Since coming out as an atheist (and here I must have an aside as I catch myself using the phrase "coming out" again. Atheism is presently the most despised and distrusted minority in the United States, falling behind any race, religion, or sexual orientation. When people who are technically atheists refer to themselves as "secular humanists" or "freethinkers" or even "agnostic," the consideration of social self-preservation probably plays a role in the selection of a semantic designation) I've been more mentally/emotionally content and more intellectually excited than I have in years. Which is to say, allowing myself to acknowledge the reality of my non-belief, and my conviction of the imperitve of that non-belief, has energized me in a way that no "faith" ever has. To be able consume myself fully with the consideration of what is rather than worrying about what may be is a delicious freedom that I would not ironically call redemption.
In any event, I've come across something interesting on an acquaintence's blog. I pop in there occaisionally because A) I used to date the fellow, and you know how that morbid curiousity goes, and B) he is a theology student of the progressive kind, and I wonder what those kids are going to be teaching people in the coming years. Now, I happen to think that the progressive/emergent movement is eventually going to be divided and conquered by political evangelicalism and intellectual secularism respectively, and it is sort of a shame because I counted myself in their camp at the end of my days as a christian and I think in some respects they are on to something; they are certainly ahead of the lunatic evangelicals on a lot of things. Which is to say they've discovered a compassionate humanist worldview and stamped JESUS all over it, but I won't hold that against them for now.
Anyway, back to the interesting thing said by the acquaintence. I read the following statement of his a few days after I'd written my "Atheist Confession of Non-Faith" :
if one is faithfully dedicated to God, who cares if you play with ideas about God that may turn out to be wrong.
This got my attention, and got me thinking, for a few reasons.
In the waning days of my Christianity I would tell people, particularly my ever-concerned Christian parents, that ideas about God cannot possibly matter to God. If God is the big all powerful, all knowing, and, most importantly, all loving God the rumors have it that it is, then my ideas about God can have no effect on any immutable God and its relationship with me, much as my playing with ideas about a tree can never change what a tree is.
What ideas about God CAN have an effect on is how I live in the world. Sure, there are some esoteric, arbitrary questions about God, and you can find these in seminaries I'm sure. But inevitably beliefs will have direct consequences for how we live. If I believe that God is pleased when I kill those who do not do his will, my idea about God (and "his will") has caused me to murder. If I believe God has given me eternal life, I might not feel so inclined to be sure I enjoy and appreciate this one. If I believe God wants me to have compassion on those less fortunate, I will make efforts to help others. If I believe that God has opinions about sex, I will approach sex not rationally but with a preoccupation with trying to somehow figure out what God's "boundaries" are, and staying within those "boundaries."
And we can't say simply that ideas are right or wrong simply because what they prompt people to do is good or bad (and not just because "good" and "bad" are empty terms, but I'm not getting into that here); if I believe that a little fairy wants me to hold a door open for someone on crutches, I'm doing a compassionate thing for another human being which we would call "good" or "right." But I'm still wrong about the existence of the fairy. (But I'm not getting into "true" vs "useful/good" here either).
Anyway, what I'm getting to is that "faithfully dedicated to God" is problematic in conjunction with the concept of playing with ideas about God (well, really it's just problematic, period). Because I have to assume that "faithfully dedicated" is a way of life, not just a state of mind. So for every new idea of God, the enaction of "faithful dedication" can change. But if the idea of God is wrong, then the faithful dedication to the God of the wrong idea is merely faithful dedication but not anything right or admirable, because it is doing something wrong. Suicide bombers remain faithfully dedicated, even though I would venture to guess they have found a wrong idea about God. But hey, they are faithfully dedicated and that is what really matters....see the problem here?
This is where we have to be brave, and admit that we make God in our image. Hey, maybe there will turn out to be some great underlying unifying "force" or something big "out there" that we don't yet know about or understand, but we must realize that the God the religious claim to know and worship is really their idea of God. For some, God is an exacting, demanding God of rules. For some, God is a compassionate, loving God of mercy. Everyone claims to be the closest to knowing what God "really is."
The closest to knowing what God really is, is to admit you know no God.
Atheism is the future of Christianity...and the future of all religions and of all humanity, if humanity survives and if it is to survive. Seeing the perils and problems of organized, systematic religion, more and more people are claiming not to be "religious" while still holding on to (ideas about) God. I want to tell them: Let go.
...he who wants to find God must lose God.
"The atheist does not say "there is no God," but he says "I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. ...The Bible God I deny; the Christian God I disbelieve in; but I am not rash enough to say there is no God as long as you tell me you are unprepared to define God to me."
--C. Bradlaugh
Comments (2)
sooo, since we are obviously reading each others blogs and commenting on them, i figured might as well comment directly. I want to formulate a longer response to over all ideas of your post, buuuttt I have two initial thoughts. one is to the following quote:
"Which is to say they've discovered a compassionate humanist worldview and stamped JESUS all over it, but I won't hold that against them for now."
I am not sure this is a fiar characterization. I am not convinced that christian, or in fact any spiritual compassion does not pre-date humanism, or that humanism is not just a european enlightenment response to religious ideals. this comment seems to suggest compassionate humanism as the sort of universal that is problematic for religion, while religion would easily have a historical supremacy if such a thing mattered.
second: I feel like the particualr comment you are writing on had more issues with poor wording (you know I am a loose and irrational casual writer who rarely is precise with my language) then any actual philosophical commitment. so taking as a jumping off point is also not the best place to begin, though much of what you say works indipendently of this starting point.
anyway I am curious if your atheism represents a total embrace of enlightenment and modernist ideas, and if I should start from that stand point, or if there is some room for post structuralist doubt in your God-free paradigm? nice to converse, hope this is interesting for you
liam
Posted by liamface | December 29, 2006 11:18 AM
Posted on December 29, 2006 11:18
I'd love to hear a well-reasoned, well-written response on the topic from you.
That said, my characterization might not have been fair as a statement (sometimes I'm more interested in being clever), but it is certainly true. Altruism predates religion; it also predates our species. Unlike religion, which is a perversion of altrusim, humanism IS altruism. Progressive religious movements are realizing this, perhaps intuitively, and moving toward an increasingly humanist position. Religion has had to borrow from secular humanism in order to evolve ethically; otherwise, you would still be stoning adulters and burning witches and keeping slaves and marginalizing homosexuals. Fundamentalists are your unfortunate reminder that religion is the antithesis to altruism, even as you try to reconcile your beliefs.
As to your second comment, if your comment was merely poorly worded, then it was aptly so. But, if you meant something other than what you said - or if you were not remotely committed to what you stated- it would be useful to qualify your statement for the benefit of your readers, particularly given its provocative nature. I will say, however, that I think it is especially important as a seminarian - and thus someone who spends the bulk of time wrestling with text and conundrums of semantic nuance- to appreciate the importance of rhetorical clarity. The bible certainly could have benefited from it...(there I go, being clever...).
Anyway, I'm not sure what this means: "I am curious if your atheism represents a total embrace of enlightenment and modernist ideas, and if I should start from that stand point, or if there is some room for post structuralist doubt in your God-free paradigm?"
I'll need you to define your terms for me before I can answer accurately. What do you mean, generally, by "enlightenment and modernist ideas" vs "room for post-structuralist doubt"?
Thanks for chiming in!
Posted by Me | December 31, 2006 6:40 PM
Posted on December 31, 2006 18:40