(NOTE: In this post, I am going to fall back on Penn Jillete's differentiation between an atheist and and agnostic as answers to separate questions. "Is there a god?" The logical answers is, "I don't know." In this sense, I am an agnostic. "Do you believe in a god?" "No." In this sense, I am an atheist, since whether or not I say, "No," or "I don't know," I am not in the technical sense a theist, which seems to me to be necessarily someone who answers that question with a "Yes," even if he or she qualifies it with admitting that his ways aren't always understandable, or something to that effect)
Like many atheists, I enjoy watching clips of writers like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins debating priests, rabbis, or other religious leaders. Hitchens, in particular, is so knowledgable of religious texts and the history surrounding each religion's development, especially in the case of the three monotheisms (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), that it's always a thrill to see him use the very words of these texts to show how brutal, bigoted, and frankly ridiculous most of the tenets of faiths are.
And yet, just glancing over this first paragraph, I already sense that anyone reading this, whether they agree or not, would label me a "militant atheist." I find this a bit sad since the real harm the term does isn't in what it says about me, but that it often ends any discussion before one can begin. If I am seen by a person of faith to be a militant atheist, than it's highly unlikely he or she will listen to whatever else I have to say under the assumption that I will merely spew vitriol about their beliefs and that nothing he or she might say can change my mind. There is also a kind of close-minded ignorance implied, as if a militant atheist is so committed to their ideology (as if there were such a thing as an official atheist ideology) that he or she is unable to appreciate the possible good points a religious person might bring up. It's almost the equivalent, in terms of what it does to a conversation and the minds of those conversing, to seeing someone as a militant racist - would you be interested in sitting down to have a discussion with such a person - and even if you were, would you be able to stop for one minute thinking how vile it was that someone could consider people superior or inferior based on something as meaningless as the color of their skin? I know I wouldn't.
Therefore, as I am against much of the totalitarian and society-damaging effects of religion, I find it difficult when confronted by someone of faith of having a fair hearing since the fact that I am an atheist willing to profess my non-belief and disdain for the worst atrocities that have their roots in religion (which is almost all it takes to be considered militant) leads them to a number of conclusions. Among them are that I am equating the most extreme of adherents with the many people of faith who go peacefully about their daily lives and that I am determined to impose my unbelief on them. I haven't even mentioned the fact yet that, simply by being an atheist, many suppose it is impossible to have any set of morals at all or that my non-belief must mean my world view is inherently nihilistic.
I have no intention of rehashing arguments about religion that have been written and argued for centuries by some of the wisest people ever to live, especially as I sincerely have no desire to change your view on the matter (though I admit that I think the world would be better off without it, that doesn't mean I'm willing to impose on someone of faith since that would mean committing one of the crimes I find many religious people guilty of - namely, imposing religious teachings into school curriculum, etc.). What I am interested in is postulating some questions that I don't feel have yet been addressed in the so-called "New Atheism" movement.
Regarding the celebrity atheists out there, I have only read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins and "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. I suspect I'd find "god Is Not Great" to be interesting and informative, but seeing as I already agree with the premise, there seems little point in reading the book (though maybe I will in the future). The time seems better spent reading something like the Book of Mormon or the Koran to better understand what the other side is talking about.
However, (and correct me if I'm wrong and such a book does exist) I've been a little disappointed that most of the major atheist books focus primarily on using scientific evidence to debunk the assertions of holy books (such as that the world was created only 6,000 years ago) or on pointing on the most outlandish aspects of said books. Now, that isn't to say I don't think it's important to have some scientific understanding of the world or be willing to point out what religious texts actually say even if its uncomfortable (such as the many genocidal acts in the Bible), but I wonder how successful such an approach is in the long run. Speaking for myself, my gradual move from being a teenager who fervently believed in the teachings of Catholocism, was an alter boy, and who seriously thought at times about becoming a priest was the result of many events and researching other religions and, of course, atheism. In the end, I found that to live my life meaningfully, morally, and happily didn't require me to think that I'd go to Hell if I didn't pray the rosary every night (which I did for many, many years, often going to sleep terrified that I'd somehow slipped up and only prayed the Hail Mary forty-nine times instead of fifty and would be duly punished) or that I needed God's directions to tell me what was moral or not in the first place, it became gradually apparent that holding onto my faith was equivalent to keeping my training wheels after I'd already learned how to ride a bike without them.
What I'd like to see, then, is a book that discusses theism and atheism from a more personal, emotional perspective - one geared toward the millions, if not billions, of people who would say all this talk about terrorist attacks and genocide is irrelevant to them because their faith is something they rely on simply to live a good life. Why do they believe? I doubt it's because every one of them has concluded the science is in their favor. A more interesting question would be why faith is a virtue at all, while using scientific facts is seen at minimum as irrelevant and at worst disrespectful or even militant. Another question I'd like to see explored more is why people feel they need a faith at all, or what they fear would happen if they were to abandon it, seeing as I highly doubt most people would instantly go out murdering by the dozens if they suddenly decided there was such person as Moses, with his two tablets (although I did once meet someone who did say that, if the Ten Commandments didn't say murder was wrong, he would see no problem in murdering anyone who disagreed with him). And finally, speaking as someone who believes that stories and literature reflect what's most human about us, I'd like to see arguments about if or how the emotions we experience when we read something we truly love might be related to the emotions we experience reading compelling sections of the Bible, or the Koran, or the Talmud, etc. I don't mean to sound facetious at all when I say that I truly believe one could give an articulate sermon on the importance of friendship, of realizing that we can sometimes help others even if we can't fully take on their burden, and of more generally not letting our inability to appreciate pain someone else is undergoing prevent us from doing what we can for him or her by citing the scene in "The Return of the King" where Sam carries Frodo, who is weighed down by the Ring, on his back, since he cannot carry the Ring itself. Of course, you could also talk about Simon of Cyrene, during the fifth station of the cross, assisting Jesus on his way to Golgatha, but I wonder if the same points could not be made.
Anyway, this is an enormous topic I can't hope by to simply begin discussing in a single post, so I'll wrap up by saying that I would be interested (assuming one doesn't exist) in such a book that looked at the personal life of a moderate believer rather than marshelling scientific facts or pointing out destructive acts in holy texts as a way to push the conversation further and also help phase out the useless term "militant atheist."
As always, feel free to comment or generate a discussion,
-Matt
P.S. I hesitate to admit that I almost didn't write this post at all because simply admitting you are an atheist is seen by many as awful in itself. I'm sure that if certain people I know read this, they will be horribly disappointed and even worried about me (and my soul). But, within reason, I don't like to do or not do things simply due to fear, so rather than stay quiet, I intend to use this blog to do precisely what it was meant to do - act as a platform for me to present my ideas to anyone who is interested and reflect what I am genuinely thinking and feeling at a particular point in my life. My non-belief may anger some, but just I am free to believe what I want, they are free to be upset or agree with me. And frankly, I wouldn't want it any other way.
I'm glad you decided to write this post Matt. I was surprised to learn that you and I had somewhat similar paths to atheism. I too was a devout and practicing Catholic. I too remember going to bed afraid for my soul, knowing God's sort of Big Brotherish eye saw every sin I committed. I too tend to hide my nonbelief (including from my own mother) for the same antagonistic and polarized environment you mentioned. That's why I'm a little conflicted when I'm confronted with the works of Richard Dawkins and others. _The God Delusion_ and most other recent atheist books seem to be written more for readers, like us, who have already abandoned their faith. The titles and content of the books I think entice very little healthy discussion between believers and non-believers.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to say I don't know of any particular published book like the one you've described. I wonder though, have you read any of the works by Joseph Campbell, the semi-famous authority on comparative mythology? I know most of his research and writings are a few decades old, and you wouldn't exactly find complete answers to these very specific questions you have, but he does lay out something called the four functions of religious belief to try to explain why religions persistently surface throughout human history. One of the functions of course has its foundation in human emotion. Like us, Campbell also grew up a devoted Catholic kid and eventually rejected his faith. Unlike Dawkins and Hitchens though, Campbell became a student of all the world's mythologies, their rituals and narratives, eventually coming to some pretty illuminating conclusions that are not nearly as "militant." His most famous work is _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_, but there's a less academic and more accessible read titled _Thou Art That_ that is pretty comprehensive.