Letters to the Editor
-
@jonathan
Jonathan, I admire your restraint. I really do. I also appreciate your elaborate dissection of the disordered post from "a parent" (sounds like being a parent is causing "a parent" a few problems. I'm sure glad "a parent" wasn't my parent..)
You wrote:
We are trying to win hearts and minds but, just like in Iraq, whacking people over the head doesn't do that but in fact does just the opposite.
Just sayin'
-- Jonathan
*********
The problem here is that you can do exactly as you describe, and that fundie you're talking with will do one of three things, assuming you're able to maintain your sange froide up to the ultimate point:
1) They'll have worked themselves into a frothing rage, and walk away.
2) They'll smile gently and say "you just don't understand yet" and change the subject.
or
3) They'll grab the nearest large, blunt object and bludgeon you to death.
It's the third scenario that seems like a problem. And all you have to do is rove around the middle east today to see the third scenario unrolling on street corners everywhere.
When humans are confronted with a problem they cannot solve (you, calmly dismantling their entire perception of reality), they close their eyes and ears and chant the mantra of their choice, or they simply walk away from the problem. Or, as with the Gordion Knot, they simply destroy the problem.
Or, as Joe Stalin put it, in his succinct way, more-or-less "If a man is a problem, no man, no problem."
Hm. Fundies as Stalinists. Makes a kind of sense, yes?
In short, you cannot expect anyone to stand around and actually listen to you dismantle their entire belief system. They won't.
Nice idea though. And I applaud it. Me, I've taken to laughing at them all. It's either that, or do a lot of crying. Laughing is better.
-
A Parent re: private sphere and "worshipping oneself"
As you rightly point out, there is nothing anyone can do to eliminate faith. And that is not what most atheists I know are trying to do. They are simply asking that the practice of religion, like being a Rotary member or being gay, stay in the private sphere. It should have nothing to do with how taxes are collected and spent, how we approach foreign policy, or how we research medical breakthroughs. I'm not saying it can't have influence on one's thinking, but I'm asking for religion not to be given special privilege over none at all (Pledge of Allegiance, money motto, government displays, etc.).
As for atheists "worshiping ourselves" - most of us are the first to admit not being worthy of worship. Can you accept the idea that an atheist doesn't necessarily worship anything? That would be a huge start to understanding us, rather than ascribing motives and actions to us with no basis in fact.
-
But they are.
If you want to be assured of never getting through to the other side, the best way to do so is to treat them like morons. -- neil
Atheists and agnostics don't need to prostheletize, don't have a mandate to go out and witness, don't need to reproduce just to increase the 'membership,' don't need fundamentalists to believe in atheism and agnosticism for it to still be true. Besides, truth tends to hurt. Not my fault if someone who believes in magikal sky faeries refuses to...(wait for it)...use the brain god gave 'em. ;-)
-
Jonathan -
Jonathan, in your post to me you write I'm not meaning to attack you here, just trying to clear up what I feel to be some misconceptions. Hope the below helps clarify things, at least regarding my perspective :-)
Do you fear for losing your employment if you "come out" as a theist? Yes, I've worked for that person. I've been fired for disagreeing with Christians (as recently as 2003, blogging that a gay bishop should not be a problem and losing my job as a result) and atheists (admitting my Christianity to a radical atheist IT manager, who said it showed such a lack of intelligence it made them question my ability to do my job) alike. Do you face the possibility of having your family disown you if you reveal to them your atheism? Well, no; but I must say I find it hard to reconcile hiding any belief to my family and sharing it on Salon. I try to be who I am to everyone, authentically. It's not much of a worldview if I won't stand by it, and I've stood by both atheism (to a highly religious family) and theism openly.
The opportunities for prejudiced treatment are far greater for atheists than they are for theists. True. In my field of study (neuroscience) and work, however, there tend to be more atheists than theists, ats least that will speak openly about their beliefs.
Do you believe that Jesus the Christ is your Lord and Savior and that He died to expiate your sins if you but believe in Him? No, that's a fundamentalist belief. If so then your essential beliefs are the same as the fundamentalists. I agree, it would be if I thought that way. The question between a theist and atheist, however, is not between Christianity and no god but God and no god. I am claiming to believe in God. I worship in a Christian manner because of the culture I grew up in, but make no claims to superiority over other religions.
Thanks for asking these questions. Funny how one can write something and think it's perfectly clear, and discover it's still so easily misunderstood. Part of the problem in this debate, I guess. We're all using the same words, but in different vocabularies :-)
I think you are making a leap of logic here, I think that most atheists will acknowledge a difference between fundamentalist theists and moderate or liberal theists. I can only speak to the atheists I've encountered and read. Dawkins seems to think that theists are like children who believe in Santa Claus. The idea that someone can believe in God but not magic is not one he thinks possible, or at least not that he will admit to. A highly intelligent doctoral tudent friend of mine asked me just last fall how I imagined what would happen to people who lost limbs in their lives during the resurrection? She felt this was a serious threat to my belief system, not understanding that this is the kind of question asked by someone who doesn't understand the metaphorical nature of religious language. Elaine Pagels understands it.
I recognize that moderate and liberal Christians do not wish to use the power of the state to force others to assume their beliefs but the urge to persuade others is still there. The urge to persuade is a human characteristic. We gain self-validation from shared belief; we are even, perhaps, adaptively designed to do this. I read an article recently that showed that the tendency to help the next person was statistically highly adaptive when applied to competition for land, food, resources, etc. So any human who finds a useful paradigm for life (a new diet, a new exercise program, a new religion, a new therapy) may be prone to want to share that because it helps them by helping the group as a whole.
As well, even if persuasion is built in to Christianity as you suggest, that's vastly different from imposing my way of life on the next person. What I dream of is a place where people are all assumed to be doing their best to understand their world, and given freedom to do so without condescension or intolerance from differing views.
You appear to wish for atheists to exhibit an inhuman level of control over their emotions. Being constantly attacked, it is a natural human urge to counterattack. No, I think some atheists are acting just as some theists do, and should acknowledge that rather than claim superiority.
The God of Intelligent Design can also be the God worshiped by theists, intelligent design by a God does not preclude that God also being a personal God. The god of intelligent design is a straw man, used by theists to hide from the fact there is no "knowing" the answer to this question, and used by atheists to distract from the same question by showing the flaws of I.D. theists. But when someone has a religious experience, it is intensely personal. They may find a need to justify it using intelligent design, scripture, etc., but I think the difference is clear. Here I agree with Dr. Pagels that the God Dawkins and others are debunking "is not one that most of the people I study would recognize."
Thanks for asking these questions; they showed me that even when I think I'm being perfectly clear, I may be easily misunderstood. Part of the problem in this debate, I guess. We're all using the same words, but different vocabularies :-)