
I am truly sorry about this mishmash cut and paste. I just hope you got my drift.
It’s late…..
Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Jainism aren’t religions? That’s a rather disingenuous claim, Piero. I see no “irrelevant semantic trick” played by the author on that count.
Secondly, the definition of atheist is straightforward…and none of the statements above (by the author’s “atheist mates”) run counter to it. You can call those individuals stupid if you like, but their stating that they don’t believe in G-d, yet wish to be part of an organized religious community doesn’t qualify as “utter bunk.”
Your point about the moderate Conservative is well-taken, but the author’s point about Dennis Kucinich and the greater “political association” is no less logical and both are valid points. Your example, however, is more precise, akin to your writing that a moderate Orthodox Jew or Dhammakaya Buddhist lends credibility to a bankrupt religious institution. The Conservative party is but one stream of the greater political body…and it isn’t merely particular stripes of faith that are decried by the New Atheists, but rather the whole enchilada (which is why, I presume, the author used the example of Kucinich and politics at large).
Piero wrote:
“Second, no atheist I know of cares about Confucianism, Taoism. Buddhism, Jainism and so on. Your can call them religions if you want, but then you would be playing another irrelevant semantic trick.”
Well, Piero, you just proved Be’s point about how many atheists are ethnocentric. They certainly are religions– unless you want to believe that historians sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologits at the world’s leading universities are making stuff up.
Since the 18th century, Western scholars have referred to Confucianism, Buddhism, etc. as religion. Just look at the syllabus of any college or university course on “comparative religions.” Or secular courses on religious psychology and sociology. They all talk about South Asian and East Asian religions. This isn’t a “semantic trick.” Be is just following the mainstream (and secular) academic consensus.
I was not aware that any one person could speak for an entire tradition. Nor was I aware that self righteousness was a virtue.
In the future, If you have nothing to say that will add to a conversation, Don’t say it.
Hyaena and Jason:
I’m afraid I have to disagree with both of you. Confucianism &c can be called religions if you like, but doing so is still an irrelevant semantic trick given the context: in case you haven’t noticed, the title of the article is “Why atehists choose religion”, and the quotations from the atheist students at Starr King make it quite plain that by religion they mean Christianity (“pretty candles at mass”). So yes, you are logically allowed to weasel out of tight spot by calling every belief system a religion. Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.
Hyaena thinks that nothing in the quoted statements runs counter to atheism. True. You can be a logically consistent hypocrite (which, by the way, means precisely “a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion”). Just don’t expect to be taken seriously.
Octavio, in the future it would be helpful if you let us know whom you are addressing.
Piero, I ask these follow-up questions not to be controversial, but simply because I’m not sure I understand where you’re coming from. What is your definition of religion? What is your definition of atheism?
I adhere to a fairly standard definition, a variation of which opens the Wikipedia entry on the subject:
“A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
By the standards of the above definition, Eastern and Western belief systems all qualify as religions. If the target of your critique is limited to the Abrahamic faiths, isn’t it unfair, then, to decry religion at large? (I’m not asking rhetorically. It’s a genuine question.)
Again turning to Wikipedia’s democratic definitions, atheism is defined as “the position that there are no deities. More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist. The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.”
How are the quoted statements (of the atheists in the original post) hypocritical, then?
Im not sure what’s your point. Are there examples of religions that aren’t as harmful as others – Sure(Sam Harris himself says that its silly to say all religions are equal and he doesnt expect as much harm from a fundamentalist Buddhist as he would from a fundamentalist Muslim). Can some humans including atheists hold conflicting points of view? Sure. Citing one off examples proves nothing. Yes there are Christians who believe that Jesus was just a man, but it isnt the dominant stream , not even close.
When religion is being criticised , most people doing the criticism don’t bother about deists, not because they don’t exist, but because we would be fine if all religious belief would restrict itself to deistic beliefs. You dont see deists planning to introduce creationism in the schools, you don’t see deists banning contraception and you dont see deists claiming that wives need to be submissive to their husbands. The religion that you see taking an active part in public life is the non deist, non pantheist variety. Do you Deny this?
Why dont you spend your time taking on the fundamental religious folks? Surely the Pope has done far more harm than Hitchens? Lets see a couple of posts about the Pope, followed by a challenge to debate him , with the added accusation of cowardice if he doesn’t accept your challenge.
What according to you is a definition of a religious person?
In my opinion if you don’t ascribe intent to God (as opposed to a natural force) and do not believe that God intervenes in this universe , for all practical purposes you aren’t ‘religious’.
Yes you can call yourself religious if you want , but there is nothing to be gained in a debate with such a person. If there were sufficient quantity of such people perhaps Hitchens and co would use the word Theist instead of religious. But as of today, the majority of religious people fit Hitchen’s definition , not yours.
The criticism against ALL religion is that it encourages poor reasoning. For the examples you cite
Buddhism – Reincarnation, really?
Jainism – Eating things that grow below the ground e.g. onions , BAD!
are the ones Im familiar with.
All religions encourage divisiveness . My Jain friend was almost ostracised for daring to marry a christian. Doesn’t fit in with your nice views now, does it?
>>All religions encourage divisiveness . My Jain friend was almost ostracised for daring to marry a christian.<<
Strong belief in anything causes divisiveness. In the 16th and 17th centuries, Europeans fought over religious beliefs. In the 19th and 20th centuries, they fought over political ideologies.
The vast majority of Marxists, and plenty of libertarians, are atheists. Are their groups free from divisiveness? And there was plenty of divisiveness in Ayn Rand's circle of atheists.
There are vegetarians who refuse to marry or have sexual relations with non-vegetarians. There are plenty of progressive who will not date a conservative, and vice versa. I know an atheist who has theist friends, but he will not marry a believer.
Getting rid of religion will not get rid of divisiveness. One could try to get rid of strong beliefs, perhaps– but then there will be divisions between people who have strong beliefs, and those who oppose strong beliefs. Ironically, there are skeptics and relativists who are very intolerant.
Deepak wrote: >>When religion is being criticised , most people doing the criticism don’t bother about deists, not because they don’t exist, but because we would be fine if all religious belief would restrict itself to deistic beliefs. You dont see deists planning to introduce creationism in the schools, you don’t see deists banning contraception and you dont see deists claiming that wives need to be submissive to their husbands.<<
Maximilien Robespierre was a deist. He also implemented the Reign of Terror, which in the space of just one year (1793-94) claimed thousands of victims, maybe tens of thousands.
One can also point to atrocities committed by atheists, and probably to agnostics as well. Theist, atheist, deist– whatever the labels, people commit the same crimes.
Sigh.
A deist may be evil, as may be an agnostic or an atheist. However their crimes aren’t caused by their beliefs (or lack thereof) in God.
Nationalist fundamentalists are as bad and perhaps worse than religious fundamentalists. Again that other problems exist does not take away the fact that Religion and its teaching creates problems. Take away religion you have one lesser problem , not that all your problems are solved
>Strong belief in anything causes divisiveness
Really? I strongly believe Calvin and Hobbes is the best comic strip ever. Not all beliefs are equal. Nationalistic and religious beliefs are particularly insidious.
>There are vegetarians who refuse to marry or have sexual relations with non-vegetarians.
Funny. Im vegetarian and my wife isn’t. (Yes this is irony, because if you see the weakness in my previous point , you should be able to point out problems in this article)
>Getting rid of religion will not get rid of divisiveness.
And has anyone made that claim? Most major religions actively promote differences between believers and non believers. Yes there are religious people who can overcome this. yes some religions promote some form of everyones equal. But as of today , the reality is that this isnt anywhere near being the majority view.
>Ironically, there are skeptics and relativists who are very intolerant.
Right , where are the stakes that we can burn you on? You use the word intolerance very lightly. Writing an internet article or book demolishing weak arguments isnt particularly intolerant.
I share your affection for ” Calvin & Hobbes,” Deepak. There was a time in my life, though, that my devotion to Watterson’s comic genius might have led to fisticuffs with a “Garfield” fan…and I’m only half-kidding, unfortunately! My point being, while I agree that a scuffle over the funny pages is not to be confused with the violence of a nationalistic uprising, Jason’s point seems fair enough.
His point being that ANY strong belief is divisive, I don’t agree. You can note down quite a few strongly held beliefs which are harmless (in atleast the vast majority of the cases).
Some beliefs that are strongly held e.g. Religious Belief and Nationalistic fervor, are extremely divisive and thats not good.
Im not sure why people like making excuses for religion though. Most religions (yes there are exceptions , both in religions and religious people) demand that their beliefs be strongly held and demand that there be divisions. Its written in the books. That some of humanity has progressed beyond this literal interpretation doesnt mean the religion doesnt have it
Hyaena:
“A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”. Precisely. First, the cause and nature of the universe are not matters for belief, but for scientific research. More importantly, any set of beliefs concerning the purpose of the universe assumes such a purpose exists, and that leads to absolutist conclusions and to the justification of all-encompassing stupidity. Since we are part of the universe, belief in a purpose for the universe has overriding implications for human life; those implications can be quaint (as in the examples mentioned by Deepak) or abhorrent (as in the moral obligation to kill infidels), but stupid in any case. Is it then unfair to criticize all religion? No.
On the issue of hypocrisy: a religious conviction, even a nondescript one, implies a belief in the purpose of the universe. Purpose only makes sense if referred to a sentient entity, hence a deity. Yes, I know you can conceive of the universe itself as a purposeful entity: that simply means you are elevating matter to deity status.
@ Peiro
Explain to me why it is not fair to criticize all government/politics as inherently “poisonous.”
It is fair to criticize nationalism as inherently poisonous.
But the existence of other ills does not reduce or justify the ills of religion.
Be, actually I think it is fair, and for a simple reason: those who seek power are those most likely to misuse it. Hence, any form of government where power is concentrated in a few hands is illegitimate, and I include liberal democracies in this category.
I disagree, but at least you are consistent. Its hard to imagine anything that is only “poisonous.” But following your logic there are many things that can be labeled as such. I suppose you also believe that the small local business also justifies or legitimizes Enron? The small business which is a corporation gives credence to the more extreme corporations. So thus all businesses must described as “poisonous.” Your logic is consistent but quite disturbing.
I disagree with the analogy small business – Enron. The difference between a small business and a corporation is that the owner of a small business is accountable, whereas corporations are limited liability entities.
If you can make such qualifications for corporations then qualifications can be made for other associations.
True, provided the qualifications make sense, i.e. provided they highlight fundamental differences. I rejected the analogy between a small business and a corporation because they are fundamentally different, legally and economically: a small businessman is out to make a living, a corporation is out to maximize profits and power; if a small business fails, that’s tough, whereas big corporations can count upon taxpayers’s money to bail them out; small businessmen can influence the political scenario at most by casting a single vote, corporations can and do topple governments. Thus their interests, motivation and behaviour differ in fundamental ways. Not so with religions: they share a common metaphysical ground that invariably leads to stupidity, not in the IQ sense, which would be merely sad, but in the more insidious sense of wilfully rejecting evidence.
Following the logic that liberal religion justifies extremists the same can be said in your example. All non-nationalist governments/political parties/ideologies justify the extreme forms of nationalism.
You’ve got the argument wrong. Participation in religion isn’t why progressive religions provide cover for extremists. It’s participation in the myth that religion can’t be criticized.
If I disagree with someone’s political opinions I can challenge them on their basis. I can tell a Republican the myriad ways trickle-down economics won’t work. I can tell a Libertarian that a lack of government regulation would lead to loss of life.
But there’s a taboo on telling religious people that their beliefs are wrong. Telling a Christian that the whole concept of virgin birth is laughable and biologically impossible gets you labelled an “angry atheist.” And for that reason religion is more dangerous than politics. If someone believes god told them to kill abortion providers or ritualistically kill a woman who’s been raped, and questioning this belief is culturally unacceptable then there’s not much anyone can do about it.
And the people who enforce this taboo are the mainstream religious people who don’t want people criticizing religion the way everyone else criticizes politics. So the choice is to either open religion to the same sort of scrutiny as any other idea or accept that putting it in a special category provides cover for people who do terrible things (at least according to other people) in the name of religion.
Icelander, I find that most of the liberal religious people I’ve dealt with are vocal critics of religion…albeit religion of the fundamentalist or literalist stripe. I don’t agree that there is any taboo on telling religious people that their actions are wrong. Sure, you’ll get a lot of reactionary response from the fundamentalists, and, true, it’s impossible to tell someone who believes in the Virgin Birth that this is a fairy tale, and not the sort of narrative they should invest their being in, but that’s not the issue. If that person (who believes in the Virgin Birth) is acting with lovingkindness, volunteering, tithing income, and so on, no action need be taken on the part of the atheist or the liberal religionist. If, however, that person is vocal about their belief in Christ’s divinity and message, yet professes that Obama is the anti-Christ and that abortion doctors are devilish (or whatever other fundamentalist nonsense we might substitute here), then that is a clear case where actions must be condemned, and the person reeducated about their own scripture.
My point is, because you can’t “prove” one way or the other that the Virgin Birth did or did not happen, there is no point in arguing it. What you can argue is that the actions of the believer are not in keeping with the faith they profess. This is generally the case with fundamentalists and religious orthodoxy.
For those who have been following these posts, next week I will address the topic of who is a Christian. This was the other most talked about issue in all of the comments last week. And my mentor and professor Rebecca Parker be chiming in. She is the co- author of “Saving Paradise: How Religion Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire.”
Brock and Parker begin their research perplexed by a riddle: Why are images of the crucified Christ absent from early Christian art? After visiting Mediterranean and European sites sacred to early Christians, Brock and Parker formulate a provocative answer: the dying Christ never appears in early Christian art because early Christians did not believe Christ’s redemptive death had opened a heavenly afterlife for the faithful. Rather, Brock and Parker assert, early Christians looked to Jesus as the exemplar who showed how to defy injustice by creating paradise on Earth in a loving community. In this theory, images of Christ’s passion and death invaded Christian art only when the Church started using a theology of otherworldly salvation to recruit the forces necessary to build a Christian empire. Skeptics may view with suspicion the authors’ willingness to substitute conjectural interpretations of art and heretical gnostic texts for plain readings of the orthodox biblical canon. However, as the response to The Da Vinci Code (2003) established, highly speculative retellings of Christian history attract readers. –Bryce Christensen –
Discussing the embroidery on the Emperor’s new clothes?
It’s now 10 days since you said “next week I will address the topic of who is a Christian”, and no sign of this (or a contribution from Professor Parker, whose greater experience in religious thought might help a lot, I think). In the absence of a new blog post (and perhaps for you to consider as points), I’ll say:
‘Christian’ derives from the Greek for ‘anointed’. The man was called Jesus/Jesu/Joshua or something close to that; by adopting this title of ‘Christ’ given to him as the main descriptor of one’s religion, one has to believe that Jesus was anointed (and not just a good prophet, or you’re just a pre-Mohamed Muslim). So the core of Christianity has to be that one believes Jesus was anointed by a god as different from other humans. This may or may not include Jesus being divine. So I think Hitchens was at least half right:
“I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.”
The bit about “he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven” does not have to be true; but the vast majority of Christians do believe it. It’s the central message of the New Testament.
Another use of language (to bring up the subject that you did write your next blog entry about) that I wonder if you need to consider is ‘liberal Christian’. Do you mean this as in ‘a Christian who uses a loose definition of ‘Christian”? Or ‘a Christian who advocates liberal politics and/or social views’?
If the latter, then I think your use of ‘liberal Christian’ (possibly deriving from Marilyn Sewell’s use of it) over the past few weeks has been very sloppy. Many liberals who are Christians are also insistent that Jesus “rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven”, and maybe more (eg miracles, the Virgin Birth etc.). Believing in these supernatural aspects does not mean they reject the social message that you seem to think is the essence of being a Christian (judging by your uncritical quoting of Borg’s ‘the test of “authentic” Christianity is “By their fruits, you shall know them”‘).
Your quotes from “fellow atheist seminarians” are very strange indeed. But then what would you expect from an atheist enrolled in a seminary.
Being an atheist enrolled in a seminary is akin to a vegetarian (of the “its unethical to eat animals kind”) studying to be a Slaughterman/butcher. I don’t eat meat because its wrong, but other people enjoy meat so I will kill animals and prepare meat.
One has to question their motives.
Anyway.
On the first statement- “I don’t deny the value that religion or religious practice, (whether actual belief in god and the afterlife, or simply liking the pretty candles at mass and multiple opportunities for community) brings to people including myself.”
Well this atheist cetainly denies the value of religion. itself. All religions invoke fairy tales to control their followers for the benefit of those controlling. Where is the value in that?
And as for Religous practices you desribe, pretty lights may be harmless enough but ritual sacrifices, murder of opposing groups and rules that limit human potential or happiness are theother side of the same coin.
“Religion has a lot to offer and to deny that is to deny the complexity of the human condition.”
So do animated movies and the circus. Doesn’t make them real though!
On the Second statement_ “I am a religious humanist because I believe in miracles” then you are not an atheist or you do not understand the meaning of the word “miracle”
From Wiki “A miracle is an unexpected event attributed to divine intervention” hope this helps.
“We can know all of the political forces which led to war, or all the conditions which led to a car accident, but not why our brother had to die. That’s what religion is to me, and why I am a religious leader.”
So according to Ricky, not knowing the why of something (assuming why is even a valid question) is religion; and he is a leader. That is just delusional and I do hope he seeks profession medical help.
Be Scofield, you continue to ignore in your new article the question of why you are so quick and keen to point out to non-religious (real) atheists that you do not believe in a god, but never (as far as I’m aware) do any of your ilk stand up in church and say the same thing there.
It seems you are quite happy to regard yourselves as aloof and superior to the main flock, and you are quite happy for millions upon millions of people to really believe that they have to be subserviant to a non-existent being. I don’t even come from a particularly religious family, but my mother goes to bed every night crying prayers, begging for forgiveness. She’s never done anything wrong in her life, but she lives a neurotic life, constantly in fear that someone is watching over her with a big stick. That’s only because the importance of belief was drummed into her as a child. This is the sort of belief that you “liberal” religionists re-inforce by your silent attendence. How many more generations do you want to indoctrinate?
You really don’t have a grasp of the real world. The point you made in this and the previous article that “Unitarian Universalism contains 19% of people who identify as atheist/agnostic” is ridiculous. I can guarantee that 19% of any group of people (except perhaps those who live in an ivory tower) haven’t got the faintest idea or interest in what Unitarian Universalism means.
The New Atheists: Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al point to the damage caused by religion and its adherents down through history: wars, pogroms, inquisition, massacre, intolerance, cruelty.
They do not spend much time on the good that has come from religion: peace both within the mind and outside it; feeding the poor; ministering to those suffering and misunderstood; charitable works; pointing towards ideals and virtues that — when followed —- have made things better for the world and mankind.
They have not spent much time on the destructive forces unleashed under the banner of reason and science. Consider the horrors unleased by the Industrial Revolution; by the utopian atheists of the Soviet Union; by the Nazis; by Capitalism; by the means Science has developed to harm both mankind, other species and this planet.
The Enlightenment itself — usually pictured as the beginning of that great, positive evolution which is taking all of us to higher and higher levels of human development. Partly true, since there stemmed from it a greater emphasis on human dignity, on individual liberty, on attacking ignorance and combating injustice.
The problem with the Enlightenment and the secular humanism which it spawned is that it led people to believe that with the emphasis on Reason we could realize the perfectibility of humanity. Reason though can become dictatorial and unreasonable.
Stemming from the belief that through reason, science and sound thinking we can make a utopia — spawned the horrors of the French Revolution; the cruelties and massacres of colonization; the barbarism of our own suppression and attempts to eradicate the Native Americans.
The story of mankind is not one of continual progress. History is not progressive.
History is basically cyclical. Science and Reason can make things much worse instead of much better. What makes the difference is the amount of Compassion and Wisdom there is inherent in our lives. The ability to eliminate millions more persons in war today is an example of Science. Would you call this — an advancement?
When I read Harris and Hitchens and other New Atheists, their tone is vituperative, angry, intolerant and filled with hatred and outrage. I get the same feeling when listening to the Christian evangelist, John Hagee.
Must we choose between the zealots who worship at the shrine of Reason & Science or the dogmatists who follow a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran or Bible?
Do we really believe in the “purity of the rational mind”.
IMO, humans are simply not naturally good. There is evil, and most of it stems from people. The planet would not be harmed to a great extent, but probably enhanced — if by some chance —- mankind disappeared entirely.
What have we really contributed? What have we really “messed up”?
People are not going to evolve into some kind of perfected tribe by following reason. Reason is the mother of rationalization, and we know how prevalent it is. In fact, we have the ability to use Reason and even Science to justify our own lack of wisdom, inner forces of hatred, lust, greed, anger…
Whether there is a God or not — we can be absolutely sure that Reason + Science is not It !
As I wrote in an essay some years back,
“Reasonable pragmatism, the preferred approach of post-Enlightenment thought, has its own problems, however. As Benjamin Franklin [put it], “so convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” Franklin’s observation at once celebrates and skewers reason, revealing it to be a wholly relative enterprise. This chink in reason’s armor is worrisome.”
I didn’t intend to condemn reason, mind you. Science and reason are vital and wondrous, we do need them “to chase back the darkness.” Natural history, neuroscience (I work in a neuroscience laboratory), biology, physics, philosophy: all of these pursuits, as well as the other “secular” realms, provide as much edification and soulful nourishment as do poetry, the epics, painting, dance, and scripture. Mythos and logos, as so many contemporary liberal religionists like to frame it, are both necessary parts of the healthy, multitudinous whole (a la Whitman).
Quercus, you seem to be a nice guy or gal. I sympathise with your abhorrence of evil and suffering; this abhorrence I think is the main element of cohesion of the human species.
However, in my opinion your post contains an inordinate amount of bullshit, as I’ll try to elucidate in what follows:
“They do not spend much time on the good that has come from religion: peace both within the mind and outside it; feeding the poor; ministering to those suffering and misunderstood; charitable works; pointing towards ideals and virtues that – when followed – - have made things better for the world and mankind.”
**Sigh**
OK, first: religion has never been the motor of economic reform. On the contrary, throughout human history the various churches have stood firmly behind the power bearers. The fact that some religious people do some charity work is a mere trifle when compared to the untold sufferings sanctioned by churches. Just one example: have you any idea how many Latin American natives were massacred, enslaved and exploited to death by the oh so Catholic Conquistadores, with full Papal approval?
Second, the ideal and virtues promoted by the various religions have made things a lot worse for humanity. Just one question: do you think Europe was a better place before or after the French Revolution?
“They have not spent much time on the destructive forces unleashed under the banner of reason and science. Consider the horrors unleased by the Industrial Revolution; by the utopian atheists of the Soviet Union; by the Nazis; by Capitalism; by the means Science has developed to harm both mankind, other species and this planet.”
**Sigh**
Horrors unleashed by the Industrial Revolution? You probably think that feudal peasants had a great time, don’t you? Do you know that during famines in Medieval Europe the serfs would resort to undigging corpses in order to eat them? Do you know that the average calorie intake in Europe during the 17th century was barely enough to keep a person on his/her feet? Or perhaps you are referring to some other kind of horrors, like the fact that you can now enjoy free flowing clean water by turning a tap, or communicate with anyone by tapping keys on a keyboard in the safety of your home.
Your points concerning Nazis and Communists have been debunked too many times already. I’ll just say that both Communism and Nazism share a metaphysical outlook on history, and thus they are as far removed from a secular outlook as the Pope or Osama Bin Laden.
“The story of mankind is not one of continual progress. History is not progressive.
History is basically cyclical. Science and Reason can make things much worse instead of much better. What makes the difference is the amount of Compassion and Wisdom there is inherent in our lives. The ability to eliminate millions more persons in war today is an example of Science. Would you call this – an advancement?”
There is not enough evidence to call history cyclical. Besides, any attempt to define what “cyclical” means is bound to fail. Ask any historian, and I assure you you won’t get a clear answer.
“Progressive” is also an ill-defined concept. I would, however, attempt to define it as “the quality of making suffering less likely”. In this sense, evidence supports the calim that history is indeed progressive. For example, have a look at Steven Pinker’s take on violence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk&feature=player_embedded
“When I read Harris and Hitchens and other New Atheists, their tone is vituperative, angry, intolerant and filled with hatred and outrage. I get the same feeling when listening to the Christian evangelist, John Hagee.”
Quercus, when the twin towers were crumbling to the ground, how did you feel? Did you think something along the lines of “Forgive them, for they know not” etc., or did you feel like screaming and kicking? People like Harris, Hitchens, myself and countless others are angry; it enrages me to see a plane crashing into a building, it enrages me to watch thousands of human lives lost needlessly, it enrages me to see a 13-year old girl sentenced to whippings, it enrages me to see a couple of adolescent homosexuals hanged in the gallows, it enrages me to see girls with their faces burnt with acid because they dared go to school, it enrages me to see men with unsightly penises because some idiot decided their foreskin had to be ritually cut, it enrages me to think of millions of Mexican natives exterminated by Cortez and his Catholic minions, it enrages me to think of Giordano Bruno, Savonarola and thousands and thousands of others burnt alive at the stake, it enrages me to think of thousands of children abused and raped by priests, it enrages me to watch the subservience of the Tibetans to the Dalai Lama, a douchebag if there ever was one, it enrages me to hear friends refer to that crook and hypocrite, Mother Teresa, as if she was some sort of exemplary figure, it enrages me to think of all the pain, guilt, fear, cowardice, unreason and hypocrisy brought on by religion. So don´t expect politeness: the stakes are just too high.
“IMO, humans are simply not naturally good. There is evil, and most of it stems from people. The planet would not be harmed to a great extent, but probably enhanced – if by some chance – - mankind disappeared entirely.”
Quercus, good and evil, harm and enhancement are concepts. They are generated by a mind. If humans were to disappear from the Universe, it wouldn’t make sense to ascribe ethical categories to the occurrence. If the human species goes extinct, so go the ethical concepts we have managed to shape. Do you think Nature without reason is a better place? Have you seen a wasp paralize a spider without killing it, so that the wasp’s offspring can feed on living flesh? Have you seen dolphins toss a seal about until it’s dead, for no apparent purpose? Have you seen a boa constrictor suffocate its prey? Yes, our planet would probably survive just fine without us, but it would not only be brutal: it would also be hopeless.
Oh me, oh my!
To believe this, to not believe that, to quote this, to quote that, to think this, to not think that; my my, what is one to do? So much thinking, so much believing or so much believing in not believing!
So much clinging to one’s own opinions, so much clinging to another’s opinions!
So much gathering of “facts,” so much disputing of “facts!”
And, then so many feelings, strangely associated with, what is nothing more than, one’s thoughts about one’s thoughts!
Whew!
The ‘religious atheists’ who I know, and I do know some, generally are more ‘non theistic’ than ‘atheistic’.
I may be splitting hairs, but I think that there is a difference between someone for whom there is no god, and someone for whom the question fails to have traction. I am of the former, my buddhist buddies and Confusionists I know are of the latter kind.
It might be useful to examine the question from this point of view…
McQuaid.
rap beat download
Stop defending it!
Me gusta el estilo con el que escribes , os pongo en mis favoritos. Mucho animo y seguir asi