To the Atheist
Jun 11th 2008Wallabynerd alert
This was gonna be the start of a big long rant in which I marvel at how intolerant progressives can be. I would’ve particularly focused on my amazement at the fact that so many atheists are aggressively intolerant of the sincere religious beliefs of others — for instance,
“I watched my father-in-law die this weekend. He was a devout Catholic, and is the rest of his family, but I found the whole process of the last rites a truly stunning performance of chicanery.
It makes me furious when some religious wing-nut takes advantage of people at a time of loss. The gall! Somehow, they believe this gives them special rights. And just about the time he made the pitch for money I made his way for the door.
As I mentioned to the priest that I was not superstitious, he mentioned that he would be praying for me.Whoo-hoo! I thought to myself, go ahead! Talk all you want, there is no one listening.
Then I remembered that when this boob prays, there are real people listening, and that really makes me angry!”
That’s right - the guy was “furious” at other people acting on “devout” beliefs which he considers to be nothing more than “chicanery”. Of course, if he’d caught them out doing something contrary to what they claim to believe, he’d have been “furious” (or perhaps just smug?) about their “hypocrisy”, so really he’s angry that they hold such beliefs. All this in a thread on a well-known “science” blog advertising a particular broadcast of “Atheists Talk Radio”. The comments included other (tongue-in-cheek?) gems such as
“I like to reap the side-benefits of being an atheist, i.e. sleeping late on Sundays. Makes life a lot easier when you choose your religion (or non-religion) by when you have to get up in the morning.”
Atheists would — do! — complain bitterly about religious people “shoving” their beliefs “down [the atheists'] throats”, whether it’s Christmas trees in public places, displays of the Ten Commandments, or private displays of hope in a time of grief. To some extent I sympathize - it must be very difficult to be part of “the enlightenment” and yet surrounded by “sheep” who cling to superstition and error when Modern Science and Philosophy have shown us the way. Frustrating!
What I don’t really understand is the active anger that goes with it - it’s not enough to say “no, thank you” when someone hands you a tract or offers to pray for you, it’s far better to fly into a rage at the fact that someone else might be “taken in”.
So, to the atheists:
As I understand it, atheism is simply the belief that there is nothing resembling any kind of God. Surely that belief doesn’t depend on whether other people agree with you. If you consider that the proper action for you to take in response to your beliefs is to convince others that they should believe as you do, then fine. But please remember two things: First, your actions in response to your sincere beliefs are precisely equivalent to their actions in response to their sincere beliefs; Second, that “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a pretty sensible rule regardless of its origin.
And if those don’t carry any weight, try this - you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Make it attractive to be an atheist. And not just in a “nobody’s watching, so do what you like and sleep in on Sunday morning” way - show them the personal benefits to your own intellect, or society, or whatever, that have come from your atheism. (Since the whole “eternal life” thing is a no-show for you folks, feel free to substitute whatever it is that you actually get out of it. Tip: Smug “I know the truth!” is not really very attractive. Or do you admire that when you see it in Christians?) Why not just convince them of the intellectual truth of the proposition that “there is no God”? Remember, you’re preaching to “the stupid” as well as to “the smart”. You gotta dumb it down for us, we’re easily led. Brilliant philosophy will reach only a few, but you need more - in the same way that the priest saying Last Rites didn’t offer just theology, but hope and comfort. Where’s your hope and comfort? Where’s your emotional appeal?
Come to think of it… I take back what I said about not understanding their anger. It’s pretty simple - “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” All the rest follows from that.
Robert on 11 Jun 2008 at 4:44 pm #
Acting out one’s devout beliefs includes soliciting money at a funeral? Unless I’ve missed something, this is what angered the atheist. I can’t say for certain since you didn’t link to the original blog.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more. If you’re looking for a life plan or a basis for ethics, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Humanism, for example. The attractiveness of atheism, if there be any, is not having to deal with cognitive dissonance and the freedom to explore truth unbounded by baseless dogmas. Many who’ve left religions like Christianity cite these as key benefits.
Sorry to disappoint, but it’s not a matter of disliking to retain God in our knowledge. I’ve weighed the arguments and examined the evidence. There’s no God to be found in the first place. It’s entirely possible, however, that one day God will show up. I keep an open mind.
Wallaby on 11 Jun 2008 at 10:22 pm #
There’s only the original commenter’s word for it that there was any mention of money. (I’m not Catholic so I have no idea how usual that would be - I agree that it does seem in poor taste, at the very least.) The link seems to have gotten lost and I’m not turning it up now - it was at Pharyngula. (Not on my usual reading list and his software appears to be serving up the same 3 pages regardless of which ones are asked for.) I’ll point out that he did say that it was “the whole process of the Last Rites” that he found offensive, not just anything he saw as a pitch for money.
“Simply the lack of belief in god(s)” does not obviously require any particular reaction to the beliefs of others. In particular, it does not obviously require anger, and yet that often seems to be the reaction. Not always, of course. Perhaps it’s more precisely described as an angry reaction to attempts at evangelism - some frustration is understandable since (from the target’s viewpoint) they’re simply wasting your time. But anger? Anger at the very fact that others believe?
As you said, atheism does not intrinsically require that, nor does it require efforts to confound and trip up JWs (for instance) who come to one’s door. It certainly does not require satisfied glee at “lookit the poor confused Christian sheepie! he met someone smarter! ha!” (Paraphrasing, perhaps uncharitably, from comments in that same thread.)
The quote about “disliking to retain God” was from a text from “the other side” which presents an explanation (from that viewpoint) of the origins of atheism and how other things follow.
I understand that, for many, it’s a purely intellectual process based on the perceived evidence, as you describe.
I have also seen accounts of individuals’ “coming to atheism” which began with ideas along the lines of “the idea of a ‘god’ is distasteful to me, because it would constrain my freedom in one sense or another”. (”Not having to deal with cognitive dissonance and the freedom to explore truth unbounded by baseless dogmas” sound rather like “I didn’t want to continue to include ideas of god(s) in my thinking” - which doesn’t seem that different from “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge”…
I really don’t assume that all atheists are the same, or that all such are filled with vitriol or anything else. And I recognize that having reached a different conclusion may have left me blind to particular steps along your way. In particular I applaud your open-mindedness - it would be unfortunate to have left religion to avoid “baseless dogma”, only to have traded one dogma for another…
Wallaby on 11 Jun 2008 at 10:29 pm #
Oh, and I finally did dig out the original thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/radio_reminder_13.php
Robert on 12 Jun 2008 at 10:30 am #
Hi, thanks for taking the time to dig up the link, as well as your comments.
Truth be told, the original author wasn’t particularly clear in his thoughts. I don’t think he’s angry over the fact that others believe, however. In any case, these kind of rants are common to both sides. Best not to take them too seriously.
I’ve never heard of someone coming to an atheist belief because they found the idea of god constraining to their freedom. It sounds very much like the familiar Christian accusation that atheists simply want to be free to sin. This is not to say no such reasons are ever given. Rather, I’ve never come across them. Usually, the process of disbelief is quite painful and fraught with much soul-searching, with often serious consequences to family and career.
I’d be interested in the article which explains the basis for atheism is not liking to retain God in one’s knowledge. The idea seems to suggest a mere preference, but the basis of the things I describe is simply honesty. To believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity in the face of suffering, for example, is simply not reconcilable.
Wallaby on 12 Jun 2008 at 11:26 pm #
Thanks for stopping back - repeat commenters are even more welcome than first-timers
Sure, there are “fundies” who “say the darndest things” - there are also New Yorkers who say thoughtless things and rant. For that matter, there’s people everywhere who say the darndest things. As I said, I don’t assume that all atheists are ranting “Christian-baiters”, any more than all New Yorkers are arrogant bimbos or all Christians are sheep with faith where their brains should be.
I wasn’t really trying to suggest that all atheists simply want to be free to sin. (I’m not trying to suggest anything at all about all atheists, except that, by definition, they believe there is no god.) Most of the ones that I’ve met, as a scientist, have decided that the existence of God is not supported by any evidence they’re prepared to accept. Many of them have been quite decent folks, and even been “traditionally moral” at that. No frothing rage involved
As far as the “article” … it was part of a letter, actually, which Paul wrote to the Roman church. The first chapter explains - from Paul’s point of view - the path through which the world got into the state in which he found it, and which it’s still in today.
I suppose it’s largely a question of one’s basic assumptions, as to whether Paul’s explanation holds any water. Certainly there are purely naturalistic explanations which are entirely compatible with atheism; what Paul describes as the deterministic consequences of rebellion against God, a naturalist might describe merely as the deterministic consequences of “the selfish gene”.
Another translation of the specific verse I quoted puts it, “They thought it foolish to acknowledge God.” Isn’t that essentially the same thing as what you describe?
“To believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity in the face of suffering” would (you say) be foolishness. People faced with that conclusion can either choose to be “foolish” — retaining belief in God even if it may involve logical paradox — or they can choose to be wise (according to their basic assumptions) and choose not to “retain God in [their] knowledge”. That’s not necessarily “a mere preference”, nor is it a choice that should be made lightly; but both choices are possible.
(My own choice is the former, as you’ve probably guessed, on the grounds that there’s far more going on in that particular area than I can currently know. What is revealed to us in Scripture, and apparent to us from our senses, is entirely accurate. It is not entirely complete. “Now I see in part,” as Paul puts it; “then I shall see fully.”)