My CD Rom Oxford English Dictionary defines atheism as “the theory or belief that God does not exist”, from the Greek atheos (a- without + theos God). This definition is adequate to our purposes, though we might note that the term implies the denial of the existence of all deities, not just God. And it might also be noted that atheism does not necessarily imply a denial of religion. Some religions, such as Jainism and some forms of Buddhism, are atheistic inasmuch as they do not require belief in deities. And some have suggested that atheistic systems like secular humanism, existentialism, Marxism, etc., if not full-fledged religions, sometimes develop at least a quasi-religious character.
Atheism, in this broad sense, has been around for a long time, perhaps as long as theism. But for most of us it’s a phenomenon of the 19th and 20th centuries connected to broader philosophies such as secular humanism and scientific rationalism. Names like Bertrand Russell, Sigmund Freud, Isaac Asimov, Madeline Murray O'Hare and Carl Sagan (actually an agnostic) may come to mind. Until recently it has been just another option in the spiritual landscape and, though there have always been tensions, for the most part atheism has taken it’s place as a relatively tolerant alternative. In this respect, however, The New Atheism is a horse of a different colour.
The term “New Atheism” was coined by Gary Wolf in an article entitled “The Church of Non-Believers” published in Wired magazine, November 2006. The phenomenon itself finds it’s origin in the writings of Sam Harris (The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, 2004, and Letter to a Christian Nation, 2006), Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion, 2006), Daniel C. Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, 2006), and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, 2007).
What makes the New Atheism interesting is its strident tone and wholesale condemnation of religion:
Sam Harris: “A person who believes that Elvis is still alive is very unlikely to get promoted to a position of great power and responsibility in our society. Neither will a person who believes that the holocaust was a hoax. But people who believe equally irrational things about God and the bible are now running our country. This is genuinely terrifying.” (Letter to a Christian Nation)
“The President of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate to a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ludicrous or more offensive.” (Letter to a Christian Nation)
Richard Dawkins: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” (The God Delusion)
“There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.” (The God Delusion)
Apart from the fact that they are being published by mainstream publishers and read by millions of people there is nothing so very new about comments like these. There have always been strident atheists, but until recently they have been generally quarantined within a small publishing ghetto. (Why I Don’t Believe in the New Atheism, by Tom Flynn). However, in this post 9/11 world – Harris’s book The End of Faith is specifically presented as a response to 9/11 – religion is being taken more seriously as a cause for concern, even alarm. It is no longer naively assumed that all religions can be summed up in “the golden rule” or that all spiritual paths lead to love and light. People are beginning to recognize that religion can be dangerous, and some are suggesting that all of it is. And this worries me.
The charge that ideas and those who hold them are wrong, inept or foolish, is of no particular concern, but to say these notions or people are delusional and dangerous is another matter. We naturally oppose what we believe is wrong, but we oppress what we believe is dangerous. I can’t help wondering if we might be on the verge of another round of religious oppression. And I also wonder if there is any way to voice this concern without causing alarm (from Old French alarme, through late Middle English “to arms!”) and making matters worse.
PS: The cartoon doesn't really make a point, I just think it's funny.
3 comments:
Your last post told the story of a man who might well get fired from his job for not believing in God. While secular universities have a commitment to religious freedom, many religious universities, colleges, seminaries openly and proudly discriminate on the basis of religious conviction and would dismiss a professor who changed his or her religious conviction. It is impossible to imagine an openly atheist person being elected as President in the US and it seems unlikely that we'll have an openly atheist Prime Minister in Canada anytime soon. Religious institutions have the right to make these discriminations and individuals have the right not to vote for people who don't share their religious views. It is a bit much, however, for those involved in these institutions and practices to play the persecution card and to wonder how anyone could be worried about little ol' us. These atheists I think are worried not just that religious people will start suddenly persecuting others if they get into power but that they'll just keep acting like they do now.
I don't know, Dan. It seems to me that some religious ideas ARE delusional and dangerous. I've been watching the Borgias. A TV show, yes, but I've looked up some of the stuff depicted, and history seems to say that a lot of it happened. He was Pope, and he believed what I was taught, as a Catholic, about the Pope, God's vicar on earth, whatsoever shall be bound on earth yada, yada, delusional and no question, dangerous. A scary, bad man. Left me wondering how I ever came to be Catholic. Like, what's with my ancestors? Weren't the paying attention? People in power who believe they are the arm, or maybe the fist of God, are dangerous, it seems to me. It's hard to distinguish the will of God from your own, even when you're trying. Even if, at best, you're convinced that what you want to do is the best thing for everybody. Probably it’s not even that good. It’s really easy to get tunnel vision, and think about nothing except how to make what you want to happen, happen.
Richard Dawkin’s comments regarding the God of the Old Testament spell out for me the difference between God and the perception of God, and the need to recognize that God won’t fit into your head, and that what you think about God isn’t God. The view he's talking about was common at one time.
Too, all the religious bullying I have ever seen or experienced has been perpetrated by Christians. You all have been a force to be reckoned with for a long time. I know Wiccans that hold their religious view secret because it seems safer. I am a long way from being an atheist, but I am not a Christian either. It’s not a secret exactly, but I don’t advertise either, mostly because I don’t want to argue about it, and too many people can’t leave it alone.
I’m pretty sure that an American President who didn’t talk to God, and that is the Christian God, is not electable.
I know only a handful of atheists, and they are a pretty benign bunch. I know the people you are talking about do exist, but I don’t think they are so common. Although I suppose you only need one with lots of power. Think Borgia.
Interesting comments. Is the problem, perhaps, not so much religion or irreligion, theism or atheism, as it is power, and more specifically what some people have done, and may do, to gain and retain power? Power is dangerous because it enables people to do the things they want to do and people are dangerous. Theists and atheists, Christians and Moslems, even Jews if we take their own scriptures seriously, have sometimes behaved in pretty horrifying ways when they had the power to do so. Stalin, Mao, the Borgias, the IRA, and George W. Bush for that matter, were problematic, not because they were atheists, Christians or Catholics, but because of the way they gained and/or used power.
I’m not as sure as I used to be about who can be elected President. I remember when a Roman Catholic couldn’t, and when an African-American or a woman couldn’t. Obama beat McCain, and I suspect, democracy being what it is, Oprah might have beaten anybody. And I also suspect we might well see an openly atheist or openly gay President in my lifetime.
As I see it, these are extraneous qualities. My concern is fearfulness. When people are afraid they will do almost anything, so we need to be very careful about granting authority to fearful people, regardless what they claim to believe.
The new atheists make me nervous for the same reason many Christians make me nervous. They are fearful, and stir up fear about “those other folks”, whole classes of people. We all, Atheist and Christians alike, would do well to take Jesus a little more seriously than we sometimes do. “Love one another.” (John 13:34) and “... whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. (Mark 10:43-45) A very different view of power.
Post a Comment