I'm curious why atheists try to "convert" believers. Some atheists make a living at it; Dawkins and Hitchens are two examples. Some atheists attempt to convert believers by trying to make us feel stupid, irrational, and delusional. Why? These tactics seem inconsistent with the fundamentals of atheism. Let me explain:
Atheism is the worldview that there is no god. There is a negative manifestation: denial of the existence of god; and there is a positive manifestation: belief that there are only laws of nature, matter, science. In most cases, atheists think they are following what is simply truth: that no god exists is as true and intuitive as 2 + 2 = 4. By definition, there is no moral value in espousing atheism. Atheism does not guide the conscience; it does not prescribe an ethical code; it does not promote justice. If true, atheism just is.
We can easily contrast this with religion. The major religions come with a moral code. That is, God's existence entails consequences for humanity. In some cases, eternal consequences. God might have something to say about ethics, justice, family, and all the rest. And most religions are mutually exclusive: there is only one God, and He has the knowledge and authority to dictate His will to us. Further, believers acknowledge the faith element to religion. That is, believers understand that our worldview involves...well...belief. It follows that believers would want to convert as many people as we can: literally everything is at stake. Yet, believers rarely approach evangelism by attacking atheists. Surely many believers think atheism is foolish, and some make a living debating and fighting atheism. But this is usually a defensive move. Religion has to defend itself against the attacks of atheism. Which gets us back to my concern: atheism has no business attacking in the first place. Atheism is just not the kind of thing one should concern himself with spreading. Or is it?
Atheists will say that religion is dangerous: violence, oppression, tyranny, all in the name of God. We've heard it all before. The problem is that the same tragedies and injustices occur in the name of democracy, justice, productivity, and much more. Yet, no one goes around (at least no one we'd take seriously) saying that we should abolish all governments and business.
Atheists might say that religion is unhealthy to the believer: it's delusion, fantasy, like wishing on a star. We'd be better off if we'd follow the more enlightened of the world. The problem here is that there's no evidence that faith hurts anyone. There is, however, much evidence to the contrary. Believers tend to be more generous, hopeful, and happy. The only ones who seem to be bothered by faith are atheists. But they should feel no more threatened by believers than by a child who believes in the Tooth Fairy or the Boogeyman.
Perhaps what is really going on is that atheism requires just as much faith as does religion. Some might say it requires more faith to believe that life evolved by chance out of lifeless particles in space (never mind the bigger question: where did the particles--and the space for that matter--come from?). Perhaps atheism is the ultimate arrogance, believing that there can be no higher intelligence than our own. Perhaps atheists are searching, as everyone does at some point, to make sense out of the world, and it bothers them that believers have such a simple answer.
Any thoughts??
5 comments:
First.
The "religion causes suffering" argument pushed by atheists hasn't been very persuasive since colonial times: world wars I & II and the bloody costs of fascism and communism were all inspired by collectivist and social darwinist ideas, not religious ones.
You nailed it! Atheism is in fact a religion - a system of belief that requires a faith in things we cannot empirically prove (ie., God does not exist). In postmodernism, the "religion" of atheism is secular humanism - the exaltation of all things human with the complete denial that there is (or even could be!) something greater than us. It truly is a battle of worldviews - akin to that of the battle of east and west.
~Kelly
I really like your closing Heather and could not agree more...and that Jan person has a good point or two as well. ;-)
The other comments to your post seem to indicate that you are preaching to the choir. I'd like to add some counterpoints to help you understand the perspective of those that see the world differently than you.
As an atheist I would seek to convert you to my point of view for similar reasons you would seek to change my perspective. I think I'm right and I want to save you from your ignorance. However, the "aggressive" atheists that you mention in your post are a fairly new type of atheist. Most atheists really don't care what other people believe and aren't bothered by people who don't share their perspective. People like Dawkins have come into the spotlight recently by presenting the idea that religion is actually harmful to world.
Their point is generally that almost all religions teach and effectively require intolerance. Intolerance, taken to the extreme, is what is responsible for the Old Testament genocides, Crusades, and today the Taliban. Obviously, these are all extreme examples, but they all come from the same source. I don't particularly understand your democracy and productivity examples, but I suppose those ideas pursued with religious fervor could lead to the same consequences.
I'd like to clear up a few other misconceptions. First, atheism requires zero faith - period. Any reasonable person would agree that something does not exist until it is proven otherwise. Your argument that faith is required to support evolution and the origin of life is interesting, but incorrect. What if we traveled back in time to when people believed Zeus ruled the heavens and Poseiden controlled the seas? If I told you then that the moon controlled the tides and not a god with a pitchfork you would believe me, but our contemporaries would think us mad. Following this logic, we don't currently have an explanation for how life originated here, but I'm betting on a logical explanation rather than a divine touch (or pitchfork). You can call it faith, but it sounds more like common sense to me.
Lastly, morals and values come from a society not from a god. I would go as far as to say that many of your god's rules are largely ignored today and for good reason. Do you cut your hair (Leviticus 19:27) or wear clothes made of multiple fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)? Or how about clear guidance to kill anyone who believes in a different (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)? It is society that determines what is acceptable and what acts must be prohibited for the good of the group.
I hope my post gives you an idea of how an Atheist sees the world and helps correct some misconceptions about Atheists.
Post a Comment