Riffs: 04:06:09: Nica Lalli: “No Religion? No Problem”
April 6, 2009 by iMonk
UPDATE: All Comments are in moderation.
UPDATE II: Readers might also enjoy “A God Shaped Void? Maybe Not.” From May ‘06.
(Lalli recently wrote on the challenge of being an atheist parent.)
Gone are the days when a high school or college atheist felt alone. Now close to 1 in 5 Americans are on the “godless” plan.
The ARIS study (see link in the post or this link at USA today) says that those with “no religion” have doubled in less than 20 years; growing by almost 10% a decade. Look at America in 2050 if that growth rate continues at even half that speed: a third of the country will be “godless.”
If evangelicals and other Christians had their heads about them, they would welcome this development. No religion beats meaningless adherence to religion every time. I see this every day. I work with dozens of students with a cultural adherence to a particular “Christian” religion. They overwhelmingly know almost nothing of Jesus, nothing of the Bible, nothing but a collection of cultural traditions, legends and superstitions about Christianity, but they consider themselves Christians.
When it comes to my job as a Christian communicator, give me the students who are “non-religious” over sorting through cultural adherence and dead superstition. (OK atheists, I can hear you snickering. Control yourselves. It’s still my blog.)
But evangelicals have spent a large part of the post-war era villianizing atheists and the non-religious. Sometimes out of manipulation. Sometimes out of ignorance. Sometimes out of fear. Always out of an abandonment of a Jesus shaped view of those who are not Christians.
We’ve been fed the kind of exaggerations and over-reactions about “the non-religious” that ought to make us ashamed. We’ve bought into all these grand fears that we are going to lose “our” country to “them.” Somehow, a lot of Christians agree with Lalli’s citation of former VP George H.W. Bush: “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.”
Lalli says that the atheist next door wants to live peacefully. They want to be accepted by their religious friends and families. They want to participate as full members of society and be part of the “common public good” we all want to achieve together.
Of course, some evangelicals won’t hear that, and Lalli has some idea why. She knows it’s a two way street when it comes to hostility toward one another:
Some atheists out there might wish to de-convert believers, pull them away from their faith or disprove their gods, and it is true that those are the atheists who write the books that make the best-seller lists. Indeed, Richard Dawkins and his The God Delusion ilk have made a pretty penny stirring this controversy. But many of us — dare I say most of us — would prefer coexisting over combat.But is that really possible? To read the blogs that discuss such issues, you’d be tempted to say no. In fact, when I wrote a piece about raising my children without a specific religion — published in this newspaper — readers on the website responded with some support as well as some lacerating condemnation, such as “you are abdicating your role as a parent,” and worse, “without God, we are nothing.” In fact, whenever I have published anything about being an atheist, I have had to stop reading my e-mails from people of faith who — oh, the irony — say things that are very hateful.
I know the feeling. When I write reasonably about atheists, I get mail saying I’m about to become one. When atheists wrote me during my fifteen minutes of fame last month, they were divided between reasonable people commending me and hate-filled scary people talking about herding all religious people into camps and “getting rid” of us.
I’m concerned that the atheist community will find the temptation for “cultural revenge to be strong. I won’t be surprised at all if we’re about to enter a period where Christians will find a vocal, powerful minority of empowered atheists prepared to harass and even persecute.
Both sides have extremists whom the media love to get on the air to jack up ratings. Talk radio loves the extremists. But do they represent what most of us think?
I can accept that there are 60 million non-religious in America. I trust that they have no more desire to eliminate my religious faith than I do their unbelief, but I want to know if their claims of acceptance extent into the practice of my religion? Are Christians going to be viewed as brain washers and child abusers? Will religious communities be attacked by violent nut jobs? If so, what will the non-religious community have to say? Will my rights to oppose gay marriage remain part of my political rights as a citizen, or will it automatically make me a danger to society?
I think it’s fair for non-religious to ask if their kids can be free of harassment in public schools? Can an atheist openly speak of atheism without being lynched in the press or Christian media? Can unbelievers pursue their rights to avoid public demonstrations of religion for their children and themselves?
I hear Lalli’s experience, but I’m not sure any of us know what tolerance looks like.
I have some ideas:
1. Let’s stop getting together to debate and let’s get together to talk about what we have in common.
2. Let’s both clearly and consistently distance ourselves from the extremists and manipulators.
3. Let’s find a way to do things together that we both believe are important. Why can’t atheists and Christians feed the homeless and work on rights on conscience issues together?
4. Let’s go to the other team’s gatherings and describe our concerns and points of view in each other’s presence, without name calling.
5. Let’s treat one another like Jesus would. I think even atheists would sign on for that.
We need to make a start. Christians and non-religious are going to be two very large communities in American. Can we find a way to exist in the real world, with real mutual interests, or are we cauht in a cycle of hateful rhetoric and misrepresentation?
Oh and while I’m at it: I also know of many other Jews who’ve quite safely traveled to Saudi Arabia.
Sorry, but the world just is not the hyperthreatening
pit of terrorism, socialism and illicit sex that Fox News and Regnery Press has told you about.
AICitN: “First, I must ask, why is the modern Atheist a moral, productive member of American society and not a raping, pillaging pre-Christian barbarian? Where are they getting their sense of morals”
Surely it’s not just the fact that you believe in God that’s preventing you from doing those things, is it?
Surely if you decided one day that God doesn’t exist, you won’t go out and do those things, would you?
We all know those things are wrong, whether God exists or not. Indeed, I can’t see any way that the existance or non-existance of God could make a difference to the wrongness of “raping and pillaging” as you put it.
Woops; did I say Acre, Lebanon? Two mistakes: Acre is in Israel and the Phoenician child graveyard was actually found outside Tyre, which IS in Lebanon.
is it a sin to coexist peacefully with an atheist neighbor?
“We all know those things are wrong, whether God exists or not. Indeed, I can’t see any way that the existance or non-existance of God could make a difference to the wrongness of “raping and pillaging” as you put it.”
Allan, you do realize that raping and pillaging is only wrong if people have rights – and rights are a concept derived from recognizing a common authority, and that human rights as a philosophical tradition came about as an anthropological reflection on the idea of a single, powerful, sovereign God – right?
You might be surprised to learn just how heroic and laudable the most successful rapists and pillagers among barbarians were considered by their people – and even the renown and even honor that pirates, murderers, and brigands of all sorts could earn internationally as a result of their transgressing acts.
As a matter of fact, ethical reflection has given us a lot that human nature didn’t supply us with – many are concerned, with some precedent, that the decay of religious belief will result in a reversal of our best ethics. You mentioned Rome and the barbarians; after the Empire fell along went its regulated and more philosophical cults, and the tribal superstitions reasserted themselves. Much was lost.
“Sometimes I start to feel bitter when I remember the fear and guilt that was grinded into me when I was a young Catholic.”
I’m sorry you had this experience, Andy.
As a cradle Catholic who did time in Parochial schools, I can’t say as I know what you mean firsthand though – I never felt particularly fearful or guilty or grinded into. Different strokes for different folks, I guess?
Good luck though.
To be honest, that reply of mine above didn’t really respond to the point AICitN was making. Upon a more careful reading, s/he was saying that I only feel this way because of my Christian heritage.
I’ll accept that my view on ethics is profoundly influenced by my society. But I don’t believe that religion was required for an ethical society to develop.
And we continue to make moral progress without religious backing. Example: meat eating. I’m not a vegetarian, but I’m pretty sure that I morally should be. I expect that (barring catastrophe) in a hundred years everyone will be a vegetarian. This particular moral progress surely doesn’t come from religion.
Allan, see Jainism. Also, Ebionism. The extension of humane treatment to animals isn’t a new innovation, just like opposing torture isn’t a new idea – but both share in their reasoning an ontological assumption derived from religious reasoning, and neither argument doesn’t really achieve durable satisfaction without metaphysical support. Historically, nobody has managed to convince anybody for very long that anything should be considered an inviolable good without the assent of religion; and if you’re inclined to relativism, there’s really no such thing as ‘moral progress’ to begin with…
*Allan, you do realize that raping and pillaging is only wrong if people have rights*
Not true.
*- and rights are a concept derived from recognizing a common authority*
Not true.
*and that human rights as a philosophical tradition came about as an anthropological reflection on the idea of a single, powerful, sovereign God – right?*
Wrong.
*As a matter of fact, ethical reflection has given us a lot that human nature didn’t supply us with -*
Actually, as has been shown with the training of soldiers in any culture, it’s actually very, very difficult to convince one human being to kill another. The average human being needs to be “hardened” to the idea of killing another–particularly doing so on command.
*many are concerned, with some precedent, that the decay of religious belief will result in a reversal of our best ethics.*
No it won’t.
*You mentioned Rome and the barbarians; after the Empire fell along went its regulated and more philosophical cults, and the tribal superstitions reasserted themselves.*
Except Rome didn’t fall to pagans: It fell to Christians.
“Allan, you do realize that raping and pillaging is only wrong if people have rights – and rights are a concept derived from recognizing a common authority, and that human rights as a philosophical tradition came about as an anthropological reflection on the idea of a single, powerful, sovereign God – right?”
I wouldn’t care to speculate how humans have actually come to have the various moral concepts that they have. But the fact remains that the presence or absence of God cannot make an act right or wrong.
Rape and pillage aren’t wrong because God forbids them. God, if he exists, forbids them because they are wrong.
“You might be surprised to learn just how heroic and laudable the most successful rapists and pillagers among barbarians were considered by their people”
I am aware. I have read Numbers 31. (Cheap shot, maybe, but it’s an appalling passage – and one which illustrates your point.)
“Actually, as has been shown with the training of soldiers in any culture, it’s actually very, very difficult to convince one human being to kill another.”
J: I suspect that’s more true of humans from modern nations than humans in their “natural state”. I recall seeing some statistic that deaths by war or violence in some hunter-gather societies are something like 25%…
J, other than a couple of “yeah-huh”’s, I don’t have a response to you, but maybe there’s no point in crapping up a decent thread with this debate anyways.
“Actually, as has been shown with the training of soldiers in any culture, it’s actually very, very difficult to convince one human being to kill another. The average human being needs to be “hardened” to the idea of killing another–particularly doing so on command.”
Our prisons is full of people who needed training to become killers..
And as for the ‘Christians’ who sacked Rome at the end of her long slide into corruption? Well, that’s the kind of ‘Christian’ you get for the price of a universal, tribe-wide baptism – those German hordes weren’t LUTHERANS, man. What kind of point were you meaning to make?
“But the fact remains that the presence or absence of God cannot make an act right or wrong.”
Actually, it seems to me that in the absence of God, nothing is wrong. Everything’s equivocal enough for jazz: pleasant or unpleasant, adventitious or ungainful. Being a manipulative, contentious jerk is an effective way to go through life, but it’s not suited for the half-assed or the faint-hearted; invariably, people rise to respect and authority by demonstrating that, even in a society with ‘rules’ against it. Without a tradition of worrying about gods to hint to us otherwise, the sober observation that life is a game and there are winners and losers seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Last one before I’m done here: the inaugurating the story of the Jewish people as a whole and the end of the “mythological” phase of the Bible begins with.. wait for it.. the giving of the Law to Moses, and the Deuteronomic codes that followed. It would seem that, according to Jews and Christians at least, the essence of our relationship with God (if He exists) is based in what He wants us to do and not do. Which means raping and pillaging are existentially wrong because a particular God exists and it matters particularly what He thinks we should do, and thus forces the ramification of morality from inveterate selfishness. Or so I think; but hey, if I’m wrong, at least I’m not robbing you.
I’m not a vegetarian, but I’m pretty sure that I morally should be. I expect that (barring catastrophe) in a hundred years everyone will be a vegetarian. This particular moral progress surely doesn’t come from religion. — Allan Crossman
In the West, Vegetarianism got this aura of Sign of Spiritual Evolution sometime in the 19th Century. I remember the documentary Telegrams from the Dead (covering the 19th Century Spiritualist Movement) mentioning that Spiritualists were recommending vegetarian meals before a seance.
And Seventh-Day Adventists (no relation to Spiritualists, but originating in the same “burned-over district” around the same time) also had some sort of advocacy for vegetarianism. I remember an SDA Eschatology book I read as a kid (titled What Jesus Said), and in the middle of the SDA end-of-the-world choreography was this aside against “flesh foods”.
And “Scientific Romances” (the Victorian predecessor of Science Fiction) whose future Utopias were often Vegetarian. (A lot of which also included Free Love and Spiritualism.)
I wonder if this is some latter-day echo of Gnosticism, where in order to be “pneumatic” (the highest state of Gnostic spirituality) you had to abstain from almost all foods, eating only those which were “pneumatic” enough to be translucent.
The ARIS study growth/decline data rates reported in USAToday aren’t particularly illuminating, and especially so due to the way segments of religious identification are lumped the way they are.
I find Pew Forum’s study data better illuminate what Tim Keller addresses in his book “Reason for God”: American believers (include believers of non-belief) are becoming more polarized and entrenched, less willing to engage in a reasonable dialog with other individuals of differing spiritual worldviews. Meanwhile while we believers (of all stripes) become individually more intolerant, rigid and ungracious, many are united in still valuing “spirituality,’ ‘God’ and “prayer’ while thumbing their nose to religious culturo-institutional allegiance. (Non-denom Christianity is one segment of Christianity growing well — though that is not necessarily a uniform sign of health.)
Young American belief labels often still divide along some traditionally predictable regional, socio-economic and education-level lines, yet they have surprisingly greater unity of trends in choosing belief orientation along intentional, consensual, and substantive measures. In other words, young believers (including of ‘non-belief’) are quite consistently postmodern, fancying that they came to their belief position with more authenticity, intentionality, ‘content-rich’ substantiality, and objectivity than did their parents. (This is both truthful and alluringly self-delusional.)
Either way, I think is important to deliberately avoid equating “non-religious” with atheism. While the “non-religious” category growth rate is significant, only about a quarter self identify as atheist. From my personal involvement as a local officer of Mensa, where we have a disproportionally high ratio of non-religious to religious, I have found among those atheists, very few are militant. And of those who are more strongly convicted, I find they are more aggressively anti-corporate toward religion, but can still be considerably fair-minded toward individual belief. Still, there certainly are other atheists as ungracious as Hitchens and Dawkins. (We can say the same about Christians.)
I agree that there needs to be more intentional coexistence and of not trying to sell the merits of a given position by demonizing, misrepresenting, or constructing a straw man for an opposing position. There is, sadly, a common unquestioned willingness of many on all sides of belief conviction to choose to not see that there are very honest, reasonable and healthy positions of unbelief and doubt as there is for belief and faith.
Non-religious is definitely not atheist. Good and important point. Lalli says “We’re nothing.” I’m nothing but trusting Jesus, so I’m close.
As I understand it, religion consists of what, or who is sacred to us, that is, the central motivating factor in our lives. Perhaps Atheists and “Christians” are not that far apart in their religions here in America. It seems that comfort and safety are the central motivating factors in both camps. Americanism is the religion for both.
As for “tolerance,” to paraphrase Stanley Hauerwas, “This idea of tolerance requires that the one tolerating, assumes a superior position, a superior view of their opinion.”
Our Master, ( for those who claim to be Christians) had no idea of tolerance. He said, “love one another, even those you consider to be enemies, do good to those who harm youforgive them.” If we can’t obey that out of being motivated by a love for Jesus, then, we need to take another look at the central motivating factor(s) of our lives.
Amen, iMonk.
I’d usually much rather have a belief/faith conversation with a thoughtful ‘non-believer’. Perhaps it’s because I’m open about my faith in Christ being, while I think very reasonable, also irrational where certainty is concerned. After having gone thru my “dark night of the soul” certainty doesn’t have a lot of meaningfulness for me anymore.
I’m with you: I’m putting my trust in Jesus, and doing my seeking and serving of Him among community with believers. As best as I can I try to trust much less in the writings of smart writer-believers, institutionalism, and Biblical interpretive tradition (at least avoiding loyalty to such just for the sake of being loyal).
The hardest part is actually making my faith a heart response more than a head response. Placing faith in God is the most important part of my “trust in action” paradigm, and, perhaps ironically, makes me feel much more human than when I was a self-described agnostic humanist.
Re: vegetarianism… regardless of any religious precedents, I think today most people become vegetarians due to secular moral arguments.
Patrick Lynch: “Actually, it seems to me that in the absence of God, nothing is wrong.”
Then I hope you never lose your faith.
Fair enough J, I expect I exaggerated with respect to Syria but it is not exaggeration in the case of Gaza. But could you live in Syria or Saudi Arabia? Could you own property, run a business or, most importantly, practice your religion? You know the answer: you cannot even bring a personal cross into Saudi Arabia legally. You are overlooking real intolerance. The “pox on both their houses” mentality is lazy thinking and slanderous, although this line of “thought” has great social support especially on the left.
Beating up on Jews generally and Israel especially is very fashionable in elite circles. Jews themselves are eager participants, happy to trash their own to fit in among the elite. It was that too common offhanded unchallenged anti-Jewish slur that I was reacting to. While one can certainly get away with it in many places where the prejudice is shared it makes it no less ugly.
What this discussion shows is that politics and prejudices are not shed simply because one says they believe.
@Memphis Aggie Beating up on Jews generally and Israel especially is very fashionable in elite circles. Jews themselves are eager participants, happy to trash their own to fit in among the elite. It was that too common offhanded unchallenged anti-Jewish slur that I was reacting to.
For what it’s worth, I apologize if I sounded anti-Semitic; I certainly didn’t mean to lump ALL Israeli Jews under the rubric of people who have a hatred for Palestinian Arabs, and after rereading what I wrote I realized I used some very poor wording.
I certainly think Israel-bashing is fashionable in some circles, but it’s not without some level of merit, and I’d like to point out that criticizing the policies of the state of Israel (or the motivations behind them) is *not* the same as being anti-Semitic. I’d like to point out that this is all tied into the debate over the morality of the Israeli government and their policies — not out of some irrational hate for Jews.
In any case, my original point was that there’s plenty of ugliness in Judaism and Islam – not just Christianity.
(Sorry, iMonk for getting this off-topic. It’s one thing to get a thread derailed into a debate on Catholicism, Homosexuality or Gay Marriage – I don’t think you even want think about having an Israel-Palestine fight on here. In my experience, debates over Homosexuality or Gay Marriage are peanuts compared to Israel vs. Palestine…)
*But could you live in Syria or Saudi Arabia? Could you own property, run a business or, most importantly, practice your religion?*
Almost certainly. There are a couple tens of thousands of Americans living in Saudi Arabia, working for the oil companies, other businesses, as teachers, etc. I hear S.A. “imports” quite a number of instructors for their medical schools.
Syria? I dunno. But I suspect that yeah, if I kept more or less to myself, I probably could live there, start a business, practice my religion (if I had one). I might expect, after not too long, to see one or more of the same Baath party secret police guys constantly hanging around outside, keeping tabs on me, but again: I’d be miffed at the government for that, not the Syrian people.
*…although this line of “thought” has great social support especially on the left.*
It does?
*Beating up on Jews generally and Israel especially is very fashionable in elite circles.*
It is?
*Jews themselves are eager participants happy to trash their own to fit in among the elite.*
I am?
*Still, there certainly are other atheists as ungracious as Hitchens and Dawkins.*
I’m more than a little confused about this equivocation of Richard Dawkins as being some kind of screaming fanatic. I’ve read “The Ancestor’s Tale” and “The Selfish Gene”*. I’ve also watched some of his TV shows.
And to me, Dawkins seems the soul of graciousness. I’ll have to ask for communal indulgence when I say that’s not just because I pretty much agree with him. He’s polite. He waits his turn during debates. He doesn’t return ad hominems even when they’re levelled at him. Yeah, he mocks things he finds silly or barbaric, but it’s never crude (this is *British* mockery, we’re talking about here).
I really just do not understand the easy equivocation of him as being the equal-and-opposite of Fred Phelps or something.
Heck, Dawkins has often said he’s only 9/10ths sure there’s no god. Let me know when Phelps admits he’s only 9/10ths sure god hates fags.
*Note about *The Selfish Gene* for people who have/will not read it: It is NOT about how our genes make us selfish and how that’s okay. I’ve heard that canard a billion-odd times and it’s pretty funny because it’s a pretty iron-clad piece of evidence that the person has never read the book.
Did you guys catch this piece in Newsweek?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583/page/1
It’s written by an Episcopalian and has a very balanced view of the ARIS stats regarding the post-christianizing of America.
*Did you guys catch this piece in Newsweek?*
Yes. It’s kind of wordy and meandering; the associated podcast is actually better.
J, the only thing I do want to point out is that the Westerners living and working in Saudi Arabia do live in their own protected, walled compounds/communities so it’s not as though they’re living completely in among the native populace. But that’s a minor point…
J
*…although this line of “thought” has great social support especially on the left.*
It does?
Yes it does as almost any US University lecture on the Mid East will immediately reveal.
*Beating up on Jews generally and Israel especially is very fashionable in elite circles.*
It is?
Yes especially among Academics and in Universities where banning Israel imports, Israeli professors, and harassing identifiable Jews is more and more common. Just read up on the upcoming Durbin II UN meeting.
*Jews themselves are eager participants happy to trash their own to fit in among the elite.*
I am?
Not necessarily you, don’t know you that well, but I can think of a few obvious public examples like Noam Chomsky. Also I know this from my direct personal experience. Although you profess not to have a religion so I guess your what “ethnically” Jewish or “historically” Jewish? Which means what exactly? I was born Jewish by the way I am entirely familiar with the euphemisms and quasi identity you claim when convenient. I used to be in the same gray zone. Note here you claim to be Jewish in regard to setting foot in Syria but acknowledge that you have no religion. So when you went to Syria did a Jew go there really? Did the Syrians presume you were Jewish or was that hidden from them? If they had asked what would you have said?
Don’t be coy, the increasing attacks on observant identifiable Jews across Europe and even at American Universities like Columbia are quite real. I find it very hard to believe you’ve heard or read nothing about this.
Also the restrictions on religion in Saudi Arabia are very well documented. It’s their law. They make no effort to hide it or any apology for it. I can not take you seriously if you fail to acknowledge facts.
I am willing to accept that the Syrian dictatorship, which supports Hezbollah and is implicated in assassinations in Beirut, is not currently suppressing the handful of Jews who may incidentally step across its borders as tourists, perhaps it’s an oversight. However can you seriously equate the full rights given Israeli Arabs to anyone living in that country, let alone a Jew?
Why do you take the side of the tyrant? That’s what I’d like to know.
“Almost certainly. There are a couple tens of thousands of Americans living in Saudi Arabia, working for the oil companies, other businesses, as teachers, etc. I hear S.A. “imports” quite a number of instructors for their medical schools.
Syria? I dunno. But I suspect that yeah, if I kept more or less to myself, I probably could live there, start a business, practice my religion (if I had one).”
Actually J, you got it backwards.
Saudi Arabia was labeled as a Country of Particular Concern this year (“The CPC designation is for countries engaged in or tolerating “particularly severe” violations of religious freedom, which are systematic, ongoing, and egregious, including acts such as torture, prolonged detention without charges, disappearances, or “other flagrant denial[s] of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.”) by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. SA has made the list every year since 2004.
http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2369&Itemid=126
I wouldn’t want to be a Jew there; jeez, I wouldn’t even want to be an atheist there!
And Syria is actually quite tolerant officially of religious plurality; relatively peaceful even, considering the region of the world they are in. There’s a sizable and well-established Jewish population there, too.
Just sayin’.
Thanks Patrick.
I guess Syria is more tolerant of religion than I thought – makes sense because Baathists are really political tyrants rather than religious ones. Still wouldn’t live there voluntarily.
J:
In God Delusion, Dawkins isn’t gracious. He’s ridiculous, even to other atheists.
@ J :
I considered not mentioning Hitchens and Dawkins by name lest I appear to be trying to strengthen my point by an ad hominem argument. I kept the comment only to agree obliquely with Lalli who also appears to want to distance the merit of her non-religiousness from some of the most ardent voices in her ‘camp’, such as Dawkins. You’re right to point out Christianity has its examples as well.
I’ve felt Hitchens has built his career — especially his anti-faith and anti-religion business such as his book “God is Not Great: How religion Poisons Everything” — on polemics, that is advancing ‘non-belief’ by iconoclasm and destructionism more than being a gracious apologist for the merits of humanism and atheism.
More broadly, I think the point is that an iconoclast can be a begrudgingly useful truth-teller like your drunk uncle or the buffoonery of a court jester. It’s a tradition as fine as the best of Shakespeare. But it’s still a poor way to win friends and influence people by smashing on the likes as Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa and Gandhi. The irony is that for Christian believers it is good to be reminded of the shortcomings of even the best among humanity. So who can totally dismiss a dour teller of truth as that person sees truth?
Still, even Jesus, from a position of non-belief, represents a worldview so philosophically distinct and mythically powerful that I think it’s just poor tactics to advance non-theism by way of criticizing Him. Some atheist critics therefore prefer to show how poor the institution and collective believers of Christianity have lived up to His ideal. Ironically how much more pragmatic support for the Christian belief ideal is there than pointing out the perpetuating reality of a non-ideal, non-self-advancing humanity? A paradox indeed.
Humanism doesn’t become more persuasive by defining it merely as a secular position, by kicking against the pricks of the very human need for mythic beauty and ‘irrationality’ of faith (to give a nod to Kierkegaard, one of my fellow Christian humanists).
Re Seventh-Day Adventists and vegetarianism, the original rationale was health rather than gnosticism. In the late 1800’s, meat, fish and current medicines could all be fairly unwholesome.
“In certain cases of illness or exhaustion it may be thought best to use some meat, but great care should be taken to secure the flesh of healthy animals. It has become a very serious question whether it is safe to use flesh food at all in this age of the world. It would be better never to eat meat than to use the flesh of animals that are not healthy.” Youth’s Instructor, 1894, Ellen White.
The Adventist Health Study and other current (non-Adventist) studies correlate vegetarianism with decreased obesity and improved health.
BTW, I am not a vegetarian.
Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene” is a good layman’s overview of what is called “Game Theory”.
When Dawkins philosophizes, he does so poorly. He makes the gene into his god (omnipotent, immortal, and all-purposeful [omni-teleological?]) – he then proceeds to rebel against that god, as he has the true God
*Don’t be coy, the increasing attacks on observant identifiable Jews across Europe and even at American Universities like Columbia are quite real.*
No they aren’t.
*However can you seriously equate the full rights given Israeli Arabs to anyone living in that country, let alone a Jew?*
Yes. Mostly I do it mostly by expedient of not shanghai’ing real-life people and cultures into forced duty as extras in a Great-War-for-Civilization fantasy.
*Why do you take the side of the tyrant? That’s what I’d like to know.*
I question whether you’d really like to “know” anything. You mostly seem to have made up your mind about the world–or about out-and-out paranoid fabrications regarding the world. Your questions for me, such as they are, seem mostly rhetorical, and the answers I’ve given seem mostly to be ignored in favor of what you yourself have already convinced yourself to believe. Or to fear.
J,
You’re right I am not taking your answers too seriously, it’s just a blog after all. Our world views are so divergent there’s little point. We disagree on the basic facts so of course we’ll disagree on any conclusion as well. I have family who would probably agree with your assertions and we talk about gardening and raising children and avoid politics for that reason.
But I am truly fascinated by the fact that two people living in the same world, and given roughly the same environment can draw radically divergent conclusions. Maybe you have an insight into that.
I think it would be a news flash to many Bible thumping Christians that God loves the athiest just as much as any Christian. Christians need to quit blaming all the bad PR on the “evil” news media and look at the log in their own eyes.
J,
Maybe this question will be more interesting to you. Have you ever convinced anyone who firmly believed X that Y was true? With the stipulation that X is a serious matter not a demonstrable fact, I have never done so, not ever, not on any matter of note. In my opinion (which you’re no doubt pretty tired of) the best you can hope to do in any circumstance is to give someone who disagrees something to think about. In our posts here I was only seriously trying to deduce how far apart we are in belief and writing to organize my own thoughts. I don’t think I offered up much of anything you haven’t heard before, and I don’t expect that anything from me would be of interest to you in any case.
This gets to the fact that without standing, opinions have no weight. I have no standing with you, we have no prior history, have no common understanding of what’s important, so I expect much of what I have to say is simply not credible to you (and vice versa). So thinking aloud and changing gears back to faith, changing the mind of an atheist to a believer is likewise very nearly impossible unless you have standing. Standing, or perhaps credibility is a better term, is acquired by virtuous behavior or close familial relationship. That’s why evangelism is so hard. It’s easy to toss words at each other (I’m guilty of that charge, certainly) but hard to gain credibility and standing with your subject. St Francis was so successful because his life of poverty gave him credibility.
I believe in God…
I’m a follower of Jesus Christ…
I don’t have a religion. Am I an atheist for that?
I’ve been faced with better opportunities to share the Gospel since I quit my religion (I used to be evangelical), and helped many atheist friends to understand God and start a relationship with Jesus, than never before.
They key was… BE A FRIEND FIRST!
1. Know the person…
2. Share some common ground, needs, hobbies, etc.
3. Have quality time together…
When the time is right, if the Spirit leads you… share your faith!
You wont always have that moment the answer you’re expecting but you’ll be surprised of how things will eventually lead to a firm commitment to Christ. Not a religion, just Christ.
Atheist have morals, because they have a conscience.
We can argue with them about the origin of that conscience. (I believe that is the part that God put within us so we wont destroy ourselves if we were left to the dominion of our fallen nature). But at the end, if you embrace a relation based on love, and not a religious agenda, if you wont win them for Christ, at least you’ll learn how to coexist with them and still treat them as people worthy of the love of God.
Love covers tons of failures!
Have ears to hear?
Peace & LOVE!
charlie.hr–Absolutely!!!
@This derailed thread.
“If I can talk somebody into it, somebody else can talk them out of it.” ~ Dr. Adrian Rogers
currently Atheists (weak Atheists) do enjoy greater numbers in the scientific arena, and yet it is nearly impossible for Christians to be heard in that realm
No. It isn’t. A Christian can be heard just as loudly and is as welcome as a Hindu or an atheist in the scientific arena, just so long as they are doing science. What makes it hard for people to be listened to in the scientific arena is when people stop doing science and start saying “Ahhh.. but it is in my book! I dont need no steenking evidence”.
Science and religion need not and should not be at odds. God gave us reasoning minds, curiosity and the powers of observation which together yield Science. Religion is expressly not demonstrable. God is not to be “put to the test”. Faith and Science conflict whenever one crosses over the border into the others turf. Whenever Science dogmatically asserts what it can not test or demonstrate it takes on a religious quality and whenever men of Faith ignore or distort the evidence to support their understanding of Scripture they are actually demonstrating a profound lack of faith, a failure to accept mystery and a distrust of Truth, which is impious because God is Truth Himself.
I wanted to add a bit about credibility, if anybody still cares. If St Francis has credibility because he gave up wealth, how much more credible is the faith of martyrs? Further since the greatest degree of credibility is gained by martyrdom it helps explain why Christ had to die on the cross. It was the only way He could have the greatest degree of credibility and therefore save the greatest number. Obvious I guess, but still worth saying.
Christianity is not the only religion with martyrs. Through the millenia, Hindus, Jews, Jains, Sikhs, Animists, et al have suffered and died for their deity(ies).
QUOTE:
“I’m concerned that the atheist community will find the temptation for “cultural revenge to be strong. I won’t be surprised at all if we’re about to enter a period where Christians will find a vocal, powerful minority of empowered atheists prepared to harass and even persecute.”
I’m sorry, but as an atheist myself, I find this comment almost laughable.
What “atheist community” are you referring to? I think they forgot to send me my membership card.
In my own experience, I find atheists to be a very diverse, and often times, non cohesive bunch of individuals than any other demographic around. Think “herding cats” and you might get my drift.
Atheists do not have anything that even comes close to the social and political influence of Christianity and I seriously doubt you will see anything like it for many, many years, if at all.
In all honesty, I think tolerant believers and unbleivers have more to fear from the influence of dominionist theocrats and those who want to see Armageddon started by an attack on Iran.
Heck, to really persecute on a grand scale, atheists would need political influence akin to what evangelicals have enjoyed for decades. As atheists fall behind minorities and gays as far as electability goes, I wouldn’t start going underground just yet.
I am not sure why Christians have got all up in arms over people like Harris, Hitchens, Dennett and Dawkins. Those 4 are like a drop in the bucket compared to the steady stream of Jesus Inc. we have heard from for years.
Just consider how our culture has been saturated with Christian preaching from those such as Graham, Fallwell, Robertson, Baker, Stewart, Hagee, Lindsey, Stewart, Schuller, Hinn, Kennedy, and numerous others for decades.
I find it sadly amusing that a movement that has been the biggest persecutor of unbelievers throughout the centuries has the audacity to cry “Persecution” if anyone questions their right to primacy in our society. I mean, c’mon, do Christians really need a Anti Christian Defamation Commission to protect their sensitive egos?
I hope no one thinks I am being a bit harsh here, but I don’t see gulags populated by Christians in the forecast. Heck, I am not even comfortable using the word “atheist” to describe myself where I live out of fear of negative repercussions.
cermak_rd
You’re right of course. But wouldn’t you say that the devotion of those martyrs to their cause was an impressive and attractive act of will, even if you don’t believe in it yourself? The distinction in Christianity with respect to martyrdom is the theological is the martyrdom of God in love and total self donation. As far as I know that’s uniquely Christian.
“I find it sadly amusing that a movement that has been the biggest persecutor of unbelievers throughout the centuries has the audacity to cry “Persecution” if anyone questions their right to primacy in our society.”
If you want to get technical, Christianity’s done most of it’s persecuting against Believers who disagreed with them, not ‘UN’-believers.
“I hope no one thinks I am being a bit harsh here, but I don’t see gulags populated by Christians in the forecast.”
Sigh.
Rationalism doesn’t make people rational: modern times have seen atheist governments persecuting religious believers of all types… Socialism (a word reduced to scare quotes today) is just one atheist philosophy that’s purged MILLIONS of people of all faiths as it’s spread across the world.
We’ve got to stop being glib about this stuff.
China persecutes Christians. TODAY. The USSR violently suppressed religion at its height. Albania? The Khmer Rouge?
Come on, dude.
These references represent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The word ‘gulag’ itself IS a reference to the modern, systematic violent persecution of people for their beliefs – by relativist rationalists in power.
If the only objection to that is “…but but but religious folks have killed MORE people..” then you’re not seeing the big picture here.
The VERY FIRST self-declared atheist states killed religious people as a matter of process. Atheism doesn’t ‘make’ people kill each other: people find all kinds of great pragmatic or philosophical reasons to do so on their own. That’s the story of humanity. The USSR may be gone and China may be reorganizing a little, but humanity is not going to change. Violence and prejudice are GREAT ways to get things done: of COURSE Christians (and everybody else) will (continue to) be persecuted for what they believe in.
The reason Dawkins and others are viewed with suspicion by Christians is because whenever somebody gets famous by decaring a population irrelevant or hopelessly backwards, it’s ALWAYS A BAD THING FOR THAT GROUP.
See: Germans:Jews. Dutch:Africans.
“What “atheist community” are you referring to? I think they forgot to send me my membership card.
”
For effect: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Communist_Party_of_USSR_membership_card_(edit).jpg
Not that Communism and atheism are the same thing at all, but the fact that in at least one recent historical instance you had to officially renounce religious faith in order to GET A MEMBERSHIP CARD is, I hope, instructive.
It’s always been playground rules.
Socialism (a word reduced to scare quotes today) is just one atheist philosophy
Socialism is NOT atheist. You can have secular, atheist or theist socialisms. Remember, Marx got his phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” from the Bible!
Donalbain: “Socialism is NOT atheist.”
=
Patrick Lynch: “Not that Communism and atheism are the same thing at all” …
You get my meaning though, even if I did interchange ‘communism’ and ’socialism’ in there somewhere. My bad. I did speak somewhat sloppily.
Socialism isn’t necessarily inherently atheist. Many occasions where they’ve connected in the past have been notably horrible.
My main point, being mainly that atheists, under whatever philosophical or pragmatic guise, have proved as likely to gather together and persecute as anybody of another creed, still stands. That’s just what people like to do.
Patrick Lynch
“If you want to get technical, Christianity’s done most of it’s persecuting against Believers who disagreed with them, not ‘UN’-believers.”
ME
I suppose credit is due that atheists that didn’t openly exist were not persecuted by Christians when they were burning each other alive. I stand corrected.
My emphasis was more on the knee jerk cries of “persecution” from those who have their beliefs challenged by those who don’t share them. For example when the musical “Proposition 8″ with Jack Black came out, I got e-mail from the Christian Anti Defamation Commission pointing out this “persecution” of Christians.
Persecution is being equivocated with offending certain sensibilities and I find it dishonest and laughable that certain Christians attempt to frame things this way. Here in NC there was talk of overturning “blue laws” and Christians freaked like they were being subjected to horrible torture. Any objection to their enforced values is seen as an attack and the evil unbeliever is trying to destroy their faith.
See where I am going with this?
Patrick Lynch
“Sigh.
Rationalism doesn’t make people rational: modern times have seen atheist governments persecuting religious believers of all types… Socialism (a word reduced to scare quotes today) is just one atheist philosophy that’s purged MILLIONS of people of all faiths as it’s spread across the world.
We’ve got to stop being glib about this stuff.
China persecutes Christians. TODAY. The USSR violently suppressed religion at its height. Albania? The Khmer Rouge?
Come on, dude.
These references represent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
The word ‘gulag’ itself IS a reference to the modern, systematic violent persecution of people for their beliefs – by relativist rationalists in power.
If the only objection to that is “…but but but religious folks have killed MORE people..” then you’re not seeing the big picture here.
The VERY FIRST self-declared atheist states killed religious people as a matter of process. Atheism doesn’t ‘make’ people kill each other: people find all kinds of great pragmatic or philosophical reasons to do so on their own. That’s the story of humanity. The USSR may be gone and China may be reorganizing a little, but humanity is not going to change. Violence and prejudice are GREAT ways to get things done: of COURSE Christians (and everybody else) will (continue to) be persecuted for what they believe in.”
ME
Well, I am glad we both agree that a secular constitutional republic government is a desirable thing for a free and tolerant society.
I am not sure where you inferred from anything I said that I think Marxism or stateism were a desirable thing, and I don’t think I insinuated that the killing fields or Stalin’s exploits were somehow less offensive because of the Crusades or Inquisition.
I still think the possibility of atheist run American gulags is a lot less likely than theocratic run ones based on the recent history of religious ideologues infiltrating all levels of government. Maybe we read the political landscape quite differently.
Patrick Lynch
“The reason Dawkins and others are viewed with suspicion by Christians is because whenever somebody gets famous by decaring a population irrelevant or hopelessly backwards, it’s ALWAYS A BAD THING FOR THAT GROUP.
See: Germans:Jews. Dutch:Africans.”
ME
So, you really don’t see the numeric disparity between a couple of voices speaking against religion and the myriads who have constantly painted those of no faith as evil and enemies of all things “righteous”?
I think the last numbers I saw showed 12% of the U.S. population were considered atheist/agnostic. I am not sure how that boils down to strong vs. weak atheists but I think we can both agree that any “atheist rage” the author might fear as a possibility has a very small base of the population to work with even if they were interested in a systematic oppression of believes.
Patrick Lynch
”
“What “atheist community” are you referring to? I think they forgot to send me my membership card.
For effect: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Communist_Party_of_USSR_membership_card_(edit).jpg
Not that Communism and atheism are the same thing at all, but the fact that in at least one recent historical instance you had to officially renounce religious faith in order to GET A MEMBERSHIP CARD is, I hope, instructive.
It’s always been playground rules.”
ME
in that comment. The entire point of it was there is no “atheist community” that I know of. Atheism alone is no grounds for any political position. I know atheists that subscribe to politics that lean left and right and a good many in the middle.
Maybe you missed the
Believe it or not, many atheists think a constitutional republic is a good form of government and that the separation of church and state and the fist amendment are admirable.
So really, in the context of the American experience, you don’t think my comments had any merit at all? Christians really are being or soon will be the object of persecution that the author was expressing fear of?
Check out the Christian Anti Defamation Commission web page and tell me if you think they have a case. I would also like to know the scriptural justification for an organization that exists to protect believers from “persecution”. I think the Sermon on the Mount teaches the exact opposite of Dr. Cass’s mission statement. But, then again, I might be fuzzy on my New Testament.