This is pretty much how I feel. I don’t care if people are atheists, it’s none of my business. It’s when they start making intellectual arguments for my inferiority because I don’t agree with them — that’s when I have a problem. What do you guys think?
Atheism is intellectually fashionable. In the past month, The New York Times has run several stories about lack of faith in its series on religion. The New Yorker ran an article on the history of non-belief in reaction to two new books on the subject that were released within a week of each other in February. The veteran writer, Adam Gopnik, concludes this:
What the noes, whatever their numbers, really have now … is a monopoly on legitimate forms of knowledge about the natural world. They have this monopoly for the same reason that computer manufacturers have an edge over crystal-ball makers: The advantages of having an actual explanation of things and processes are self-evident.
This is a perfect summary of the intellectual claim of those who set out to prove that God is dead and religion is false: Atheists have legitimate knowledge, and those who believe do not. This is the epistemological assumption looming in the so-called “culture war” between the caricatures of godless liberals and Bible-thumping conservatives in America: One group wields rational argumentation and intellectual history as an indictment of God, while the other looks to tradition and text as defenses against modernity’s encroachment on religious life.
The problem is, the “culture war” is a false construct created by politicians and public intellectuals, left and right. The state of faith in the world is much grayer, much humbler, and much less divided than atheist academics and preaching politicians claim. Especially in the U.S., social conservatives are often called out in the media for reifying and inflaming this cultural divide: The rhetoric of once and future White House hopefuls like Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, and Bobby Jindal reinforces an “us” and “them” distinction between those with faith and those without. Knowing God helps them live and legislate in the “right” way, they say.
But vocal atheists reinforce this binary of Godly vs. godless, too—the argument is just not as obvious. Theirs is a subtle assertion: Believers aren’t educated or thoughtful enough to debunk God, and if they only knew more, rational evidence would surely offset faith.
So weird, that they make non-belief into its own theocracy.
On the snobbery scale, most atheists score lower than the theists who assure us that we will suffer eternal torment if we don’t join their club.
Considering “Pascal’s Wager”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
at least atheists are demonstrating some real courage in their convictions.
It’s always far safer to say “I believe in God”, even if you’re a bit unsure – because the penalty for being wrong is miniscule compared to saying “I do not believe in God” and finding out in the first nanoseconds of afterlife that you were in error.
In terms of companionship, I would infinitely prefer the company of an atheist to some Bible banging fundamentalist who can hardly wait for those he disagrees with to die and the everlasting torture in hellfire begin. The Fundies get off on that stuff, and they seem to do their best to bring Hell on Earth to those who differ from them in any way.
No atheist would have created Abu Ghraib; only those who are sure they are doing God’s Will.
I spend time over at Butterflies and Wheels, Ophelia Benson’s blog, because of the feminism. She’s also a committed atheist. I gather from the blog that agnosticism isn’t good enough. The one true approach is atheism.
I don’t get that. I’ve asked a couple of questions about it, but usually late enough in the thread that they just drop away. If I understand right, and I may not, the thinking is that we have proven methods for studying the measurable world, those methods have never found an old geezer in the sky, so religion is bunk. Case closed.
Well, yes, the case against the geezer is closed. But there are far more dimensions to religion than that. Zen enlightenment. The various mystical traditions about a pervading spirit. Etc. Those are felt experiences, not measurable things out there. (Also like love and beauty. Sure you can measure the secondary effects, as you can with religious feeling, but the measurements have nothing to do with the experience.) It seems to me plenty arrogant to tell someone else what they’re feeling. How could anyone else know?
If you don’t feel those things, that’s fine. But how can you tell someone else they don’t feel them either? To me, that’s nuts. Agnosticism is valid, atheism for yourself is valid, but atheism as a general statement of what’s real for everybody can never have any more validity than godbags telling everybody to believe in their particular bag.
But, as I say, an otherwise very clear-thinking professional philosopher doesn’t see it that way although I’m not clear why.
All of which, of course, has nothing to do with the crap people do in the name of religion. I get the sense that some of atheism is so much repulsion against the crap — which is deep, no question about it — that they just throw religion in with it.
Where’s the courage in saying, “I don’t believe and therefore am a superior being”? I don’t care about what atheists believe. I do find their condescension tiring.
We live in a nation in which over 90% of the population still professes belief in God. We’ve never had an atheist President, VP, SoS. Virtually every member of Congress is a believer.
Atheists are still routinely discriminated against in all walks of life.
There is NO religious persecution in this country if defined as atheist vs. believers. If there were any those claiming a florist having to sell flowers to a gay couple are being persecuted for their religious beliefs would know better than to bother with such an inane argument.
What exactly is it you’re looking for from atheists? I get that there are some small number of arrogant, obnoxious atheists out there. But with a starting point of 9 believers for every 1 atheist I really don’t see where people on your side of the debate have any grounds for crying persecution.
What do I think? I think you have a problem with atheists, not just the vocal ones. They’re just like everyone else–there are good ones and there are bad ones. Many people, perhaps most have a spiritual nature, just as most people are heterosexual. But it’s easy, too easy to dislike a minority, to think there is something wrong with them, and yes, to hate them even. The outspoken atheists aren’t spokespeople for everyone else; it is by its nature wholly unorganized. But why, in a world of prolifically noisome and frequently homicidal religionists, why is it that some screechy atheists are the ones who should be quiet?
There are people in this country who say that this is a Christian nation, and that we should legislate according to those values. And that’s a problem. Ensuring freedom for atheists does not cost you anything, any more than supporting same sex marriage will somehow make you gay. Either you value freedom of religion—and from religion—or you are on the side of Oral Roberts and Antonin Scalia. Which side are you on?
Never heard this sort of thing said out loud or written, although many atheists are definitely more condescending and intellectually snobby than the average man, and one often suspects this is the kind of thing motivating it (the fundies are self-righteous, which isn’t quite the same).
“They have this monopoly for the same reason that computer manufacturers have an edge over crystal-ball makers”. This statement reminds me of nothing so much as when Christians accuse atheists of “stealing” morality from them, because you can’t be moral if you don’t believe in God. Thus ill-gotten atheist morality is immoral.
I’m undecided, although I think if there is a spiritual dimension to the world (which I tend to suspect there is), I doubt it resembles anything organized religions have come up with or described. I think most people who say they believe in god don’t, they just imagine that they are some how playing it safe just in case he turns out to be the angry Jehovah or Allah we’ve been warned aobut.
And with all that said, I think the premise of the article that atheism is becoming “fashionable” is pure bunk. That is the kind of thing anti-atheist Christians come up with to malign atheism.
PS, I think the word dismissive is the word that most accurately describes the avowed atheists I have met.
First of all, atheists are not a tiny minority in Northeastern intellectual circles. So when you say that to me, you sound like the fundamentalist Christians who insist they’re being persecuted. Now I’m stripping atheists of their freedom of religion by pointing out some of them are just plain obnoxious? Second, some of my dearest friends are atheists and are kind and respectful people. They’re not the ones I’m talking about. I suspect the most condescending atheists I’ve met are also pure class snobs, and it’s part of the package. They think having any kind of spiritual practice (unless it’s “approved” and secularized, like TM) is a sign of a weak intellect.
“Crying persecution.” Is that what I was doing? I thought I was telling atheists they should be civil to those who disagree with them.
But they tend to be clustered in cities, so while they may not have the national ratio, they are more concentrated in my world and not outnumbered to that extent.
Pot calling kettle black.
Yes. Believing billions of galaxies(at a minimum) were created just for you is a much more humble position.
And of course my lack of belief is a fashion statement. How else could I reject that the only truth is a dead Jew on a stick?
Is no-one going to point that Pascal’s Wager is deeply flawed, since there are thousands of gods to choose from? The decision to ‘believe just in case’ assumes that there is only a single thing one could possibly believe in. Praying to Jesus will certainly not do you any good when you stand before Allah.
Perhaps atheists mock your beliefs, susie, because your beliefs are silly. I don’t know your beliefs, but russ’s beliefs about Pascal’s Wager are absurd.
Maybe that’s worth looking into.
Susie somebody being a snob about their intellect has nothing to do with their religious beliefs. And I’m not making the same defense christian apologists make by asking people not to judge all by the actions of a few. I’m saying there is no atheist club at all. There’s no atheist code, rule book, set of obstructed beliefs or actions, and no requirements. The fact you even have to label them and title your article with the word atheism, even while asserting that not all share their snobbery, just shows what little understanding you have of the issues. The one and only thing atheists have in common is their non belief in supernatural deities. This is equivalent to getting upset at some people who all happened to drive fords, and blaming their cars.
“Why are ford owners such jackasses? Not all of course, I have some dear friends who drive fords and they’re great people. I’m talking about all the other jackass ford drivers.”
As ridiculous as that paragraph sounds, that’s how silly your article sounds.
The closest thing you find to an atheist club are basically support groups. Yes, in some areas a few atheists meet up every so often. And they talk about totally random stuff. Different every time. It’s like having coffee with friends.
https://xkcd.com/774/
Maybe people assume you are intellectually inferior because you make a habit of generalizing against those who don’t subscribe to your particular brand of lunacy. Or maybe it’s because you don’t even capitalize your own name.
Typically, atheists act this way when confronted with ridiculous and blatantly incorrect beliefs. And I don’t just mean the jew jerky you call Jesus. I get the feeling you’re a Creationist, so maybe that’s why you face ridicule. And rightfully so, might I add. If not, apologies.
On another note…
When your beliefs stop hindering quality education, stripping the rights away from human beings, and even killing them; maybe, just maybe you will get some more respect. As far as I am concerned, you don’t get to bitch and moan about atheists who claim to be intellectually superior until you stop pretending to be superior in every other way. (ie Morals, heaven vs hell, chosen by god, saved by Jesus, etc)
For Quixote: Agnosticism is often misquoted as “Herp, I dunno, derp!”
But agnosticism is the stance that knowledge about a supposed creator of the universe CANNOT be had.
And since theism (unlike deism) claims to have such knowledge, agnosticism does in fact involve telling theists that “No, you don’t, stop lying!”
And that, as they say, is atheism.
One can be an agnostic atheist, or one can be an agnostic deist. One cannot be an agnostic theist.
Andreas, in my understanding of agnosticism it’s saying “I don’t know.” Not “you don’t know.” Isn’t that different from what you said? Or am I missing something?
I didn’t realize agnosticism made definite statements about unknowability. I thought it reserved judgment, so to speak. ?
(Reminds me of a great bumpersticker I saw once: “Militant atheist. [In large type. Then in smaller type:] I don’t know and you don’t either.)
“…Praying to Jesus will certainly not do you any good when you stand before Allah…
Dear Niek – Actually it will. Allah and God, with Jesus being part of the Trinity and at one with the Father, are one and the same.