Our society is generally egalitarian in nature, but it gets there in fits and starts. If it's true that Blacks are the new Jews (generally respected publicly but commonly discriminated against in private when the bigot can get away with it) and Gays are the new Blacks (supposedly respected but often publicly held to be invalid persons without shame on the part of the speaker), then Atheists are the new Gays (publicly viewed anywhere between invalid persons or just mentally ill, depending on the charity of the speaker). In fact, a new USA/Gallop Poll found that not only would the vast majority of the U.S. public not elect an otherwise well-qualified atheist that their own party nominated, but that among the most die-hard Homophobic Evangelical Bigots (my terminology), they'd rather see the very same homosexuals they hate so much (irony, anyone?) in office before they let an atheist in.
This general low-esteem has led to the expected "hey, there's nothing wrong with us" reaction, and now there's a lot of pro/anti-atheism rhetoric sloshing around. Some of the more vigorous proponents of atheism (Richard Dawkins especially) are doing a good job of simultaneously rallying the like-minded and infuriating the religious, but, speaking as an ex-seminarian, ex-Christian Buddhist atheist, I feel they're doing the wider body of atheists, myself included, a rather large disservice. The reason for the problem is simply that there is no one such thing as atheism -- there are in fact two such things.
Type-1 atheism, peopled by folks like Dawkins, are folks that look at religion, especially the three semitic religions, and see a bunch of bronze-age myths that have served the powerful well through the centuries, but are otherwise total nonsense. Atheists of this sort feel active incredulity at the idea of a God; to them, you might as well believe in Santa Claus or the Headless Horseman. These people's atheism is stridently (pardon my psuedo-greek) anti-theos. They argue that God doesn't exist, not on evidence that there is no God, which they know can't be found, but on the basis that there is no solid evidence for God's existence that doesn't also have other "credible" explanations, and that since the prime characteristic of religion seems mostly to be to protect belief regardless of the facts surrounding said belief, including finding any and all wiggle-room possible to reinterpret facts so as to preserve the belief (e.g. the "Process Theology" escape-hatch for the fact that evolution just isn't going to go away), that religion is really just a general cutural artifact we'll surely outgrow.
One day while discussing religion on my blog (which I do often, it being sometimes a bit of a "sore tooth" for me) someone remarked that my perspective was understandible for someone who is "the kind of person who assumes there's no metaphysical reality". This statement is key to the second kind of Atheism. The second kind of atheism doesn't claim that there is no God! The second kind of atheism honestly could care less if there's a God or if there isn't one. This atheism's face, to the extend that it could be said that it's aimed at anything, is aimed at anti-theism. Really, though, it isn't aimed at anything at all, and is based on a negative assumption. The type-2 atheist assumes that there is no God, or, if not that, assumes that there's no God whose existence could possibly be relevent to himself or herself. To a person conditioned to religion, this's vastly weird; but it's really not that different mentally than the assumption that there isn't a condor upon one's rooftop. One doesn't say "today I shall go about all my duties and pleasures as if there were no condor on my rooftop". Not seeing a condor upon one's roof when returning at night, this "belief" is repeated the next morning and every day thereafter without much batting an eye. Likewise for God. If, given the absolutely incontrovertible evidence for the existence of condors and, at least here in California, the fact that we're within their territorial ranges, one just blindly assumes there's no condor upon one's roof, then what should one say about a God whose existence is unproven and about whom people throughout the world have contradictory and seemingly impossible claims? A sceptic might say "well, sure, that's easy, because there are no consequences to having a condor upon one's roof, but there are should God exist". Unlike the type-1 atheist who just shakes his head and calls the religious person an idiot, the type-2 atheist says "yeah, the consequence is that I should be obliged to swear sovereignty to a dead man, never to eat meat, to refrain from eating meat sometimes, to cut the tip off my dick, to smack my head on the ground five times per day, to spin around in circles some afternoons, or to stay up all night reciting sutras, but without any solid evidence as to which one of these won't get me tortured for all eternity by an all-loving God?" The type-2 atheist just isn't going to bother until the religious people themselves agree on an answer. If that comes to pass, he or she will probably chose to go along with it under Mr. Izzard's "not getting killed with sticks" plan, but, short of any evidence that it really matters, will believe in God no more than he or she believes in the local speed limit.
Both faces of atheism are in their own ways religions. Type-1 atheist are positivists; there is no prevailing evidence their positivist outlook is actually true, but type-1 atheists put their faith in their positivism (irony, anyone?) and dismiss everything outside of the Court of Evidence as equally unpriviledged conjectures, dismising any unprovables as paradoxical or false. The type-2 atheist is also religious, but the type-2 atheist follows the religion of realism, the belief that there is an objective and at least partially knowable physical reality ("proved" by the fact that we stub our toes) and that, while one may have to adjust or abandon facts from time to time, sees no point in attempting to go beyond the realm of plausible facts into a realm of priviledged truths.
I think we'd all be better served if, when we call ourselves or others "atheists", we were to distinguish between Positivist Atheists and Realist Atheists. Maybe Janus-headed atheism will remain personae non-grata by most of the USA, but at least among the open-minded, distinguishing between Positivists and Realists might prevent much misunderstanding and invective.
33 comments:
I assume this post is in response to earlier comments from the post outlining a tension between faith and reason?
To further complicate matters, when confronted with the untestable in one framework, one should think that another would have to be established. However, since any framework under which theistic questions cannot be tested includes the totality of reality, the only way to test a theistic question is to establish a frame of reference outside all of reality. Attempting to do so generates a strange loop much like the Epimenides paradox. One therefore must be content to work inside the previous frame of reference and have faith that the system will continue to work as it had before the attempt to step outside it had been made. Otherwise he rocks in the corner going down the proverbial rabbit hole of strange loops in logic.
I'm with your thesis... except insofar as Positivist Atheists will often use the arguments of your Realist Atheists, and themselves appear to *prefer* invective and controversy.
Now, as Squeak, standing over my shoulder this fine morning suggests, there is a breadth of religious experience that is non-Abrahamic, and thus is posited differently than you've set the stage, enculturated as a perceived experience. Granted that the Abrahamic experience is the one most common in North America ca. 2007.
The real problem here in terms of controversy tends to be that there is a profit both to be made from intolerant atheism and intolerant religious worship... both of which can profit from controversy. Certainly an atheist (or a Heinlein specifically) might have a point when looking at a number of churches and thinking "what a racket!" What both sides miss is that both theism and atheism *provide value* for their adherents... and are thus commonly adhered to not for their epistomological position, but for the prima facie evidence of the relative benefits of the position. Thus, questioning either is (rightly!) perceived as a threat to the daily equilibrium of the interviewee.
Ah, but there are hells outside of the Abrahamic religions, and many places where the wrong ID-card can get you killed. Gujarat, for example.
I think the Positivists very directly prefer invective and controversy at this point, as it's means of attracting the attention of potential allies. It's also often rude. No accident that I stated that I think they're doing the Realists a disservice.
I agree with the economic analysis of it (even if you disbelieve in higher powers, stripping a 12-stepper of his/hers would be nothing but cruelty); but many faithful would consider that an affront.
Johnathon: I concur -- religion isn't testable from within reality (or, as some would put it, "creation"), and we don't have access to the rest of being from where we could emplace a world-moving lever. But, just like the Epimenidian paradox is easily solved by noting that committed liars aren't always lying and therefore that the Cretan was probably being truthful, likewise the issue with Positivism and Realism is equally easy: acknowledge that at root these are also faith-based positions.
Somehow, I think ice-cream assists in the process.
A schism in atheism...who would have though? :)
I fully agree with you that there are more than one type of atheism and in a way it is much like a religion on its own. It is more interesting when you think of atheism as a religion having different views, much like there are myriad forms of protestant faith or a few distinct versions of other faiths (Ultra-orthodox vs. reform Judaism, Sunni vs. Shiite Islam, Coptic vs. Greek Orthodox, etc.) and even branches/differing views in Taoism, Buddhism, etc. I have to admit though, I never thought about more than one version of atheism (positivist vs. realist), but instead thought that those who called themselves atheists had different "ways" of professing that belief, much like you could put two Christians side by side and find that the two may go about their belief in very different ways.
Yes, Jim, but the "Realist" faction you describe also has a benefit-system going, by steadfastly assuming a "sparse reality," without reference to "things unseen." This "assumption of simple reality" provides the "realist" atheist with precisely the same benefits as that obtained by a fundamentalist -- a framework through which to appreciate the world. Threaten that framework, and you threaten that benefit. (This is, perhaps, why the issue is a neuralgic point for you?)
This in stark contrast to, say, the Mongols, whose native religion is a simple and low-key expression of humans' stark submission to greater (unnamed) forces vastly beyond their ken, let alone control.
If I were to choose whether to make a profit off of intolerant atheism or intolerant religious worship, I'd choose the religious one. They seem to make way more money (not mentioning any names, but his initials are L Ron).
Also, there's a big difference between atheist intolerance and religious intolerance - if an an atheist is intolerant in the US, what - so we don't have "Under God" in the pledge? Big deal. The religious right, on the other hand, thinks we should have all kinds of bizarre restrictions on who we sleep with and/or whether they are covered under our health insurance.
Now, atheism as put forward by the USSR - *that* was a problem.
Russ: did you miss that I said I agreed with your economic assessment of it?
As far as neuralgia goes, nope; that has more to do with my 1.5-second fall from immortal-soul to ape shortly before I left the seminary. That'll always squeak if when I turn corners too fast. :)
Ouch. That "sprong" sound you all just heard was my brain. You know, I think I am just going to stick with my belief that Monty Python's Australian Philosophers had it right. So I'll just drink some more and try not to get run over at the next Zebra Crossing.
I appreciate your assessment that Atheism (both kinds) is faith-based. The old "faith vs. reason" nonsense that "Positivist" Atheists throw at Theists really chaps my ass. Not every Theist is a fundamentalist Fish-person nutjob, just like not every Atheist is an invective asshole.
I wonder if Persian Zoroastrians, surrounded by Shia Islam, or Tibetan Buddhists, dealing with "official" Chinese Communism, look at the rhetoric being thrown at between "Let's sue on behalf of my kid" Atheists and "Y'all Are Goin' to Hell Cuz You Ain't Found Jesus" Fundies just shrug and avoid religious/political persecution that can very well get them executed.
Religious freedom. God I love America. Do you know that the military may be officially recognizing Wicca? In order for Wiccans who died in the Middle East can get a proper, religious burial?
Free to believe. Or not. Or believe something that isn't mainstream. Or is.
But believe in personal liberty, I say.
Atheist do not necessarily have faith in anything. Not a common way of thinking, but there you are.
faith implies belief *even against evidence*. If one's beliefs can and will change with evidence, I'd say that isn't faith.
If what you believe in can be "proved" or "unproved", I'd say it lies outside the boundaries of the metaphysical anyway.
That's mostly true, but Positivists adhere to their regime without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. There really is no reason to assume that the non-falsifiable is true, that Occam's razor wins, etc. For all we know we're being simulated by Splugorths (big tentacled monsters) as part of a slave-design optimization experiment -- as a homework exercise. We really have no absolute certainty otherwise, and anyone who says anything different is acting on faith.
Faith is not only that which's more true than fact, but it's also which number you drop your money on when Rick hasn't told you to "put it on 22".
I thought the military already recognized Wicca. I remember reading about it back on active duty. The only issue was that a Wicca Priest/Priestess couldn't be in the Chaplin's Corps.
Like you said, believe it. Or not. That is the best way to do it. I think Andy Blair put it best: "Thou shall not harsh another's groove". It really is amazing how big a thing religion can be in other countries and how it can get people going. So many people here just don't seem to be able to compute that fact.
It used to be bigger in this country; my grandmother was denied employment for being Catholic, for example. Outside of some odd pockets, though, that stuff is pretty much in the past.
But the general sentiment that an atheist by definition can't be a good person is oddly popular, which's weird.
It's oddly popular... amongst whom? Intolerant rabid nutjobs? Who, by definition aren't considered reasonable by anybody but themselves?
Russ, in the Bible Belt, the old-fashioned, country, knee-jerk reaction to a person who says, "I'm an atheist" is to question their morals. It's because folks who usually self-identify themselves as "atheist" often are the invective kinds that give gentle agnostics a bad rap.
Which brings me to an important point. The background milieu of U.S. society is theistic -- the Puritan work ethic, Founding Fathers' official line of Deism, "In God We Trust" on printed currency, "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Theism is part of the U.S. civic religion -- Mom, God, and Apple Pie.
So, Jim, in the US, an atheist who openly identifies himself as such has to deal with the subconscious suspicion of not exactly being "one of us" -- i.e. good, red-blooded 'Mer'cans. It's idiotic, I know -- after all, this is the Land of the Free, including religious freedom. It's just the idea of the freedom NOT to believe in a theistic system often doesn't occur to many theistic folks' radar.
The solution? More conversation, more charitable understanding between theists and atheists who are willing to listen to each others' viewpoint without accusing each other of being "WRONG" or "IGNORANT", without bringing in baggage from dealing with the extremist, close-minded veiwpoints of each others' camps. It's idiotic to have civil discussion of faith and horizons of meaning devolve into a screaming match similar to the worst offenses done in the pro-choice/pro-life issue.
In other words, both sides need to practice charity -- whether done in the name of God or in the name of virtuous secular humanism.
This is what a philosophic conversation -- i.e. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle -- strove to do, after all.
Another thought -- because theism -- especially Protestant Xianity -- is part of the U.S. civic religion, then it stands to reason that a non-Protestant would have challenges becoming president. After all, it wasn't too long ago that JFK had to defend himself, as a Roman Catholic, that he *wouldn't* kow-tow to the Vatican in Italy over the U.S. Constitution.
Atheists are right up there with Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hindus, Mormons, etc. etc. -- non Protestant Christians and therefore looked at by the voting "majority" with a hairy eyeball when it comes to being the Prez. of the United States. Congressman? Okay. Senator? No problem. After all, Barak Obama's Muslim. But PotUS? Representing the U.S. for the rest of the world? "Ummmm..."
And that's a prejudice that simply takes time to change -- from the grassroots, starting from kids in elementary school RIGHT NOW.
Yeah, sorta like the white guy in Minneapolis who goes "What racism?" until he moves to L.A., shortly after everything went poof back in the monastery, I started realizing there are lots of small ways in which being atheistic in this country chafes. Even though stupid things like the 1950's additions of "In God We Trust" and "Under God" that were added to the civic religion to fight communism are trifling annoyances, they do punch the "not one of us" buttons. I don't personally find "I.G.W.T." nearly so annoying as "U.G." since the former is simply a reflection of the fact that in the aggregate the U.S. does put its trust in God, whereas the latter is expected of school-kids regardless of their beliefs. "U.G." and the folks who wear T-shirts (even in San Francisco) that say "Read your constitution -- freedom OF religion, not FROM religion" are a trifle more annoying, but it's not like having to drink hemlock because you disagreed with those in power.
Among the intolerant I'm always ok because I say I'm a Buddhist, and don't bother mentioning that most (American)Buddhists are atheists. Then they either deride me or try to "save" me, but that's about it. In parts of Virginia, though, being known to be an atheist will get you treated worse than if you're one of the few (sad, disaffected) devil-worshippers they've got there, and trust me that's saying something. Russ assures me TX isn't nearly as bad as VA in this regard.
The big rub is how one can have morals if one doesn't believe in God. The median American may not respect Islam, but it's obvious that Islam has morals. But without no theism at all, the general consensus is that all bets are off.
I don't like it, personally, but it's a sensible position for a religious person to take, esp. for Christians, because for them we are living among fallen nature.
It would be possible to have morals without believing in a deity (God), namely because having morals [please correct me if you have knowledge otherwise, as you all have obviously studied this topic more than I] only serves to offer a guideline for living your life.
To wit, just because I don't believe it is right to kill someone in cold blood, I believe it is right to treat people as I would like to be treated and I believe that it is wrong to steal says nothing of my belief, or lack thereof, in God, Buddha, or any other deity(ies).
I think that perhaps the argument actually begins when one person says that another person's morals are incorrect. There seems to be a tendency in such conversations to want a solid argument for or against the morals themselves, and a religous conviction is the only accepted response.
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm
this is a poll reported last year (this particular article is from the National Catholic Reporter) on whether torture is justified often/sometimes/rarely/never.
The lowest percentage of those who said "often" or "sometimes" were those labeled "secular" (mind you, I'm assuming this was self-identified, so there's a problem there).
The highest percentage of people answering "never" were "secular".
The "secular" are getting their morals from somewhere.
And there's part of the rub. The US is saturated with Christian morals by default. AKA, being nice to folks, even when they're not really nice, is good, and burning small babies in altars to Ba'al is bad.
So there's the question of faith, and the question of culture. Somebody who suspects that you really DON'T think that being nice to strangers is a good idea would definitely be inclined to focus that M1-A1 Hairy Eyeball ...
I suspect that Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus the world over would be offended by the idea that "Be nice to people" is particularly Christian. Certainly the ones that I've known would be.
As to the "even when they're not really nice" (which also isn't explicitly Christian, btw: "doing a Mitzvah", for example), I'm not so sure that's really all that common. Look at the correspondingly large "the bastard got what he deserved" that's also in the culture. Prison rape, for example; most Americans don't give $0.02 about it, because "those are criminals". There's much more "judge not" in the New Testament than in our culture, methinks. And I certainly never saw the words "...kick some heathen ass" anywhere in there, although I've heard them on more than one occasion.
Going back to morals and one's culture:
It's an old old conundrum. I'm remembering my Philosophy and the Ethical Life, when I was reading my Big Green Plato book and my Big Brown Aristtotle. Do ethics and morals come from outside the self -- i.e. outside institutions, like one's state's laws, one's "state" (read "civic") religion -- or do morals come from within, i.e. are part of one's nature, one's essence of being a human being?
Or is it a mix of both?
Couched in a more contemporary way: nature, nurture, or both?
That's pretty close to what was going through my mind as well. There are good arguments presented for both.
One being that morals stem from what is taught from childhood (nurture). Using this argument, one could reasonably presume that true atheists claim no belief in a governing deity thus have no morals. Namely because denouncing a governing deity is to also denounce any form of thought or behavior attached to a deity, in a word...religious action.
The second, being that morals are inherent to our own beings (nature,) seems to point to the argument that a true atheist, though decrying a lack of belief in a deity, still possess morals and therefore still exhibits behavior that could be argued as religious in nature (act).
Therefore, it seems that the original thesis points to a deeper decision...nature or nurture? The question that pops to mind is...does religious thought stem from action, or the other way around? Is a true atheist that way due to learned or inherent behavior? However, I fear that I have led Jim's original thesis off course.
Coffeespaz: It's a foundational question that's undergirding Jim's original thesis. Because for intolerant theists like Christian Fundies, a person *can't* be moral -- and therefore do moral acts -- without nurture -- i.e. "born again through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior."
As Jim pointed out, it's because of the belief of the *total* fallenness of the human soul, due to Original Sin.
And, as many documentaries like "Jesus Camp" can attest, that belief is *learned* from outside authority figures.
So for a theist indoctrinated in that belief, no atheist can be a moral person and, conversely, really do moral acts.
Which drives Jim batcrap. For, like non-Christians like many ancient Greek philosophers, virtues are more of a matter of the will/desire of the individual person (that's Aristotle) and the mind (that's Plato/ Socrates) than what society happens to shove down your throat and calls "virtues and vices", i.e. Plato's Cave in the Republic.
from russ:"The US is saturated with Christian morals by default. AKA, being nice to folks, even when they're not really nice, is good".
The idea that these are Christian morals seems to be directly contradicted by the poll mentioned above, where more "seculars" said torture is never justified (which would fall under "Being nice to folks even when they're not really nice") than any other group.
I don't think anybody's going to be really surprised that some Christians seem to be a little confused about what their religion actually says.
LIzardqueen and Amanda, you both make strong points. I think my addition to the conversation only proves the point that Atheist vs Religious Loyalist is not only a fine line, but a confusing one in itself, which is further exhibited by Jim's earlier description of Buddhist vs American Buddhist and the reaction of a person in VA stating that they are an Atheist.
"Among the intolerant I'm always ok because I say I'm a Buddhist, and don't bother mentioning that most (American)Buddhists are atheists. Then they either deride me or try to "save" me, but that's about it. In parts of Virginia, though, being known to be an atheist will get you treated worse than if you're one of the few (sad, disaffected) devil-worshippers they've got there, and trust me that's saying something."
Further, I think that the fact that there is no such thing as a true atheist is true. We are seeing a shift in the definition of an Atheist as much as we are seeing a shift in social acceptance whereby there are new social "norms" as far as personal preference is accepted or rejected. Openly admitting that one is an atheist doesn't define their feelings toward the acceptance of a deity/lack thereof as much as it defines the fact that the person seems to not really know/care about religion as a whole. Perhaps this is due to a personal experience, or confusion regarding religious definition, again referencing Jim's segregation of Buddhist vs American Buddhist. Indeed, it seems that the term atheist, at least in American society, in at least some areas, references not a true form of the word, but a "cop-out" of sorts. One can see this in the habitual exclamations of Christians that they are religous, yet they do not practice the religious rites, ethics or behaviors of that religion. Religious loyalty itself, like the shift of civil right's arguments, has changed to the point that there is really no one set "type" of loyalist at all.
Sorry for the constant additions...I am mulling over this topic while doing other mindless tasks at work.
It occured to me that my last statement may not be taken as I mean it. I don't mean that the claim of Atheism is a "cop out" answer, as much as it seems to be the answer used to describe one who has morals but no specific religious ties.
Each generation sees a religion of some kind brought to the forefront of public interest for one reason or another. While I was in college, it was the occult. Now the "favorite" seems to be Wicca. With each revelation comes the resurgence of Atheism. Hence, the appearance that Atheism as a tag is merely the "easy way out" from an otherwise uncomfortable conversation.
Just my thoughts.
Krista: you've gone far enough afield that I don't know what you're talking about. What addition that proves a fine, confusing line? What on earth is a Religious Loyalist and how is it relevant to this discussion? Who claimed there was no such thing as a "true" atheist? I don't understand your claims.
This thread has gone so far away from the actual point of my post that I'm going to close further comments.
Post a Comment