Finalists shake hands during San Francisco's annual Hunky Jesus competition in Dolores Park on Easter Sunday March 23, 2008. The tradition is officiated by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group of social activist drag queen nuns. REUTERS/ Erin Siegal (UNITED STATES)
So before I begin let me start by making a few things clear. If you have not yet noticed from my previous posts, although I am in the educative process of becoming a Protestant Christian minister, I am a rather liberal Christian (surprise!). I have long celebrated those who have different beliefs than myself as I have learned a lot from them. I also have had friends who are Atheists and, in my experience, religious/philosophical conversations with them are always most rewarding. As a matter of fact, my Atheist friend and blogging mentor Alex Jarvis is the reason why this blog exists (so blame him). That having been said…
I was strolling through the WordPress blogs today and found some Atheist posts. In all honesty, I paid more attention to them than the Christian ones because they tend to be a bit more interesting and good cause for constructive conversation (and some pretty funny jokes). I found one that seemed to pride itself on proving religion and the existence of God to be false. Now this is all well and good. If I were an Atheist I would spend my Sunday, while those fools are in church praying to their god, proving that God does not exist. It sounds like good clean fun and an intellectual hobby.
I enjoy conversations on this subject because the fact that someone does not believe as I do DOES NOT THREATEN ME. I think that far too often, religious folks become threatened by contradictory ideas and things get ugly. But that kind of ugliness is what I was seeing on this particular post. Apparently this is more than a hobby, this is a calling for these individuals who have joined an organization (the Metro State Atheists) to prove religious types wrong. This is rather unfortunate because some really good discourse could be had there. But here I am seeing it from the Atheist side and I must admit that I am a bit disappointed. It’s sort of like seeing a college professor, whom you have always admired for their thoughts and ideas, drunk and hooting at all your female classmates. A rather big let down.
But let me draw my own personal line in the sand. When I talk to people who have different views than me, it usually turns into a question and answer session. “I believe this about that.” followed by “I find that interesting as I believe the following on that particular subject.” A rather good-hearted conversation where each person involved gains knowledge and respect for the other. But the moment you cry bullshit (pardon the language: this post is rated M for mature) and say that the other person is wrong and foolish for their beliefs and proceed present them with a number of reasons why they are an idiot…well it’s not good clean fun anymore… it’s intolerance.
And that is the key difference. You can disagree with someone all you like, it makes things a lot more interesting. But when you cross that line from learning about different beliefs to proving the other person wrong, there is really no benefit. You are probably not going to convince a faithful person to be Atheist anymore than you will convince an Atheist person to be faithful.
On this particular (and unnamed/linked) blog the discussion was regarding the Ten Commandments. This individual had found an inconsistency in the book of exodus regarding what the Ten Commandments were etc, etc. The writer expressed a “GOTCHA” at the fact that a biblical inconsistency had been discovered. Bully for you! If I had a dollar for every contradiction and inconsistency in the Bible I would be able to pay for my master’s degree.
Finding and addressing biblical inconsistency is another family friendly hobby that I can support. But the fashion in which it is done makes me again disappointed. The condescending questions regarding the two sets of commandments including: “Did God forget the first list?” And what is worse is that the author goes on to poke fun and find fault with Judaism and Christianity. This is one of those things I must file under N for Not cool. The Atheists I know would never sink to such a level of disrespect and intolerance.
So let me take this opportunity to make some observations and pose some questions. It seems that this particular Atheist (and perhaps his group, but I cannot say) dislike Christians and Jews because they:
1) Believe in something they do not.
2) Get together on a regular weekly basis to discuss and pray about what Atheists do not believe.
3) Try to convince Atheists to believe in theory phony religion.
4) Create organizations and blog pages about all these silly things that no respectable, reasonable Atheist would waste their time with.
While from the Judeo-Christian Perspective this atheist (and perhaps his organization):
1) Believe things that we do not.
2) Get together on a regular basis to discuss atheist ideas that conflict with our own.
3) Try to convince us that our religions are foolish.
When we look at these two lists it seems that religious types and this particular group of Atheists are not so different after all. As a matter of fact (with the exception of the no God thing) the Metro State Atheists seem to look a lot like a religion.
I want to make this abundantly clear to all (3) of my readers. The intelligence, rationality, and overall cognitive function of an individual is never dependent on their religious/philosophical beliefs or lack their of. There is no reason for us to try to compete for “most plausible value system of the year” because varying cultures and worldviews ensure that such things are impossible. We should never judge others for their beliefs, culture, ideas etc. just as we should never allow ourselves to be disrespected or judged on these matters.
So let me close with a few questions: Is there any real reason why atheists and religious people cannot get along and share their different values? Why would an individual devote so much time to disproving someone else’s religion? And why, when we compare beliefs, regardless of what they may be, can we not maintain some respect, tact and, dare I say, some class?
Filed under: Atheism, Christianity, Faith, God, Philosophy, Religion | Tagged: Alex Jarvis, Atheism, Center for Inquiry, Church and state, class, Debate, Does God exist, Evangelical Atheists, Evangelical Christians, God, intollerance, Judaism, Judgment, Metro State Atheists, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, religious diversity, Respect, Tact, Ten Comandments, The Bible, There is no God
Great post, Alex.
To answer your final question; no, there is no reason that believers and non believers should find themselves at constant struggle. My only prerequisite for dealing with an individual is to know they set common sense above all else, that is to say, their logic structure is derived through basic interaction with humanity, and then perhaps later sent through the various paths of religion or politics. You pass with flying colors on all accounts, which is why I choose to associate myself with you.
What is very curious to me about this particular atheist is that he is screaming into the wind; I would never declare he is not a ‘true atheist’, as some religious do to their own who have shifted beliefs. What I do not agree with, as you pointed out, is the jilted per-point critique of religion. As you describe, going through each individual contradiction does nothing to falter the belief (nor should it) of believers. As we’ve discussed, my problem with faith has nothing to do with the many inconsistencies with the texts or beliefs, but rather, the very foundation of the belief structure as it compares against my personal logic. This sort of tit-for-tatting gets little done, and paints a poor picture of those involved.
How exactly was I acting like a drunkard, hooting and hollering? Sounds like an ad hominim fallacy to me. Instead of actually attempting a refutation of my point, you attack me and my organization. That’s pretty ugly to.
Joel
President
Metro State Atheists
Furthermore, not once did I engage in name calling, I pointed out with I THINK they are wrong. That’s not intolerance. If it is, then the whole of the scientific community might as well be rabies-infected Nazis. My blogs are not intolerant, they are simply blogs refuting certain aspects of religion. Would you say the same thing about a blog dedicated to refuting aspects of Atheism? I wouldn’t think so. You sit on your perch and decree that “the fact that someone does not believe as I do DOES NOT THREATEN ME”. Then why resort to calling what I’m doing intolerance? If you knew the meaning of the word, you wouldn’t have used it in this context. I’m not intolerant of Christians or Christianity, I simply find them to be wrong and there is NOTHING intolerant about that. I do have very honest Christian friends, and relatives that (amazingly enough) do not in anyway take the same offense to what I’m doing that you do.
Joel
President
Metro State Atheists
The comment was intended as a metaphor for a loss of respect. Like the loss of respect for a professor acting in such a fashion.
Also, while I address your statements (but do not directly address you without your agreement) I only speak to the mission and information provided on your organization’s web site and affiliate organizations.
I have no interest in refuting your point. I am merely expressing my disappointment. I do not think anyone should need to defend their beliefs and values, just as I do not think anyone is correct in finding fault for the beliefs and values and individual holds.
A little respect for those who disagree with you can go a long way. For instance, some may find the word “wrong” when discussing their personal beliefs offensive as it implies a sort of fact. While the word “disagree” is far more amicable as it indicates a personal view, which may be a bit easier to swallow.
But perhaps you are correct and I am merely an overly sensitive Christian. Perhaps you would like to post your blogs URL on a comment and let readers come to their own conclusion?
Alexander Estrom
President
Student Government Association
Central Connecticut State University
Alex – Your posts are always enlightening and entertaining — thanks for that. As for your take on the intolerance of “fundamentalism” being shared by atheists, I think that you have a valid point, but that atheists have a different (and perhaps more valid) reason for theirs. Here’s why:
There are those in the atheist community (I know several personally) who believe that all religion is the most divisive, destructive and dangerous concept ever imagined by humanity. As such, it is considered in the same light as concepts like dictatorship, genocide and the nuclear arms race. All are proven to be superlatively detrimental to humanity. All lead humanity down a path towards assured extinction.
How did religion join the ranks of such obviously bad ideas? Consider the atheist position: religion is a concept born of the human imagination — nothing more. As such, its foundation, like those other ideas, is based not upon some universal truth or upon the idea that humanity is basically good, but upon (they propose) the opposite: suppression of freedom and the assumption that humanity is basically flawed and tends towards evil without guidance. Those concepts allow for a great deal of manipulation by those who happen to represent God: The Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, et al. These are men who have been named by men as representatives of God. As such, they have a great deal of power over believers by virtue of that belief.
History is rife with examples of the abuse of power. Individuals with supreme power over states have traditionally been the most abusive. Kings (who were considered “annointed by God”) waged unjust wars and generally allowed the poor to remain… well, poor. The Thiry years War (1618-48) was waged in part due to a power struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism. That’s only the tip of that particular iceberg. There are numerous examples of war waged in the name of God (I won’t even touch the crusades or the destruction of the Mayan civilization).
Religion has been manipulated by men for personal gain. The Anglican Church broke from Catholicism because Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. That personal desire changed the face of Christianity and indirectly started conflicts that continue in Ireland to this day. These acts were not perpetrated by fundamentalists and extremists, but the most respected and powerful representatives of their respective religions. Does the trend continue? Ask a resident of Israel or Gaza.
When one considers (as an Atheist does) that all of this strife has been based upon a myth created by men and perpetuated for, at times, less than honorable purposes; then it becomes natural to assume that religion is holding humanity back from making an important leap forward: finding a common root to all humanity. Some Atheists of note propose that it is of paramount importance for humanity to make that leap before we all perish by our own hand. Given that level of importance, they actively seek to rid the world of religion by any means necessary. They are as driven as any evangelical “fire and brimstone” minister to rid the world of Satan. They just want God to go too.
That’s all I’ve got for the moment, but you can find some excellent books and essays on the subject out there. I have an issue of WIRED magazine that offers a much more nuanced take on the subject that I’ll be happy to loan to you.
Peace!