Matters of faith, lah di da di dah
November 5, 2003
Dean Esmay knows how to ask the questions that, well, provoke thought. Take this for example: “So what is atheism’s great contribution to the welfare of man?” And a related open-ended question: “Atheism’s major contribution to the advancement of human rights around the world is…”
I used to call myself an atheist. Maybe because I figured out that most religion, at least in my mind (lay off you evangelists) was a form of popular control. Then I came to the conclusion that when you take the matters of control out of religion, and focus on faith, then you recognize your own personal Jesus. Or Jebus. Or Bejus. Or Soccer-ball God/dess. Whatever. Your theos. Or you don’t. It’s up to you.
Organized Religion, basically being the mob that believes in t he same theos.
Follow me so far? There. Insulted? Go away now. That’s how I see it. So you evange-bloggers can lay off me now, because none of your judgment nor arguments nor analyses will convince me to follow you. I know my God. Do you know yours? Okay. Keep it to yourself.
I have, perhaps, expressed this once or twice in my discussions with other people, that some atheists become irrational in placing a primacy on rationality. I’ll go so far as to assume that they do this when they do not have the answer for something and they cannot bring themselves to say “I don’t know.” Which, by the way, is the ultimate answer to a question that pushes the limits of an atheist’s reasoning, much like what some theists do, by saying that “where rationality ends, God begins,” only, atheists don’t have that much elbow room.
Perhaps the best answers, or at least the answers I agree with the most to the second question Dean poses is this one by The Chicago Report:
- providing a cross cultural philosophy of rights, one not married to any particular conception of god.
- freeing individuals from the yoke of the next world, thus allowing them to fight for their right to this one.
(My God tells me she disdains anyone who wastes their lives preparing for an afterlife she’s not capable of giving.)
Doc J, though notes that not much has been done in the name of atheism, which is, in fact, a true and valid distinction. The incidental character of a great contributor’s (or villain’s, for that matter) atheism does not give such atheism total credit for his contribution (or villainy), unless such villainy is declared in the name of stamping out religion… Which by the way is the battle cry of the Religious Whatever-Side-You’re-On. My reply to The Doc’s contention is that atheism, at least as much as I see it, wouldn’t exactly have tenets making people do things in its name… It’ll blow atheism back full-circle and turn it into its own religion (see: a few paragraphs above).
In all of this, Dean tries to keep a level head (and a stedy stream of contributors) by noting that most critics have entire fists up their asses.
So my answer to his questions? I’m parrotting The Chicago Report on this one, although I must add that atheism, in as long as it is feely accepted, allows for a person to go past the limits of what his religion dictates. Does that mean that if I do not believe in the Ten Commandments, I’d kill someone? No.
Eh. Enough of this. More blogging to follow.
3 Comments to Matters of faith, lah di da di dah
Comments to this entry are closed. You can contact me by email, or you can write about it on your blog and link to this post. Pingbacks are always welcome.
Actually, the second point in that response by the Chicago Report — no kingdom to hold you down — has an unseen drawback. During the development of Western liberalism, Christianity’s “kingdom,” in which the lowest peasant and highest king occupy the same station, inspired Christian liberals to argue that if men are in equal in the next world, they should be equal in this one. This great leveling effect of Christianity, which gained steam during the Protestant Reformation, was the prime mover of democratic anti-feudalism, and as Hegel argued, modern democracy is built on a secularized Christian equality.
In general, I think this “atheist” vs. “theist” distinction in the history of ideas is unhelpful. There are theistic liberals and atheist liberals, and theistic autocrats and atheistic autocrats. The reason why it’s so difficult to point out the one great thing atheists have done is that benevolent atheists have participated in a liberal tradition created initially by theists. That makes Dean’s question unfair, but it also highlights why I get infuriated by Western atheists who fail to understand the debt owed to religion in the development of the liberal freedoms they value.
Not to make the discussion descend into a series of potshots, but your last statement tends to back up my contention that there is irrationality in the evangelism of atheism as well. So perhaps they don’t fail in understanding the debt, as they refuse to do so? The power of denial, perhaps?
As a friend of mine pointed out one time: “Religous fundies may be annoying, but fundamental atheists can be… (followed by a shuddering sound)”
In examining the theism of an individual, it is instructive to ask them how they perceive their God. They will delight in informing you of the omnipotent, omniscient status of that God. If you are a religious follower, you can only share their joy by following that God as your informant did.
If you are an Aetheist, you can be that God.
Quod erat demonstratum.