Every day I work with people who have an invisible friend. But being fond of many of them, talking about that is something I like to avoid. After all, it's not really relevant to what we do, and if their faith helps them to be more productive or feel better about what they're doing, it's no skin off my nose. That being so, I've been thinking lately about why religious (and more broadly, supernatural) ideas bother me, and whether it's important to speak up.
The truth is that it's not too hard to avoid awkward moments where I work, because religious and supernatural topics hardly ever come up. Most such dialogues I've had a part in have occurred online, and even those have become infrequent. Perhaps this is because I no longer find it worthwhile to engage in a dialogue with those who, without a moment's hesitation, would consider me condemned. But whatever the reason, I've become even more reserved than in the past. Does this mean I no longer care? Does it mean that I've made peace with religion?
Not exactly.
Like everyone else, I'm simply more interested in living day to day. Practically speaking, religion isn't the most important thing on my mind. It doesn't even rank in the top ten, so to speak. Indeed, if it weren't for the influence religious people try to exert over public life, I probably wouldn't give it a moment's thought. It would be just another silly idea, along with fairies, psychic powers, alternative medicine, or a Ralph Nader presidency.
In other words, I don't care what you believe. This doesn't always come through in what I've written here and elsewhere, because frankly the disproportionate amount of influence religion has with the string pullers is alarming and the ramifications potentially deadly. Or at least detrimental.
Belief itself is, of course, not necessarily harmful in and of itself. It might even have some positive effects. However, inasmuch as it has a negative impact on one's perception of other people, or one's actions toward them, it can cause a great deal of harm.
Take, for example, the Levitical admonition to "love thy neighbor as thyself." It has always seemed to me that the best result would be something similar to pity. After all, if one is taught to think of oneself as an unworthy sinner, then everyone else is an unworthy sinner too, deserving of death and therefore pitiful at best. Or, take the idea that "God is in control," which is also biblical. If God is in control, in one stroke free will is dispensed with and the problem of evil rests on God's shoulders. As a result, accountability becomes a meaningless concept.
We atheists will sometimes tell you that, in the absence of such beliefs, everything would be just dandy. If only it were that simple. No matter what idea is in vogue at any given time, our species will inevitably find a way to screw it up. Now, I would agree that, in principle, if no one believed in God there would be one less bad idea to contend with. Thus, I continue to share my thoughts when the opportunity arises, hoping that they might have some positive effect. But I am skeptical that atheism is itself the answer.
Too many people, atheist and theist alike, view atheism as being or possessing in some fashion a sort of ersatzphilosophie that answers (or dispenses with bad answers to) life's persistent questions. For example, Ellen Johnson, the president of American Atheists, in January urged us to "vote [your] atheism first" this November, as if "voting atheist" (whatever the hell that means) will solve our political problems.
Simplistic statements like Ms. Johnson's are as ubiquitous as mosquitoes, and just as annoying. Neither theists nor atheists have the inside track on the right way to live, vote, or think. We all muddle through life the best we can. Some of us just don't assign credit or blame to supernatural entities or forces. Experience teaches us that such fantasies almost always lead to misanthropic thinking.
But if atheism is devoid of a meaningful or consistent philosophy, why bother? The answer, in my opinion, is that one's philosophy or worldview doesn't result from any one idea or concept (or lack thereof). Rather, it results from one's culture and upbringing, and possibly biology or physiology to some degree. In that sense, atheists have little choice but to credit religion with having had at least some influence on their composite worldview and/or philosophy. The degree to which it has will depend on exposure. Similarly, however, Western theists have little choice but to credit the Enlightenment with having had an effect on their religion and, by extension, their own worldview.
Getting back to whether, as an atheist, I have any responsibility or reason to speak up, the answer remains yes. I feel a moral responsibility to speak up concerning matters that affect not only me, but also my loved ones and even society. With respect to those with whom I share an office (or a world), this doesn't mean trashing someone's personal beliefs. That approach simply doesn't work, in my experience. What does sometimes work is discussing specific issues, looking for points on which we might agree or compromise, and perhaps sharing knowledge or materials that might increase a person's understanding of that particular issue. In the long run a person's beliefs may remain intact, but perhaps their perspective will be broadened and their attitudes tempered.
The point of all this is simply to say that I remain committed to promoting Freethought and rationalism. To my mind, however, this doesn't mean subscribing to atheism as an ideological platform, or leaping on any bandwagon. What it means is that religion itself is not important except to the extent that it finds expression in public life. Therefore, I hope to address religion and atheism even less frequently than I have in the past (though readers might reasonably point to the dearth of posts since December as proof that I have another agenda - I don't). This doesn't mean I'll stop completely (morbid fascination and a sense of humor, you know), but I'd rather share a joke, educate each other, and build something together.
Wouldn't you?
“Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking;” ~ Tolstoy
Friday, March 21, 2008
Living with and without religion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)



















7 comments:
Hear, hear!
I absolutely love this and couldn't agree with you more.
You've come back from your absence with quite a bang! I've followed the Cafe as a lurker for sometime now; of all your posts, this is my favorite to date. To echo the webmaster: excellent!
A thing like religion only possesses as much intellectual power over us as we give it. One can be an atheist and, in many ways, still be enthralled by religion. Some never seem to break completely free.
It would seem that the mastermind of the Freethought Cafe is free indeed.
Well done.
Hi JC,
Excellent post... you have sold it to me – well, almost.
Since atheism and religion will form less on the agenda here on your blog, it’s probably best I get my nonsense out of the way on this thread so not to clutter up other posts.
As you may agree, atheism is about nothing really – it is a label to highlight the non-belief in gods, that’s all.
This means it is a pretty empty topic, and isn’t what is normally discussed – what is discussed on atheist/religious blogs are beliefs and their effects.
An individual’s belief in fairies at the bottom of the garden seems to have no affect on me whatsoever. It seems pretty harmless right?
Well I’m not so sure, since this individual could also have a vote on the health or education for the community.
Should someone who believes in the power of fairy dust have a vote on the health service?
Also, if this individual finds other like minded people, and organises themselves into a group – then what? Fairy-dust for all? (Cool...)
So maybe the real “problem” is what you touched on in your post, it is more about “freethought and rationalism”.
It is not what someone believes in, it is why they believe – and what is required for them to change their view or how well they can argue and justify their own point of view.
An irrational opinion cannot be changed with reason very easily I find.
Anyway... lunch time.
See ya
Lee
Thanks, all! Very kind, although the "mastermind" thing may be a bit over the top. My girlfriend has to give permission for that sort of thing. ;)
Lee,
In spite of the tone of the post, there will still be posts related to religion more frequently here than they might be on a blog about, say, deep sea diving. I mean, it is a Freethought/Atheist blog. Mostly, I'm going to focus on science and such things though. Try to educate instead of deprecate, you know?
Doubtful it will succeed, but hey, it's worth trying.
About the rest of your post, there's one thing in particular that caught my attention:
"Should someone who believes in the power of fairy dust have a vote on the health service?"
I don't think they should have some sort of controlling interest or o'erweaning influence, no. Assuming this is a service run by government and/or health professionals, one would hope that these folks would be disinclined to vote the same way. In all probability, the person would be overruled. However, your point is well-taken in that we're really talking about religious people who DO have influence.
That's a tough one in the sense that I don't believe in absolute censorship of ideas, no matter how absurd. But the context matters a great deal. I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that someone like this would have some sort of power over important decisions regarding health care (among other things). Thus, I'm sure we're of the same opinion.
In terms of having an equal voice, I think it's quite alright (albeit frustrating) that people who believe in weird things can talk about them, even in public. My main concern is the degree to which they find acceptance and expression through organizational action, particularly governmental organizations.
It is not what someone believes in, it is why they believe – and what is required for them to change their view or how well they can argue and justify their own point of view.
Well said! As the back of the one issue of the CSER review reads (in part):
"There's nothing wrong with believing in things.
We just happen to think you should have reasons for believing them."
An irrational opinion cannot be changed with reason very easily I find.
My experience mirrors your own. I still don't think disparaging comments (e.g., your beliefs are those of a complete idiot) are productive, regardless of how rational the source may claim to be. Moreover, I don't think anyone does anyone a service by subcribing to a different idea if it turns out to be nonsense in its own right.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not an atheist because I don't like religion and want to be part of a different club. I'm an atheist because I've studied and reached the conclusion that religion is bunk. Even so, being an atheist does not make one immune from irrationality, or grant one utopian insights.
Atheism is not a philosophy in its own right. Nor can it boast of a superior epistemology. The tendency toward critical thinking we atheists frequently claim for our own really doesn't belong to any one intellectual position.
Are we close to disagreeing yet? ;)
Hi JC,
In spite of the tone of the post, there will still be posts related to religion more frequently here than they might be on a blog about, say, deep sea diving.
How many religious deep sea divers do you know? Their blogs could be FULL of atheist literature.
I'm going to focus on science and such things though. Try to educate instead of deprecate, you know?
Scary – but it should be fun.
Besides, without a theist in a religious debate it gets a little boring since it becomes too one sided.
About the rest of your post, there's one thing in particular that caught my attention:
I thought it might...
RE: "Should someone who believes in the power of fairy dust have a vote on the health service?"
I don't think they should have some sort of controlling interest or o'erweaning influence, no. Assuming this is a service run by government and/or health professionals, one would hope that these folks would be disinclined to vote the same way. In all probability, the person would be overruled. However, your point is well-taken in that we're really talking about religious people who DO have influence.
I wasn’t just talking about the religious here, but anyone “supporting” pseudoscience nonsense, hence my health care example seemed a good one (rather than the usual education and evolution example – I’m trying to broaden the discussion so we do not stick on the religious/atheist business)
The point is these people DO have a vote – and who am I to take it from them?
(...but when my plan to take over the world kicks in....)
The problem comes down to education I feel, but it will be difficult to pass a bill that stated you have to have the “right” qualification to vote.
(The problem with democracy – the best worse system we have.)
That's a tough one in the sense that I don't believe in absolute censorship of ideas, no matter how absurd.
I can think of some absurd ones... but I think the Mormons and Scientology beat me to the better ones.
But the context matters a great deal. I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that someone like this would have some sort of power over important decisions regarding health care (among other things).
George Bush and stem-cell research just “popped” into my mind...
There is a catholic priest in the UK at the moment trying to make the MP’s there vote his way – the church way. It can be a dangerous idea this God.
Also, away from religion, I think in the UK you can get some pseudoscience nonsense on the NHS (National Health Service) which means the tax payer is paying for “treatment” that is known not to work. Someone voted that in...
Thus, I'm sure we're of the same opinion.
Oh yes... I’m sure – I try to disagree as you know, but my thoughts are rather fluid and easily changed with a good argument.
In terms of having an equal voice, I think it's quite alright (albeit frustrating) that people who believe in weird things can talk about them, even in public.
No problem with talking... so long as it does not affect me, my taxes and my health care.
My main concern is the degree to which they find acceptance and expression through organizational action, particularly governmental organizations.
As the knowledge in society for the science decreases, the acceptance of nonsense increases... well, that’s my guess.
It is certainly easier to sell nonsense pseudoscience to science illiterate.
I just want people to think and be a little more sceptical.
Well said! As the back of the one issue of the CSER review reads (in part):
Thanks – and I’ve never heard of CSER or know what it stands for.
I still don't think disparaging comments (e.g., your beliefs are those of a complete idiot) are productive, regardless of how rational the source may claim to be.
You cannot win someone over to your argument by calling them an idiot, so I agree.
I try and ask the person to justify their beliefs – if this makes them sound like a complete idiot it is not my fault.
A very subtle difference.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not an atheist because I don't like religion and want to be part of a different club. I'm an atheist because I've studied and reached the conclusion that religion is bunk.
I label myself as an atheist merely for online debates, it saves time.
Maybe it is different if you once believed in gods, but I never came to atheism – I was born not believing in gods.
Atheism is “nothing”, it is a negative, and describes only what I am not. Am I also an a-fairyist, and an a-invisible blue unicorn... the list goes on.
So if there were no theists, could I be an atheist? Would there be any point?
Even so, being an atheist does not make one immune from irrationality, or grant one utopian insights.
Someone could call themselves an atheist and still be an idiot. If you cannot justify your position you have a problem in my book.
Are we close to disagreeing yet? ;)
As I say, I try and disagree for the sake of argument :)
Lee
Been a while since I looked at your blog JC, good to see you're still going strong. There's a word that comes to mind to describe your more relaxed approach to views you don't share: mellowing.
As I say quite a lot in discussion with Jonathan, Lee and Billy though, one of the problems I have with a lot of atheist thought I read is its tendency to polarise: science OR religion, God in control OR free will; God's power OR human effort. And I don't deny that religious believers don't sometimes fall into the same trap. In my reading and experience, though, mature Christian thinking has a capacity to reconcile and synthesise, recognising that reality is not one-dimensional but multi-faceted. And this goes right to the nub of the question of God: the epistemological q of whether scientific and rational enquiry are the only ways of knowing, or whether others such as revelation, mysticism, personal knowledge and others have validity too. I think they deserve exploration.
And I for one wouldn't say you were straight off condemned simply for not at present being able intellectually to believe in God. To my mind, salvation is rather broader in its reach and scope than that. God is love according to the Bible, and I think his love is greater and more profound than even some Christians sometimes realise.
And I for one wouldn't say you were straight off condemned simply for not at present being able intellectually to believe in God.
The bible disagrees with that (jn 14:6). On what basis do you discard this verse?
God is love according to the Bible
Is that why he sent the flood? Take it metaphorically or literally, it is anot a message of love - "I cant stand people, I'm going to kill them!"
I guess love is different things to different people (you should read my "is god a bastard?" thread again)
Post a Comment