Is this the dawning of the age of Atheism?

Hi Michael
Thanks for dropping by my blog.

I am not sure that we are facing a new age of atheism. I believe that for several reasons.

1. On a global scale atheism is not a position espoused by the majority of the 6 billion or so people currently alive. At present the best gathered data on religious adherents worldwide is substantially greater than those with no religious beliefs at all. The largest number of atheists are found in Europe, while the continent of Africa is largely divided up between Islam and Christianity and some primal faiths, East Asia continues to have flourishing Buddhist movements, Hindu movements, as well as a bewildering variety of new religious movements. Latin America has an enormous number of people who nominally or truly affiliate with Christianity, and alongside the Church there one also finds many new religions.

2. In Europe, North America, Britain, New Zealand and Australia there are strong trends of disaffiliation from the institutions of Christianity. And as noted above quite a few atheists abound in Europe. However it is also the case that in Europe Islam is growing in France and Germany, and if growth rates continue by 2050 Islam will be numerically the largest religion in Germany. Beyond the growth of Islam, there are various new religious movements and the growth of do-it-yourself and alternative spiritualities (new age, neo-pagan, neo-Buddhist etc).

3. The apparent resurgence of atheism as witnessed in various books like Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc can be understood in a number of ways. One is to recognise that in the processes of globalisation there are centripetal and centrifugal trends occurring simultaneously with global identities vs local/tribal identities (e.g. blood and soil disputes in Serbia, Solomon Islands etc). In the midst of those forces of cultural change one strident ereaction is a re-assertion of older orthodox beliefs/ideas but now expressed narrowly and in reactionary terms. Hence fundamentalism as a mindset is evident in Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism etc. Alongside the fundamenatlist expressions are less strident views that seek to hold to faith (which ever one you find) while negotiating a place in the cultural changes without reverting to negative or obstinate ways.

The idea of fundamentalism as a mindset is something that is found beyond religion, and dare Is usggest that the wave of dissent as found in the books by Hitchens and Dawkins is a kind of reversion to a strident, fundamentalist like “take no prisoners” attitude in attacking and debunking religious beliefs.

4. The reaction found in Dawkins’ arguments point to complete alienation from and utter disenchantment with the modern world and Christian institutions. There are quite a few texts around describing the modern world as disenchanted and how some seek to re-enchant it religiously (while others remaining disenchanted seek to discredit older institutions like the church).

5. A noticeable division has emerged among atheists and the Dawkins approach is now termed “new atheism”. Unlike its rival classical atheism, the new atheism seeks to aggressively storm the ramparts in arguments and dissent. The dissent is not merely to reject religious beliefs but to go on the offensive to oppose religion altogether in the public square. In effect seek the banishment if not annihiliation of religious stories and beliefs by a dogmatic argument and strident stratagems of protest. So there is a good deal of difference between the courteously argued atheism of Sir Alfred Ayer and the new atheist stance of Dawkins.

6. The emergence of the new atheism fits into the globalisation processes as atheists become more intimately exposed in Europe and North America to religious diversity. It is also goaded somewhat by previously marginalised religious fundamentalists reasserting their views in the public square (like the Moral Majority in the USA in the 1980s). So a kind of cultural clash occurs and this is between polar opposites. If you wish Dawkins becomes the very mirror image of the kind of fanatic he dislikes in religion.

7. Dawkins holds that fundamentalism represents true religion and he has no time for religious people who for example believe in God/gods while simultaneously saying they feel science is compatible with faith. So one should not be surprised that Dawkins’ examples of religious types tend to be of fanatics, extremists, anti-intellectuals etc.

While I agree that Christians should be well acquainted with the gambits of Dawkins’ arguments and be willing to acknowledge points that should be conceded to him, as well as challenging his interpretations where they are in error, represent caricatures, fudge evidence and so on.

Meanwhile, keep your eye on the ball with people who are quitely gravitating to neo-pagan spiritualities in Canada, and to do-it-yourself religiosity. Those represent greater missional, apologetic, theological and demographic challenges to the crumbling institutions of the Church today.
In effect Canada and the West is the mission field (much as Africa was regarded in the 19th century).

***note: I am in the process of switching from Blogger to WordPress. The following exchange was taking place at Blogger***
Andy said…
Hey Mike,
I just picked up this book although I haven’t read it yet. I’m a big fan of Dawkin’s work with the BBC. If you haven’t already you should look for “The Blind Watchmaker” on Google Video.
The one argument you make about Dawkin’s position is that atheists like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong have done their share to damage to humanity. Not defending these men at all I would like to point out that none of their actions were perpetrated in the name of atheism.
I wouldn’t even consider these men to be true atheists in the conventional sense of the word. A-Christian and A-Muslim certainly, but all of them seemed to believe in a high power of some sort.
It doesn’t end up being a very pro religion argument saying “they are just as bad as us”. To me that suggests that I can save a couple hours a week, avoid prayer and be no worse off.
May 23, 2007 7:28 AM
Michael Krahn said…
Hey Andy,
I’ll check out “The Blind Watchmaker”. Thanks.
Using Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong as examples of ‘Atheism gone bad’ was, in my mind, analogous to people naming someone like David Koresh as an example of ‘Christianity gone bad’.
As you quickly pointed out, these men were not pure Atheists but nonetheless their actions are often attributed to their atheism. I would claim the same for someone like Koresh.
So my argument was not “they are just as bad as us” but rather that the association is misplaced in both cases. I certainly don’t consider Koresh one of ‘us’ just as you don’t consider them one of ‘you’.
May 23, 2007 9:41 AM
Andy said…
I would like to see any information you have that links the actions of the above mentioned men to atheist beliefs specifically. I’ve never heard this claim before.
I understand the point you are trying to make. I just think your example needs to be fleshed out a bit.
Koresh committed crimes in the name of the Christian God. Hitler never invoked any widely held atheist convention to justify his actions.
May 23, 2007 8:48 PM

Andy,

I guess that’s part of the problem with answering – what are Atheist’s beliefs specifically? Is there an Atheist’s Creed? I’m guessing not. But that’s part of what I want to learn by reading this book and discussing it with you: what do Atheists believe?

Maybe by the time I finish the book I’ll be able to answer.

Back to my hypothesis, I believe men like Koresh simply pragmatists and use whatever they can to get what they want. If Atheism was the dominant societal belief system he would have perverted it for his own gain.

BTW – I’m assuming you are Andy, as in “my former neighbour Andy”. Am I correct?

I think asking about Atheist beliefs is going to be non-profitable. Qua atheists, I mean, otherwise we’d have to go about asking whether they really believe their neighbourhood bookshop is better than another, or whether they really believe that their Aunt Maud once ran away with the local pharmacist.

It’s a little like asking (here we go with the stamp collectors again) what sort of stamps are collected by people who do not collect stamps. There isn’t an “atheist” creed–we don’t have rules or personalities or anything else that we’ve decided on, a priori. I doubt very much that a collection of atheists would agree on anything except questions of religious faith (all in disagreement say ‘aye’!), after which conversation would stall. There’s not much “there” there, in the sense you mean.

Dawkins et. al. haven’t told atheists anything profoundly new. They’ve just made it okay to say it out loud, that’s all. I can’t tell you how profoundly relieving this is: yesterday a Jehovah’s Witness came round, with the inevitable literature, and I was able, for the first time ever, to say “No thank you, I’m an atheist” as opposed to my fall-back “Would you excuse me? The phone is ringing and the water is overflowing in the bathtub and oh my goodness is that the time I’ve got to see a man about a dog.”

However, as someone else pointed out, apparently most people are religious, so we atheists have lived with the religious one way or another for a long time. Our survival mechanisms are well-honed, as are our capacities for simultaneous silent compliance and horrified mental rejection.

What I think is new is that the religious aren’t used to this many people saying in this many ways how uncomfortable they have been, and for how long. Or making religious people accountable for Jerry Falwell (who surely was no one’s fault but his own–in one sense) on the not unreasonable understanding that if Christians had wanted us to have a better opinion of them, they should have been right out there alongside the rest of us speaking out from their pulpits and their computers and their newspapers against his extreme and loathsome prejudices. (For example.) I’m not sure that this is entirely fair, but it is pertinent.

N,

You’re absolutely right! Dawkins may not be the equivalent to the atheist pope but he (and others) have made “I’m a atheist” a comfortable social identifier.

Mike,

How would Koresh use atheism to do the things he did? I guess where I think you’re wrong with your argument is in the way you seem to identify atheism as another type of religion. I believe atheism to be the complete absence of religion. Atheists do not congregate or hold any one set of ideas as infallible. That’s why it would be so hard to hang any acts of extremism on atheist beliefs specifically.

Dawkins is the closest thing there is to a atheist extremist. He’s only extreme in his belief that the world wide abolition of religion would be a good thing. The most extreme atheist act I commit on a regular basis is that I keep my eyes open while my father-in-law says grace at the dinner table (I also encourage my 4 year old daughter to do the same).

If you are looking for answers on what it means to be atheist I think you’re reading the wrong book. The fact is I couldn’t point you to the “right” book, I don’t think there is one. For me becoming an atheist wasn’t about reading or studying.

And yes I am that Andy.

Andy wrote:

>

Maybe for Hitler, but I don’t see how Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot might believe in any “higher power” as the doctrine they spoused was rooted in materialism and atheism. Their actions against religious institutions and people stemmed from their conviction that religion was the opium of the people and thus should be eradicated for the safe of humankind. If their crimes were not “perpetrated in the name of atheism” then I don’t know what motivated them. And please don’t tell us Marxism is just another religion; words must keep their meaning: religion is about transcendance while atheism is the rejection of the deity concept. Atheists would’ve a better case accepting that some folks on their side were bad guys, just like some on ours were, at least they want to keep with apologetics.

FUNDAMENTAL (oops) MISTAKE

Atheists do not have any “beliefs” in the religious sense, at all.
That is why they are atheists.
Have you not got past that simple point yet?

Going to the Stalin/communist/atheist trope, you must remember that “Marxism” is a classic religion, down to the RC-type of power structure, the holy book(s) – (The works of Marx, and whichever sub-prophet the particular communist sect is following: Stalin/Trotsky/Mao/etc.)
And that the sects war as much as christian or muslim ones.

I suggest you re-start the argument, with assumptions that have been checked more thoroughly.

N wrote: “Dawkins et. al. haven’t told atheists anything profoundly new. They’ve just made it okay to say it out loud, that’s all. [SNIP] However, as someone else pointed out, apparently most people are religious, so we atheists have lived with the religious one way or another for a long time. Our survival mechanisms are well-honed, as are our capacities for simultaneous silent compliance and horrified mental rejection.”

I’ve been known to describe atheists as closeted and uncloseted in the same sense people refer to closeted and uncloseted gays. A very good friend of mine–out of the closet and with his partner for fifteen years–disagreed with the term until I explained my reasoning, and then he agreed that, yes, atheists deserve the same terminology.

I don’t think someone becomes an atheist, much as someone doesn’t become gay. They just are atheists, just as my friend was always gay. But atheists live part of their lives in some sense closeted, pretending to do the religious thing, going through the motions. I went through the motions of going to church, singing in the choir, but I felt nothing–these were things I did, but they were things without meaning for me. And then, in high school, I had a moment where I came out of the closet, stated that god did not exist and I did not believe.

Have there been times in the past fifteen years where I’ve been uncomfortable using “atheist” as a social identifer? Sure. A few moments in college. Some relationships where it became an issue. The immediate aftermath of 9-11 when everyone and their mother said “God bless America” on a regular basis. Pretty much anytime the President opens his mouth and invokes god. Atheists don’t have a positive image in American society, unfortunately, as surveys have documented for a number of years.

If Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens have done anything but their recent books, it’s to raise the profile of atheism and get people talking about it, or at least thinking about it, and hopefully change some of the negative connotations associated with atheism. These writers are taking a storm-the-barricades approach. Then there’s the movement to call non-theists “brights,” to replace the word atheism with something with a positive connotation.

Michael wrote: “What are Atheist’s beliefs specifically? Is there an Atheist’s Creed? I’m guessing not. But that’s part of what I want to learn by reading this book and discussing it with you: what do Atheists believe?”

There’s not a belief, per se. God doesn’t exist. That’s not a belief or a creed. I guess it’s more of a philosophical stance than anything. It’s a statement about the universe. Beyond that, it’s really an individual thing.

Speaking for myself, I’m a nihilist. There’s no meaning to life, we come from nothing and go to nothing.

“I didn’t expect Dawkins to introduce this tactic quite so early. If we’re looking for extreme cases, I can site examples like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong as atheists who did their share of damage to humanity.”

You’re right, it is a common argument, ‘people kill in the name of their religion.’ However the response is even more tired. Firstly I don’t believe that every person that declares they acted in the name of God truly did so. Most atheists would agree. But to respond with “Stalin and Hitler were atheists and they caused damage to humanity” makes no sense. This is for two reasons.

It’s not important what their belief system was, it’s important, (for this argument at least) to understand what motivated them to cause such suffering. I think Dawkins made the following point in The God Delusion, sorry if I’m mistaken; Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches. Can we conclude therefore that people with mustaches are evil? Here’s the difference, religion is often the motivating factor for people to kill or cause damage, atheism is not.

Furthermore, to try and excuse the damage that Christianity or ‘religion’ has caused by pointing the finger at someone else just doesn’t work for me. It’s not logical. “Person A killed hundreds of people.” The natural response to that is “Person A is evil, terrible, mad, crazy, horrible etc etc”. It is not “Well sure, but person B did all those things too”.

It’s also not just about death caused directly by religion. Atheists are often accused of looking into history to find horrors that Christianity caused. We really don’t need to. Christianity and and religion is responsible for all sorts of suffering this very day. I’m not sure what your exact beliefs are but right now, millions of people are dying because the Vatican has made the decision that condoms are evil in some way. There are children world wide being educated in beliefs that are nothing more than mythology, especially when it comes to the issue of ID. What next Intelligent Falling? I think we’re already there!

Theists, especially those that take scripture literally, are stifling the human race. That’s the real crime. We are adventurers, seekers of knowledge, a species that wants to discover. How can that be reconciled with the idea that The Bible is the only one true word of God? That The Bible answers all of our questions? We find new evidence, we develop new theories and are told that these theories deviate from what Genesis says so we are evil in some way.
“My point is this: any idea with currency, including religion and Atheism, will be exploited until it is no longer useful. When we see someone do something in the name of a particular religion, too often the religion in whose name the person acts is only a means to an end – that end usually being financial gain.”
Again, I have to agree with you. The issue of Northern Ireland in the late 1980′s is a good example of this. Was it really a religious issue or was it more about money? Well, that’s something we can debate forever but your point stands, yes, people use religion as an excuse. Jerry Falwell is a good example.

But how common is this? I’d venture to say that anyone who gives their life in the name of faith is not doing it for the money. I’d venture to say that anyone that discriminates against homosexuals on the basis of their ‘book’ is not doing so for money.

It sounds to me (and I haven’t read much on your blog, I will do, I like it a lot) that you’re probably a very liberal believer. Someone who hasn’t experienced the kind of hostility that many of us atheists have done. Perhaps you haven’t been looking at the world from our perspective. Open up the paper in any given week, look at CNN, how much of the evil that is happening today would still be happening if there was no religion? How much of the injustice that we see would still happen if there was no religion?

I don’t mean to belittle you in any way at all, I respect your opinions. All I would say is that it’s very easy to dismiss what we see as being something on the fringes. Dawkins makes this point in TGD. (Again, I think he does) He states that many Christians have good hearts. Deep down they don’t mean to cause any harm but they’re isolated from the real world. I hate this following term because it’s a bit loaded, but for want of a better phrase, it’s the ‘rose colored spectacle’ syndrome. Do you really look at religion and it’s effect on the world objectively? I made a recent point on my blog that it’s very difficult to really see the harm that religion causes when you yourself believe with all your heart that God’s people are good, that religion is the answer.

I don’t think anyone can dispute that religion can do good. I would not dispute that The Bible offers some wonderful passages and teaches morality.

But here’s a question for you. Let’s say we got together, just us, in a room and we were starting a new civilization and we had to write down some rules, something that gave people an idea as to how they should act, a moral code if you will. What would it look like?

I’d imagine something like this:

1. You shall never kill under any circumstance. That includes going to war.
2. You will respect everyone.
3. You will never make anyone feel bad about themselves
4. You will love everyone as if they were your mother.
5. You must accept that you can be wrong.

Just think, what if every religion today was scrapped. Completely thrown to one side and everyone lived by those 5 rules. God was known to be a delusion. Do you think we would have the problems that we do today with Islam, with stem cell research, with the Middle East, with Iran, with Sub Saharan Africa?
Religion is not the cause of all suffering and misery, just a lot of it.

Killing in the name of…

What do the radical followers of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Torquemada, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all have in common? A radical devotion to a faith-based worldview and an utter rejection of critical thought and free inquiry.

Religion is just one symptom of an underlying problem, that is, belief based on faith instead of reason. Radical secular philosophy may be just as harmful, even though its prophets do not invoke gods or promise any posthumous reward.

You can’t slaughter uncounted numbers, of your own countrymen, without them believing that you somehow know better than them, or that what you say is the truth – when its not.

They have to have faith in you.
Belief against the evidence of your psycopathy.

They cannot see you as they see themselves. If they did, they overthrow you, or kill you.

“Oh, he slaughtered *those* people because they wore pink yesterday. Wearing pink is a horrid crime.”

Michael –

Actually, Dawkins himself addresses your “but Stalin and Hitler were atheists!” concern in the very same book. In a nutshell, it goes like this: first, nobody’s quite sure if Hitler was actually an atheist or not. He grew up in an extremely Catholic environment, and in personal correspondence, he would occasionally reference God and/or Jesus. In fact, he considered Jesus (as I imagine you do) to be the absolute paragon of humanity. Stalin was quite clearly an atheist.

The crux of the matter is, however, that atheism (or theism) has nothing to do with good or evil. There are good and evil atheists, just the same as there are good and evil theists. Theists seem both more good and evil because there are lots more of them (even accounting for the fact that not all theists truly believe in all religious trappings, e.g., “cafeteria-style” Christians). There are lots of good men and women who are atheists too; most of the founding fathers were at least deists, if not atheists altogether (also covered in Dawkins’ book).

Mike, I appreciate your introducing the dialogue.
Phil, great thoughts…thank you.

Alister McGrath, the British scholar, has written a couple of books in response to Dawkins’ ideas. McGrath is an Evangelical Christian and recently spoke alongside Dawkins at an event at Oxford where the two are both professors.

McGrath’s website includes among other things links to MP3s of the event in which they interacted and some recent lecture notes related to Dawkins’ ideas.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/lectures.html

Thanks for the invite to come here and enjoy the discussion. I was waiting for someone to point out to you that Hitler was at best ambiguous in his belief system, as happened. The larger point is that none of the tyrants you name acted based on atheism. Mao? He was benign in intent and disastrous in result. He hardly fits on the same page with Stalin, who was the ultimate Machiavellian, but hardly anything new. He could have easily been an Orthodox Christian, and nothing about him would have changed. His atheism is a moot point.

You read my piece on religion – I was raised religious, attended Catholic schools. If Dawkins is correct, there was only a 1/12 chance that I would reject my youthful indoctrination. (My wife was raised and indoctrinated Episcopalian – she too rejected. By my calculations, the odds of us meeting were 1 in 144.)

My overarching point, which transcends everything discussed here, is that you of a religious bent should stop indoctrinating kids. Let them be, let them come to you on their own if what you offer is so precious. I suspect the motivating factor here in Sunday Schools and Catholic Schools and home schooling is exactly that fear – you must know that if you don’t get ‘em when they’re young, you won’t get ‘em at all.

I am yet to meet someone religious who, when pressed on the issue, does not claim as you do to have questioned your beliefs and arrived at your position via an independent route. But I suggest you look at things on face value – the vast majority of people in Muslim countries follow the Muslim faith, the vast majority of Americans follow the Christian faith. If people were acting independently, would there not be some mixture of faiths more than we see? They are merely following their parents.

You seem to fear atheists as if we embody something evil. I attend a local ‘church’ made up of agnostics and atheists. These are the finest people I have ever met – if our administration in Washington were comprised of people of a like bent, the whole world, and not just the US, would be a better, safer, and saner place.

Hey Mark (and all others)

Some of you missed my point and made my point while missing it. You probably missed my point because I was unclear – apologies for that.

Regarding who’s done what in the name of whatever my point is that you disown the men I listed as Atheists and I disown the others I listed as Christians. I’m saying that clearly on either side of the equation certain individuals have done things in the name of one side or the other that don’t reflect what the majority on either side thinks of as normal or acceptable.

Let’s look at it this way: you consider yourself a “true Atheist” and when I mentioned those names your reaction was “I don’t think so pal! Those guys were not ‘true Atheists’ – if they were even Atheists at all!” I consider myself a “true Christian” and when you mention people like David Koresh as evidence against Christianity my reaction is “I don’t think so pal! That guy was not a ‘true Christian’ – if he was even a Christian at all!” Now of course we both sound a little arrogant saying “we are” and “they are not” but really that’s what we’re doing. Agree?

And no, I’m not afraid of you. Why would I invite you here to challenge me and discuss these ideas if I was? And I haven’t thought yet of any one of you as ‘evil’, in fact I emailed one of you privately to say that my favorite thing about Atheists so far is the excellent writing and well-reasoned responses I’ve been getting.

So keep it up – I’m enjoying the journey!

OK – I tend to think that if religion were removed form the world, people would think of some other reason to fight. The basis for most warfare is economics – fighting over scarce resources as populations increase. Here religion is a factor – anti-abortion and birth control activists want more and more people seeking the same resources. The Catholic Church here is the very worst. In that sense, religion is a large part of the problem.

I stand by my statement that you seem to think that atheists and agnostics embody something evil. I take with from your conspiratorial tone – that we are up to something, that there is a movement afoot to displace religion. If only. The reason why we are atheistic and agnostic goes more to freethinking than association. We aren’t organized, never will be. You’re safe.

Hey Mark,

“I take with from your conspiratorial tone”? If there is one it is unintentional. Please site examples of where you think this is the case in what I’ve written.

I understand the non-organizational nature of Atheism – the non-Dawkins variety anyway. I am coming into this to learn more than I am to teach. Essentially, I am challenging myself to making an even deeper critcal evaluation of my faith. You are helping me to do that and hopefully in some way I will help you.

“Come, let us reason.”

You said “Why am I reading this book? Well, I sense that more people than ever are going beyond ceasing to believe in God and are openly proclaiming that they believe there is no God. This is something new as a mass phenomenon and so, as a Christian, I expect to meet more people in the coming years who claim Atheism as their belief of choice. I want to be ready for that conversation.

I took that to mean that you thought there was some sort of movement afoot to promote atheism. Dare we speak out? WHy do you need to be ready? What do you fear?

And please address the subject of indoctrination of youth. You’ve avoided it thus far.

Michael,

Some of the people you mention clearly were atheists, so I find it hard to believe that anyone calling themselves an atheist here would “disown” them, i.e., say they are not “true atheists.” Hitler was in fact ambiguous, so I’m willing to go either way on that question given better evidence (unlikely to be forthcoming.) A “true atheist” is someone who does not believe in a deity, period. There are certainly closest atheists, out atheists, atheists who keep to themselves, and atheist activists— but they are all atheists. There is no “Church of Dawkins,” and there is no “Dawkins dogma.” There are no breakaway factions that believe that only they have the “one true atheism.”

What constitutes a “true Christian” is, I think much more ambiguous and therefore it makes it much easier for Christians to disown others who call themselves Christians. There are thousands of sects and splinter groups calling themselves “Christian,” and many of them go so far as to claim they are the only “true Christians—” essentially damning all the others in the process. This scenario applied to atheists is, frankly, laughable.

Now, that said, atheists hold many world views in addition to atheism. As I have written elsewhere on my own blog, atheism is not a moral framework: it is simply a response to the proposition: “a god (or gods) exists.” Where one goes after that is up to the individual. Perhaps the predominant “life stance” held by considered atheists is Humanism. It is also possible for a Christian to be a Humanist. The key element of Humanism is a respect for life as we find it, and ourselves in it, in the here-and-now. Since atheists generally think the probability of an afterlife is quite low, they naturally look to the here-and-now for whatever satisfaction may be found. On the other hand, several major religions including Christianity and Islam generally believe that sacrifice of the here-and-now (up to and including imposing that sacrifice on others) is in some sense essential to gaining a much greater reward in the afterlife— that this life is, in some sense, an audition for a life to come.

I believe this fundamental tension between a focus on creating a better life now vs. sacrificing one’s life for a Kingdom of Heaven is one of the roots of our “culture wars,” and while it manifests perhaps most dramatically in the willingness of some people to turn themselves into human bombs, it also manifests in many more subtle ways across the religious, cultural, and political landscape.

So to sum up: I would argue that whether a person is a Christian or an atheist has no bearing on whether or not they are a “good person.” It is, rather, how much they (implicitly or explicitly) adopt a humanistic stance that determines that.

Mark

In my post I never disowned anyone, you missed the point completely. Once again, the issue is not what faith or belief system one has, it’s ‘what motivates those people to commit evil acts’. Hitler and Stalin did not commit evil acts because they were atheists.

Mark,

“A movement afoot to promote Atheism”? Well, there actually is one right now, isn’t there? But that’s not what I was thinking of when I wrote that.

To me it is a disappointing development in the same way as it would be disappointing for you to see a sudden upsurge in people becoming Christians. Much of my disappointment is caused by the fact that so many people are giving up their faith because they have had bad experiences with Christians and religious institutions. I think this is a valid cause for giving up.

Again Mark: I’m not writing out of fear. I’m just a naturally intellectually curious person who enjoys learning and looking at social trends. I thought this was a good time to explore Atheism since I never had before.

A couple of years ago I read nothing but media theory books for a while, then I read nothing but Catholic theology and history books, before that I read about writing and songwriting.

Regarding childhood indoctrination… I think I will make a post out of it. I’m still rolling some ideas around.

I do all this between a full-time job, time with my wife and 3 kids, playing ball, etc so I don’t always get as much writing done as I’d like.

I look forward to your post on childhood indoctrination. It’s one of the more salient points that Dawkins makes.

I think he goes overboard in criticizing the religious tendency in humans – he seems a little despondent about the human tendency to follow without question. It has led to so much evil. I too want to disown this aspect of my fellow humans.

But religion is, as is acquisitiveness and fear and benevolence … all part of our complex character. On indoctrination he makes a point that sticks – if you truly believe in individual freedom, then you stay out of a child’s head. You don’t abuse the power you have over it.

Mark Tokarski,

Although I’ve read through the entire comment thread, I’m only picking on your last comment.

Mark, do you have children? Do you propose to raise them in a vacuum? Your concept of ‘staying outside a child’s head’ is absolutely ludicrous. Even Chris Hitchens’ view of morality takes into account the necessity of absorbing morals from others, albeit society at large for him. From whom would I rather my son and daughter absorb morals? I trust you can see why I am leaving this question as a hypothetical.

One more comment from my vantage point as a high school English instructor. You are free to choose to call it ‘indoctrination’ or ‘teaching.’ Each word carries baggage; one is viewed more nobly than the other. And in the end, I will gladly be found guilty of teaching (or indoctrinating) them in *something* rather than nothing at all – “staying out.” You will one day find out, I hope, that children want to be taught.

The truth of the matter that the consciousness of dreadfully sane western man has been totally embedded in an entirely reductionist “world”-view for over two centuries. This was the significance of Nietzsche’s famous “god is dead” statement.

We now live in a world and “culture” created entirely in the image of the world dominant ideology/religion of scientific materialism.

What is usually promoted as “religion” is more often than not, little more than the half-baked, dim-witted remnants/relics of ancient nationalistic, tribal and ethnic cultism, created in the childhood of man.

And if you read the subtext of the “news” you will find that the two entirely worldly and would be world conquering POLITICAL religions of Christianity and Islam, each with their obnoxious claims on the totality of humankind, via their only one “truth/way/revelation” heresies are both gearing up for the final “showdown”. Which when/if it occurs will be so unspeakably dreadful that Humankind will most lilkely be destroyed.

These references provide some insight into the origins & consequences of this state of affairs.

1. http://www.dabase.org/ilchurst.htm
2. http://www.dabase.org/coop+tol.htm
3. http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
4. http://www.dabase.org/christmc2.htm
5. http://www.aboutadidam.org/newsletters/toc-february2004.html

I should start by saying that I’m not that familiar with Atheism. Of course I’ve met many people who have no specific belief in God, but not many who believed specifically that there is no God.

Atheism is not a strong belief that your God does not exist, but a lack of belief that he does. Kids aren’t born believing in God, they need to have it taught to them. Atheism is the state that existed before they were taught to believe in something without evidence.

Try this word substitution and you might see why your statement misses the mark:

I should start by saying that I’m not that familiar with Atheism. Of course I’ve met many people who have no specific belief in Vishnu, but not many who believed specifically that there is no Vishnu.

Now I’m going to bet that you don’t espouse a specific belief in Vishnu, but that you don’t hold a specific belief that there is no Vishnu. Guess what? You’re an atheist with regard to Vishnu, not a “Vishnu agnostic.” And I’d be willing to further bet that you don’t have “proof that Vishnu doesn’t exist,” to use another common argument against atheism.

OK, I’m coming a little late to the party, but hopefully there’ll be enough chips and beer left…I should also preface this by saying that it’s been a few months since I last read The God Delusion, so sorry if I can’t be point-for-point accurate.

Michael – in reference to your original post, Dawkins has an interesting theory about religion being a ‘virus of the mind’, which goes back to his earlier theories of memetics. The point is that children’s mind’s are more impressionable – they have to be, since the human lifespan doesn’t allow for too much trial-by-error, and so for the early years of our life we are programmed to accept everything our parents tell us. The power that adults then have over children has to be respected, and we have to acknowledge that a child’s brain cannot handle complex theological reasoning and so a certain amount of indoctrination must have taken place and after that, it’s harder to abandon religion because it’s been programmed into, essentially – a version of Stockholm Syndrom, I suppose.

And I’m impressed that you’re actually taking the time to explore atheism rather than condemn it outright. There are no hard and fast rules about atheism, it’s just a case of not believing in any gods.

you disown the men I listed as Atheists – it’s not a case of ‘disowning’ them as it is that, certainly in Hitler’s case, there is documented evidence to prove that he did believe in God.

It was only a matter of time before an attempt at shutting down meaningful debate about religion, atheism, belief and God would appear on this blog – as it does on every other internet site touching these issues. Mr X has introduced the standard and illogical rejoinder beloved by a younger, and less intellectually rigorous, generation of “intenet infidels”.

He intones the familiar party line of this new “weak atheism”:

“Atheism is not a strong belief that your God does not exist, but a lack of belief that he does.”

Quite frankly, one’s personal “lack of belief” in something is neither here nor there, and is certainly not a basis for any worldview, philosophy, moral code, or system of meaning – theistic or non-theistic! Nor is it a basis for discussing the validity of existing beliefs. No sane person loses sleep or gets worked up over things in which he supposedly “lacks belief”…Except “weak atheists”, of course!

Mr X, as a self-proclaimed weak atheist (though looking suspiciously like an orthodox agnostic), is sufficiently worked up enough to seek out this little blog in the vast universe of cyberspace; yet he really needs to offer an alternative and superior basis for making sense of the world and deriving meaning from his existence, instead of jousting at religious windmills liked some atheist Don Quixote.

The question that needs to be asked here is whether in fact “weak atheism”as a philosophical or intellectual position actually exists as anything other than a debating ploy?

X is very likely someone who has strong beliefs about God and if pressed will probably admit that he has a profound animus towards God and religion. He is thus a strong atheist hiding behind the rhetorical flourish of weak atheism in order to hobble his debating opponents.

For let it be said that “lack of belief” cannot be the basis of his own worldview. Only the dead completely “lack beliefs”; I assume Mr X is very much alive and thus is as much prone to believing in things which he cannot “scientifically prove” as every other human being who has ever lived.

Here is just one unprovable and illogical belief he operates with:

“Atheism is the state that existed before they [children] were taught to believe in something without evidence.”

Notice that this achieved by an etymological sleight of hand, reducing the classic definition of atheism into a vague “state of lacking” and upon this premise building a self-serving set of conclusions designed to shutdown debate. Thus what usually follows on from this is a series of endless exchanges about the “true meaning of atheism” something along the lines of that wonderful incident in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master – that’s all.

And of course it also depends on what you mean by “evidence”, doesn’t it!?

tertius,

You are missing the fact that language is complex and messy, and that words often have more than one usage. “Atheism” has two distinct usages: “lack of a belief in a god” and “belief that no god exists.” These are distinct philosophical stances, and it is helpful to distinguish them. The terms I have seen used to distinguish them, “weak atheist” and “strong atheist” respectively, are useful. Myself, I am a “weak atheist” with respect to some peoples’ way of thinking about God, and a “strong atheist” with respect to others, and I see neither contradiction nor obscurantism in this stance. And while I shy away from tagging children as “atheists” just as I would shy away from tagging them as “illiterate”, both of those adjectives are technically correct for some of their common usages. The people who wish to call children “atheists” are usually just trying to make the point that children are, in fact, not born with particular god-beliefs, but rather those beliefs are taught to them as fact by whoever raises them. In such discussions, I think it would be better if you focus on the actual point being made rather than the rhetorical tactics used to make it.

I think my own personal shift from “agnostic” to “atheist” illustrates a bit of what is going on.
When I was younger I called myself Agnostic, using the arguement that one could never be SURE about the existence and nature of god. I also think I choose to say agnostic because “atheist” was and still is a dirty word to the majority of Americans. It’s certainly safer to say “agnostic” when asked. Of coarse reason and maturity led me to start calling myself an “atheist”. I don’t believe in the existance of supernatural gods so “agnostic” doesn’t really do the job. I don’t believe in a lot of things and you can’t go around being “agnostic” about fairys or the other infinite amounts of things you don’t believe in.
But one of the main reasons I had to start calling myself “athiest” was that I learned that MOST of the Christians I met were actually “agnostic”. They would always, and usually quickly get around to the argument that they believe in god because they can’t know for certain about his existence, so they may as well choose to believe, as it benifits them. I’m sorry, but these people are in fact “agnostic”, as are the vast majority of American Christians. Very few Christians live their lives as though they really believe this is a temporrary stop on the way to heaven and very few have even read the entire bible. You would think that if they were going to commit their ever lasting soul to something they would read the manual, but they don’t.
So since Christians have actually shifted to becoming “agnostic”, those quiet athiest have had to start clairifying their position with what appears to be a little more conviction.

Wow, so nice to have J H Christ Himself commenting on my blog. Now THAT’s a high-five. But you’re the last dude I expected to be an Atheist.
lol

“Here’s the difference, religion is often the motivating factor for people to kill or cause damage, atheism is not.”

Apparently this is the time to be honest. The above statement is wrong. Greed is always the motivating factor to kill or cause damage. Greed for more power, greed for more money, whatever. Greed is always the problem.

Now, I will admit that on both sides, athiest and religious, there have been horrible atrocities done to them and both sides have committed horrible atrocities, but I will tell you this, if a person said I am entirely selfish and greedy, and I will kill all of these people in the hopes of becoming more rich and powerful, no one would believe in the truth of his cause, nor would anyone follow it. No one would allow it to happen at all. The common people, the middle class people, the neighboring nations, all of them would rise up and take him out. Now, change the motive of the greedy and selfish man to a religious agenda, or a scientific agenda or even a womens lib agenda and now you have an “issue.” Which simply means that people will fall on one side or another and if they feel strong enough about the cause, the people behind it will do anything they can, not short of killing, in the name of it. Even athiests as a combined unit would do the same. The point being that people can say they are christians, or athiest, or muslim, or evolutionist, but just because they say they are doesn’t mean they are.

Maybe wars were declared in this world based on religion, or not having religion at all, but those men that kill and claim to be christian are just flat liars. I don’t care who I offend but God says to make yourself a liar, and if you commit atrocities to yourself, your spouse, or anyone else, you are not, and never have been a christian.

If that is offensive, I don’t care. The reason Athiests have this response, and rightly so, is that Christians don’t stand up and say, Ted Haggerty was a fraud. They don’t stand up and say, that the Catholic Church and all their atrocities were based on greed for power and domination and not for Jesus Christ. They don’t say that the witch hunts were more than a mistake, but an absolute sign that Jesus Christ was not with those people. Get real. We preach a Jesus Christ who would never do those things, who speaks out against such disgusting behavior but then we don’t renounce the very people that do it? I don’t think so. The reason that people are turning from Jesus Christ are the poor examples of those that claim to follow Him.

Churches try and lord the 10 commandments over us and then when someone does something awful they excuse it and claim the person “backslid.” Its abominable, the name that the churches and people have given to Jesus Christ.

Hey Michael, thanks for the invite to your blog. Here’s my whole position on the Atheism thing: I think I’m at the point in my life where I really don’t want to expend great amounts of time arguing with Xians, or with anyone for that matter. I believe there is no “god”, I haven’t believed it for years and years (I was an Atheist before it was in vogue). I don’t want religion in my kids’ schools, I don’t want it being the driving force behind government decisions (unfortunately it often is), I don’t want people to tell me how lost I must be that I don’t have a “god”. I’m tired of seeing everyone fight over whose god is “the right one”. I just want to live, enjoy every day, enjoy my family, enjoy the sun on my face, the air in my lungs, the sound of my kids’ voices, and not dwell on what’s going to happen while I’m dead. My ashes will be compost just like everyone else who has died and everyone else who will die for ever and ever and ever me. I don’t get why people have to have this almighty crutch to hang onto while they’re living – you live, you die, what’s important to me is what I do while I’m here, not dwelling on whether or not I’m flying off to an imaginary place or to a “lake of fire” when I’m dead.

Hey Chickie,

Thanks for the comment. I’m not into “arguing” either, I mean in the technical sense, yes, but not in the emotional “I’m out to prove you wrong” style. As I tried to say in the post this is an educational experience for me, and one that I am enjoying.

You sound like someone I’d like to have a few more conversations with but I respect your position.

For let it be said that “lack of belief” cannot be the basis of his own worldview.

This is an important insight into the nature of atheism, not a reason to reject the definition of atheism.

Atheism is as much a belief as off is a TV station. While each religion is equivalent to a single TV channel, atheism isn’t another TV channel. It’s the equivalent of not watching TV. Remember that atheism isn’t an alternative to Islam or Christianity, it’s an alternative to the broader concept of theism: in this analogy, the question of whether you watch TV or not. You’re claiming the equivalent of the statement that everyone watches TV, which isn’t true.

However, you’re right that knowing that someone doesn’t watch TV doesn’t tell you much about that person. There are plenty of non-TV activities that a person might engage in while not watching TV, from reading to hiking to cooking to listening to music. Similarly, knowing that someone isn’t an atheist doesn’t tell you anything about their beliefs.

An atheist may be a humanist, skeptic, stoic, or a believer in any of a million other philosphies or even a member of an atheistic religion like the more austere forms of Theravada Buddhism. Knowing that someone is an atheist tells you even less about their beliefs than knowing that someone is a theist, and despite a shared belief in deities, the differences between Lutheranism, Sufism, Mahayana Buddhism, and the old Aztec religion are enormous.

No sane person loses sleep or gets worked up over things in which he supposedly “lacks belief”…Except “weak atheists”, of course!

You’re conflating the issue of atheists caring about deities with that of atheists caring about those who believe in deities. As a Christian, you may not believe in Islam, but you can still lose sleep or get worked up about Islamic terrorism. Similarly, as an atheist, I don’t believe in Islam or Christianity, but I can get worked up about abortion clinic bombings or attempts to use the power of the government to indoctrinate my kids in school (school prayer, intelligent design creationism classes, etc.)

The only reason I even think about atheism is because I live in a society where the political and cultural power of Christianity is enormous and nearly omnipresent. As a Christian, you don’t notice living in a sea of Christianity any more than a fish notices living in a sea of water and you can live in ignorance of atheism without consequence. As an atheist, I can’t help but notice the sea of Christianity around me, any more than a sea mammal can fail to notice the water through it still breathes air.

“Words must keep their meaning”

Very true statement and one that you ignore in the same comment!
Atheism is the opposite of theism…not religion. Marxism, as you correctly say, is not another religion…but religion and marxism are both belief systems.
It is irrational and ridiculous belief systems that atrocities can be blamed on…not the roots of them.
Being a theist or an atheist is a single belief/non belief. Any system that sprouts from these roots can be good or bad but the original root cannot inform actions.
If there was such a thing as elfism there would probably be aelfists. An aelfist could decide that all elfists must die. The problem belief here is the belief that elfists must die, not the disbelief in elfs! And the former is not a necessity of the latter.

This is a problem that the writer of this blog and many others simply do not understand either.

Dawkins is speaking out because he feels that religion does a lot more harm than good. Whereas religious fundamentalists claim that their actions are justified because ‘it is what their God wants them to do’ and because ‘atheists are immoral’, Dawkins’ actions are justified through clear, rational argument. If you think his arguments are wrong or biased, write a similar book debunking them. Let me know when you’ve finished because I’d like to read such a book.