Seven hundred atheists, among them atheo-luminaries Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, descended on Burbank, California earlier this month for the Atheist Alliance International 2009 convention. The main topic? The great harm done throughout history by religion: the single most dangerous human creation. The welfare of humanity, it was argued, depends on the dismantling of religion and all of its delusions. The possibility of collaboration, of compromise, of any shared ethical commitments between theists and non-theists, was not on the table.
I was at the convention to give a talk from the perspective of African American Humanism. While there are many things I share with atheists, I disagree with this aggressive (one might even say fundamentalist) dismissal of religion and the mocking of all things religious. I am convinced that extremists (whether theists or non-theists) with their inability for critical self-reflection and critique are not the best champions of healthy life orientations. I remain hopeful that collaboration and partnership will be difficult to achieve but not impossible. I am not calling for a naïve stance marked by blindness—either to the deep dimensions of our differences, or to the great harm that theistic (and atheistic) perspectives can produce when they nurture bad ethics.
I left Burbank thinking it wise to reframe the “A” in Atheism.
Accentuate the Positive
Is victory over the doctrine of God all atheism desires? Is this victory even the best symbol of atheism’s self-understanding? (We humanists and atheists tend to be as focused on God as theists!) If so, it is a somewhat empty victory, and at its worst is reminiscent of the posture of some evangelical theists. I would hope atheists want more. But having more requires steps beyond the quick conclusion that theists are delusional.
Atheists (and as a humanist I am mindful of my role in this) need to move beyond what philosopher William R. Jones has labeled a theoretical atheism, marked by its preoccupation with rejecting the existence of God. This “atheism of the mind” is focused on belief and unbelief, on breaking the back of a delusion while enhancing an appreciation for science as the marker of our better selves. But there is another strand of atheism, one Jones labels practical or functional. This productive atheism involves more than the discrediting or lampooning of the practices of theistic faith communities. Atheism is all too often (yet not always) presented as a simple negation of things religious, the “a-” meaning, simply, “not.” Instead, atheists must more carefully present a system of ethics meant to enhance quality of life, both through scientific advancement and rigorous struggle against irrational modes of destruction such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. What is necessary is the application of practices that speak clearly to atheism’s concern for life within the context of a fragile environment.
To the extent that it is possible (and many atheists will reject this suggestion), attention should be given to a search for common ethical ground that brackets the harsher presentations of both theistic and atheistic views. I am not asking for a “can’t we all get along” rejection of debate and a suspension of aggressive wrestling over ideas. It is important to challenge beliefs as a way of safeguarding human accountability and integrity; but there must also be a push for more than destruction of all markers of religious commitment. We should continue to interrogate and critique theistic orientations, and adherents of theistic positions should continue to challenge us, lest we collapse into a fundamentalist atheism. If not, careful and self-critical attention paid to science by some atheists, for instance, could easily become scientism—a faith of its own, with figures such as Richard Dawkins serving as its prophets.
History shows that reason may alter the posture of faith-based communities, may force them to shift their language and limit their size and their socio-political reach, but it will not destroy faith. The very definition of faith should make this apparent. Atheists miscalculate the core significance of theism if they assume it is about doctrine and creeds, ritual forms and physical structures; those things most often attacked. Theism, at its core, is about the making of meaning and the establishment of stories and practices related to how and why we occupy time and space; ritual, doctrines, sacred texts and so on are only cultural manifestations of this deeper meaning. These rituals and doctrines are secondary, not primary: They are modified, they shift, they change to fit the historical-cultural context. Attacks on theism’s theological or ritual shortcomings, while correct in some regards, will not end theism.
Theism and atheism/humanism will persist, and any real gain we make toward healthy existence for our world must involve collaboration (not assimilation) and partnerships between moderates within both groups. This is not denial of difference and doesn’t require rejection of one’s chosen orientation. Rather it involves recognition that a mature approach to life rejects fundamentalism of any kind, and demands complex relationships of shared ethical commitment even when those relationships are burdened with tension.
Tags: african american, atheism, bill maher, fundamentalism, humanism, richard dawkins
Thank you.
"It is important to challenge beliefs as a way of safeguarding human accountability and integrity..." To whom do atheists need to be accountable? Just each other? If there is no other standard but each person's own idea of what it means to be "human," chaos will still reign. The balanced distribution of the world's resources might alleviate the desperate struggle simply to survive, but if we are counting on the goodness of each one's heart to accomplish that, it will not likely occur. How is greed curbed? How can one be convinced that helping his neighbor is beneficial to the entire planet? Left on our own, most of humanity is self-serving, not generous. It is not our "nature" to be loving. We are bent on survival...it is from a God who IS love that a spark of love comes to us.
The author really hits the nail on this one.
Outspoken atheists tend to focus on destroying religion and ignoring anything good that comes from it.
I'm an atheist, but I don't see a need to denigrate the good things that come from religion/faith. Fundamentalist atheism bothers me just as much as other fundamentalisms: thinking stops and emotions take over.
I came out of the closet as an atheist at the beginning of the year, and I've been conflicted about how to react to other religions.
If someone challenges me directly on my beliefs, I have no problem defending my disregard of divine beings without evidence, or in basing morality on the words of people who claimed to speak for God while preaching hatred.
Yet - I've felt there should be more. I've been very impressed with the Humanists when I interviewed them for my religion podcast, and found in their writings a goal of doing good works. Or when I met with the Quakers, who felt that what you believed was less important than what you do.
I would probably state that there is a place for opposing faith based thinking, especially when it leads to harmful things (such as abstinence only education or other nonsense). I also fully agree with your thinking - it needs to be more than that. Atheism, whether officially humanistic or not, should be actively involved in making the world better. In building up communities, finding ways to help those in need - and not just an opposition to theists.
Gosh- let me put in a good word for my fellow "new atheists".
1. It is not correct to describe atheists as fundamentalist, however unpleasant or vitriolic. Their ideas are not based on scriptures, texts, or other originating documents, but rather on the simple idea that gods are delusions, routinely arrived at by independent means and defended by reason, not faith or citation. The one caveat is that their core position must formally be described as agnosticism, in the face of ultimate lack of knowledge we all share. But considering the far greater lack of knowledge on the part of theists in relation to their claims, "atheism" is effective shorthand.
2. Atheism is pretty much confined to expressing this idea in #1- the imaginative character of all gods and related theologies and doctrines. There is not much else to it. If you want to be a humanist as well, or an eco-warrior, or a libertarian, or a John Bircher, then god-speed, as it were. Atheists have no shortage of ethics, but atheism is not about founding new churches, social control structures, etc.
3. The new atheism has been laudibly successful in dragging agnostics and atheists out of the closet and opening up the public discourse and public recognition of their viewpoint. Their prime target culturally is the reflexive and long-standing bigoted propaganda of religion, to the point that someone actually has to write a book with the title "Good without God". As if that were even an issue! This critique alone is a substantive agenda, similar in a small way to the re-norming of society sought by homosexuals in light of their fundamental and equal humanity. In the muslim world, atheists are yet in very serious personal danger.
4. Lastly, if atheists are putting the fear of god into theists, as it were, encouraging an ecumenical front or a blurring of differences as they face their mortal enemy, that might not be the worst thing. It is good for someone to agitate for the disestablishment of the Church of England, against the creeping establishment of religion in America in the guise of mottos, invocations, official chaplains, prayer breakfasts, and the like, and against the vast patriarchal oppression of the muslim world ... all in a principled and thorough way.
I don't think new atheism has much to do with it. President Bush threw open the door to atheism and did more than anyone or anything else to make it respectable. He did it by trashing Christianity. He did that by being a Christian. The rest of this becomes inevitable. Or if you want to get technical, maybe Christianity itself is the driving force behind atheism. I guess that is fair because atheists are now the group (at least in America) most closely following Jesus.
EXCELLENT Response Burk.
It gets very very tiring having to refute the same old weak arguments about the "angry athiest fundamenatlist" who has nothing to offer the world.
What we're offering the world is freedom from delusion and absurdity. What people do with their personal or private lives after that isn't the point at all.
Yanno what's totally rad? When personal opinion becomes Universal Truth. Whether it be interpretation of religion, views of religious people, atheists, minorities, blah blah blah.
Claiming opinion and/or belief as Universal Truth (you're delusional! No, YOU'RE delusional! No, you're absurd! No, YOU'RE ABSURD!) is about as Oprah-tastic as you can get. I can only hope that one day I reach that level of radtastic megalomania.
Hey, Demandra- The one who has no (or only biased) evidence behind his or her position is delusional, while the one with the evidence is not. That is the criterion. Popularity is not the criterion, nor is Oprah.
Theologians who routinely scoff at each other's claims (i.e. at those of the theologians of other religions) are good at finding the splinters in each other's eyes. The atheist believes what they say, and treats them altogether equally.
I'd love to hear about your particular megalomania, and why it is true.
I have to say, I am quite baffled at the description that Dr. Pinn offers about the AAI Convention.
As coordinator of the convention, I can say unequivocally that it was NOT about "the great harm done throughout history by religion". The theme was "Darwin's Legacy," and the bulk of the convention was presentations by some of today's most pre-eminent scientists about the contributions of science to the modern world. The other presentations were focused on atheist heritage and history and organizational and ethical development. We specifically avoided inviting presenters who were into religion-bashing. So I have to wonder how many presentations Pinn actually sat through after he finished his own presentation. You don't have to take my word for it, you can watch most of the presentations on YouTube.
Yet despite the difference in perception that I have with Dr. Pinn on the focus of the convention, I can absolutely and completely agree with him that the most important struggle for nontheists today is in developing and defining our ethics of what it means to be without gods. That's specifically why we invited Dr. Pinn and several other speakers to our event, and I was quite glad for their participation, theirs was an important message to share.
-Stuart Bechman
AAI President
Mr. Bechman,
My experience is Christians all believe their group is the one closest to God, so they must close their eyes when it appears some evidence to the contrary might be forthcoming. My experience might be too limited. Do you know of any Christian speaker who is open to being questioned?
I know a few hundred, but I have limited experience. You could start with one of the pastors from First Congregational Church in Long Beach, CA. They do quite a bit of public speaking and sure do love to bust stereotypes.
Do you have any sweeping generalizations about any other group you'd like to share? I heard someone complaining about Asian drivers today. Maybe y'all should have coffee and compare notes?
Have him post here on religiondispatches and enter the conversations. Sometimes it depends on the questions. It seems to me like some people have developed lists of questions and answers, and they like nothing better than having someone ask them a question from the list so that they can give the answer. If you can think of a question not on the list, their reaction might be different.
but only because you gave me a great laugh earlier!
I'll see if I can find some way make you break that promise.
Great article, Anthony, totally apropos. To go further, forget atheism entirely - it's a non-entity by choice.
Here is the Renaissance scholar Robert Grudin's sketch of Humanism in the Britannica - note how little it has to do with religion or atheism whatsoever:
"Humanitas meant the development of human virtue, in all its forms, to its fullest extent. The term thus implied not only such qualities as are associated with the modern word humanity—understanding, benevolence, compassion, mercy—but also such more aggressive characteristics as fortitude, judgment, prudence, eloquence, and even love of honour.
Consequently, the possessor of humanitas could not be merely a sedentary and isolated philosopher or man of letters but was of necessity a participant in active life. Just as action without insight was held to be aimless and barbaric, insight without action was rejected as barren and imperfect. Humanitas called for a fine balance of action and contemplation, a balance born not of compromise but of complementarity.
The goal of such fulfilled and balanced virtue was political, in the broadest sense of the word. The purview of Renaissance humanism included not only the education of the young but also the guidance of adults (including rulers) via philosophical poetry and strategic rhetoric. It included not only realistic social criticism but also utopian hypotheses, not only painstaking reassessments of history but also bold reshapings of the future.
In short, humanism called for the comprehensive reform of culture, the transfiguration of what humanists termed the passive and ignorant society of the “dark” ages into a new order that would reflect and encourage the grandest human potentialities. Humanism had an evangelical dimension: it sought to project humanitas from the individual into the state at large."
Humanism is an inclusive sensibility for our species, planet and lives. Pass it on.
Dwight,
This all sounds great, but in practice people might have disagreements on the details. Some might want more of a spread the wealth perspective while others see value in rich being rich so they can trickle on others. The haves and have mores might be outnumbered, but buy power plus ownership of the media so that they can explain everything. We might head off in a better direction, but end up where we are.
Where and Who is God ?
By idea the God ( HE / SHE / IT ) must be :
1.
Something Infinity Absolute it means to be in every place
2.
And something Absolute Concrete/ Limited it means
to be exactly in the concrete place.
Question:
Can God create our World without physics laws and formulas ?
The answer is: No !
Question:
Have physicists found these two Absolute parameters
in the Universe ?
My answer is: Yes !
One Infinity Absolute Parameter is Vacuum: T=0K.
Second Absolute Concrete/ Limited Parameter is speed of
Quantum of Light in Vacuum: c=1.
Using these two Absolute Parameters I explain
the creation of the Universe step by step.
And therefore I say: The secret of the conception 'God ‘
is hidden in the ‘ Theory of Vacuum & Quantum of Light ‘.
== .
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
/ ...the more a subject is understood,
the more briefly it may be explained. /
Einstein said:
/ You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother. /
I think everybody can understand my theory.
==== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
New user?
Sign up and stay connected.
Already have an account?
Login now to access your account.